MTS 2011 Q4 Google MTS Russia Final 25.01.pdf

8/11/2019 MTS 2011 Q4 Google MTS Russia Final 25.01.pdf

1/36

MTS BIT CampaignC R O S S M E D I A C A M PA I G N E VA L U A T I O N

1


2/36

Contents

2

Methodology Media Strategy

Reach Frequency Brand Optimisation

Background

Results

Summary

Take outs


3/36

CrossMedia Research

3

Over 100 European studies across more than 20 different brands

Corporate

Food & drink

Household

Leisure

Personal careTechnology

Telecommunications

Utilities

Information services

UK

France

Spain

Norway

Italy

Poland

Germany

Czech Republic

Russia


4/36

Methodology and Sample

4

Best-in-class Multimedia Evaluation

Based on potential exposure to campaign Using responses from consumers as to their exact media

consumption across multiple channels it is possible to build upindividual media consumption profiles. This profile is thenmatched with the booked media plan (provided by the mediaagency), OTS (opportunity to see) scores are generated for eachrespondent in the respondent base.

Continuous recruitment throughout campaign We look at weekly data throughout the period of the campaign in

order to pick up campaign build over the course of activity. Wealso continue the study for short period of time after the campaignhas ended to asses any decay in impact which may occur after thecampaign has ended.

Respondent level statistical modelling From collecting digital and traditional media exposure we create a

single source respondent base from which it is possible to deriveincremental reach and other cross media analysis.

1,600 (400 Predisposition, 1,200 Campaign)

14-24 year olds

Mobile Phone Users

Internet Users

With panel quotas on gender (50/50 split)

*Note: all figures in this deck are based on the above online sample.


5/36

Campaign

5

Campaign dates

October-November 2011

Geography

Russia

Media used

TV, Outdoor, Internet Video, Internet Display


6/36

73.3%

3.8%3.9%

19.0%

Campaign Spend by Media Channel (% of total spend)

Investment

6

TV accounted for over 70% of campaign spend

Online Video

Online Display

Outdoor

TV


7/36

The campaign achieved high reach with TV andOutdoor contributing strongly and Online Videoextending the reach of the TV ad incrementally.

There was a strong impact on BIT metrics andrelevant MTS impressions though more generalMTS measures were not impacted strongly.

Online Video was the most efficient media.Reallocating spend from TV to Online Video wouldresult in increased impact and efficiency.

Overall Summary

7


8/36

Reach & Frequency

8

Who was exposed to the campaign and how often?


9/36

71%

9%

54%

72%

Reach

Reach by Media (% of sample exposed to each channel)

Reach

9

Outdoor and TV had the highest reach.

Online Video Online Display OutdoorTV

*Note: all figures in this deck are based on the 14-24 y.o. online sample

Sample:14-24 year olds

Mobile Phone Users

Internet Users


10/36

69%1.7%

1.7%

28%

% of Online Video exposure contributed by each site

How much of Online Video is YouTube?

10

YouTube accounts for the vast majority of Online Video exposure.


11/36

Reach Overlaps

11

65%

3%

6%

YouTube delivered 4% incremental reach to the campaignA third of Online Video reach brought the TV ad to a new audience.

Online VideoTV


12/36

19.45

3.50

24.52

13.1Frequ

ency

Frequency (Avg. # of times each person was exposed)

Frequency

12

There was a 3.50 frequency cap used in Online Video with the help ofsuch settings you can get frequency most efficient for your product andaudience.



13/36


14/36

Brand Impact

14

What was the effect of campaign on peoples perceptions of MTS?


15/36

12.8%

4.5%

3.2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Media Contribution to End of Campaign Performance on BIT Related Metrics

Base Campaign Contribution

Impact on BIT perceptions

15

There were strong impacts on the most relevant metrics, especially BIT awareness.

BIT

Awareness

BIT

Consideration

Campaign

Image Average

Asked of

MTS overall


16/36

BIT Awareness

16

BIT Awareness increased by almost half due to mainly Outdoor and TV.

27.2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

BIT Awareness

1. What was the level ofBIT Awareness?

Baseline and Campaign Contribution

57%

3%

40%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Individual Media Contribution

3.And which media wasresponsible?

53%47%

2. How much did the campaign drive this 27%?

Baseline

Media Uplift

24.5222.34

9.07

RUR 0

RUR 20

RUR 40

RUR 60

RUR 80

RUR 100

TV Online Video Outdoor

4. ..and what was the cost efficiency of thisresponse?

Lower is Better

Online Video

Outdoor

TV


17/36

BIT Consideration (T2B)

17

Consideration of the BIT tariff also grew, driven by the same 3 media.

10.9%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

BIT Consideration (Top 2 Box)

1. What was the level ofBIT Consideration?


46%

4%

50%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



59%

41%


Baseline

Media Uplift Online Video

Outdoor

TV

86.09

50.63

20.58

RUR 0

RUR 20

RUR 40

RUR 60

RUR 80

RUR 100

TV Online Video Outdoor


Lower is Better


18/36

Campaign Image Average

18

All media contributed to the campaign specific image statements.

34.9%

39.9%

50.1%

45.4%

58.6%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Understands my needs

Has the best tariff and product

Has good service quality

Has user-friendly services

ProductImages

1. What were the levels of the Product Images?


42.2%

17.0%

4.5%

36.3%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



93%

7%

2. How much did the campaign drive this?

Baseline

Media Uplift

Is providing new and innovative

services

Online VideoOnline Display

Outdoor

TV

132.14

16.76

66.68

39.99

RUR 0

RUR 50

RUR 100

RUR 150

TV OnlineVideo

OnlineDisplay

Outdoor


Lower is Better


19/36

3.2% 1.4%

0.4%

1.5%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%Media Contribution to End of Campaign Performance on General MTS Metrics


Impact on broader MTS perceptions

19

There were smaller effects on general MTS metrics, though emotionalconnection was one area that the campaign impacted.

Background

Image Average

Consideration

T2B

Emotional

Proximity

Recommendation

(8+)


20/36

Emotional Proximity (T2B)

20

Emotional Proximity had a good uplift driven by online video and TV.

35.0%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Emotional Proximity

1. What was the level ofEmotional Proximity?


63%

37%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



91%

9%


Baseline

Media Uplift

Online Video

TV

87.32

8.08

RUR 0

RUR 20

RUR 40

RUR 60

RUR 80

RUR 100

TV Online Video


Lower is Better


21/36

12.8%

4.5%

3.2%

3.2%1.4%

0.4%

1.5% 3.9%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%Media Contribution to End of Campaign Performance on KPI Metrics


Brand Impact

21

Looking across all metrics we can create an overall summary score.

BIT

Awareness

BIT

Consideration

Campaign

Image Average

Background

Image Average

KPI AverageConsideration

T2B

Emotional

Proximity

Recommendation

(8+)

BIT Metrics MTS Metrics


22/36

KPI Average

22

All media contributed to impacting this KPI average.

35.4%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

KPI Average

1. What was the level of KPIAverage?


49%

11%5%

34%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



89%

11%


Baseline

Media Uplift Online video

Online Display

Outdoor

93.90

20.66

46.43

35.68

RUR 0

RUR 20

RUR 40

RUR 60

RUR 80

RUR 100

TV OnlineVideo

OnlineDisplay

Outdoor


Lower is Better

*KPI Average includes: BIT Awareness, BIT Consideration, Campaign Image Average, Emotional Proximity,Recommendation 8+, Consideration T2B and Background Image Average.

TV


23/36

The campaign contributed strongly to awarenessand consideration of the BIT tariff as well asimpacting relevant image perceptions of MTS.

The campaign have a more muted impact on widerMTS metrics although did boost emotionalconnection between the brand and consumers.

All media contribute to the overall KPI average.

Brand Impact Summary

23


24/36

Efficiency

24

Which channel was most efficient in delivering its effects?


25/36

100

40

7

25

Cost(indexedtoTVcost)

Cost per 1% of Reach (indexed)

Cost Efficiency of Reach

Cost per Percentage of Reach (Spend divided by Reach)25

Online Display is the most cost effective in delivering reach.

Lower is Better



26/36


27/36

100

22

4938

Cost(indexedtoTVcost)

Cost per 1% of Impact (KPI Average; indexed)

Cost Efficiency of Brand Effect

Cost per Percentage of Impact on KPI average (Spend divided by Impact)27

Online Video is the most efficient channel in delivering brand effects.

Lower is Better



28/36


29/36

Optimisation

29

How could we have allocated the budget differently to achieve more?


30/36

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% 300%

KP

IImpact

Simulation %

KPI Simulation by Investment

TVOnlineVideo

KPI Simulation by Investment

30

Both Online Video and TV have potential for greater impact withincreased investment


31/36


32/36

Double spend on Online Video

Funded by reducingtotal spend on TV by only 5%

Spend

200%

spend

95%

Scenario


33/36

Brand Impact of Scenario

33

The incremental impact of reallocating the budget would have required aproportional increase in investment through the original lay down.

+4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%110%

Original Campaign New InvestmentAllocation

Brand

Impact

To deliver thisadditional 4% brandimpact through the

original budget

allocation would havemeant increasing themedia spend by the

same amount.


34/36

Online Display is the most efficient medium atdelivering reach.

Online Video delivers the most cost effective brandimpacts and it would not be feasible to replicatethese effects through increased investment in TV.

Shifting spend from TV to Online Video results in asubstantial increase in campaign impact.

Efficiency Summary

34


35/36

The campaign achieved high reach with TV andOutdoor contributing strongly and Online Videoextending the reach of the TV ad incrementally.

There was a strong impact on BIT metrics andrelevant MTS impressions though more generalMTS measures were not impacted strongly.

Online Video was the most efficient media.Reallocating spend from TV to this channel wouldresult in increased impact and efficiency.

Overall Summary

35


36/36

MTS BIT CampaignC R O S S M E D I A C A M PA I G N E VA L U A T I O N

MTS 2011 Q4 Google MTS Russia Final 25.01.pdf

Documents

Transcript of MTS 2011 Q4 Google MTS Russia Final 25.01.pdf