2. Inthisedition
Volume 6, Issue 3
Ad Research Faces the Future
The Meaningful Brand - Read an advance excerpt
Point of View
Book excerpt
Video Content
Published Articles
Knowledge Points
Smartphone Wars: Swapping Strategies, Winning Consumers
The Value of Modern Targeting Approaches
What Marketers Are Learning From Neuroscience and More
Does Humour Make Ads More Effective?
How Big Data Liberates Research
The Unbearable Lightness of Brand
A Focus on Brand Building Makes UK Businesses Stand Apart
Digital Is Powerful. Handle with Care
Corporate Citizenship, Why Brands Are Taking Action
Repurposing TV Ads for Effective Online Use
Creative Quality in Mobile Matters More than Ever
Acknowledgements

4. The world of marketing is infinitely more complex than it was when I
started my career over three decades ago; that much is indisputable. But
the essential process by which marketing builds a brand and adds value
to a business has not changed. Why? Because human nature has not
changed.
And that means the potential to build strong, valuable brands is as great
now as it was then—perhaps even more so.
In spite of this continuity, the value of marketing as a practice is under
greater scrutiny today than ever before. Marketers are constantly
asked to prove their return on investment and to do more with less. My
own observations suggest that instead of rising to the challenge, the
marketing profession is shooting itself in the foot. At a time when brands
are more valuable than ever, bought and sold for many times their annual
revenues, we are losing sight of what makes brands enduring, valuable
A Crisis of
Confidence
in Marketing
An excerpt from
“The Meaningful Brand”
By Nigel Hollis
Share
Buy the Book
Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
Available October 22, 2013
Amazon.com
Kindle
iBooks
Barnes & Noble
800-CEO-Read
From The Meaningful Brand by Nigel Hollis. Copyright © 2013 by the author and reprinted
by permission of Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Ltd.

5. assets. We ignore what makes people want to buy brands and be willing
to pay a premium for them. Why? Because so many day-to-day tasks
demand our attention. We are so busy executing that we have forgotten
why we are doing what we are doing, and we rely on metrics to guide our
actions without judging their relevance or utility.
Consumer motivations have not changed, and neither have the ways
that brands make money. There are five basic ways to create more value
from a brand:
Unfortunately, many marketers and CEOs appear to be fixated on the
first and last of these strategies to the exclusion of the middle three, and
they particularly overlook the strategy of justifying a price premium.
The ultimate role of a strong brand is to command a price premium over
comparable products. All too often I observe brands chasing additional
volume at the expense of their price premium and future profit stream.
It is debatable whether such tactics pay off in the short term, and all the
evidence suggests that they undermine long-term value. Again, what
is brand building about if not creating sustainable financial value, a
reoccurring profit stream over years, not just months?
“THE ULTIMATE ROLE OF A STRONG BRAND
ISTO COMMAND A PRICE PREMIUM OVER
COMPARABLE PRODUCTS”
From The Meaningful Brand by Nigel Hollis. Copyright © 2013 by the author and reprinted
by permission of Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Ltd.
1. Encourage more people to buy the brand
2. Encourage people to buy the brand at a price higher than that
commanded by the alternatives.
3. Encourage people to keep buying the brand.
4. Encourage people to buy the same brand but for new occasions
or in new categories.
5. Do all four, but more efficiently.

6. That is where this book comes in—to provide a clearly documented
roadmap to make sure that your brand is adding sustainable financial
value to your business.
The roadmap is based on a conceptual framework called ValueDrivers,
jointly developed by Gordon Pincott, chairman of global solutions at
Millward Brown, and myself. Our framework for building brand value is
not informed by experience alone. We have been fortunate to be able to
draw on all the resources at Millward Brown’s disposal, including access
to some of the best marketers in the world today; insight from colleagues
with specialist knowledge in neuroscience, brand equity research,
and brand valuation; and analysis of the world’s largest brand equity
database, BrandZ™. Since 1998, Millward Brown has interviewed people
around the world about their attitudes toward brands, and the database
now includes data on over ten thousand brands from over two hundred
product categories and over 40 different countries.
In addition to these company resources, I have drawn on a number of
other sources of information. Most important among these are our
A Roadmap to
Building Financial
BrandValue
From The Meaningful Brand by Nigel Hollis. Copyright © 2013 by the author and reprinted
by permission of Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Ltd.

7. clients. Gordon and I have discussed the framework detailed in this book
with some of the most experienced marketers in the world. We have used
the ValueDrivers workshop to explore specific brand issues in-depth for
a wide variety of international clients, and in preparation for writing this
book, I interviewed senior marketers in China, Brazil, Mexico, the United
Kingdom, Switzerland, and the United States.
Last, but not least, in order to illustrate specific ways in which brands
have created demonstrable value, I have drawn on case studies from the
Institute of Practitioners in Advertising (IPA) and winners of the Effie
Awards sourced from the invaluable Warc knowledge bank. Euromonitor
has also proved a useful source of information on trends and market
share data.
By drawing on all of these resources, I aim not only to illustrate what
makes a strong brand but also to document its impact on the bottom
line. In the first third of this book, I will lay out our general knowledge
about brands, specifically why and how they create value for consumer
and brand owner alike. In the remainder of the book, I will condense that
learning into a set of guidelines for generating financial value growth
from any brand.
Amazon.com
Kindle
iBooks
Barnes & Noble
800-CEO-Read
From The Meaningful Brand by Nigel Hollis. Copyright © 2013 by the author and reprinted
by permission of Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Ltd.

8. POINT OF VIEW

9. However, since then, they have found out that
turning cognitive science theory into concrete
marketing actions is really difficult. Many attempts
to borrow ideas from psychology, such as using
metaphorical and projective scales or enhancing
so-called “emotional” questions with icons or
pictures of faces, are failing to live up to their
billing; ultimately, these approaches yield the
same results as more traditional measures. And as
I have observed before (initially in my November
2006 Point of View “Neuromarketing: Beyond the Buzz”), neuromarketing’s
hardcore exotica simply don’t operate at the scale and price point that are
necessary in the day-to-day marketing world.
Thusmanypractitionershavenotseenthevalueofgivinguponthevalidation,
norms, and benchmarks provided by established tools. And yet, having seen
the possibility of tapping into consumers’unmediated responses, they can’t
help but struggle with the nagging thought that they are missing some
crucial insights.
Fortunately, the mainstream research community now seems to be taking
a new direction. We are seeing an explosion in the use of two approaches,
automated facial coding and implicit association techniques, that directly
measure unfiltered responses. By integrating these techniques into existing
platforms, researchers are obtaining the rounded and holistic view they
need to measure all facets of advertising response.
As the only major research agency with a global neuroscience practice
dedicated to bringing these tools to market, Millward Brown is observing this
shift first-hand. What follows are the reasons why we think these methods
are being embraced.
Cracking the Facial Code
While the coding of facial expressions to measure immediate emotional and
cognitive responses was first established in the 1970s, it was not suitable
for scale application in advertising research until recently, when companies
such as Affectiva developed accurate software to automate the process. In
partnership with Affectiva, Millward Brown has integrated this approach into
standard Link copy testing surveys. After participants give their consent, a
webcam films their reactions as they watch an ad; their responses are then
coded and analyzed against more considered measures, yielding a full
understanding of viewers’ immediate reactions and the consequences for
ad effectiveness.
Surprise! Men Prefer a Sexy Woman to a Small Car
A recent analysis of automotive advertising in the United States was refined
and enhanced with the nuance provided by facial coding analysis. One of the
ads researched was a spot for the Fiat 500 Abarth titled “Seduction.” In the
ad, a man walks down the street and is distracted by the sight of supermodel
Catrinel Menghia bending over in the road. Spotting him, she angrily
remonstrates with him in Italian for looking at her. Then she approaches him
and, seductively stirring his coffee with her finger, whispers in his ear. As he
leans forward for a kiss, she disappears, and he realizes that he was in fact
looking at the Fiat 500 Abarth. The voice-over suggests that you will never
forget the first time you see the car, and the ad ends with shots of the car in
motion.
Men, who tended to focus on the model and her seductive behavior, found
the ad highly engaging and enjoyable, but only moderately motivating and
relatively weakly branded. Women were less positive about the spot; some
expressed concerns that the idea was demeaning and sexist.
Facial coding helped clarify the conclusions by highlighting two key points.
First, while women were less positive about the ad, they did find it funny, and
they did like the sequence where the model catches the man looking and
denounces him. Facial coding made it clear that concerns about the model’s
depiction being sexist were secondary and more considered responses.
Second, facial coding suggested that the spot’s lack of persuasive power
rested with the car itself. Viewers who, according to their survey responses,
struggled to “get” the spot frowned and showed other clear expressions of
distaste when the car was revealed. In the North American market, which is
skewed more heavily toward large vehicles, the small and fiery but largely
unknown Abarth appeared to be a disappointment to some viewers—
especially men—compared to the idea personified by the model. Hence
the ad was more limited in its motivational power than its high levels of
engagement might suggest.
This sort of case illustrates the way in which direct measures of viewers’
responses can yield a much better understanding of what makes the creative
idea work. Clients have built upon this type of insight to evolve and extend
their campaigns, refine edits, and make better decisions about creative
direction.
The Predictive Power of Facial Coding
In addition, we have found increasing evidence that facial coding can
indicate an ad’s likely in-market effectiveness. We have already been able
to relate viewers’ expressions while watching an ad to the ad’s subsequent
sales effectiveness (as measured by econometric sales modelling). We have
observed this relationship in two different markets in two different countries.
In both cases, facial coding data added predictive power to Link. The main
learning seems to be that negative expressions can be key indicators; if
viewers looked disappointed by an ad, especially on the second viewing,
the potential sales effectiveness of the spot was limited. It didn’t matter if
the disappointment stemmed from a poor reaction to the creative idea, or
to the product claim, or to an incongruity between idea and brand—the key
seemed to be that disappointing viewers is a really bad idea. Facial coding
can effectively highlight that reaction.
Real-world Communication
Like facial coding, implicit association techniques have gained significant
traction in recent years. Using these approaches, we measure the time it
takes for people to react and make decisions when faced with particular
stimuli. Using these measurements, we make inferences about the strength
of associations based on the fact that decision times vary depending on
whether someone’s automatic (“fast”) processing is consistent with or in
opposition to their more considered (“slow”) processing.
Millward Brown has found two approaches particularly useful, and has used
them in hundreds of projects. The first approach, “emotional priming,” is an
adaptation of the implicit association test developed by Harvard University
that measures the strength and direction of people’s gut-level emotional
responses. The second technique, a response-latency method we refer to
as “intuitive association measurement,” measures the relative ease with
which people associate ideas with brands or ads. Associations that are
made automatically are the most intuitive; those that are made only after
consideration are less so.
When we apply the intuitive association
technique to advertising, we ask people
if an ad conveys particular ideas. Then
we measure their response time in
milliseconds. Using this data, we identify
the responses that are faster or slower
than we would expect for an individual to
determine the most intuitive associations
from the ad.
This approach allows us to address a criticism that is often leveled at
advertising research: that the measurement of ad communication is
overly rational. There is some justification for this concern. For example, in
conventional research, to understand what an ad may be able to do for a
particular brand, we ask people to think about the ideas conveyed by an ad.
This gives us a clear picture of where an ad might be able to move a brand—
if people are willing to invest some effort into it.
However, as the critics rightly point out, in real-life situations, people
tend to engage with advertising superficially, if at all. Implicit association
measurement shows us the associations that are made most readily, enabling
us to predict which ideas will be registered by the ad, and which ideas are
likely to have a role in real-world decision-making. In the Fiat example cited
previously, “sexy” was the dominant association. Car-related ideas such as
“sporty”and“stylish”alsocamethrough,butweremoreconsideredresponses.
We also applied implicit association measurement to the recent Google
Chrome ad “Dear Hollie,” in which a father uses Google Chrome to send
his newborn daughter a series of emails throughout her childhood, in
anticipation of the time when they can read them together. The technique
allowed us to identify“love”and“caring”as the most instinctive associations
that people made with the ad. Other more generic brand associations such
as “personal” and “innovative” were also made, but with a bit more effort.
Clients have used these approaches extensively in copy testing to get a more
realistic understanding of the direction in which their campaigns are likely
to take their brands, and in brand tracking work to understand the impact of
those campaigns on the brand’s instant meaning for consumers.
The Truth About “Fast” and “Slow”Thinking
The essence of the science of“fast”and“slow”thinking is that both processes
occur all the time; therefore, it is not realistic to believe that surveys and
qualitative research measure only ”slow” thinking. People’s answers are
influenced by fast processing as well, and we now have the scalable
and pragmatic tools to tease out these influences. Intuitive association
measurement allows us to sift through the full range of considered and
less-considered reactions and extract the ideas that are most likely to have
meaning when consumers are not motivated to think. Facial coding allows
us to interview people with conventional surveys while also measuring their
spontaneous responses, moment-by-moment, as the ad unfolds.
Ad research has evolved to encompass the measurement of people’s gut
reactions while also giving such reactions a practical and realistic role in ad
evaluation and development. With thousands of projects being conducted
using these approaches, measurement of fast thinking has gone mainstream.
GRAHAM PAGE
EVP, Consumer Neuroscience
graham.page@millwardbrown.com
Point of View
Share
Intuitive association
measurement measures
the relative ease with
which people associate
ideas with brands or
ads.The ideas that are
made automatically are
the most intuitive
AdResearchFacestheFuture
Ad researchers should be forgiven for feeling a little beaten up in recent years.
In the face of compelling evidence from the cognitive sciences that points
to a less rational, less idealized consumer than conventional economics has
assumed, they acknowledged the need to measure emotion and other“fast”
reactions as well as people’s“slow”or more considered responses.

10. Out of this cacophony of commentary, one of
the most hotly contested topics in our industry is
whether big data will replace traditional market
research and perhaps make primary research
obsolete. It’s not as crazy a question as it sounds.
BEFORE BIG DATA
Let me begin with a story. A few years ago, I ran
a training class for mid-level researchers about
innovations in research. I began by asking the
group, “Have you ever responded to an RFP or client request for brand or
communication insights by recommending something other than a new
survey?”The participants looked at me, puzzled. Finally one of the attendees
said, “But we use surveys to measure brand health and communications
impact. For every new situation we need a new set of data. How could we
not recommend a survey?”
This was the usual thought process in what could be called the “before big
data” world. Whether the research objective was to segment consumer
needs to improve targeting or to evaluate the impact of advertising on
brand health, it was reasonable to assume that we would need to generate
and analyze a new set of data on each occasion. But that assumption is no
longer valid. In today’s big data world,
nearly everything is passively observed
and managed in a digitized fashion; thus
we have the ability to use data assets that
were previously untapped or nonexistent
to quickly and deeply address these same
topics.
Big Data isn’t really a brand-new
phenomenon; for years now, large data sources have included information
on customer purchases, credit scores, and lifestyle information. And for
years, data scientists have used this data to help businesses evaluate risk
and anticipate customer needs. The difference today is twofold: more
sophisticatedtoolsandmethodsareavailabletoanalyzeandcombinevarious
datasets, and these analytic tools are now augmented by an avalanche of
new data sources ignited by the digitization of nearly all data collection and
measurement.
The range of content now available is both inspiring and intimidating
to researchers raised in the structured survey environment. Consumer
sentiment is captured on websites and the variety of social media outlets.
Exposure to advertising is recorded not only by set-top boxes but also by
digital tags and mobile devices communicating with TVs.
Behavioral outcomes such as call volume, shopping patterns, and purchases
are now available in real time. Thus many of the insights that were previously
provided by survey research can now be discerned through big data sources.
And all of these data assets are generated on an ongoing basis, independent
of any research process. These are the changes that motivate the question
of whether big data will replace market research.
IT’S NOT ABOUT DATA—IT’S ABOUT QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Before we sound the death knell for survey research, we should remind
ourselves that it’snot theexistenceofanyparticulardataassetthatultimately
matters. What matters is our ability to answer questions. And the amazing
thing about the big data world is that the findings from our new data assets
generate more questions, and those questions tend to be best addressed by
traditional survey research. In this way, as big data increases, we see parallel
growth in the presence and need for “small data” to explore and answer the
questions it raises.
Consider a setting in which a large advertiser has constant, real-time
monitoring of store traffic and sales volume. Existing research designs, in
which we probe survey panelists on their purchase motivations and point-
of-sale behaviors, help us better target certain shopper segments. Those
designs can be expanded to pull in a wider range of big data assets, to the
point that big data is the passive monitor and surveys become the focused,
ongoing probes into changes or events that require exploration. This is
how big data will liberate research. Primary research will not have to focus
on what is happening—big data will do that. Primary research can focus
instead on explaining why we are observing certain trends or deviations
from trends. The researcher can think less about generating data and more
about analyzing and leveraging it.
At the same time, we see big data allowing us to address one of our biggest
problems, that of excessively long surveys. A wealth of research on research
demonstrates that bloated survey instruments have negative effects on
data quality. While many have recognized this issue for a long time, the
default answer has remained “but I need that information for my senior
management,” and long surveys have continued apace.
In a big data environment, when survey metrics can be provided by passively
observed measures, the issue is moot. Again, think of all the surveys
with a focus on consumption. If big data assets are providing insights on
consumption via passive observation, primary research via surveys will not
have to collect this type of information, and we can finally deliver on the
vision of shorter surveys instead of simply providing lip service to that goal.
BIG DATA NEEDS OUR HELP
Finally, the“big”in big data is just one characteristic of these new data assets.
“Big” references the massive size and scale of the data, which, rightfully,
should be front and center, as the scope of big data is beyond anything we
have worked with before. But other characteristics of these new data streams
are also significant: they are often raw in format, unstructured or, at best,
partially structured and riddled with uncertainty. A growing area of data
management, aptly named“entity analytics,”has developed to help manage
the noise in big data.This practice is dedicated to parsing through these data
sets and figuring out how many observations are of the same individual,
which observations are current, and which are useful and complete.
This kind of data cleaning is necessary to remove erroneous data or noise
whether dealing with small or big data assets, but this is not enough. We
also need to create context around big data assets based upon our prior
experience, analytic strength, and category expertise. In fact, many analysts
are pointing to the ability to manage the uncertainty inherent in big data as
the source of competitive advantage, since
it should result in better decision-making.
And this is where primary research is not
just liberated by big data, but contributes
to the content creation and analysis within
big data.
The application to social media data of our
new meaningfully different framework of
brand equity is a prime example. This framework is validated to in-market
behaviors, is implemented on a standardized basis, and is easy to extract into
other marketing operations and information systems to support decision-
making. In other words, our equity framework, powered (though not
exclusively) by survey research, has all the properties needed to overcome
the unstructured, unconnected, and uncertain nature of the big data.
Consider data on consumer sentiment provided by social media. In its raw
form, the peaks and valleys of consumer sentiment are often minimally
correlated with offline metrics of equity and behaviors; there is simply
too much noise in the data. But we can reduce that noise by applying our
constructs of consumer meaning, differentiation across brands, dynamism,
and salience to the raw consumer sentiments as a way to process and
aggregate the social media data along these dimensions.
Once the data is organized in alignment with our framework, the resulting
trends typically align with offline metrics of equity and behavior. In effect,
the social media data could not speak for itself; it required our experience
and constructs around understanding brands in order to be leveraged to that
purpose. Social media brings us full circle when it provides unique findings
on the language consumers use to describe brands, and we then bring that
language back into our survey designs to make the primary research that
much more effective.
THE BENEFITS OF LIBERATED RESEARCH
This brings us back to how big data is not replacing research but rather is
liberating it. Researchers are liberated from having to generate a new survey
on each new learning occasion; ongoing big data assets can be leveraged
for many topics, allowing subsequent primary research to go deeper and
fill in the gaps. Researchers are liberated from needing to rely upon bloated
surveys and instead can keep surveys short and focused on those variables
that they are ideally suited for, resulting in better data quality.
Once liberated, researchers can use their established first principles and
insights to impart accuracy and meaning into the big data assets, leading
to new areas of survey-based exploration. This cycle should lead to deeper
insights across a range of strategic issues, ultimately moving toward what
should always be our primary objective—to inform and improve brand and
communications decisions.
WILLIAM C. PINK
Senior Partner, Creative Analytics
bill.pink@millwardbrown.com
POINT OF VIEW
HowBigDataLiberatesResearch
There is a tidal wave of conversation about big data.The conversations range
from simply defining what big data means, to the business applications of big
data, to the societal implications of living in a big data environment. A quick
Google search on“big data”provided 1.66 billion results, and I’m sure that
number has increased since I wrote this Point ofView.
Share
In today’s big
data world, nearly
everything is passively
observed and managed
in a digitized fashion.
The ability to manage
the uncertainty
inherent in big data
may be a competitive
advantage.

11. With people spending so much time in the digital world, marketers need to
be just as effective there as they are in traditional media. But so far, many
marketers have yet to see a good return on their digital investments. For all
the successes, there are many more failures. Most video does not go viral. Few
fan pages garner many fans, and those that do are often simply collecting
“likes,” not building brands. And according to our research, many digital ads
are ineffective, ignored or, worse, have a negative effect.
One problem is that marketers often rely on faulty assumptions about
people’s online behavior. Too much digital marketing is informed by naïve
beliefs such as these:
• If people “like” my brand, they will recommend it to their friends.
• If people forward my video, they will remember who made it.
• To succeed with digital marketing, I need to get people to interact with
my brand.
Before marketers throw money behind ill-conceived digital efforts, they
need to understand all the ways people behave and respond in the digital
space and set clear and realistic goals for what they hope to accomplish.
THE DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT:
DIVERSE, COMPLEX, AND POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS
The digital realm is not one monolithic universe; rather, it consists of a wide
variety of distinct domains. This seems obvious, but the implications are
huge because consumers approach each domain differently. Someone who
is searching for the best price for a specific product has a different mindset
than someone who is hanging out on Facebook.
But at least two commonalities do exist across the various digital domains.
First, in almost every digital environment, users find a rich and complex
array of options for becoming informed or finding diversion. And second,
whether they are seeking facts or amusement, users are in control, choosing
their own routes through the online territory according to their moods and
objectives.
Therefore, the potential to irritate people with online marketing must be
taken seriously. A user who is looking for information is on a mission and
will not appreciate an ad that gets between him and his objective. People
who are checking out content for fun may be slightly more tolerant of ads,
but even so, our research shows that of all the ads that move purchase intent
in a noticeable way, 27 percent have a negative effect. The implications of
this are frightening: could a lot of online advertising actually be damaging
brands?
THE RESPONSE TO DIGITAL:
QUICK AND INSTINCTIVE
Whether they are purpose-driven or kicking back, people make quick, often
split-second decisions about where to click in the digital environment. They
are not necessarily going to follow a predictable or linear path. And while
online users enjoy being in charge of their experience, being constantly in
control is demanding.
To cope with the demands of the very choiceful environment found online,
both our instinctive and our deliberative decision-making systems are forced
to work overtime. Content is quickly judged as being relevant or irrelevant.
Work conducted by Carleton University in Ottawa demonstrated that it
takes one-twentieth of a second for people to make a decision about the
visual appeal of a web page, less time than
it takes to form a conscious thought.
We can assume that people make the same
instinctive judgments about online ads.
Our eye-tracking database suggests that,
on average, only 41 percent of people let
their eyes rest on an online ad for as long
as three-tenths of a second. When people
do look at ads, they look for an average
of just 1.3 seconds—not a long time, but
long enough to make an instinctive judgment. Video ads get more attention
online than other ad types; they are looked at by 70 percent of online users.
But even with video, people make quick decisions—the overall video dwell
time is just 1.8 seconds.
THE MEASUREMENT:
EXHAUSTIVE YET MISLEADING
The web has been sold through the numbers, the eyeballs, the clicks, the
case studies, and other research data. It is often called the world’s most
measured medium. But we have reason to wonder if all of the measurements
are truly meaningful.Ted McConnell, Executive Vice President, Digital, for the
Advertising Research Foundation, reported on an experiment in which he
and some associates ran blank ads in different sizes and colors. The average
click-through rate across half a million impressions served was 0.08 percent.
(For a brand campaign, this would be good; for a direct-response campaign,
so-so.) But when asked why they clicked on blank boxes, only half of the
“clickers”said they were curious to see what might be behind the blank box.
The other half admitted to a mistaken click.
So if half the people who click on an ad do so by mistake, what does that
imply about the value of online advertising? As Ted said, “At a minimum,
the data suggest that if you think a click-through rate of 0.04 percent is an
indication of anything in particular, you might be stone-cold wrong.” ROI
calculations based on click-through start to look even more dubious.
THE GOOD NEWS: IT’S ABOUT MEMORIES, NOT CLICK-THROUGH
Fortunately, we know that people don’t have to click on ads to be influenced
by them. While digital marketing can create valuable interactions between
brands and consumers, these don’t have to occur for a digital campaign to
be successful. It’s great when people do want to engage with your digital
content, but the people who will play your online game, download your
app, or create and submit a video number in the thousands at best. You
need to plan for that level of engagement while also making sure that the
rest of your exposures—which may number in the millions—are not wasted.
The good news is that digital advertising can build brands the same way
traditional advertising does—by creating and reinforcing brand associations
that strengthen a person’s predisposition to buy the brand. This has been
obvious right from the beginning of our online ad testing in 1996. Indeed,
if we look at more recent data from Dynamic Logic, we see that increases in
purchase intent are 14 times higher than suggested by click-through alone.
This is also evidenced by the fact that people who are merely exposed (i.e.,
those who don’t click) generate a significant portion of the sales effect of a
piece of online communication.
APPLYING WHAT WE KNOW
Our understanding of the digital environment and the ways people behave
there leads us to make some simple recommendations on how to succeed
in the digital space.
MAKE AN INSTANT CONNECTION
Online communication needs to connect instantly and make a great first
impression on the many who see it, not just the few who may engage with
it. Make it simple for people to judge whether an online ad is relevant to
them or not. Don’t make them think; enable them to simply respond.
STRONG BRANDING IS ESSENTIAL
A TV ad has the luxury of time to develop its story and integrate the brand;
online doesn’t. If a brand is not front-and-center throughout the execution,
exposureswillbewasted.Eventhelocationofthebrandintheadisimportant.
We tested a rich media banner that had action moving from left to right
while the brand was static on the left-hand side. Thus viewers’ eyes were
consistently being pulled away from the ad. In this execution, the brand
would get more attention if it were placed on the right-hand side.
THINK ABOUT CONTEXT AND MINDSET
The mindset of online users will vary with context. You need to understand
the motivations of online users in the various spaces where you want to
play. For example, people are not on Facebook to be unpaid promoters
of your brand. Some of them become fans just because they want to get
coupons and offers, while others“like”your brand because they believe that
signals something positive about them. They are using your brand for their
purposes, not yours. So think about what they want, and deliver it to them.
THINK ABOUT PLACEMENT
Context and mindset also come into play in determining how ads might best
be deployed, as when deciding whether a video should be placed in-stream
or as an on-click execution. Table 1 shows AdIndex data on the average
response to these two types of ads. (The numbers represent the difference
between those who saw the test ad and those who saw a control ad.)
In-stream advertising is over twice as memorable as click-to-play, but does
not produce the same gains in purchase intent. This points up something
about how users process these different viewing experiences. The in-stream
ad makes an impression at the time it is viewed (because all events make an
impression on us, automatically, at the time they occur). But people don’t
pause to reflect on the message because, as soon as it finishes, they become
engaged with the content they really wanted to see.
However, when the click-to-play ad is finished, nothing happens until the
viewer makes another click; thus the viewer does have a chance to process
the message he or she just saw. On-click ads, therefore, are more effective
at delivering explicit messages. In-stream executions deliver implicit
impressions, much like many commercials seen during TV viewing.
KNOW WHAT TO MEASURE
Behavioral metrics should not be relied upon on their own to optimize spend.
Click-through, search, and liking depend as much on things that happen
elsewhere as on the immediate online circumstances. Set expectations about
what your digital marketing is meant to achieve, and judge effectiveness
against those goals.
CONCLUSION
The digital space, in all its diversity, represents a huge opportunity with
the power to engage people in new ways. But we need to remember that
even activity that is “free” has both risk and opportunity cost. The risk is
that it will be negatively received and undermine brand allegiance, and the
opportunity cost is in the allocation of precious resources to activities that
may be ineffective or even largely unnoticed.
NIGEL HOLLIS
nigel.hollis@millwardbrown.com
www.mb-blog.com
GORDON PINCOTT
Chairman, Global Solutions
gordon.pincott@millwardbrown.com
POINT OF VIEW
DigitalIsPowerful.HandlewithCare.
Billions of dollars are spent on digital marketing each year, and
for good reason. Digital media has enormous power to reach and
influence people. Over 2 billion people—about one-third of the
global population—now access the Internet. Facebook alone
reaches one-seventh of the world’s population. Smartphones are the
dominant means by which people surf the web in India.
Share
Content is judged
quickly; it takes one-
twentieth of a second
for people to make a
decision about the visual
appeal of a web page.
Table 1
In-stream vs On-click
Video: Key Measures
% Change
In Stream On Click
Online Ad Awareness 5.8 2.6
Aided Ad Awareness 2.6 1.4
Message Association 1.8 0.7
Purchase Intent 0.1 0.8

12. VIDEOCONTENT

13. Courtesy of Beet.TV, www.beet.tv
Share
Tap the video to watch
Juan Lindstrom, client analyst at Millward Brown Digital, recently
presented findings from a Millward Brown Digital study on
improving the online performance of repurposed TV ads.
Developing web original content is not always feasible to produce or
in-budget for marketers. Repurposing TV ads or other content can be
very effective when interactivity and strong branding elements are
added to develop online ads.
To view the full presentation go to www.millwardbrown.com.

14. First aired on ET Now, India’s No. 1 Business News Channel, July 19, 2013.
Copyright The Economic Times 2013, www.ecomnomictimes.indiatimes.com
Share
A conversation with Gordon Pincott, Chairman of Global Solutions
at Millward Brown and Sonali Krishna, host of Brand Equity,
produced by The Economic Times. The two discuss the truth about
consumers’ true interest in brands, what marketers are learning
from neuroscience, and where Indian brands will be on the world
stage over the next 10 years.
Tap the video to watch

15. PUBLISHED
ARTICLES

16. e consumers are a savvy bunch -- without being
told a thing, we quickly form perceptions about
brands and companies via their communications,
products and innovations. This is particularly
true in the technology space, where consumers
have traditionally viewed Apple as the
revolutionary market innovator, and Samsung as the fast follower.
This is borne out by what we see: Apple was the first to successfully
market products in the MP3 (iPod), touch screen smartphone (iPhone)
and tablet (iPad) categories. Samsung would follow suit quickly with
similar products, with slight improvements at a comparable price
point. For example, Galaxy S4 offered a larger and higher resolution
screen, higher resolution camera, increased RAM, and superior
battery life than the iPhone 5.
For the most part, I think these strategies have been working
for both companies. Apple innovation maintains the respect of
technology aficionados globally, allowing the brand to charge huge
premiums, while Samsung, with its more mass-market strategy,
is now, according to IDC, the world’s largest manufacturer of
smartphones, capturing 30% of 2Q13 global market share.
In the fiercely competitive smartphone market, these two leaders
are undoubtedly watching each other -- very, very carefully. The
mutual respect for -- or perhaps fear of -- the other likely feeds into
corporate strategy. So much so, perhaps, that recent announcements
from both companies are pointing to the two giants taking a
“strategy swap,” each taking a page from the other’s playbook.
By unveiling the first-to-market Galaxy Gear smartwatch, Samsung
has taken the lead in what could potentially be an entirely new
consumer electronics category. With the $299 watch, which will hit
shelves later this month, you’ll be able to make calls, take photos/
videos and run apps. But perhaps more groundbreaking than the
features is the fact that it is from Samsung, now proudly shedding
a “copy-cat” reputation and asserting itself in front, calling its new
Galaxy smartwatch an “iconic fashion accessory.” All this, in what
techwatchers were certain would be Apple’s next big rollout. In
February of this year, The New York Times speculated, “the smart
watch might soon become a reality, in the form of a curved glass
device made by Apple.” According to a Bloomberg report in March,
Apple had already assembled a team of more than 100 product
designers devoted to a possible smartwatch device and filed more
than 79 patent applications that included the word “wrist.” Is the
team in Cupertino now smarting from having been beat to the
punch?
But before the Korean tech giant gets too confident, Apple is
borrowing a lesson from the folks in Seoul as well, and Apple’s
highly anticipated mid-market iPhone 5C is its first big move. By
eschewing its super-premium strategy and producing items that
are aspirational to the mass market, Apple is now looking to gain
share by offering a broader product range that brings in mid-tier
priced products too. Is this a response to declining market share in
the mobile category and large emerging markets with more price-
sensitive appetites?
In China, for example, Apple is out of reach for many consumers
and, according to consulting firm Analysys, accounted for only 4.6
percent of smartphone market share. The 5C might also be a way
to do what Chinese brand Xiaomi did recently: drive seven million
orders for its new, freakishly cheap ($130) Android device within two
weeks of announcement. While offering different products at varying
price points is something that Samsung has understood well, it’s
a big departure from Apple’s “one top-of-the-line product in each
category” strategy. It sure isn’t the Steve Jobs way, but perhaps it is
the new norm in the competitive world in which these brands play.
In either case, we know both Samsung and Apple are perhaps
adapting the best pieces of the others’ strategy for their own
purposes. It remains to be seen what it means for the fortunes of
each, but we do know one thing for sure -- it will put our perceptions
of each brand in flux. What do you think? Apple and Samsung have
come out of their corners -- is this the new normal?
W
By Oscar Yuan,
Vice President, Millward Brown Optimor
First published in the September 11, 2013 edition of Wired Magazine, www.wired.com
SmartphoneWars:
SwappingStrategies,
WinningConsumers
Share

17. f your day job involves creating, defending or presenting a
media plan featuring seven or eight digits in the bottom right
cell, chances are you truly believe in branding. And you live in a
strange, strange world.
Direct response campaigns bring in new customers, move the
inventory and are held accountable to hard business KPIs. Branding
is about creating awareness, perceptions and attitudes. Direct
response results are evident from campaign data itself. However,
figuring out the impact of a multimillion-dollar branding campaign
can require custom research done by a bunch of Ph.Ds. If this was
YOUR money, where would you rather put it?
Counterintuitively, close to 90% of all media spend is in branding
- and 84% of branding budgets are spent via traditional channels
(Kantar Media Intelligence, January through April 2013). Although
televisions are just one of the several glowing rectangles consumers
use on a daily basis, it is still the main branding medium.
However, television commercials struggle to draw viewers’ attention
away from their mobile devices. For many advertisers, online and
mobile still squarely equate to “direct.” But any digital ad worth
its pixels challenges this traditional dichotomy. A flashy video ad
for a new coupe concurrently raises brand awareness, prompts
consideration and requires only a few clicks to schedule a test drive.
In digital media, branding and direct response converge.
So why are marketers slow to embrace digital channels as branding
vehicles today? Certainly there is no shortage of evidence to show
that branding works online as hundreds of studies have been
conducted by the companies such as Dynamic Logic, Marketing
Evolution, Insight Express and others. Neither can it be the inherent
superiority of the 30-second TV spot over a banner ad, as online
video ads offer innovative and engaging formats as well. And with
next generation TV sets, digital video content and ads appear on
the same screen as traditional programming, right in the heart of a
living room.
Until recently, the lack of a “single currency” for TV and online
was typically brought up as the main reason why advertisers had
been holding back from moving more branding dollars into display
and video advertising. That point is becoming moot quickly as
companies such as Nielsen, Millward Brown Digital and comScore
have developed tools that make online ads accountable in traditional
ways - reach, frequency and rating points. However, the online share
of branding dollars has yet to pick up.
So, here is an uncomfortable thought: Perhaps digital media is
simply too measurable for branding?
Branding is about future return on today’s investment. While some
measures are necessary to show advertisers that they get their
money’s worth - GRPs, brand tracking surveys, and anecdotal
memories of a particularly cool ad - its main allure is the promise of
greater rewards to come.
Over the years, brand awareness and favorability have become
key indicators of success largely because of the measurement gap
between exposure to advertising and actual sales. What happened
with a consumer after seeing a car commercial and before kicking
the tires in the showroom was up for heavy debate. Surveys
attempted to fill the gap by capturing and analyzing the changes in
consumers’ attitudes and intent.The most popular theory explaining
this, the hierarchy of advertising effects, went like this: Consumers
like the ad, which transfers into awareness and positive attitudes
toward the advertised brand, which in turn stimulates purchase
intent, which could translate in purchase behavior sometime in the
future.
Digital campaign data fills that gap. Meaning, if an advertising
message is considered effective, the branding effects would manifest
directly through rich-media interactions, site visits and blog posts
before conversions generated by the campaign start to occur. The
distinction between “direct response” and “branding” campaigns is
purely the time it takes to convert: shorter for the former, longer for
the later. It is a continuum, not a dichotomy.
Digital removes the excuses to optimize campaigns halfway.
When an entire customer journey is visible, the impact of all
ads -- branding or otherwise -- on the eventual transactions can
be quantified. This brings financial accountability to the area of
advertising that was previously exempt. And that is something
traditionally minded advertisers may not yet be ready to see.
I
By Yaakov Kimelfeld, Ph.D.,
Chief Research Officer, Millward Brown Digital
First published in the August 27, 2013 edition of MediaPost, www.mediapost.com
TheUnbearable
LightnessofBranding
Share

18. n a city of congested subways, surly cab drivers, and pushy
pedestrians, an unlikely candidate has championed a new
solution. Citibank, known derisively by some New Yorkers as
“Sh*tty Bank,” has been working to shift consumer perceptions
of its brand beyond the institutional provider of financial
services, to an active, aware and concerned corporate citizen.
Arguably, it has done that with its sponsorship of Citi Bike, a new
bike-sharing system that has revolutionized transportation for many
New York City commuters.
Citibank shelled out $41 million to sponsor the program, which,
while not the first, is the largest of its kind in the nation. For a low
daily rate, or annual $95 membership fee, users unlock a bike, ride
to their destination, and return the bike to any docking station. Since
its May launch, New Yorkers have traveled more than 5.5 million
miles on Citi-branded bikes.
By impacting the lives of New Yorkers in a tangible and meaningful
way, this approach to branding has engaged and energized
consumers beyond the abilities of more traditional promotions
and sponsorships. Today’s consumers are numb, having developed
a tolerance to traditional marketing tactics— fast-forwarding
DVRs through commercials, mindlessly walking past billboards,
and blocking online ads. To meet this challenge, brands must move
beyond getting logos and messages in front of eyeballs. It is about
understanding and addressing consumers who are asking, “I know
what your brand does. Really, though, what can you do for me?”
By answering that question, Citibank, as an example, demonstrates
an understanding of the lives of New Yorkers. Already, consumers’
feelings towards Citi have begun to shift. In our research, one
consumer, who has ridden more than 100 times, told us, “I have never
paid much attention to Citibank’s advertising and a commercial
certainly would not make me change my bank. But now I would
definitely look at them as a possibility in order to support them for
what they have done to change my life.”
Of course this strategy is not without risk, and Citi’s sponsorship
investment has brought with it many real-time marketing
challenges. More than a few New Yorkers were unhappy to find bike
stations installed in front of their apartment buildings, blocking
taxis and eliminating valuable parking spaces. Many users have
been frustrated with system glitches, including malfunctioning
docks. If they didn’t like Citi before, this doesn’t help.
Citi’s efforts, though, highlight another example of a tectonic shift in
marketing and branding: moving from a communicate-comprehend
model to one of demonstrate-interact. Traditional marketing and
branding efforts rely on a communication effort (advertising and PR
for example), which then in turn drives some sort of comprehension
in the mind of the consumer about the brand. The hope is that this
comprehension spurs brand preference. In this new model, rather
than telling consumers a message, brands demonstrate their values,
beliefs or intentions. This action gives consumers the chance to
interact with the brand in a non-committal way, which then helps
consumers see the brand in a different light, which will, it is hoped,
spur choice.
This is a model that has proven true in academia, and professors
have long known that students learn more effectively when actively
engaged. In a Harvard University study, Professor Eric Mazur found
that interactive learning triples gains in knowledge and increases
knowledge retention, compared to learning through traditional
lectures and readings.
Samsung is leading the charge, literally, by alleviating another
consumer pain point: the flashing one-bar battery signal, indicating
a few minutes left on your phone, tablet or laptop. In response to
this anxiety-inducing moment, Samsung has outfitted 13 major
airports, several college campuses, the Mall of America and the Las
Vegas Convention Center with more than 500 free Samsung-branded
charging stations. This demonstration of an understanding about
modern consumer life has been applauded by the same technology
blog communities likely to offer purchase advice. Engadget praised
Samsung for “giving a nod to the little guy.”
Even categories as basic as toilet paper are beginning to understand
how solutions can drive consumer sentiment more than any
advertising. Procter & Gamble’s Charmin recently launched the
“Sit or Squat” smartphone application to helps consumers find the
nearest clean public restrooms, mapping them out and displaying
consumer-generated reviews of each. Unsanitary bathrooms are
designated as “squats,” while more acceptable ones are designated
as “sits.”
Consumers who may not pay much attention to an ad featuring
fluffy bears may take note of branding efforts like these. One
consumer told us: “‘Sit or Squat’ is one of my favorite go-to apps.
Clean bathroom options can be scarce, and I love that Charmin has
really acted on its mission rather than just telling people how it can
improve their lives.”
While it may sound trite, these brands are acting on the old cliché
that actions speak louder than words. Traditional communications
may help improve brand awareness and drive certain beliefs, but
what Citi, Samsung, Charmin and other successful brands know
is that playing an active role in consumers’ lives can get into a
consideration set that purely communicating cannot. When it comes
time to make a purchase decision, the brand’s proximity in the lives
of their potential consumers is unmatched by traditional marketing.
Brand builders, let this be a call to action: How will you start
moving from communicating to demonstrating and participating?
Oscar is based in Millward Brown’s New York office. He leads client engagements
in marketing and brand strategy, and brand extension and growth. His client
experience spans the travel, financial services, health care, and CPG industries. He
holds an MBA from Harvard Business School degrees in Economics and International
Relations from Stanford University.
I
By Oscar Yuan,
Vice President, Millward Brown Optimor
First published in the September 4, 2013 edition of Forbes, www.forbes.com
WhetherProvidingBikesor
CleanBathrooms,Here’sWhy
BrandsAreTakingAction
Share

19. s the modern media landscape continues to
fragment,advertisers are presented with a multitude
of media choices. It can be a challenge to understand
which media to employ, and understand how these fit
in a wider communications plan. Leonie Gates-Sumner
analyses how targeted media can help deliver the brand
impact of multimedia campaigns.
Striking the right balance between delivering sufficient reach for
your campaign to make an impact, and targeting your message to
your most receptive consumers is an on-going challenge for media
planners. From the hundreds of campaigns evaluated by Millward
Brown we have seen that there is often a focus on using multiple
channels to deliver incremental reach. Our latest insight, however,
is telling us that on a plan which already features high reach TV
(which the majority of campaigns do), the power of smaller channels
can actually be more in the duplication and the reinforcement of
campaign messaging, which these channels can deliver to a key
target audience. While there is no such thing as the ideal media plan,
there is clear evidence for the inclusion of targeted, niche media in
multi-media plans as these channels tend to deliver strong brand
impact for relatively low cost.
Perhaps the most traditional targeted media channel is the
magazine. Where magazines hold a unique position among the
traditional media channels is their ability to deliver targeted reach,
with a creative specifically designed to appeal to that audience,
in an environment where consumers are primed to be receptive
to advertising about that type of product. Whether it’s an FMCG
brand using women’s weeklies to deliver mass reach among an
audience of females aged 35-54, or a lower reach, highly targeted
plan utilising technology titles to access a niche audience of IT
professionals, magazines can deliver. This strength is evidenced in
Millward Brown’s CrossMedia database, where we see magazines
outperforming other media on both awareness and consideration
measures in terms of their impact on those who they reach.
In some ways the ability of digital to deliver high reach and effective
targeting mirrors that of magazines. However, online as a channel
holds a unique position in the media landscape, offering sites that
are often even more targeted than magazines, behavioural targeting
that can reach consumers who are at the right category involvement
level, as well as high reach sites and networks for mass reach. So
what does this mean for how and when to include digital on a media
plan? Just because digital CAN deliver mass reach, is this how it
should best be used, or should the main focus be taking advantage
of the opportunities it offers to reach the right audience? The answer
to this depends on what role you want digital to play within your
campaign. For a digital only campaign it may be that delivering
reach to drive awareness of your brand is the key objective, and
therefore utilising a broad plan featuring large portal sites and
network buys is the right approach to take. On the other hand, if you
are using digital as part of a multi-media plan where other channels
such as TV and Outdoor are delivering mass reach, then taking a
more focused approach to your digital activity by making the most
of behavioural or contextual targeting to communicate with a
smaller group of specific consumers may be a more productive use
of the digital budget.
This varied approach to digital planning also raises questions
around the best use of digital creative. Is the same creative approach
going to work for a broad reach campaign as for a campaign
delivering more targeted reach? Probably not – as with other media,
broad reach digital creative needs to have mass appeal and a simple
message which will cut through with less engaged consumers. For
a targeted campaign you will be reaching more engaged consumers,
who already have a degree of knowledge about the brand or
category, and therefore you need to tailor your message to their
specific needs and interests. In this case you can probably have a
certain expectation about how interested they are likely to be in your
campaign, allowing you to deliver more targeted messaging or make
the most of interactive elements to maximise these core consumers’
engagement with the activity. This can offer up great rewards –
taking reach out of the equation and putting all channels on a level
playing field, our CrossMedia database shows that the brand impact
(per person reached) of low reach digital activity (e.g. microsites) far
exceeds that of higher reach digital activity (e.g. online display) and
other traditional media, justifying this trade off of less people seeing
your message with more powerful impact on those that do.
Opportunities for making the most of low reach, targeted media are
not limited to just digital display or specialist magazines. Many
of the newer, low reach media channels are showing promising
potential as ways to deliver meaningful impact among small groups
of niche consumers. Online video is one such channel. Despite
significant growth in recent years, online video is still a small
channel relative to other more established media, yet it would be
a mistake to underestimate the value it can add to a multimedia
plan. Millward Brown has tested over 300 online video campaigns,
and has seen many examples of online video delivering additional
impact above and beyond traditional channels. Breaking this
down further we have found that videos which have been created
specifically for the online environment and which are used to target
specific consumers with content which is relevant for them tend to
be more persuasive than videos which are re-purposed from existing
TV spots – so just using online video to deliver an already high-
reach TV creative may not be the best use of this media. However, on
the flip side of this we have found that online video can be a good
way of reaching lighter TV viewers, making it an efficient addition to
a more moderate TV plan.
Mobile advertising is also a huge opportunity for targeted media
plans. Although mobile ad spend remains a small proportion of
media budgets, it now accounts for almost 10% of digital spend,
compared to just 1% 4 years ago, and accounts for over 50% of digital
growth in the past year (source: IAB UK). Technological developments
allowing ever more sophisticated targeting via mobile devices are
likely to fuel this growth further in the coming months. Location
based services allowing brands to target consumers near or at point
of purchase, combined with mobile companies’ vast databases of
information on their customers, offer brands the chance to engage
with the right consumer at a time and place relevant to them –
and those which get this type of communication right will have a
real impact on their brand. Getting it right means respecting how
consumers feel about their mobile phones, and taking the time and
resource necessary to deliver them mobile content which is relevant,
engaging, entertaining and offers a perceived value exchange.
Gaming, microsites and social media properties offer yet more
chances for brands to experiment with targeted media campaigns.
Millward Brown research has shown strong brand impact for all
these channels, and a lot of that is down to their ability to reach the
right people with tailored content which they will want to engage
with – something which is a lot harder to do for the diverse mix of
consumers delivered by more mass reach channels. The challenge
here is balancing the sometimes substantial production costs of
developing such content, with their limited reach – something which
can be overlooked in the excitement around experimenting with new
types of content.
So next time you are thinking about your communications plans,
take a moment to think about how targeted media could work for
your brand. The wealth of channels now available and the ability
of many of these channels to accurately target a specific audience
means there is a real opportunity for all brands to find new ways
to communicate with the consumers who mean the most to them,
and experimenting with these channels – both creatively and from
a planning perspective – is likely to deliver significant rewards. The
main challenge is to reach these consumers creatively in a channel
that often has a lower portion of media and creative budget. For
most brands the key focus remains on making a great TV ad, with
smaller channels often being secondary to this. To truly deliver
brand impact in a changing media landscape, there needs to be a
readjustment of focus on to the importance of delivering tailored
messaging and creative to those consumers you value most.
A
By Leonie Gates-Sumner,
Senior Research Manager, Media and Digital Practice, Millward Brown
First published on millwardbrown.com, July 19, 2013.
SharpeningtheArrow:
ThevalueofModern
TargetingApproaches
Share
0.0%
2.5%
3.0%
2.0%
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
TV Cinema Radio Newspapers Online Outdoor Magazines
Source: Millward Brown European CrossMedia Database
Average Impact per Person
Awareness Consideration
Source: Global Market Norms data, Q4 2012. (data from the last 3 years)
Bars show average delta shifts (i.e. difference between control and exposed
groups’ responses)
Brand favourability OverallPurchase intent/
consideration
0.6
1.4
0.8
1.4
Repurposed TV
n=22
Made-for-web
n=87
Average Delta Shift
Consideration • Preference • Intention
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Online
70% 80% 90% 100%
Impactperperson
Reach
Source: Millward Brown European CrossMedia Database
XM Database Finding
PR
Online Display
WOM
Low reach
digital
gaming
organic SM
video
search
mobile
microsite
0.0%
2.5%
3.0%
2.0%
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
TV Cinema Radio Newspapers Online Outdoor Magazines
Source: Millward Brown European CrossMedia Database
Average Impact per Person
Awareness Consideration
Source: Global Market Norms data, Q4 2012. (data from the last 3 years)
Bars show average delta shifts (i.e. difference between control and exposed
groups’ responses)
Brand favourability OverallPurchase intent/
consideration
0.6
1.4
0.8
1.4
Repurposed TV
n=22
Made-for-web
n=87
Average Delta Shift
Consideration • Preference • Intention
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Online
70% 80% 90% 100%
Impactperperson
Reach
Source: Millward Brown European CrossMedia Database
XM Database Finding
PR
Online Display
WOM
Low reach
digital
gaming
organic SM
video
search
mobile
microsite
0.0%
2.5%
3.0%
2.0%
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
TV Cinema Radio Newspapers Online Outdoor Magazines
Source: Millward Brown European CrossMedia Database
Average Impact per Person
Awareness Consideration
Source: Global Market Norms data, Q4 2012. (data from the last 3 years)
Bars show average delta shifts (i.e. difference between control and exposed
groups’ responses)
Brand favourability OverallPurchase intent/
consideration
0.6
1.4
0.8
1.4
Repurposed TV
n=22
Made-for-web
n=87
Average Delta Shift
Consideration • Preference • Intention
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Online
70% 80% 90% 100%
Impactperperson
Reach
Source: Millward Brown European CrossMedia Database
XM Database Finding
PR
Online Display
WOM
Low reach
digital
gaming
organic SM
video
search
mobile
microsite

20. rom BP to Barclays, British brands are seeing a huge
global prominence says Anastasia A. Kourovskaia, vice-
president, Millward Brown Optimor. How are they doing
it?
The Queen’s Diamond Jubilee and the London Olympic
Games put the UK firmly in the global spotlight in 2012 - and
while economists argue over whether the economic uplift the
events provided exceeded the cost of running them, British brands,
including BT and BP, were clear winners.
Seven British brands feature in this year’s BrandZ Top 100 Most
Valuable Global Brands, accounting for over a quarter of the value of
all European brands in the 2013 ranking.
Over the years Britain has given the world a number of iconic
brands, from Rolls-Royce, which sells 90% of its output overseas,
to Burberry which, after a remarkable turnaround, is ranked as the
eighth most valuable luxury brand in the world.
According to the BrandZ Top 100 report, the UK top 10 - which is
dominated by banking, telecoms and oil and gas brands - created
close to £98.4 billion for their shareholders in the last year.
HSBC, number two in the UK ranking and the highest placed global
bank in the Top 100, grew its brand value 24% with a dual focus
on strengthening its financials and its brand equity. The bank has
firmly established itself as a worthy contender in the fast growing
areas of Asia and Latin America, and its focus on long-term strategy
appears to be bearing fruit.
Barclays has successfully recaptured brand value with an increase
of 34%, following the restructuring and streamlining of its business,
as well as its focus on rebuilding trust in an attempt to bounce back
from the reputational issues that have dogged global banks over
recent years.
On his second day in the job, Barclays’ new CEO pledged to
transform the profit-driven culture to one based on customer service
and respect. The strategy is centred on business fundamentals,
returning to basic principles and reshaping communications.
Given the decline in brand value of the oil and gas category as a
whole, BP’s 11% value growth shows how proactively managing
a brand protects and enhances corporate value in tough times.
BP’s strenuous work to revitalise its brand in the aftermath of the
Deepwater Horizon crisis has paid off: after a 27% decrease in brand
value in 2011 and a 17% drop in 2012, both its financial value and
brand contribution - the proportion of the brand’s financial value
that is attributable to brand alone - have both increased.
As well as being buoyed by a successful association with the
Olympics, as the official oil and gas partner for the Games, BP’s
arguably open and honest communication around the crisis helped it
rise to sixth place in the oil and gas top 10, and retain its fifth place
in the UK ranking.
Vodafone remains the most valuable British brand in the Top 100
with a value of £26 billion. It is also the fourth most valuable
telecoms brand in the world, following China Mobile and the two US
giants AT&T and Verizon.
BT has joined the ranks of the BrandZ Top 100 Most Valuable Global
Brands for the first time: living, breathing proof of how investment
in building a strong and sustainable brand drives business growth.
The UK-based provider of global telecoms services entered the
ranking with a brand value of £6.2 billion. At number 94 in the
global Top 100, BT is also the seventh most valuable UK-based
brand.
BT raised its profile worldwide in 2012 with its partnership of
the Olympics and Paralympics at London 2012. In its flawless
execution of the communications, BT helped the organisers achieve
their ambition to deliver the most connected Games ever, while its
excellent brand activation programme - consistent over several years
- ensured standout visibility and association with the Olympics.
The brand’s Better Future strategy, in which it promises to use
the power of communication to improve lives and ways of doing
business, has also resonated with customers and shareholders.
Moving into the more emotionally engaging area of entertainment
delivery, BT is soon to launch its new BT Sport channels, fronted by
presenter-of-the-moment Clare Balding, and has just announced that
BT Broadband customers will be able to watch them at no extra cost.
The entry of BT into the Top 100 reinforces the importance of brand
as a source of sustainable competitive advantage for businesses.
Alongside its savvy strategic decisions, BT’s renewed focus on
branding has seen it reap the rewards of building positive customer
sentiment. Delivering a meaningful promise and setting itself apart
from the competition enables a brand to capture five times more
volume and command a 14% price premium, according to Millward
Brown analysis.
Building a strong brand demands an understanding of consumers’
needs, and the ability to meet them, consistently, in a meaningfully
different way, to stimulate the appeal and loyalty that will generate
the greatest contribution to driving sales.
Meaningfully different brands are four times more likely to grow
their market share - and this is something we’ve seen a number of
UK brands pull off in the last year.
Overall, we are seeing a revival of the British brand and, as the UK
comes out of this period of austerity; many brands are well poised
for future growth.
F
By Anastasia Kourovskaia,
Vice President, Millward Brown Optimor
First published in the February 21, 2013 edition of MediaTel, www.mediatel.co.uk
HowaRelentlessFocuson
BrandBuildingMakesUK
BusinessesStandApart
Share

21. As an advertising channel, mobile has proven to be
effective: the average mobile campaign has a positive
branding impact at a magnitude of 2-5x that of online.
A number of factors contribute to the strength of mobile
as a branding medium:
• The size of the ad relative to the size of the screen
• More focused ad copy and content due to size or technology
constraints
• Consumer acceptance of mobile advertising
• Better targeting
MOBILE WORKS - BUT METRICS HAVE STABILIZED
As the medium has matured, the novelty factor has worn off.
Whereas advertisers could once count on the novelty of the format to
excuse wrinkles in execution, poor mobile advertising can now have
a negative brand impact. Creative quality matters more than ever:
there is a large variation between the best and worst-performing
campaigns.
THE RISKS AND REWARDS OF MEDIA TARGETING
No campaign’s success hinges on the quality of its creative alone.
Generally, we consider media and creative to be the two significant,
if variable, factors in determining the outcome of a paid advertising
campaign. Better media targeting is one of mobile’s strengths -- on
average, mobile campaigns deliver within the target just over half of
the time, compared to one-third of the time for online.
However, while effective media targeting can boost campaign
performance, it does not ameliorate the effects of bad creative.
Moreover, poor targeting can suppress the success of otherwise good
campaigns and exacerbate the detrimental impact of bad campaigns.
This variance is best explained by the synergy of creative and media.
The best creative, delivered on target, will have greater success,
while poor creative shows poor results regardless, but especially
when targeted inefficiently. We see that the best-performing brand
campaigns consistently feature the following elements:
• Persistent branding
• A simple, bold, legible color palette
• Short, focused messaging
• Offers with tangible value
CLEAR AND PERSISTENT BRANDING BUILDS BRAND AWARENESS
Consistent with our online creative best practices, our mobile
research demonstrates that clear and persistent branding is crucial
for building brand awareness and ad recall. Unlike TV, a full logo
should be present in every frame of the digital creative, which
resides in a space where consumers’ eyes move quickly over the
screen, briefly glancing at pieces of content.
STRIKING COLORS CAN DRIVE AD RECALL, AS LONG AS THE AD IS
LEGIBLE
The best-performing mobile ads used at least one -- but no more
than two -- bright colors. This clean creative layout can be eye-
catching without being visually cluttered. Distinguishing the call-
to-action on a separate “button” can also be helpful. Legibility is
key -- white or light text can be difficult to read, especially against
a dark background. Conversely, black text on white backgrounds is
readable, yet may fail to generate enough stopping power, as the ads
may blend in with sites’ editorial content.
FOCUS ON CONCISE MESSAGING
As a general rule, fewer words can be worth more brand impact. The
most successful mobile creative tends to limit messages to no more
than two messages -- including the tagline! Be conscious of mobile’s
small format and find efficiencies where possible; if the brand’s
name is very clearly legible in the logo, you may not need to repeat it
in the copy.
CONSUMERS SEEK A VALUE EXCHANGE IN MOBILE
Our AdReaction work shows that consumers are more willing to
tolerate marketers’ presence on their mobile devices when they
receive something in return. Similarly, we see that tangible offers
(coupons, games, or useful information) can yield high impact in
mobile advertising, especially on lower funnel metrics like Purchase
Intent. Interactive elements (such as a social media call-to-action)
can further deepen engagement.
CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS
These principles span the range of traditional brand metrics,
allowing for flexibility in tailoring creative executions to specific
campaign goals. While employing any single one -- or even all four
-- is no guarantee for success, marketers can use this as guide to
better align creative executions with strategic campaign outcomes.
Successful mobile creative is mindful of the small format, but
also realistic about consumer attention to and engagement with
advertising in a very personal space.
A
First published in the June 26, 2013 edition of MediaPost, www.mediapost.com
Share
By Anne Czernek,
Senior Research Analyst, Emerging Media Lab, Millward Brown Digital
CreativeQualityin
MobileMattersMore
thanEver

22. KNOWLEDGE
POINTS
Knowledge Points are drawn from
Millward Brown databases of
150,000+ brand reports and 95,000
ads as well as 1,500 case studies

23. HUMOR MAKES ADS MEMORABLE
Humor is a common element in advertising, as shown below. About
half of all ads around the globe are considered either “funny” or “light-
hearted.”
It is not surprising that advertisers invoke humor, as it can make a big
contribution to an ad’s memorability. In North America, where humor
is used more than in any other region, 69 percent of ads in the top
impact (Awareness Index) quintile are humorous (i.e., funny or light-
hearted), versus only 44 percent in the bottom quintile—a difference
of 25 percentage points. This difference is even larger in Europe (28
percentage points).
And the funnier an ad is, is the more memorable it is likely to be. The
following chart shows the strong relationship (r = 0.52) between an
ad’s mean score on humor and its impact (Awareness Index) for almost
200 ads in the United States.
We observe a strong relationship between humor and impact because
humor can drive involvement, which drives memorability. On a global
basis, ads with humor on average score in the 74th percentile for
Involvement (i.e. higher than 74 percent of other ads), while ads without
humor score in the 42nd percentile.
HUMOR AND BRANDING
Branding, an important component of impact, does not seem to have
a direct relationship with humor (see following chart). In general, in ads
where both branding and humor are strong, the humor tends to be
related to the brand. (Exceptions do occur, such as when an ad is part
of a campaign in which the style, slogan, and/or characters are well
established and closely associated with the brand.) In humorous ads
where branding is weak, the humor is often unrelated to the brand.
HUMOR, COMMUNICATION, AND PERSUASION
Humor’s relationship with communication is less straightforward than
its relationships with enjoyment and impact. Certainly, the right humor
can aid communication—but the wrong humor can just as easily
impede it. Humor that is not related to an ad’s key message may be so
distracting that the key message is missed; humor that misses the mark
can detract from an ad’s overall effect.
For example, one ad we tested was working well in many aspects,
but it used a joke that was just not funny. Viewers described the ad as
boring and irritating, and enjoyment was below average. We advised
the client to keep the description of the brand’s benefits unchanged
while using more original humor. With stronger humor, the enjoyment
rating improved, and so did the message communication.
As shown in the following chart, humor does not aid persuasion, as
humorous ads are seen as a little less credible and relevant. However,
the difference is small, and may simply be due to a tendency among
advertisers, to avoid diluting strong persuasive messages with humor.
There are plenty of examples of humorous ads that are also persuasive.
HOW WELL DOES HUMOR TRAVEL?
Humor is subjective and often culturally specific. Types of humor that
don’t travel well include mockery, parodies, kitsch, off-the-wall and
dark humor, as well as humor that depends on subtleties. In addition,
there are some specific country issues. In China, sarcasm is not widely
appreciated. In Singapore, humor based on sexuality is taboo. The
English have a particular love of irony, while images found sexy in most
of Europe may be considered sexist by British women.
So, in view of all this, is it possible for humor to work across markets?
Yes, we find that it can, provided that:
• The subject matter is universal
• The references used are universally understood (e.g. young romance,
new baby)
• The subject is not offensive or taboo
• The humor is visually based, rather than relying on something that
may be lost in translation
HUMOR AMONG MEN AND WOMEN
While lots of advertising is seen as equally funny by both sexes, some
humormaybeperceiveddifferentlybymenandwomen.Thisisespecially
true of scatological, violent, or sexist humor.
In the following example, which summarizes the reaction to an ad in
which the humor is based on body parts being pulled off, men found
it distinctive, involving, and interesting, whereas women considered it
disturbing, unpleasant, and irritating.
One type of humor that women tend to find particularly enjoyable is
that which makes jokes at the expense of men. In Brazil, where fabric
conditioners tend to be purchased by women, and humor is rarely
used in that category’s advertising, women really appreciated an ad
that showed a man doing the washing while the woman relaxed and
watched TV. Housewives saw it as involving, distinctive, and interesting,
and 80 percent found it funny.
THE RIGHT MEDIA FOR HUMOR
Choice of media can have a substantial influence on the effect of the
humor, because humor may be perceived differently depending on
whether the medium is public or private. Online ads are a great example
of ads which are generally initially viewed privately. But when the most
successful online ads go viral, they can enjoy a very public life; this is a
consideration when you intend your ad to go viral (although it is always
worth remembering that only a small proportion of ads achieve this).
In the U.K., one ad based upon a crude joke was aired in two adjoining
regions, but in one it aired on TV, while in the other it only appeared in
the cinema. The demographic profile of respondents was similar, but
those who saw it in the cinema enjoyed the ad more than those who
viewed it on TV — with 61 percent of the cinema viewers saying they
“enjoyed the humor” compared with 52 percent of the TV viewers.
SOME FORM OF HUMOR IS USED IN ALMOST HALF OF ALL TV
ADVERTISING, WHERE IT OFTEN CONTRIBUTES TO VERY EFFECTIVE
ADS. HUMOR CAN MAKE ADS MORE ENJOYABLE, INVOLVING,
AND MEMORABLE. HOWEVER, IF THE HUMOR DISTRACTS FROM
BRANDING AND COMMUNICATION, IT CAN IMPEDE THE AD’S
EFFECTIVENESS. IN ADDITION, PERCEPTIONS OF HUMOR ARE
DIFFERENT AROUND THE WORLD AND ACROSS DIFFERENT
AUDIENCES; THIS MAY LIMIT THE ABILITY OF A FUNNY AD TO BE
USED ACROSS MARKETS.
KNOWLEDGE
POINT
Share
DOESHUMORMAKE
ADSMOREEFFECTIVE?
Around half of all ads globally make use of humor
Ads with humor tend to be more impactful
38
44
33
33
44
38
66
69
48
47
55
59
Lowest
impact group
Highest
impact group
(Difference between % in Highest and Lowest impact groups)
% of ads with Humor in: Difference
Based on 238 Funny/Light-hearted TV ads: USA (Online)
The more humorous the ad, the more impactful it is likely to be
1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.5
Humor mean score
2.7 2.9 3.1 3.3
R = 0.51
3.5
2.5 3.5
Branding mean
4 4.5 53
A weak relationship between branding and humor
219 US ads r=0.28
Humormean
Humorous Ads Are Slightly Less Persuasive
Global percentiles
Persuasion
New information
Relevant
Believable
Huge difference in response between men and women
Enjoy watching
Involving
Distinctive
Interesting
Disturbing
Unpleasant
Irritating
Men Women Difference

24. Millward Brown experts are available to speak globally. Please contact:
PRODUCED BY
Miquet Humphryes, Katie Pearce, Alexandra Hill, Dede Fitch
Global Communications and Marketing
Mike Agee, Lisa Parente, Michael Almon, Amanda Bruhn
Global Brand Marketing
Dominic Twose
Knowledge Management
Millward Brown © 2013
Perspectives
North America - Jamie Jones
jamie.jones@millwardbrown.com
Global - Baljit Thandi
Baljit.Thandi@millwardbrown.com
www.millwardbrown.com