Quantitative research tested 3,000 people and six campaigns from automotive, FMCG and finance brands that used a combination of TV and online rich-media ads.
The aggregate score across all six campaigns was that the proportion of people stating they were likely to buy or use a brand in future was 40% for those who had seen ads in just one medium.
The proportion for those who had seen ads in both media was 61%, giving the combination an uplift of just over half over TV only/online only.
A reliable figure relating to people who just seen ads online could not be obtained because of the small numbers of those people, according to David Brennan, Thinkbox's research and strategy director. He said: "You're talking about 15 to 20 people."
The 40% single medium figure was obtained by merging figures for TV-only and online-only.
Brennan said the research showed media planners that online was best used as a complementary tool, targeting people who have already seen the TV ad rather than trying to extend the campaign's reach to people who have not seen it.
He added, providing a Honda campaign as an example, that it was desirable to have creative synergy between TV and online ads.
"What we've found with online being able to deliver rich media, audio visual, within display, the ads that perform best were the ones where the online had a very clear relationship to the TV advertising but did something different.
"So it's not just a question of using TV online, it's using the characters, the iconic images, the things that people will take from the TV advertising, but doing it in a way that perhaps adds a level of intrigue or something different."
Honda's recent "Problem playground" campaign was effective in this regard, with 50% of people who had seen TV and online ads likely to buy Honda in future compared to 30% of people who had seen TV only/online only.
The campaign, for which Wieden & Kennedy did the TV ads and digital agency Collective created online ads that asked people to solve puzzles, also attracted positive feedback in qualitative research according to Brennan.
Comments
I'm aware this comes from an organisation that is promoting advertising on TV, but I don't believe that on a base of 3000 only "15-20" people saw online only ads.
I'm not sure how old you audience is, but talk to 18-24 year olds in higher education. They're ditching broadcast for online based timeshift tools (iPlayer, 4OD, alluc and sidereel.com). This is backed up by the DES 2008 survey which claims that 18% of 20-24 year olds are watching less broadcast because of time-shifting sites.
Sorry, Ian (post below)...I disagree. 18-20% of 18-24 yr olds may SAY they are ditching broadcast...but even that says that 80% are NOT, and, as other research has shown, this demographic is watching as much TV as ever.
It's not an either/or re Online & broadcast. The youngsters multitask, .... their core attention, however, migrates primarily online when the ads are on; they see them in BOTH media.
And we ALL lie about our habits, anyway, don't we?
I am most probably one the very few, who do not consider online as an effective medium. I know that I am going to be blown out of the water on this, but here goes. Online is not what it is cracked up to be.
Sure mega bucks are being made by the likes of Google (at the moment) as the world and his wife rush to book and run online campaigns. But I have a feeling ... that ain't gona last!!
The "vietnam sydrome" is already starting to kick in, as surfers are more often than not becoming immune and alienated by ads blasted online. Here is a good example. the Institute of Direct Marketing ad on this page. interrupted my reading, it therefore annoyed me, untill I worked out how to switch the damn thing off. I am so annoyed by it, I will not click on it.
Now here's some reverse research for you, 95% of online Ads are switched off by the surfer, that's what the result will be when some one dares to put the question.( to about 250,000 individuals between the age of 18 and 48 "what do you do when you see an AD in screan, slap bang in the middle of some important text which you are attempting to read.
You can't beat good old fashioned, well designed, in your face Ads in the Press, and on TV. (where they should be!) The combination of Both Press, TV, Direct Mail, and On Street, produces the results......every time!
Results which are Measuarable, as determined by the improvement to the Bottom Line...Cash In The Bank! from Sales Generated and Made throughout the Campaign.
The research detailed within this editorial is not good, nor is it well founded research (the sample is not big enough) in fact it is neither here nor their..... it's a complete waste.
Mark Doherty
Come on people! It has always been the case that when consumers are exposed to multi-platform, mult-media ad that the recall goes through the roof - that is very basic stuff. where online really adds value is when the product or service has online link - ie asos.com sponsorship of America's Next Top Model - I can't buy that product while watching the programme but if I am exposed to the same ad online - I am prompted to click through and shop. If there is no online ad - I might still go to the bother or typing the url into my browser but there is no doubt of the power of the click through. Anything that breaks down barriers to entry will work and will see sales and cash in the bank. Ironcially Mark - online advertising is on of the only truely measurable formats in relation to how it affects sales and your bottom line. Press, outdoor, TV, Radio as all awareness builders - only online is traceable directly back to sales. Yes there are lots of different evaluation methods to measure level of success of other platforms but only online is truely and traceable.
It all boils down to placing your ad in front of the right audience. Obviously what the institute of direct marketing were promoting wasn't relevant for you this time Mark. If they had advertised themselves on telly you still wouldn't be interested. In Katrina's case. she saw an ad for something she liked/wanted and it promted her to take the next step to the purchase decision. It just so happens by the advert being online the journey to get the product she desired was a lot quicker than telly. I have recently moved from online to a tv role so can really see the benefits (and flaws) of both mediums. i agree with both Katrina and Mark. People are beconming more immune to online advertising, but in that very same sense, with Sky + and the like we are seeing less and less ads in our day-to-day viewing. Advertisers need to utilise both mediums to the best of their agencies abilities.
Have i had too many beers in the beautiful sunshine today or have i just read
"People who have seen ads on TV and online are significantly more likely to buy a product than those who have seen ads on just one of those media"
Please tell me this is a joke? Please tell me! Please
An interruptive experience is an interruptive experience; regardless of medium - obviously.
Finding a way to draw people in, to an engaging, immersive experience, that they want to become more involved in, or one that can delight in a brief moment - whether executed through one channel, or many, is surely the way for brands to communicate?
It's not exactly surprising that seeing something online and on TV is going to lead to more awareness/positivity than one channel alone is it? Bit of a non-event.
stunning research...keep up the work...I have also conducted my own research where i fed one mouse (Ken) one Big Mac meal a day and the other (boris) two Big Mac meals...beleive it or not Boris was fatter by the end of the week and sadly died of a coronary.
Comments
Ian Crocombe, LIDA - 07/05/2008
I'm aware this comes from an organisation that is promoting advertising on TV, but I don't believe that on a base of 3000 only "15-20" people saw online only ads. I'm not sure how old you audience is, but talk to 18-24 year olds in higher education. They're ditching broadcast for online based timeshift tools (iPlayer, 4OD, alluc and sidereel.com). This is backed up by the DES 2008 survey which claims that 18% of 20-24 year olds are watching less broadcast because of time-shifting sites.
Fred Perkins - 07/05/2008
Sorry, Ian (post below)...I disagree. 18-20% of 18-24 yr olds may SAY they are ditching broadcast...but even that says that 80% are NOT, and, as other research has shown, this demographic is watching as much TV as ever. It's not an either/or re Online & broadcast. The youngsters multitask, .... their core attention, however, migrates primarily online when the ads are on; they see them in BOTH media. And we ALL lie about our habits, anyway, don't we?
Mark Doherty - 07/05/2008
I am most probably one the very few, who do not consider online as an effective medium. I know that I am going to be blown out of the water on this, but here goes. Online is not what it is cracked up to be. Sure mega bucks are being made by the likes of Google (at the moment) as the world and his wife rush to book and run online campaigns. But I have a feeling ... that ain't gona last!! The "vietnam sydrome" is already starting to kick in, as surfers are more often than not becoming immune and alienated by ads blasted online. Here is a good example. the Institute of Direct Marketing ad on this page. interrupted my reading, it therefore annoyed me, untill I worked out how to switch the damn thing off. I am so annoyed by it, I will not click on it. Now here's some reverse research for you, 95% of online Ads are switched off by the surfer, that's what the result will be when some one dares to put the question.( to about 250,000 individuals between the age of 18 and 48 "what do you do when you see an AD in screan, slap bang in the middle of some important text which you are attempting to read. You can't beat good old fashioned, well designed, in your face Ads in the Press, and on TV. (where they should be!) The combination of Both Press, TV, Direct Mail, and On Street, produces the results......every time! Results which are Measuarable, as determined by the improvement to the Bottom Line...Cash In The Bank! from Sales Generated and Made throughout the Campaign. The research detailed within this editorial is not good, nor is it well founded research (the sample is not big enough) in fact it is neither here nor their..... it's a complete waste. Mark Doherty
Katrina Doran - 07/05/2008
Come on people! It has always been the case that when consumers are exposed to multi-platform, mult-media ad that the recall goes through the roof - that is very basic stuff. where online really adds value is when the product or service has online link - ie asos.com sponsorship of America's Next Top Model - I can't buy that product while watching the programme but if I am exposed to the same ad online - I am prompted to click through and shop. If there is no online ad - I might still go to the bother or typing the url into my browser but there is no doubt of the power of the click through. Anything that breaks down barriers to entry will work and will see sales and cash in the bank. Ironcially Mark - online advertising is on of the only truely measurable formats in relation to how it affects sales and your bottom line. Press, outdoor, TV, Radio as all awareness builders - only online is traceable directly back to sales. Yes there are lots of different evaluation methods to measure level of success of other platforms but only online is truely and traceable.
pixie x - 07/05/2008
It all boils down to placing your ad in front of the right audience. Obviously what the institute of direct marketing were promoting wasn't relevant for you this time Mark. If they had advertised themselves on telly you still wouldn't be interested. In Katrina's case. she saw an ad for something she liked/wanted and it promted her to take the next step to the purchase decision. It just so happens by the advert being online the journey to get the product she desired was a lot quicker than telly. I have recently moved from online to a tv role so can really see the benefits (and flaws) of both mediums. i agree with both Katrina and Mark. People are beconming more immune to online advertising, but in that very same sense, with Sky + and the like we are seeing less and less ads in our day-to-day viewing. Advertisers need to utilise both mediums to the best of their agencies abilities.
Steve Mulholland - 07/05/2008
Have i had too many beers in the beautiful sunshine today or have i just read "People who have seen ads on TV and online are significantly more likely to buy a product than those who have seen ads on just one of those media" Please tell me this is a joke? Please tell me! Please
seth campbell - 08/05/2008
An interruptive experience is an interruptive experience; regardless of medium - obviously. Finding a way to draw people in, to an engaging, immersive experience, that they want to become more involved in, or one that can delight in a brief moment - whether executed through one channel, or many, is surely the way for brands to communicate? It's not exactly surprising that seeing something online and on TV is going to lead to more awareness/positivity than one channel alone is it? Bit of a non-event.
Eddie Bongo - 09/05/2008
stunning research...keep up the work...I have also conducted my own research where i fed one mouse (Ken) one Big Mac meal a day and the other (boris) two Big Mac meals...beleive it or not Boris was fatter by the end of the week and sadly died of a coronary.