Assessing Ad Impact:
How TV, Online and Magazines Contribute
Throughout the Purchase Funnel
OVERVIEW
Dynamic Logic, a company specializing in advertising accountability research, recently updated their
database of client-commissioned CrossMedia Research™ accountability studies. The new aggregation,
which contains 39 studies, continues their work on how television, magazine and online advertising
combine to impact the attitudes and intended behavior of consumers as they go through five identified
stages of the buying process, i.e., the purchase funnel.
For the first time, Dynamic Logic went beyond analyzing advertising effects for these three media and
looked at the cost of generating results for each medium individually as well as in combination with others,
expressed as return on investment (ROI). Looking at consumers reached by each medium they found:
• Overall, magazine advertising drove consumer attitudes and intended behavior
more effectively and efficiently than viewing television advertising alone or TV in
combination with online advertising.
• Across the 39 studies, adding magazines to TV and online had the greatest impact
on consumer attitudes and intended behavior in three out of five stages: aided brand
awareness at the top of the purchase funnel, and brand favorability and purchase consideration/
intent at the key conversion and action stages at the bottom of the funnel. For ad awareness,
magazines and TV virtually tied in their contribution.
— For the consumer packaged goods category (17 studies), magazines when added to TV
and online were also the largest contributor in three out of five stages: ad awareness,
brand favorability and purchase consideration/intent.
— For the non-packaged goods category (22 studies), as with overall results, magazines
when added to TV and online were the largest contributor for aided brand awareness,
brand favorability, and purchase consideration/intent.
• Magazines were the most cost effective medium throughout the purchase funnel,
looking at two related measures of ROI — cost per person and people impacted
per dollar spent — from ten CrossMedia Research™ studies for which ROI was available:
— Based on cost per person, magazines were the most efficient medium in three out of five
stages of the purchase funnel. The combination of magazines and online was most efficient
for the remaining two stages
— Based on people impacted per dollar spent, magazines were the most efficient medium in
four out of five stages of the purchase funnel. TV + magazines + online was most efficient
for the one remaining stage.
Dynamic Logic’s findings reinforce previous learning:
• The findings on effectiveness are consistent with those from their two most recent aggregations
• The findings on efficiency are consistent with those from Marketing Evolution’s aggregation
of 38 advertiser-commissioned cross-media accountability studies in which magazines were the
most efficient medium for brand familiarity and purchase intent.
www.magazine.org /accountability
According to Dr. William Havlena of Dynamic Logic, “Findings from this latest CrossMedia Research™
analysis showed that magazine advertising performed strongly and was cost effective throughout all
stages of the purchase funnel. We consistently see that exposure to magazine advertising is a powerful
driver of brand familiarity and purchase consideration/intent when added to TV and online.”
OVERALL FINDINGS
Overall, magazines drove consumer behavior more effectively and efficiently than
television or online among consumers who were reached by each medium.
• For effectiveness, magazines were the most consistent performer across all three media,
contributing significant lift overall and at each stage of the purchase funnel despite the challenge
of being the last medium for which incremental effects were calculated
• This held true for the consumer packaged goods category as well as non-packaged goods
• Magazines were the most efficient medium at driving consumer behavior, both individually as
well as in combination with other media
PERFORMANCE ACROSS THE PURCHASE FUNNEL
Through all stages of the purchase funnel magazines performed most consistently with significant lift
at each of the five stages. Among consumers with opportunity to see all three media:
• Magazines were the only medium to contribute one-third or more to the total point
change at every stage of the purchase funnel
• Television contributed 33% or more to the total point change for ad awareness and message
association across the 39 studies
• Online contributed 33% or more to the total point change for aided brand awareness
and ad awareness.
A
2
•B
7.5
}
7.8
7.7
+12.9
4.7
•B
4.2
3.7
3.6
2.9
3.6
2.5
1.9
% > 28
36
3
}
}
Point Difference >
4.6
6.7
6.5
+10.8
A
+11.9
+10.9
}
}
+23.0
36
Aided Brand
Awareness
34
33
33
Ad
Awareness
39
27
34
Message
Association
23
17
1.6
60
Brand
Favorability
30
13
56
M
Purchase
Consideration/Intent
3
• TV only • Incremental Impact of Online to TV • Incremental Impact of Magazines to TV + Online
•
Base = 39 Studies. Source: Dynamic Logic 2009.
B
B
2
2
•
B
www.magazine.org /accountability
AIDED BRAND AWARENESS
Aided brand awareness measures the level of familiarity consumers have with the brand when prompted
by visual or verbal clues. As a top-of-funnel measurement, brand awareness does not necessarily
indicate that consumers have a favorable opinion about the brand or that the consumer intends to buy
the brand. Brand awareness indicates that the advertising campaign made the brand more top-of-mind
(or memorable) for consumers.
Magazines led in increasing awareness of the brand with online nearly tying.
Looking at the total increase in aided brand awareness across all three media, magazines and online
advertising each contributed more than one-third of the total point change (36%), while TV contributed
only 28% of the overall increase.
Aided Brand Awareness (point difference)
3.6
28%
4.6
36%
4.7
+12.9
36%
•BaseTV=only
• Incremental Impact of Online to TV • Incremental Impact of Magazines to TV + Online
39 Studies. Source: Dynamic Logic 2009.
AD AWARENESS
Ad awareness
measures
the percentage of consumers who report “seeing or hearing an advertisement
Ad Awareness
(point difference)
for theAided
brand.”
While
ad
awareness
does not measure the persuasiveness or effectiveness of the
Brand Awareness
7.8(point difference)
7.5
7.7 +23.0
advertisement, this metric is used as a measure to determine if the advertising is being noticed.
34%
3.6
4.633%
4.7
+12.9
33%
The
incremental
contribution
of television,
magazines
of Online36%
to TV • Incremental
Impact of Magazines
to TV + Online and online
28%
36% Impact
• TV only
• Incremental
Base = 39 Studies. Source: Dynamic Logic 2009.
only • Incremental
Impact of Online to TVwas
Impact
of Magazines to TV + Online
to
ad awareness
almost
equal.
• TVbuilding
• Incremental
Base = 39 Studies. Source: Dynamic Logic 2009.
Looking at the total increase in ad awareness across all three media, each of the three media performed
similarly (about 33% each) in increasing ad awareness.
Ad Awareness (point difference)
Aided Brand
Awareness
(point
difference)
Message
Association
(point
difference)
34%
28%
39%
TV only
•
•
3.64.2
•
•
36%
27%
7.8
2.9 4.6
3.7
33%
34%36%
Incremental Impact of Online to TV
TV
Incremental
of
Online
to
TV only
only
Incremental
Impact
ofLogic
Online2009.
to TV
TV
Base
=
39 Studies.
Source: Impact
Dynamic
Base
Base =
= 39
39 Studies.
Studies. Source:
Source: Dynamic
Dynamic Logic
Logic 2009.
2009.
4.7
+10.8
7.5
+12.9
7.7
+23.0
33%
•
•
Incremental Impact of Magazines to TV + Online
Incremental
Incremental Impact
Impact of
of Magazines
Magazines to
to TV
TV +
+ Online
Online
MESSAGE ASSOCIATION
Message association measures the extent to which respondents can match the message and/or
Ad Awareness
(point difference)
concepts
in the advertising
creative to the brand. Consumers must associate a message with a brand if
Message
(point
difference)
7.8
7.5
7.7 +23.0
Brand
Favorability
(point
difference)
that message
isAssociation
to influence
their
attitudes and behavior
toward the brand.
34%
4.2
2.9
33%
3.7
+10.8
33%
2.5
1.9
6.5 +10.9
point change for message association
TV showed
the biggest percentage
TV
only
Incremental
Impact
of
Online
to
TV
• magazines
•17% 27%
• Incremental Impact of Magazines to TV + Online
39%
34%
23%
60%
with
a
close
second.
Base = 39 Studies. Source: Dynamic Logic 2009.
• TV only • Incremental Impact of Online to TV • Incremental Impact of Magazines to TV + Online
Base = 39 Studies. Source: Dynamic Logic 2009.
Looking
at the total increase in message association across all three media, TV and magazines were
most likely to produce positive message associations (39% of total point change and 34% respectively),
while online contributed only 27% of the total.
Purchase Consideration/Intent (point difference)
1.6
Message3.6
Association
(point difference)
Brand Favorability (point difference)
30%
4.213% 56%
2.9
3.7
6.7
+11.9
+10.8
2.5 Incremental
+10.9 Impact of Magazines to TV + Online
Online to TV 6.5
•BaseTV=only
• 1.927%Impact of34%
• Incremental
39%
39 Studies. Source: Dynamic Logic 2009.
23%
17% 60%
Impact of Online to TV • Incremental Impact of Magazines to TV + Online
• TVTVonly
• Incremental
Impact of
Online
to TV • Incremental Impact of Magazines to TV + Online
Base
39 Studies.
Source: Dynamic
Logic
2009.
• = only
• Incremental
Base = 39 Studies. Source: Dynamic Logic 2009.
3
Base = 39 Studies. Source: Dynamic Logic 2009.
Aided Brand Awareness (point difference)
3.6
www.magazine.org /accountability
4.6
36%
28%
4.7
+12.9
36%
BRAND
• FAVORABILITY
•
•
Brand favorability measures the extent to which consumers have a favorable opinion of the brand.
4.2
3.7 +10.8
A positive attitude
toward2.9a brand contributes
to purchase consideration and purchase intent.
TV only
Incremental Impact of Online to TV
Incremental Impact of Magazines to TV + Online
Message
Association
(point
Base
= 39 Studies.
Source: Dynamic
Logicdifference)
2009.
39%
27%
34%
Magazines
held
a significant
lead in
generating
favorability
only • Incremental
Impact
of Online to TV • Incremental
Impact
of Magazines to TVbrand
+ Online
•Base
AdTVAwareness
(point difference)
= 39 Studies. Source: Dynamic Logic 2009.
compared
to either TV or online.
7.8
7.5
7.7
+23.0
Looking
at the total increase in33%
brand favorability across
34%
33% all three media, magazine advertising contributed
60% of
the
total
point
change,
which
was
about
three
times
more
to TV +
Online than ads on TV (23%) or online (17%).
• TV only • Incremental Impact of Online to TV • Incremental Impact of Magazines
Base = 39 Studies. Source: Dynamic Logic 2009.
Brand Favorability (point difference)
2.5
23%
1.9
17%
6.5
+10.9
60%
• TV only • Incremental Impact of Online to TV • Incremental Impact of Magazines to TV + Online
Base = 39 Studies. Source: Dynamic Logic 2009.
Message Association (point difference)
4.2
2.9
3.7
+10.8
PURCHASE
CONSIDERATION/INTENT
39%
27%
34%
Purchase
Consideration/Intent
(point difference)
Purchase
consideration/intent
istothe
stage
ofImpact
the ofpurchase
funnel
Impact of Online
TV •
Incremental
Magazines to TV
+ Online most closely associated with a
• TV only
•3.6Incremental
1.6
6.7 +11.9
Base = 39 Studies. Source: Dynamic Logic 2009.
consumer’s
likelihood to take action. The consumer is asked to indicate how likely he or she is to
30%
13% 56%
consider purchasing the brand (usually employed for big ticket items such as automobiles) or how
TV only • Incremental Impact of Online to TV • Incremental Impact of Magazines to TV + Online
•
likely he
isSource:
to actually
purchase
the brand (for small ticket items such as consumer packaged
Baseor
= 39she
Studies.
Dynamic Logic
2009.
goods). Purchase consideration/intent is the most common advertising objective for brands.
Brand Favorability (point difference)
Magazines
significantly outperformed other media in driving
2.5 shifts
1.9
+10.9
consideration/intent.
positive
in purchase 6.5
23%
17%
60%
LookingTVatonlythe total
increase
in purchase consideration/intent across all three media, magazines
Impact of Online to TV • Incremental Impact of Magazines to TV + Online
•
• Incremental
Base = 39 Studies.
2009.of the total point change — almost double that of TV (30%) and
contributed
moreSource:
thanDynamic
half Logic
(56%)
more than four times that of online (13%).
Purchase Consideration/Intent (point difference)
3.6
30%
•
1.6
6.7
+11.9
13% 56%
•
TV only
Incremental Impact of Online to TV
Base = 39 Studies. Source: Dynamic Logic 2009.
• Incremental Impact of Magazines to TV + Online
4
www.magazine.org /accountability
CPG VS. NON-CPG FINDINGS
For the consumer packaged goods category (17 studies), magazines were the largest contributor in three
out of five stages: ad awareness, brand favorability and purchase consideration/intent.
• Magazines contributed one-third or more at four of the five stages: ad awareness, message
association, and especially in brand favorability and purchase consideration/intent
• Television contributed 33% or more at three of the five stages: aided brand awareness,
ad awareness and message association
• Online contributed 33% or more at only one stage — ad awareness
+13.4
8.0
7.8
8.2
Point Difference >
7.7
}
5.7
%>
+14.2
+13.3
}
+14.4
8.5
}
}
}
+24.0
5.6
4.3
4.8
4.4
3.4
3.0
2.9
3.1
1.9
40
30
30
Aided Brand
Awareness
33
33
34
Ad
Awareness
42
22
36
Message
Association
22
14
63
Brand
Favorability
24
22
54
Purchase
Consideration/Intent
• TV only • Incremental Impact of Online to TV • Incremental Impact of Magazines to TV + Online
Base = 17 Studies. Source: Dynamic Logic 2009.
For the non-packaged goods category (22 studies), as with overall results, magazines were the largest
contributor for aided brand awareness, brand favorability, and purchase consideration/intent.
• Magazines contributed 33% or more at four of the five stages: aided brand
awareness, ad awareness, and with significant impact in brand favorability and
purchase consideration/intent
• Television contributed 33% or more at three of the five stages: ad awareness, message
association and purchase consideration/intent
• Online contributed 33% or more at two of the five stages: aided brand awareness
and ad awareness
}
+22.1
+10.1
7.3
7.2
+9.1
}
}
+8.7
5.0
3.1
2.4
2.8
6.0
5.1
}
Point Difference >
4.7
}
7.6
+12.1
3.7
2.8
2.1
1.9
23
21
0.4
% > 20
39
41
Aided Brand
Awareness
34
33
33
Ad
Awareness
36
32
32
Message
Association
56
Brand
Favorability
37
4
59
Purchase
Consideration/Intent
• TV only • Incremental Impact of Online to TV • Incremental Impact of Magazines to TV + Online
Base = 22 Studies. Source: Dynamic Logic 2009.
5
www.magazine.org /accountability
EFFICIENCY (ROI)
Efficiency (ROI) measures the relative cost of each medium in producing results, considering budget
along with effects. ROI allows clients to assess whether it might be more cost effective to reallocate
budgets to different media based on their ability to generate results at a low cost.
Based on Dynamic Logic’s methodology (see page 8), magazines were the most cost effective medium
throughout the purchase funnel, looking at two measures of ROI: cost per person and people impacted
per dollar spent. Both metrics are based on a subset of ten studies for which ROI is available.
COST PER PERSON
• Magazines alone were the most efficient medium in three out of five stages of the
purchase funnel: aided brand awareness, ad awareness and purchase consideration/intent
• Magazines ranked as the second most efficient for brand favorability
• Online ranked as the second most efficient for message association
• The most efficient combination of media always included magazines:
— The combination of magazines and online was most efficient for two of the five stages:
message association and brand favorability
— The combination of magazines + online ranked as the second most efficient for two stages:
aided brand awareness and ad awareness
— The combination of TV + magazines ranked as the second most efficient for purchase
consideration/intent.
tv only
online only
magazine
only
tv
+ online
tv
+ magazine
magazine
+ online
tv + online
+ magazine
Aided Brand Awareness
Ad Awareness
Message Association
Brand Favorability
Purchase Consideration/Intent
Denotes most cost-effective medium for metric
Denotes second most cost-effective medium for metric
PEOPLE IMPACTED PER DOLLAR SPENT
• Magazines alone were the most efficient medium in four out of five stages of the
purchase funnel: aided brand awareness, ad awareness, brand favorability and purchase
consideration/intent
• TV + magazines + online was most efficient for message association
tv only
online only
magazine
only
tv
+ online
tv
+ magazine
magazine
+ online
tv + online
+ magazine
Aided Brand Awareness
0.8
0.5*
2.3
0.6
0.8
1.2*
0.8
Ad Awareness
0.5
0.4*
3.4
0.6
0.8
1.1*
1.0
Message Association
0.2
0.2*
0.2
0.2
0.2
1.0*
0.5
Brand Favorability
0.2
**
1.9
0.1
0.5
1.1*
0.6
Purchase Consideration/Intent
0.8
0.3*
4.8
0.3
1.2
1.3*
0.8
*
**
Denotes most cost-effective medium for metric
Denotes fewer than 6 studies for this metric/media combination
No positive impact on Brand Favorability for Online Only
6
www.magazine.org /accountability
BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY
Marketers, agencies and media commission Dynamic Logic to study advertising campaigns in order
to learn how each medium in the mix plays a distinctive role at different points in the purchase process
for ad effectiveness. Clients also ask Dynamic Logic to study return on investment (ROI) in some cases.
CrossMedia Research™ surveys are conducted online by asking respondents about their media habits
and attitudes toward advertising for a specific campaign. Dynamic Logic then tracks how opportunity
to see (OTS) advertising in each medium affects advertising’s impact at various stages of the purchase
process from brand awareness to purchase consideration/intent, using a proprietary methodology.
Periodically, Dynamic Logic aggregates studies across their database to provide a benchmark. This paper
looks at their most recent aggregation of 39 studies that contain sufficient data from television, magazines and
online for analysis. These studies span 2004 to 2009 and include ten studies for which ROI data were available.
MEDIA EXPOSURE
Dynamic Logic’s CrossMedia Research™ studies identify groups based on media exposure:
• A control group which was not exposed to advertising
• Groups that had the opportunity to see the advertising because they were exposed to media
in which the ads ran.
For each medium the following criteria were used to determine OTS:
• Dynamic Logic evaluated TV OTS by asking questions on overall TV consumption, daypart
viewing, and program/network viewing
• Magazine OTS was assessed by asking if respondents had read issues of magazines in which
advertising from the campaign being studied appeared
• Online exposure opportunities, which included banner ads and rich media but did not include
search, were determined by the presence of advertising electronic tracking data via cookies, which
indicated that a visit to a specific website occurred and that campaign advertising was served.
Each respondent cell is unique, for example:
• TV-only consumers are exposed only to TV
• TV and online respondents are exposed only to television and online
• TV, magazine and online respondents are exposed to all three media.
MEASURING ADVERTISING EFFECTIVENESS
At each stage of the purchase funnel Dynamic Logic determined effectiveness by calculating the percent of
consumers whose behavior or attitude shifted as a result of being exposed to the medium or combination
of media in which the ads ran. In other words, this percent change by medium was incremental to either
the control group or to a prior media combination, as follows:
• The initial gain in impact was assessed by starting with the contribution of television
relative to the control group, since TV was the dominant element in most advertising campaigns
in the database
• Then the incremental effect of online was added to TV
• Finally, Dynamic Logic calculated the incremental effect of magazines on top of the combination
of TV and online.
7
www.magazine.org /accountability
For this analysis Dynamic Logic also looked at the incremental effect of adding magazines to television
before adding the incremental effect of online to the television and magazine combination. Magazines gained
slightly due to the ordering of media. In general, a medium produces a larger incremental lift when its effect
is measured earlier in the process.
}
+23.0
10.8
}
+11.9
7.0
}
+12.9
}
+10.8
Point Difference >
5.4
4.4
3.6
8.4
}
+10.9
7.8
4.2
3.9
3.4
3.6
3.2
2.5
1.4
% > 28
30
42
34
19
47
39
31
30
23
13
64
30
0
70
-0.1
Aided Brand
Awareness
Ad
Awareness
Message
Association
Brand
Favorability
Purchase
Consideration/Intent
• TV only • Incremental Impact of Online to TV + Magazines • Incremental Impact of Magazines to TV
Base = 39 Studies. Source: Dynamic Logic 2009.
ROI ANALYSIS
Based on media spend, media reach, and campaign effectiveness, a return on spend was calculated
for each medium and media combination included in the CrossMedia Research™ analysis. Dynamic
Logic determined efficiency for each study separately and then averaged the findings for each stage of
the purchase funnel. Specific results based on at least six studies are considered reliable. For stages
with less than six studies, the numbers are shown with an asterisk indicating they should be used
for directional purposes only.
Dynamic Logic looked at two measures of ROI using a subset of ten ad campaigns for which media
spend data submitted by the client were available: cost per person and people impacted per dollar spent.
The following formulas were used in calculating the efficiency metrics:
For Cost Per Person:
For People Impacted Per Dollar Spent:
Cost
Reach x Incremental Effect
Reach x Incremental Effect
Cost
In some instances a medium had no impact on results, resulting in zero contribution. Because a number
cannot be divided by zero, these effects skewed the outcome for Cost Per Person (in which effects were
included in the denominator). Therefore, Dynamic Logic released only the rank order of the two most
efficient media and media combinations to avoid incorrect conclusions about the data.
For additional information on advertising accountability go to www.magazine.org/accountability.
To see Dynamic Logic’s report, go to www.dynamiclogic.com/na/research/whitepapers/2009CrossMediaAggregate.
© Copyright, Magazine Publishers of America, October, 2009