Driving Desirable Digital Behaviors with TV Advertising

December 6, 2010

Things are not always what they seem. Two TV ads score the same—in copy testing or in market—so they’re equally effective, right? Not always.

TV: Driver of Consumer Digital Experiences

TV ads don’t just deliver awareness, message recall, etc. They drive behaviors—some of which are digital–and good for your brand.

Cross Platform Ad Effectiveness

Marketers increasingly want to understand how advertising works across mediums—particularly TV and Digital. Some of the more frequent questions I hear from CMO’s are the following:

  • What’s the value of a Facebook fan?
  • What’s the role of search in the customer journey?
  • How I use the web to drive greater engagement with consumers?
  • How can I drive more word of mouth and buzz for my brand?

These are all great digital questions. And lots of people have tried to answer them with digitally focused analysis—some effectively, some not.

Building Brands & Online Buzz

Another Way to Think About TV Ad Effectiveness

Here’s a different tack:  what if we analyzed these questions, not from a digital only perspective, but from a TV advertising perspective? Or, to say it differently, what if we were to ask the question as follows:

“What role does TV advertising play in driving desirable digital behaviors?”

TV & Digital Viewing Behavior

This has been a tough question to answer. Who’s going to keep a diary of what they watch on TV and then the myriad of things they do on-line? The fact is that our understanding of TV and Digital viewing behavior has been mostly limited to knowing how many people did what.

Just as important is understanding not only what people are doing, but in what sequence. And after viewing what ads? New single source viewing data opens up new possibilities for understanding media behavior:  it’s now possible to observe (with viewers permission) both what they watch on TV and what they then do on-line.

Next Generation TV Ad Effectiveness

So, back to the opening question. Two TV ads score the same—in copy testing or in market—so they’re equally effective, right? The answer: not always. Why?

Here are 4 new ways that TV advertising can drive positive digital behaviors.

1.  Drive Consumers to Your Facebook Fan Page – Many brands have embraced Facebook and are building Fan pages as opposed to their own branded websites. They see the advantage of “social” currency and a key objective is building the number of Facebook fans.

TV advertising has a role to play here:  more effective ads can drive more consumers to your brands fan page than less effective (or no) ads. Seen in this light, TV can play an essential role in your digital plans–even when the messaging doesn’t explicitly have a call to web action.

Facebook Fan Pages & Brands

2.  Drive Consumers to Search for Your Brand – Companies across all industries have embraced search, even in CPG, and for good reason. It works. Of course, paid search costs real money. So, how to drive more organic search for your brand? Well, one way is with your TV advertising. What portion of consumers seeing your TV ad go on-line and search for your brand?

3.  Drive Consumers to Your Brand Web Site – Like Facebook Fan Pages, many brands have their own website to engage and deepen the relationship with consumers. Question: is your TV advertising driving consumers to your website? Which ads are more versus less effective in doing so?

4.  Drive Consumers to Talk About Your Brand – Research from Keller-Fay has shown that approximately 1/3 of word of mouth is about TV advertising. How effective is your TV ad at driving word of mouth? Are two TV ads which score equally well on traditional ad effectiveness metrics driving different conversation levels about your brand? If so, one is clearly more valuable than the other (assuming the conversations are positive).

Capital One Mascot Challenge: Driving Consumers to Website

Driving Desirable Digital Behaviors

All of the above represent new ways of thinking about TV ad effectiveness. Traditional measures of TV advertising performance around breakthrough and branding will continue to be important.

But increasingly, Marketers need to think about how TV advertising drives other behaviors—particularly digital ones—that benefit their brands.

Follow Randall Beard on Twitter

Get free updates of Randall Beard’s Blog by RSS reader

Get free updates of Randall Beard’s Blog by e-mail


Guest Post: Rude Awakening— Only 15% of Word of Mouth Marketing Campaigns Show Positive Results

October 18, 2010

This post is part of a continuing series of guest posts and was originally posted on MENG BLEND. Christopher S. Rollyson is founder of CSRA, Inc., Architect of The Social Network Roadmap(sm) & Managing Editor at the Global Human Capital Journal.

***********************************************

Word of mouth marketing is seen by many marketers as the economic engine of social business (or media) because people recommend products and services to each other: all marketers have to do is give them the right information to share and make it easy for them to recommend things, right? Wrong.

Rude Awakening— Only 15% of Word of Mouth Marketing Campaigns Show Positive Results

Or, in popular parlance, “It’s complicated.”

Here, I’ll identify some of the flawed concepts that underlie word of mouth marketing (WOMM), so you can avoid being part of its 85% casualty rate. I’ll show in general how you can tweak the idea and succeed with social business initiatives more often.

Word of Mouth Marketing Is Flawed

At Alterian’s user conference, Don Peppers shared this arresting statistic in his keynote:  only 15% of WOMM initiatives show positive ROI. Shocking—at least until you start thinking about it. Loosely speaking, WOM (sans “marketing”) happens when a trusted and relatively unbiased “friend” shares her experience with a product/service with someone close to her. “Someone like me” who isn’t tainted by sales commissions or quarterly revenue targets.

Marketing, on the other hand, is generally about creating need or driving sales. Do you see the problem?

In this context, WOM and marketing are mutually exclusive: the latter’s purpose is to serve the company by moving product; the former serves the person first. It’s a conflict of interest, and it will rarely work. Ever.

93% of Word of Mouth Is Offline

In a second data point, Keller Fay Group’s latest TalkTrack study revealed that the overwhelming majority of WOM (as defined by them) takes place offline and face to face (via e-consultancy and @stefanw), not online through social business. This is not surprising when you stop to think about what traditional WOM is, largely a conversation between family or close friends. Tight ties. However, neither of these references dives into WOM or WOMM deeply enough to understand why and how they can work or not.

WOM among Loose Ties

Digital communications significantly reduce the cost of many kinds of interaction, so WOM among loose ties will continue to grow. However, marketers should recognize that loose ties and tight ties have important differences because the motivations and level of trust are different.

Loose ties are not just inferior tight ties; people form loose ties for many reasons, but the online many-to-many environment enables people to manage their reputations and influence by leveraging the network effect. Tight tie relationships are limited in number, multidimensional and high investment.

How Marketers Can Succeed with Word of Mouth

Having led marketing for several firms, I can appreciate why marketers would love the concept of word of mouth marketing. Given that they are in conflict, it’s important to focus on WOM while avoiding WOMM. I’ll wager that the majority of the 85% of failures result from not understanding and honoring their differences. The good news is, WOM drives sales—when companies honor and nurture it. Here’s how:

  • First—and this is a leap of faith—accept that WOM serves the customer, not you. Trust that, if you don’t interfere, positive results will often result. There is no halfway here, intent and honesty are WOM’s key differentiators. Don Peppers shared Staples’ “Speak Easy” fiasco as a warning (“sponsored” tweets and bloggers are other traps). All companies say that they put the customer first, but many aren’t being honest with themselves or their customers.
  • Second, the company must put itself first to be congruent with itself as a business. It shouldn’t try to do WOM. But the company, acting in its self-interest, can support WOM. Marketers must safeguard these boundaries if they want to succeed because they form the foundation of trust among the three principal actors: company, friend and customer.
  • Third, accept that your products and services are not a great fit for most people. In a pervasive transparent network, the market will figure out what works and what doesn’t. Don’t try to “make markets” by convincing people to buy unless you have a valid value proposition for them. Focus on serving people for whom you have a superior value proposition. This is the key to thriving in a transparent environment.
  • Fourth, trust customers’ friends to engage with WOM—for their own motivations. Remember, they are there to serve their friend, not to move your product. WOM is their role, not yours. Campaigns like Staples’ fail because marketers don’t understand their role and unknowingly turn WOM into shilling. Sorry.

Remember Miracle on 34th Street? It was breakthrough to send customers to other stores when they had a better value proposition for the customer. It increased WOM because it surprised people and exceeded expectations. But it was Kris Kringle (a “friend”) who started it based on his personal integrity. Later Macy’s turned it into a tactic, but Kris never did.

Accepting WOM transparency is difficult because it requires significant culture change. Firms that don’t accept this new reality will fight and lose. The market will expose them in the end.

On the other hand, those that take this road will be more successful because they will be aligned with customers and their friends. Moreover, focusing on valid value propositions and customers will tend to lead the company to innovate more successfully.

Do you agree? Disagree? Please share your thoughts and insights in the comments…

***********************************************

Christopher S. Rollyson has been a marketing and technology pioneer for over twenty years. As a consultant and marketing executive, he has had a leading role in launching such game-changers as: Java with Sun Microsystems, e-business strategy with PricewaterhouseCoopers Management Consulting Services, and SOA, Web services and architecture solutions with nVISIA and IBM. He can be found on Twitter as @CSRollyson.

Follow Randall Beard on Twitter

Get free updates of Randall Beard’s Blog by RSS reader

Get free updates of Randall Beard’s Blog by e-mail