- Stated recall and OTS shared similar end results for campaign KPIs, including significance and overall lift.
- Significant levels of stated recognition within control in Passive and OTS methods were observed.
- “Ghost” recognition exists in stated measures. That amount was consistent regardless of stimulus.
(Intel has been using the same spokesperson, Jim Parsons, for a while and this might have impacted measurement.)
- At this time, stated measurement, with the addition of an efficiency metric, provides the best overall measure of campaign, cross media impact and campaign efficiency.
- Intel is using cost per person impacted (CPPI) to gauge campaign efficiency across channels and campaigns.
Intel’s plans moving forward:
- Use passive measurement for digital only campaigns that need in-flight optimization, or to answer questions that cannot be answered by stated recall.
- OTS for certain offline media e.g. TV or OOH which limits its application if used alone.
- Stated awareness for most campaigns. Add CPPI to provide comparable efficiency measures.
- There is no single best method for campaign measurement. There are pros and cons to each approach. Speed and granularity differ for various measurement methods.
- Data contamination is a problem.
- “How are we doing and are we doing better?” are the questions asked by Intel’s management. To measure efficiency, Intel began using cost per person impacted (CPPI) in order to answer these questions and to show lift in KPI, stated recognition as well as CPPI. CPPI allows comparisons between channels and between campaigns. CPPI can also be used for optimization purposes.
Presented at AUDIENCExSCIENCE, June 12-13, 2018