Interactive Advertising Bureau / Dynamic Logic Ad Unit Effectiveness Study

Transcription

1 Interactive Advertising Bureau / Dynamic Logic Ad Unit Effectiveness Study Research conducted by Dynamic Logic on behalf of The IAB March - June 2001 Contacts: Interactive Advertising Bureau: Robin Webster, President & CEO Interactive Advertising Bureau rwebster@iab.net (917) Rex Briggs, IAB Research Committee rbriggs@iab.net (415) PR Contact: Stu Ginsburg sginsburg@iab.net (917) Dynamic Logic: Molly Hislop, Director of Research & Development, Dynamic Logic molly@dynamiclogic.com (212) Jeffrey Graham, Director of Client Services Dynamic Logic jgraham@dynamiclogic.com (212) PR Contact: Michelle Robertson mrobertson@mww.com (212)

2 Table of Contents Introduction Background Study Design.. 6 Methodology... 7 Executive Summary..8 Overall Results: Brand Awareness and Message Association.. 9 Overall Results: Favorability and Purchase Intent Case Study 1 Genuity Case Study 2 Vaniqa Case Study 3 ubid Glossary Appendix: AdIndex Methodology

3 Introduction The purpose of advertising, a word that is based on the Latin term advertere meaning turn forward, is to orient consumers towards the purchase of products. 1 The premise of advertising is that changing a consumer s attitudes is a necessary prerequisite for stimulating purchase behavior. Even the most effective advertising does not instantly cause consumers to purchase a product. Rather, good advertising causes incremental shifts in a consumer s thinking, creating awareness, fostering association between the product and certain messages or qualities, and finally creating intent to purchase 2. Measuring the ability to affect these attitudes provides us with brand metrics, which are the basis for evaluating advertising success. Numerous studies have linked attitudinal metrics such as brand awareness and brand image with market share. Over a ten-year period, car rental company Avis found a positive relationship between certain brand metrics and share of market. 3 Similarly, Taster s Choice Coffee found that its transformation into a market leader was partly based on the strength of a popular advertising campaign. 4 Simply put, it is necessary to make consumers aware of a product, and to ensure they care about it, before they can ever make the decision to purchase it. This fundamental marketing principle has sometimes been forgotten in the clickthrough -oriented world of Internet advertising. The findings of the confirm online advertising s ability to foster brand attitudes among consumers. In addition, the data show that creative innovation, in this case the new, larger sized ad units, can extend online advertising s branding power. 1 C.J. Dirkson and A. Kroeger, Advertising Principles, Problems and Cases, Homewood, IL: Irwin, J.R. Rossiter and L. Percy, Advertising Communications and Promotions Management, Boston: McGraw Hill, P. Georgiou and S. Miller. 10 Years of Tracking in the Rent-A-Car Business. Advertising Research Foundation, L. Rickard, Taster s Choice Rolls Love Potion Number 9, Advertising Age, March 28, 1994, p

4 Clearly, large units themselves do not guarantee an effective online advertising campaign. There are many factors that contribute to a campaign s success. Online advertising needs to provide a relevant message to the right audience, in a manner that is not only noticeable, but also consistent with good user experience. 5 A well-placed banner in a high-value area of a site might have more of an impact on consumers than a large unit in an area that gets little attention. The results of this study are reported primarily as case studies because of the inherent and unavoidable differences among online advertising campaigns. The results of the Coca-Cola campaign, for example, with a very high baseline awareness level, are not directly comparable to those of ubid, a less established, dot-com brand. Among other factors, differences in the quality of ad creative, the degree of consideration for the product category, the audiences of campaign web sites, placement of creative, and coincidence with offline marketing efforts, all can affect the brand metrics of online advertising campaigns. Nonetheless, the study found that the larger format sizes, which are naturally more visible and provide for more creative freedom, did prove to be significantly more effective than smaller, standard banners across all campaigns. These units might develop even more of an edge in the future, since their size accommodates more interactivity and technological flexibility. In the end, the results of the study should provide solid evidence for the branding power of the Internet and provide support for continued investment in extending creative innovation and development. 5 J. Graham, The Two R s of Online Advertising, ClickZ ( December 6,

5 Background Since 1996, when the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) issued voluntary banner size guidelines for the online advertising industry, the branding effectiveness of online advertising had been repeatedly proven. Studies published by independent research companies have established banner advertising s ability to improve consumers perceptions of brands and increase their intent to purchase products. On February 26, 2001, the IAB issued a new wave of voluntary guidelines to add to its roster of existing banner sizes. The new units, which include two vertical and five rectangle sizes, are designed to expand interactivity and flexibility for online marketers. With the branding effectiveness of standard banners firmly established, in the spring of 2001 the IAB commissioned Dynamic Logic, an independent research company, to explore the branding impact of the new larger units. Dynamic Logic designed a study to compare the relative branding effectiveness of the standard banner, Large Rectangle, and vertical Skyscraper banners units. Working in consultation with the IAB Research Committee, Dynamic Logic partnered with four web site publishers and four advertisers to take part in the study. The study participants were as follows: Publisher /Advertiser CNET Networks, Inc. / Genuity iwon / Vaniqa (Bristol-Myers Squibb) MSN / ubid Snowball / Coke A total of 8,750 respondents were recruited from April 26, 2001 until June 11, This report provides the findings of the study. Please note: Coca-Cola's specific results are not released but are in the aggregate findings

6 Study Design Since the purpose of the study was to isolate the relative impact of three different ad unit sizes, the three ad units were tested across four different campaigns running on four different web sites. Additionally, each ad unit was tested against a campaign control group to provide comparison of each ad format against a baseline. Other controls include limiting the frequency of the exposure to one and the duration of time between exposure and survey (recency) to less than one hour. The following schematic illustrates the design of the study: CNET Genuity iwon Vaniqa MSN ubid Snowball Coke 468X60 Banner Skyscraper Large Rectangle Control Control Control Control Since the ad format size guidelines are new, some flexibility was given to publisher partners as to the size of the ads used for the study. Skyscraper sizes included 120X600 and 160X600 pixels, and Large Rectangle units included 240x400, 336x280, 360x300 and 300X250 pixels. Banners were all 468x60. NOTE: Each campaign is reported in this document as a case study. It should be noted that since each campaign had different branding objectives, and each brand had different branding baselines (as well as numerous other variables). This study should not be interpreted as a comparison of the study s participating web sites

7 Methodology The Dynamic Logic AdIndex methodology is based on a classic test versus control inmarket design. Dynamic Logic's patent-pending approach enables the testing of actual ads in a live environment, as opposed to a simulated environment or "forced exposure." In order to measure the effectiveness of online advertising on how people think or feel, the AdIndex methodology combines ad exposure data with online survey data. By using proprietary code, Dynamic Logic can randomly recruit respondents from web sites and, based on actual exposure history, assign them to the appropriate control/test cell for comparison. The data is gathered through an online survey that is customized to the brand advertised. The metrics are gathered in a "blind" manner - that is respondents are asked about their perception of the advertiser s brand along with several other brands. This reduces any potential bias in the results. The metrics included in the research are: o Brand Awareness o Brand Favorability o Message Association o Purchase Intent o Ad Recognition / Recall Respondents are offered the incentive of a 1 in 100 chance of winning $100. Statistical significance is determined through a one-tailed hypothesis test for the difference between two population proportions. The confidence level assigned for statistical significance for this study is 90%. NOTE: In order to isolate the impact of ad unit size from other variables such as exposure frequency (seeing one ad unit more than once) and unit blending (seeing different ad units in combination), it was necessary to isolate the exposure to only one ad unit format per respondent in the case studies. It should be noted that Dynamic Logic has found that multiple exposures to campaign creative does increase branding effectiveness. In future studies, Dynamic Logic will look at the relative value of frequency and different ad unit formats

8 Executive Summary (1) The IAB / Dynamic Logic Ad Unit Effectiveness Study found: The study confirms the branding effectiveness of banners. The 468X60 banner produced significant increases in certain brand metrics for all four campaigns. The new unit sizes (Skyscraper and Large Rectangle) were more 3-6 times as effective than standard banners in increasing Brand Awareness and Message Association. The campaigns were most effective in increasing Brand Awareness and Message Association (ability to link a message to a brand). Purchase Intent and Brand Favorability were not generally increased by one ad exposure although there were significant increases in Purchase Intent in two campaigns. While not the focus of the study, the study found that higher exposure levels (more than one) did significantly increase Purchase Intent and Brand Favorability in the aggregated data. All three unit sizes were effective in increasing Brand Awareness in at least one campaign, with statistical significance. The Skyscraper unit was most effective, followed by the Large Rectangle and then the standard banner. The larger formats were effective in significantly increasing Message Association in multiple campaigns. The Large Rectangle was most effective, followed by the Skyscraper. Individual case studies are reported on pages

9 Executive Summary (2): Overall Results Brand Awareness and Message Association Brand Awareness Across all four advertising campaigns studied, the Skyscraper format was most effective in increasing Brand Awareness, with a statistically significant increase of seven percentage points. On average, Large Rectangles increased Brand Awareness by five percentage points. 60% Fig. 1 - All Results: Brand Awareness by Format 55% +2* 57% Control 55% Exposed +5* 60% 55% +7* 62% Overall, Skyscrapers were more than three times more effective than standard banners at increasing Brand Awareness. 50% 40% Banner Large Rectangle Skyscraper Source:D ynam ic Logic,June 2001 *Statistica ly Significantat90% Message Association Overall, Large Rectangle units were most effective at increasing Message Association. Large Rectangles increased Message Association by 10 percentage points, on average. Across all campaigns, Skyscrapers increased Message Association by eight percentage points. 30% 20% Fig. 2 - All Results: Message Association by Format +1 Control 14% 15% 14% Exposed +10* 24% 14% +8* 22% Overall, there was no significant increase due to exposure to the standard banner. 10% 0% Banner Large Rectangle Skyscraper Source:D ynam ic Logic,June 2001 *Statistica ly Significantat90% - 9 -

10 Executive Summary (3): Overall Results Purchase Intent and Brand Favorability Dynamic Logic has conducted numerous studies that have consistently shown that Purchase Intent and Brand Favorability are two of the most difficult metrics to increase. Since the present study controlled for frequency by limiting each respondent to only one exposure, the ability of the campaigns to create significant increases in Brand Favorability and Purchase Intent was diminished. As Dynamic Logic's AdIndex methodology captures actual exposure data (as opposed to forced exposure data), there was an additional data set comprised of respondents who had multiple exposure to the ad units (either to one ad unit or different ad units). This enables additional data points for examination. The data indicates a direct relationship between frequency of exposure and levels of both Purchase Intent and Brand Favorability. The data show that the tested ad units, when analyzed in the aggregate by discrete frequency of exposure, increase persuasion metrics but require more exposure than Brand Awareness or Message Association to increase significantly. The chart at right illustrates the relationship between Purchase Intent and exposure frequency. Among respondents exposed three and four times, the increase is significant. With three exposures, the Purchase Intent increases six percentage points. With four exposures, the Purchase Intent increases 10 percentage points. 60% 50% 40% Fig. 3 - Purchase Intent by Exposure Frequency +10* 54% +6* 50% % 44% 43% 30% Control Exp 1 Exp 2 Exp 3 Exp 4 Source:D ynam ic Logic,June 2001 *Statistica ly Significantat90%

11 Overall Results: Purchase Intent and Brand Favorability (2) As with Purchase Intent, the results for Brand Favorability also show a direct relationship between the frequency of ad exposure and level of Brand Favorability. Among respondents exposed more than twice, the impact in Brand Favorability was statistically significant. The chart at right illustrates that Brand Favorability increases with the number of times a respondent was exposed to the creative. Among those exposed 3 or more times, Brand Favorability increases five percentage points. With 4 exposures, Brand Favorability increases eight percentage points. 65% 60% Fig. 4 - Brand Favorability by Exposure Frequency 57% +0 57% +2 59% +5* 62% +8* 65% 55% 50% Control Exp 1 Exp 2 Exp 3 Exp 4 Source:D ynam ic Logic,June 2001 *Statistica ly Significantat90% NOTE: Due to the need to compare ad units with an exposure level of one for the case study results, significant quantities of multiple-exposure respondents were not recruited for each ad unit. As a result, many of the respondents exposed multiple times actually saw different formats of the same campaign. There was insufficient data for those exposed to a single ad unit multiple times. There was also insufficient data for those exposed to any ad unit five or more times. Consequently, the Purchase Intent and Brand Favorability results by frequency can be looked at in aggregate and across multiple ad units, but cannot be broken out by specific ad units

12 Case Study 1 - Genuity Publisher: Advertiser: Ad Units: CNET Networks, Inc. Genuity Skyscraper (160X600), Large Rectangle (360X300), Banner (468X60) Overview CNET Networks, Inc. is the premier source for technology news on the Web. The client was Genuity, a business-to-business network services provider that was formerly known as GTE Internetworking. Message - Online Since 69 Summary All three ad format sizes increased one or more branding metrics. The Large Rectangle was successful in raising Brand Awareness and Message Association. Exposure to the Skyscraper format significantly increased Message Association. Exposure to two standard banners led to a significant increase of five percentage points in Purchase Intent. NOTE: CNET Networks, Inc. does not serve banners individually, but instead two are shown to visitors at a time, one at the top of the page and another at the bottom. While only respondents with one exposure were allowed in the Skyscraper and Large Rectangle exposed cells, the frequency maximum was two for the banner format

13 Case Study 1 Genuity In the CNET Networks, Inc./Genuity campaign, both the Skyscraper and Large Rectangle formats showed significant increases in Brand Awareness. Fig. 5 - Genuity: Brand Awareness by Format Control Exposed +6* Taking into account different control baselines, the Large Rectangle unit had almost twice the increase in Brand Awareness over the Skyscraper format. 60% +4 51% +10* 55% 55% 61% The increase in Brand Awareness due to exposure to two standard banners was not significant. 50% 47% 45% There were statistically significant increases in Message Association as a result of exposure to both the Skyscraper and Large Rectangle format. 40% Source:D ynam ic Logic,June 2001 Banner Large Rectange Skyscraper *Statistica ly Significantat90% Fig. 6 - Genuity: Message Association by Format The increase in Message Association for the Skyscraper unit was 13 percentage points; for the Large Rectangle, 10 percentage points; there was no significant increase in the banner category. 30% Control Exposed +10* 24% +13* 29% NOTE: Since the three format sizes ran on areas of CNET Networks, Inc. that had different audiences, separate control (non-exposed) groups were recruited into the study in the event that the baseline attitudes towards the Genuity brand varied in these areas % 16% 14% 14% 13% 10% Banner Large Rectange Skyscraper Source:D ynam ic Logic,June 2001 *Statistica ly Significantat90%

14 Case Study 1 Genuity Data OVERALL Banner (468X60) Brand Awareness Message Assoc. Brand Favor. Purchase Intent (IMP) (IMP) + 5* 47% 51% +4 8% 13% 14% +1 8% 51% 53% +2 4% 36% 41% +5 12% n390 n340 n390 n * (TT) B. + 4* (TT) 9% 15% +6 76% 12% 16% +4 36% n390 n340 n390 n340 Rectangle (360X300) Brand Awareness Message Assoc. Brand Favor. Purchase Intent + 10* + 10* + 3 (IMP) + 2 (IMP) 45% 55% % 14% 24% % 51% 54% +3 5% 37% 39% +2 7% n817 n657 n817 n * (TT) + 3* (TT) 10% 15% +5 47% 11% 14% +3 26% n817 n657 n817 n657 Skyscraper (160X600) Brand Awareness Message Assoc. Brand Favor. Purchase Intent + 6* + 13* + 2 (IMP) + 1 (IMP) 55% 61% +6 10% 16% 29% % 52% 54% +2 4% 40% 41% +1 2% n537 n196 n537 n (TT) + 1 (TT) 12% 16% +4 31% 15% 17% +2 11% n537 n196 n537 n196 IMP: Indexed Mean Percentage TT: Top Two Box * Statistically significant at 90% Please note that computed fields (erence and ) are based on actual numbers, and that the rounded numbers are shown in this report

15 Case Study 2 - Vaniqa Publisher: Advertiser: Ad Units: iwon Vaniqa Bristol-Myers Squibb Skyscraper (120X600), Large Rectangle (336X280), Banner (468X60) Overview iwon ( is a leading web portal. The brand advertised was Vaniqa, a pharmaceutical product that inhibits the growth of facial hair on women. Message - Now Up Close is Up to You Summary Exposure to the Skyscraper, Large Rectangle and banner all created significant lifts in Brand Awareness and Message Association. The Large Rectangle was the best performing unit, followed by the Skyscraper and standard banner. Exposure to the Large Rectangle unit created the largest significant lifts in both Brand Awareness (+10 pts.) and Message Association (+14 pts.). The increase in Brand Awareness due to exposure to the Large Rectangle was double that of the banner. In terms of Message Association, the Large Rectangle performed best, increasing this metric by 14 percentage points; the standard banner increased it by eight percentage points; the Skyscraper, six percentage points

16 Case Study 2 - Vaniqa For the Vaniqa campaign running on iwon, exposure to all three format sizes significantly increased awareness of the brand. Fig. 7 - Vaniqa: Brand Awareness by Format Control Exposed The Large Rectangle increased Brand Awareness by 10 percentage points, double the increase due to exposure to the standard banner. 40% 30% 23% +6* 28% 23% +10* 33% 23% +7* 30% Exposure to the Skyscraper lifted Brand Awareness by seven percentage points. 20% 10% Banner Large Rectangle Skyscraper Source:D ynam ic Logic,June 2001 *Statistica ly Significantat90% Exposure to all three format sizes significantly increased Message Association. Fig. 8 - Vaniqa: Message Association by Format Control Exposed The Large Rectangle performed best, increasing Message Association by 14 percentage points; the standard banner increased it by eight percentage points; the Skyscraper, six percentage points. 30% +8* 22% +14* 28% +6* 20% 20% 14% 14% 14% 10% Banner Large Rectangle Skyscraper Source:D ynam ic Logic,June 2001 *Statistica ly Significantat90%

17 Case Study 2 Vaniqa Data OVERALL Banner (468X60) Brand Awareness Message Assoc. Brand Favor. Purchase Intent + 6* + 8* - 2 (IMP) - 4 (IMP) 23% 28% +5 26% 14% 22% +8 57% 52% 50% -2-34% 30% -4 - n471 n314 n471 n314-2 (TT) + 1 (TT) 9% 7% -2-8% 9% +1 11% n471 n314 n471 n314 Rectangle (336X280) Brand Awareness Message Assoc. Brand Favor. Purchase Intent + 10* + 14* - 1 (IMP) - 5 (IMP) 23% 33% % 14% 28% % 52% 51% -1-34% 29% -5 - n471 n718 n471 n718-1 (TT) (TT) 9% 8% -1-8% 9% +1 4% n471 n718 n471 n718 Skyscraper (120X600) Brand Awareness Message Assoc. Brand Favor. Purchase Intent + 7* + 6* 0 (IMP) + 2 (IMP) 23% 30% +7 32% 14% 20% +6 43% 52% 52% 0-34% 36% +2 6% n471 n408 n471 n (TT) + 4* (TT) 9% 11% +2 18% 8% 12% +4 48% n471 n408 n471 n408 * Statistically significant at 90% IMP: Indexed Mean Percentage TT: Top Two Box Please note that computed fields (erence and ) are based on actual numbers, and that the rounded numbers are shown in this report

18 Case Study 3 - ubid Publisher: Advertiser: Ad Units: MSN ubid Skyscraper (160X600), Large Rectangle (240X400), Banner (468X60) Overview MSN ( is a leading web portal. The campaign advertiser, ubid ( is an ecommerce web site. Messages - Protect Yourself. Brand Name Warranties. - Discover Winning at Paying Less Summary The larger ad formats outperformed the standard banner across all of the branding metrics. Exposure to the Skyscraper unit created the largest, significant increases in both Brand Awareness (+7 pts.) and Message Association (+6 pts.). The Skyscraper unit showed significant lifts in both Brand Awareness and Message Association. Exposure to the Large Rectangle unit increased Message Association only. There were no significant lifts among respondents exposed to the standard banner format

19 Case Study 3 - Ubid For the ubid campaign on MSN, only the Skyscraper significantly increased Brand Awareness. The increase was seven percentage points. There were no significant increases in Brand Awareness as a result of exposure to the Large Rectangle or banner. 60% 50% Fig. 9 - ubid: Brand Awareness by Format Control Exposed +7* 58% % 51% 51% 51% 51% 40% Banner Large Rectangle Skyscraper Both the Skyscraper and Large Rectangle significantly increased Message Association. Exposure to the Skyscraper increased Message Association by six percentage points, double the increase from the Large Rectangle. There was no significant lift in Message Association as a result of exposure to the banner. Fig ubid: Message Association by Format Control Exposed 20% +3* +2 12% 13% 10% 10% 10% 10% +6* 16% 0% Banner Large Rectangle Skyscraper Source:D ynam ic Logic,June 2001 *Statistica ly Significantat90%

20 Case Study 3 Ubid Data OVERALL Banner (468X60) Brand Awareness Message Assoc. Brand Favor. Purchase Intent (IMP) 0 (IMP) 51% 51% 0 0% 10% 12% +2 20% 52% 53% +1 2% 36% 36% 0 0% n448 n1381 n448 n (TT) 0 (TT) 13% 13% % 16% 16% 0 0% n448 n1381 n448 n1381 Rectangle (240X400) Brand Awareness Message Assoc. Brand Favor. Purchase Intent 0 + 3* + 1 (IMP) + 2 (IMP) 51% 51% 0 0% 10% 13% +3 21% 52% 53% +1 2% 36% 38% +2 6% n448 n623 n448 n (TT) + 4* (TT) 13% 15% +2 19% 16% 20% +4 25% n448 n623 n448 n623 Skyscraper (160X600) Brand Awareness Message Assoc. Brand Favor. Purchase Intent + 7* + 6* 0 (IMP) + 2 (IMP) 51% 58% +7 14% 10% 16% +6 55% 52% 52% 0 0% 36% 38% +2 6% n448 n195 n448 n (TT) + 3 (TT) 13% 14% +1 4% 16% 19% +3 18% n448 n195 n448 n195 IMP: Indexed Mean Percentage TT: Top Two Box * Statistically significant at 90% Please note that computed fields (erence and ) are based on actual numbers, and that the rounded numbers are shown in this report

21 Glossary Brand Awareness - Measures the level of familiarity respondents have with the brand (aided). Brand Favorability - Measures the extent to which respondents have a positive or favorable opinion of the brand. Purchase Intent - Measures the likelihood of respondents to purchase the brand in the future. Message Association - Measures the extent to which respondents can match the copy or messages in the creative to the brand. Statistical Significance - Measures the probability that the difference between the population proportions in the sample is representative of the entire population of web visitors targeted in the campaign. For this study, the minimum significance level to make projectable conclusions was 90%. - The relative difference or percent change between the exposed and control (non-exposed) cells. It is a measure of progress relative to the baseline. The formula is (exposed % - control %) / control%. erence - The absolute difference between the exposed and control (nonexposed) cells. It is calculated by subtracting the control from the exposed. In the report, this metric is referred to as the increase or decrease in the branding metrics. Indexed Mean Percentage Method of computing Purchase Intent and Brand Favorability that gives weights to the 5 possible answers, with greater weights given to positive points on the scale. e.g. Very Likely 100% Somewhat likely 75% May or may not be likely 50% Not very likely 25% Not at all likely 0%

22 Top Two Box Method of computing Purchase Intent and Brand Favorability that includes those who respond via the top two answers (very and somewhat likely, or very and somewhat favorable)

23 Appendix A: ADINDEX Methodology Dynamic Logic measures consumer perceptions and attitudes toward an advertiser's brand by capturing consumer opinions through an online survey. AdIndex gathers this data while the online campaign is running. To isolate the impact of advertising exposure on consumer attitudes (i.e. Purchase Intent, Message Association, etc.), two groups of online consumers are sampled at the same time and from the same Web sites on which the campaign is running. As the only difference between the groups is the presence of the advertising, any attitudinal differences between the two groups can be attributed to the exposure to the specific online ad campaign. Chart: AdIndex Methodology Every n th exposure sampled Client Campaign 2 categories of ads Campaign ads Control ads Statistically similar samples recruited from the same sites over the same period of time AdIndex Survey Recognizes exposure levels including frequency Every n th exposure sampled Sampling for AdIndex is bifurcated, in that respondents are grouped into control and exposed cells for analysis. The control/exposed methodology is dependent on (1) reliable tracking technology to recognize a consumer s ad exposure level, (2) an online questionnaire development tool, and (3) a sound recruitment process to ensure a statistically valid comparison between exposed and control groups. Tracking Technology AdIndex uses a proprietary technology named AdScout to track exposure to online advertising. When survey respondents enter an AdIndex survey, the system recognizes whether or not they have seen any ads in a given campaign. In addition, the system identifies the version of creative, frequency of exposure and time elapsed since last exposure; the later two defined as frequency and recency

24 The tracking technology does not require a specific third party ad server, nor does it rely on the expensive and time-consuming practice of querying third party ad serving databases. Survey Development The standard AdIndex survey system measures the following branding metrics: - Brand Awareness - Purchase Intent - Brand Favorability - Message Association - Advertising Recall Questions are created through an automated system that enables an online survey to be developed quickly. While the survey is standardized, clients can customize questions that are intended to drive segmentation of the results. These customized questions include two category usage questions and one qualitative open-ended question. All questions are asked in a "blind" manner where the advertiser is presented in a list along with several competitors. This prevents the respondent from discerning who the client is, which may bias the survey results. As mentioned previously, the survey asks all branding questions in a standardized manner to enable cross campaign comparison and comparison to a normative database. Recruitment Process Both samples of respondents are recruited via an online survey invitation; typically a pop-up window or banner. For those in the exposed group, the pop-up is tied to the ads in the campaign and launched for every nth visitor leaving the page where the ad is served. To gather a control group, dummy banners, usually Dynamic Logic banners, running in the same targeting footprint as the actual campaign, launch pop-up invitations in a similar manner. Since both the control and exposed groups are recruited in the same fashion, at the same point in time, and from the same sites, it statistically can be and is assumed, that they have the same likelihood of exposure to alternate channel marketing efforts, such as television, print, and radio. Known as the assumption of initial equivalence, the AdIndex methodology controls for all other influences outside of the online advertising campaign and therefore allows any differences in attitudes between the two groups to be attributed specifically to the online advertising campaign in question

25 Data Calculation All data is calculated as proportions (or percentages) of the sample that feel a certain way or indicate a specific quality. - Message Association: = (count of those who match message with correct brand)/ total in cell - Brand Awareness (measured on a weighted scale): = (count of who are "definitely aware" * count of those who "may be aware") /total in cell - Indexed Mean Percentage: Purchase Intent (measured on a weighted scale): = (count of those "very likely" * count of those "somewhat likely" + 0.5* count of those "may or may not be likely" * count of those "not very likely")/ total in cell - Indexed Mean Percentage: Brand Favorability (measured on a weighted scale): = (count of those "very favorable" * count of those "somewhat favorable" * count of those "neutral" * count of those "not very favorable")/ total in cell - Top Two Box: Purchase Intent: = (count of those "very likely" + count of those "somewhat likely") / total in cell - Top Two Box: Brand Favorability: = (count of those "very favorable" + count of those "somewhat favorable") / total in cell