CAMPAIGN TEST SUMMER CAMPAIGN SWEDEN SUMMER 2013 INNOVASJON NORGE JUNE 2013

CAMPAIGN TEST SUMMER CAMPAIGN SWEDEN SUMMER 2013 INNOVASJON NORGE JUNE 2013 1

Background And Purpose THE PURPOSE IS TO ANSWER: What is the aided and unaided recollection of the campaign? How is the campaign rated? What is the Tone of Voice (TOV) of the campaign? What effect does the campaign have in regards to involving and persuading the audience? What is the campaign s branding effect? In May 2013, Innovasjon Norge launched a campaign in Sweden about Norway as a summer holiday destination. The campaign consisted of a TV Commercial (only Northern Sweden), Adventure Maps (one in Northern Sweden and one in Southern Sweden), an Internet Section (all of Sweden) and an Internet Banner (all of Sweden). In order to evaluate the campaign, as well as providing input to future campaigns, Epinion has conducted a test of the campaign. The campaign test was conducted through an internet survey in May and June 2013. Nature based target group The test is conducted within the nature based target group (see page 35 for definition). Only people who fit the target group participated in the test of the campaign. A total of 1588 respondents were invited for the study with 991 of these falling within the target group. 550 respondents completed the interview. The survey collected interviews from respondents who remembered having seen one of the tested elements as well as respondents who did not. Benchmark This report analyses the effect of the campaign and benchmarks it against other Scandinavian Innovasjon Norge summer campaigns in Europe 2013 a solid base with 1,759 completed interviews. The non-scandinavian campaigns are not included in the benchmark. 2

Conclusions And Recommendations The unaided recollection of the campaign for Norway as a holiday destination is 48%. The aided recollection is between 26% and 51%. During the campaign period, Norway s Share of Voice (SOV) in Sweden increases substantially. From May to June Norway s SOV in Sweden increased from 32% to 47%. On an overall basis, Norway s SOV in Sweden has increased by 47% during the campaign period. All campaign elements are rated very positively. However, only the TV commercial is rated better than other campaigns which the target group remembers. The campaign s Tone Of Voice (TOV) is predominantly beautiful. A majority of the respondents describes the campaign as beautiful, but large proportions also characterise the TOV as credible. Furthermore, the target group primarily perceives the message of the campaign to be impressive nature experiences. Both internet platforms in particular seem to provide the Swedish target group with new knowledge about Norway as a holiday destination and to make them more inclined to go on holiday in Norway. Considering the effect hierarchy, the Swedish campaign elements perform on par with benchmark in the effect hierarchy. All campaign elements move approximately 8-9% of the target group to the top of the hierarchy. Thus, all elements have the same level of conversion rate as the benchmark, i.e. making the target group more involved, persuaded and more inclined to go to Norway on holiday after exposure to the campaign element. Looking more closely at the communication effects, the campaign produces results just below average. The campaign effect is positive and largely affected the right target in regards of Norway has a variety attractive activities and experiences. However, from an optimisation perspective, the campaign could benefit from focusing more on Norway s natural scenery. Considering the branding effects, the general conclusion is that the campaign has small positive effect. The campaign had some impact on important targets like Norway s unique experiences and convenient location. The analysis suggests that future campaigns should focus more on angling and Norway s spectacular nature. 3

Elements Tested Adventure Map 1 Internet Section TV Commercial Adventure Map 2 Internet Banner 4

RECALL AND RATING OF CAMPAIGN 5

Recollection Of The Campaign Channels UNAIDED AND AIDED RECOLLECTION CHANNELS, UNAIDED RECALL Unaided recall, general 48% Aided recall, TV Commercial 51% Aided recall, Adventure Map 1 41% Aided recall, Internet Banner 29% Aided recall, Internet Section 28% Aided recall, Adventure Map 2 26% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% In an advertisement in a newspaper, magazine etc. On television In a brochure On an Internet banner On Facebook In a special supplement in a newspaper, magazine etc. At a travel agency or tour operator In a film on the Internet In an online newsletter On an outdoor advertisement, e.g. a large billboard Elsewhere. Please write here: On the radio Do not know In the cinema At a fair 53% 47% 30% 24% 13% 11% 9% 8% 7% 4% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% N =101-550 N=263 The unaided recall is 48%. This means that 48% of the target group remembers having seen an advertisement for Norway as a holiday destination within the past month. The channels show that the unaided recall primarily comes from advertisements (53%), but recall also originates from television (47%), a brochure (30%) and an internet banner (24%). The aided recall for the TV commercial is 51%, which is the highest of all campaign elements. Thus, when shown the TV commercial, 51% of the nature target group remembers having seen it before. The aided recall for Adventure Map 1 is 41%, the Internet Banner 29%, while the Internet Section has a recall of 28%. Adventure Map 2 has the lowest aided recall (26%). Note: It should be emphasised that the Adventure Maps and TV Commercial only were broadcasted in selected geographical areas in Sweden, while the Internet Platforms were national. Thus, the base (n) is smaller for these platforms in the sample and the recall is only measured in these areas. 6

Norway s Share of Voice NORWAY S SHARE OF VOICE IN SWEDEN (NATURE BASED TARGET GROUP) 60% 50% 47% 40% 31% 34% 40% 40% 32% 39% 42% 30% 20% 10% 0% 03.01.2013-28.02.2013 01.03.2013-14.03.2013 15.03.2013-28.03.2013 01.04.2013-09.04.2013 15.04.2013-30.04.2013 01.05.2013-14.05.2013 15.05.2013-31.05.2013 01.06.2013-14.06.2013 Norway Denmark Italy Iceland Sweden Finland Germany n=2.165 (lowest n=72) The respondents were asked whether they, during the last month, recall having seen any advertisements for countries where you can go on holiday. The respondents could choose one or more countries. The summer campaign was launched in May 2013, and it caused a substantial increase in Norway s SOV. From May to June, Norway s SOV in Sweden increased from 32% to 47%. On an overall basis, Norway s SOV in Sweden has increased by 47% during the campaign period an impressive result. 7

Rating Of The Different Platforms In The Campaign HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE CAMPAIGN? 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 22% 61% 13% 0% 4% 11% 52% 1% 1% 9% 19% 47% 5% 1% 5% 8% 56% 26% 23% 26% 26% 12% 13% 53% 46% 30% 1% 0% 2% 4% 9% 1% 1% 7% 6% Adventure map 1 Internet Section TV Commercial Adventure Map 2 Internet Banner Benchmark N =101-550 N =101-550 DO YOU THINK THE CAMPAIGN IS BETTER OR POORER THAN OTHER CAMPAIGNS 100% YOU REMEMBER? 2% 2% 5% 4% 4% 10% 90% 21% 27% 21% 28% 25% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 36% 0% 36% 56% 2% 18% 1% 33% 44% 3% 11% 0% 46% 2% 0% 26% 50% 49% 2% 6% 0% 2% 16% 14% Adventure Map 1 Internet Section TV Commercial Adventure Map 2 Internet Banner Benchmark Very positively/much better Positively/Better Neither positively/better nor negatively/poorer Negatively/Poorer Very negatively/much poorer Don't know All campaign elements are rated very positively. Adventure Map 1 is positively assessed by 83%, but all elements are positively assessed by more than 60% of the target group. Despite the positive assessment of the campaign elements, they do not get rated much better in comparison to other campaigns. Only the TV commercial outperforms the benchmark on this measure. 8

MESSAGE AND TOV 9

Tone of Voice Across Platforms Bigger Font Size Indicates More People Using The Word To Describe The Campaign Catalogue N =550 10

Tone of Voice Across Platforms Compared To The Other Campaigns TONE OF VOICE FOR THE SWEDEN CAMPAIGN COMPARED TO BENCHMARK Beautiful Credible Informative Attractive Serious Creative Entertaining Modern Usable Challenging Do not know Fun Innovative Different Uninteresting Annoying Confusing Unethical Patronising 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 4% 4% 11% 8% 11% 10% 8% 8% 7% 7% 6% 9% 5% 5% 12% 15% 15% 17% 17% 18% 18% 22% 22% 23% 22% 25% 27% 29% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 31% 31% 31% 39% 56% Sweden Summer Campaign Benchmark n=550 The campaign is primarily perceived as beautiful and credible: The campaign is perceive as beautiful by almost six out of ten, which is much higher than the benchmark. Furthermore, compared to the benchmark, a substantial proportion depicts the campaign s TOV as attractive. 11

Tone of Voice Of Each Platform Top Seven TONE OF VOICE OF EACH PLATFORM Beautiful Credible Informative Attractive Serious Creative Entertaining 6% 11% 15% 15% 15% 16% 17% 19% 18% 20% 19% 22% 22% 31% 28% 31% 30% 30% 26% 30% 28% 26% 34% 35% 37% 39% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 41% 42% 44% 46% 50% 50% 54% 65% 74% Internet banner Adventure map 2 TV Commercial Internet section Adventure map 1 n =101-550 This graph shows the top seven dimensions across the six campaign elements. As the graph illustrates, the Internet Banner and the Adventure Map stand out as being more beautiful and attractive than the other campaign elements. While the TV commercial adds an entertaining tone to the TOV, Adventure Map 2 is the more informative campaign element. 12

The Effect Of The Campaign s Tone of Voice On The Probability Of Going To Norway On Holiday The chart shows how the TOV affects the respondents selfreported probability of going on holiday in Norway. WHICH TONE OF VOICE HAS THE STRONGEST EFFECT? Only the TOVs with a statistically significant effect are shown in the chart. The percentages in the figure indicate how much the probability of going on holiday in Norway increases/decreases when respondents describe the campaign by that tone. Usable is the only TOV with a positive effect, which means that if the target group described the campaign in these terms, they are more likely to go on holiday in Norway. Usable 7% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% n=550 13

Low or negative impact The Priority Map Which TOV s Can Increase The Propensity To Go On Holiday In Norway Most Effectively? ADEQUATE TOV mentioned by: Many Impact: Small or negative TOVs located in this area can be downgraded without a major, or perhaps even with a positive, impact on the propensity to go to Norway TOV mentioned by: Few Impact: Small or negative TOVs located in this area should be monitored and can advantageously be kept downplayed if their impact is negative MONITOR TOV used by large share of respondents TOV used by small share of respondents TOV mentioned by: Many Impact: Large and positive RETAIN TOVs located in this area can advantageously be maintained as a decrease is expected to have a major negative impact on the propensity to go to Norway TOV mentioned by: Few Impact: Large and positive If more people could be made to use TOVs placed in this field to characterise the campaign, a significant positive contribution to the propensity to go Norway would be expected PRIORITIZE Large and positive impact The priority map organises the various campaign goals in four boxes according to the share of respondents who use a given TOV to characterise the campaign and the TOV s impact on the respondents propensity to go to Norway. Items in the boxes to the left have a low or negative impact on this propensity, while items to the right have a higher and positive impact. The expected impact of a decrease or increase in the share of respondents who use a respective TOV to characterise the campaign are spelled out in the four boxes to the left. This priority map only focuses on TOVs which have shown a statistical importance for the propensity to go on holiday in Norway. 14

TOV mentioned by small share of respondents TOV mentioned by large share of respondents TOV Effects: Did The Campaign Do The Right Things? ADEQUATE RETAIN The priority map shows that the TOV usable had a substantial positive impact on going on holiday to Norway. Thus, as the campaign did not heavily affect this TOV, it should be prioritized in the future. MONITOR Negative impact on probability for holiday in Norway Usable PRIORITIZE Positive impact on probability for holiday in Norway Retain: The TOV was used by a large share of respondents to characterise the campaign and it had a high positive impact on the propensity to go to Norway. Prioritize: The TOV was only used by a small share of respondents to characterise the campaign, but had a high positive impact on the propensity to go to Norway. Adequate: The TOV was used by a large share of respondents, but only had a low or even negative impact on the propensity to go to Norway. Monitor: The TOV was used by a small share of respondents to characterise the campaign, and it had a low or even negative impact on the propensity to go to Norway. The priority map only include statements with a statistically significant effect on probability for holiday in Norway 15

The Message Of The Campaign Open Answers Coded In Categories WHAT DO YOU THINK THEY ARE TRYING TO SAY ABOUT DESTINATIONS AND HOLIDAY ADVENTURES IN NORWAY? Impressive nature experiences 48% Showcasing Norway as an attractive and popular destination Different possibilities and experiences Do not know 12% 12% 14% Other Something for everybody Recreational and restful holiday Active and sporty holiday Family vacation and child friendly environment A destination not far away 3% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% n=314 The figure shows how the target group perceives the message of the campaign. Almost one in two sees the message as being about the impressive nature one can experience in Norway, while another 14% less concretely states that the catalogue is aiming at showcasing how great a holiday destination Norway is, without specifying how it does this. Finally, 12% sees the message as being about the different possibilities and experiences you can have in Norway. 16

EMOTIONS 17

Emotionel Statements About Holidays In Norway This table shows that the respondents agree with the statements On a holiday in Norway, I can restore my inner harmony and balance and On holiday in Norway, I can spend quality time with my family to the highest degree. Statements On holiday in Norway, I can restore my inner harmony and balance 50% Very few respondents agree with the statement On a holiday in Norway, I can feel special and stand out from the crowd. On holiday in Norway, I can spend quality time with my family 49% On holiday in Norway, I can feel full of renewed energy 37% On holiday in Norway, I can expand my horizon 34% On holiday in Norway, I can avoid surprises and feel safe 23% On holiday in Norway, I can immerse myself in local life 16% On holiday in Norway, I can feel completely liberated 4% On holiday in Norway I can feel special and stand out from the crowd 3% n=550 18

The Effects Of Emotional Statements On The Probability Of Going To Norway The Effect Of The Statements On The Attitude Towards Norway As A Holiday Destination The chart shows the statements which affect the respondents probability to go on holidays in Norway. WHAT STATEMENT HAS THE LARGEST EFFECT? On holiday in Norway I can spend quality time with my family 13% Only statements with a statistically significant effect are shown in the chart. The results show that several statements have this effect. On holiday in Norway I can feel full of renewed energy 10% On holiday in Norway I can spend quality time with my family myself have a rather strong and positive effect on the respondents attitude towards Norway as a holiday destination. On holiday in Norway I can immerse myself in local life 10% On holiday in Norway I can expand my horizon 7% On holiday in Norway I can restore my inner harmony and balance 6% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% n=550 19

CAMPAIGN EFFECTS 20

Campaign Effects Internet Section TV Commercial Internet Banner Sweden Difference to benchmark Sweden Difference to benchmark Sweden Difference to benchmark Do you think the advertisement(s) have provided you with new knowledge about Norway as a holiday destination? Have you changed your attitude to Norway as a holiday destination after seeing the advertisement(s)? Do you think the advertisement(s) has made you want to go to Norway on holiday within the next year? 42 +6 36 0 38 +2 60 0 61 +1 59 0 56 +2 50-4 58 +4 Have you looked for information about Norway as a holiday destination after seeing the advertisement(s)? 14-1 16 +1 12-3 Have you visited Visitnorway.dk after having seen the advertisement(s)? 17-1 11-7 16-2 How the table should be read: The campaign s scores are placed on a scale from 0 to 100. A score of 100 would imply that all respondents fully agree with the statement/answer yes while a score of 0 indicates that all respondents fully disagree with the statement/answer no. The table shows the campaign s mean score on this scale. All platforms are compared to the same overall benchmark of all campaigns. The table shows the difference between the platform s score and the overall benchmark. n=58-160 The Internet Section and the Internet Banner have made the Swedish target group more interested in going on holiday to Norway. Both perform better than the benchmark. Furthermore, the Swedish campaign elements have been somewhat successful in providing the target group with new knowledge about Norway as a holiday destination. Note: Adventure Map 1 and 2 are not included in the effect analyses because of fewer than 50 respondents who remember having seen the campaign element. Thus, the estimates have too big error margins. 21

AD EFFECT HIERARCHY The Ad Effect Hierarchy Explanation Persuaded and active - holiday (+ campaign recollection + involved + persuaded) Is more inclined to go to Norway on holiday The respondent is more likely to be active by going on vacation to Norway Persuaded and active - contact (+ campaign recollection + involved + persuaded) Has searched for information about Norway as a holiday destination The respondent is active by searching information about Norway as a holiday destination. Persuaded (+ campaign recollection + involved) Thinks better of Norway as a holiday destination after seeing the campaign The campaign has changed the respondent s attitude towards Norway as a holiday destination. Involved (+ campaign recollection but NOT persuaded) The campaign is rated better than other commercials The respondent thinks that the campaign is better than other campaigns he or she remembers. Only campaign recollection (but NOT involved or persuaded) Recollection of the campaign without any other effect The respondent can recall the campaign, but is not involved or persuaded. 22

The Campaign s Ad Effect Hierarchy The table displays how the campaign elements succeed in persuading the target group to book a holiday in Norway. On an overall basis, the Swedish campaign elements perform on par with the benchmark in the effect hierarchy. All campaign elements move approximately 8-9% of the target group to the top of the hierarchy. Thus, all elements have the about the same conversion rate as the benchmark, i.e. making the target group more involved, persuaded and more inclined to go to Norway on holiday after exposure to the campaign element. Effect Internet Section TV Commercial Internet Banner Benchmark Persuaded and active holiday Persuaded and active contact 8% 9% 8% 7% 1% 2% 1% 1% Persuaded 20% 26% 18% 21% Involved 54% 45% 54% 49% Recollection 18% 19% 20% 21% N (% of total) 154 (28%) 58 (51%) 161 (29%) Note: The base is smaller for the TV commercial which was only shown in selected areas of Sweden (total base is n=113) 23

Statements About Norway PDI Scores Internet Section TV Commercial Internet Banner Norway offers many exciting activities and experiences that you cannot get elsewhere 64% 64% 71% Norway has a variety of attractive activities and experiences 82% 84% 86% A vacation in Norway gives good value for money 1% -3% 3% You can experience great nature in Norway 97% 98% 97% How the table should be read: The table shows statements about Norway related to the campaign. The respondents are asked whether or not they agree with the statements: Fully agree, agree, neither agree or disagree, disagree, fully disagree and don t know. The table shows the PDI score. The PDI score is the difference between the two positive statements (fully agree and agree) and the two negative statements (fully disagree and disagree). A PDI score of e.g. 50 would imply that there is 50 percent point more respondents who agree with the statement than there are respondents who disagree. The Swedish target group primarily agrees with the statement You can experience great nature in Norway. The proportion that agrees with the statements do not vary substantially across platforms. n= 98-161 24

COMMUNICATION EFFECTS 25

Branding And Campaign Effect Compared To The Other Campaigns ADJUSTED ACCORDING TO SPENDING PER HEAD SWEDEN BENCHMARK DIFFERENCE SWEDEN BENCHMARK DIFFERENCE Communication effect 3.2 4.2-1.0 2.5 2.3 +0.2 Campaign effect 2.7 3.3-0.6 2.1 1.7 +0.4 Branding effect 0.5 0.9-0.4 0.4 0.6-0.2 How the table should be read: The average communication effect is the sum of the average campaign and branding effect. Hence, the average communication effect is the average of how well the campaign is doing in meeting the overall target. The branding effect reflects how the campaign has affected the long-term perception of Norway as a holiday destination. The campaign effect reflects how the campaign has affected the current campaign goals. When the branding and campaign effects are positive, the campaign has had a positive effect on the target group s perception. When they are negative, the campaign has had a negative effect on the target group s perception. The adjusted effects and benchmark show the effects adjusted according to spending per head compared to the average of all the campaign. In general, the campaign produced a positive communication effect. However, the communication effect was below the benchmark of the Scandinavian campaigns. When adjusted according to spending per head, the campaign performs slightly over average. Thus, when considering the campaign spending and size of target group, the communication effect of the campaign in Sweden was on par with the benchmark. 26

Net campaign effect Net Campaign Effect: What Did The Campaign Do? A vacation in Norway gives good value for money 14% Norway offers many exciting activities and experiences that you cannot get elsewhere 12% Norway has a variety of attractive activities and experiences 10% How the figure should be read: The net effect is the difference in the perception of Norway as a holiday destination between people who recall having seen the campaign and the overall target group. Consequently, the net effect is the change in the perception of Norway as a holiday destination caused by the campaign, adjusted for the effect that any other publicity might have had in the period of time. n (campaign) =289-309 You can experience great nature in Norway 3% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% If people who have seen the campaign are more inclined to associate Norway with a campaign value than people who have not seen the campaign the value will be positive. If people who have seen the campaign are less inclined to associate Norway with a campaign value than people who have not seen the campaign the value will be negative. The campaign had a positive impact on all campaign targets. In particular, there is a large net impact on the target related to the price of a Norwegian holiday and the exciting and unique activities. However, the campaign only produces a weak effect on You can experience great nature in Norway 27

Small impact The Priority Map Which Factors Can Increase The Probability Of Going On Holiday To Norway Most Effectively? Large net effect ADEQUATE Net effect: Large Impact: Small Items located in this area can be downgraded without a major impact on the probability for holiday in Norway Net effect: Small or negative Impact: Small Net effect: Large Impact: Large RETAIN Items located in this area can advantageously be maintained as a decrease is expected to have a major negative impact on the probability Net effect: Small or negative Impact: Large Large impact A priority map organises the various campaign goals in four boxes according to the overall net effect and the goals impact on the probability of going on holiday to Norway. The net effect is the difference in the perception of Norway as a holiday destination between people who recall having seen the campaign and the overall target group. Items in the boxes to the left have a low impact on the probability while items to the right have higher impact on the probability. The expected impact of a decrease or increase in the net effect for items in each boxes are spelled out to the left. Items located in this area can advantageously be monitored and prioritized if their importance increases MONITOR An increase in the net effect with elements placed in this field is expected to provide a significant increase in the total probability PRIORITIZE This priority map only focuses on areas which are important for the probability of going on holiday to Norway. Items with small impact can easily be important in other contexts. Small or negative net effect 28

Small/negative net campaign effect Large net campaign effect Campaign effect: Did the campaign do the right things? ADEQUATE RETAIN The priority map shows that the campaign only affected the right campaign messages to a limited extent. A vacation in Norway gives good value for money Norway offers many exciting activities and experiences that you cannot get elsewhere Norway has a variety of attractive activities and experiences While the campaign affected the right target in connection with Norway has a variety of attractive activities and experiences, the campaign should prioritise the target You can experience great nature in Norway in future campaigns. Furthermore, future campaigns need not put as much emphasis on A vacation in Norway gives good value for money and Norway offers many exciting activities and experiences that you cannot get elsewhere. Retain: The campaign had a large net campaign effect on the campaign targets which have high impact on the probability for holidays in Norway Prioritize: The campaign had a small or negative net campaign effect on the campaign targets that have a high impact on the probability for holidays in Norway You can experience great nature in Norway Adequate: The campaign had a large net campaign effect on the campaign targets that have a low impact on the probability for holidays in Norway Monitor: The campaign had a small or negative net campaign effect on the campaign targets that have a low impact on the probability for holidays in Norway MONITOR PRIORITIZE The priority map only include statements with a statistically significant effect on probability for holiday in Norway n (campaign) =289-309 Low impact on probability for holiday in Norway High impact on probability for holiday in Norway 29

Net Branding Effect: What Did The Campaign Do? NET BRANDING EFFECT It has great cuisine and local specialities 5% It has exciting cities 5% It offers a wide range of sustainable alternatives 4% It has an exciting culture and history 3% It offers experiences that you cannot find anywhere 3% It has new and interesting places 3% It is easy to plan a trip to Norway 3% It has spectacular natural scenery 3% Norway is easy to get to 2% It offers an opportunity to experience natural 2% It is easy to book all the elements of a holiday to 2% It offers good hiking 1% It offers good angling 1% It offers good cycling 0% It offers excellent skiing, snowboarding, etc. 0% -1% 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% How the figure should be read: The net effect is the difference in the perception of Norway as a holiday destination between people who recall having seen the campaign and the overall target group. Consequently, the net effect is the change in the perception of Norway as a holiday destination caused by the campaign, adjusted for the effect that any other publicity might have had in the period of time. If people who recall having seen the campaign are more inclined to associate Norway with a given branding value than people who do not recall having seen the campaign the value will be positive.. If people who recall having seen the campaign are less inclined to associate Norway with a given branding value than people who do not recall having seen the campaign the value will be negative.. n (campaign) =208-309 The campaign only has a great positive net brand effect on the targets It has a great cuisine and local specialities, It has exciting cities and It offers wide range of sustainable alternatives. On the other hand, the campaign is unsuccessful in producing a positive brand effect in connection with the more active brand targets. For instance, there is a very limited net brand effect on targets like It offers good hiking and It offers good angling. 30

Small/negative net branding effect Large net branding effect Branding Effect: Did The Campaign Do The Right Things? ADEQUATE It has great cuisine and local specialities It offers a wide range of sustainable alternatives It offers excellent skiing, snowboarding, etc. MONITOR It has exciting cities It has an exciting culture and history It is easy to book all the elements of a holiday to Norway It offers good angling It has new and interesting places Norway is easy to get to It offers experiences that you cannot find anywhere else in the world It is easy to plan a trip to Norway It has spectacular natural scenery It offers an opportunity to experience natural It offers good phenomena such hiking as the midnight sun or the northern lights RETAIN PRIORITIZE The campaign affected some of the right branding dimensions. The campaign had some impact on important targets such as unique experiences and easy planning. However, the campaign would have achieved a higher overall branding effect if it would have had a stronger impact on branding dimensions like it offers good angling and It has spectacular natural scenery. Likewise, future campaigns need not communicate the branding dimensions It has great cuisine and local specialities and It has exciting cities to the same degree as the current Swedish campaign. Retain: The campaign had a large net branding effect on the branding targets which have a high impact on the probability of holidays in Norway Prioritize: The campaign had a small or negative net branding effect on the branding targets that have a high impact on the probability of holidays in Norway Adequate: The campaign had a large net branding effect on the branding targets that have a low impact on the probability of holidays in Norway Monitor: The campaign had a small or negative net branding effect on the branding targets that have a low impact on the probability of holidays in Norway The priority map only include statements with a statistically significant effect on probability for holiday in Norway n (campaign) =208-309 Low impact on probability for holiday in Norway High impact on probability for holiday in Norway 31

Platform Efficiency Internet Section: 102 The campaign achieves an overall platform efficiency score of 108. This is better than the average of the other Scandinavian campaigns. The overall campaign efficiency is the result of an equal contribution from the three platforms. All platforms have approximately similar efficiency, which leads to a relatively good efficiency score. What platform efficiency means Internet Banner: 94 Overall platform efficiency: 108 TV Commercial: 104 The platform efficiency measures how successful the campaign was in transforming the attention into interest, and in the end into a wish to go to Norway on holiday The better the platforms are at transforming the interest into a desire to go to Norway (with reference to the effect hierarchy), the higher the efficiency score becomes. On the other hand: Those platforms that only generate recall, but don t do anything else for the target group, get the lowest efficiency score. The overall platform efficiency score is calculated by considering all platforms together. An overall platform efficiency score of 100 means that the campaign was on par with the other campaigns in persuading the target audience. The efficiency scores for each platform are calculated by their contribution to the overall platform score. A platform efficiency score of 100 means that the platform contributed as much as the other platforms on average. As such, the platform efficiency is a very direct measure of how well the platforms perform regarding ad effect 32

Platform Effectiveness Internet Section The campaign achieves a platform effectiveness score of 59. This is below benchmark. This confirms that the campaign has been unsuccessful in achieving a division of labour between the campaign elements. Internet Banner Platform effectiveness: 59 TV Commercial What platform effectiveness means In a successful campaign, it is necessary to reflect on how the platforms should work together. Which platforms should spur the first interest, which platforms should be used to communicate the core messages, and which platforms should be used to generate action? As such, it is necessary to consider what the division of labour between the platforms should be. This especially applies in connection with complex products like holidays in Norway. If all platforms were to do the same, there would be no need for most of them. Instead, one could simply choose the most successful platform and discard the other platforms. The platform effectiveness measures the division of labour between the platforms, i.e. the ability of the platforms to reinforce each other s strengths instead of trying to do the same. In technical terms, the platform effectiveness is calculated by combining the standard deviation of the effect hierarchy of the individual platforms with the overall persuasion rate of the campaign: A division of labour is desirable and necessary, but is not enough if the campaign fails to succeed. A score of 100 is equal to the average platform effectiveness of all campaigns. 33

? METHODOLOGY 34

Methodology NATURE BASED TARGET GROUP Respondents must have been on at least one holiday abroad in the last three years not paid for by an employer with at least one overnight stay. Respondents must be interested in a holiday abroad within the next three years, which is not paid for by an employer in order to experience: Dramatic and wild nature as well as beautiful scenery Outdoor activities such as hiking, fishing or cycling Clean and unspoiled nature or Local art, culture and lifestyles The campaign test was conducted through an internet survey collected between 31 May and 16 June. The survey was conducted with a representative sample of Swedes over 18 years of age who are in the Innovasjon Norge summer (nature based) target group (see box on the left). A total of 550 interviews were completed within the nature target group. 35

Guide: How to read the results The report has a few aggregate results. Here is a guide to read the key results: Communication effect, platform effectiveness and platform efficiency Communication effect The communication effect could be considered the overall indication of how the campaign has fared: To what extent did it persuade the target group regarding the campaign messages (campaign effect)? And likewise, did it persuade the target group with the more long-term branding messages (branding effect)? The numbers usually fall in the range from 0 to 5. The higher the numbers, the better. The campaign effect will often be higher than the branding effect. This is natural, as most campaigns have their focus on the here-and-now (campaign) messages. What is important is that neither the campaign effect nor branding effect are negative. If that is so, the campaign has had a negative impact. For instance, if the branding effect is negative, the campaign effect here-and-now has been achieved at the expense of the long-term branding effect. In this case, one could say that the campaign has cannibalized the brand. Platform effectiveness and platform efficiency As a general rule, these numbers show how the media planning of the campaign performs. Platform efficiency stows the overall effect of the campaign and the individual platforms in persuading the audience to go to Norway. The platform efficiency is indexed. Thus, if the campaign has an overall platform efficiency of 100, it performs just like the other campaigns. Below 100 means a worse performance; above 100 means a better performance. Often, the scores range between 50 and 150. it is rare to see scores below 50 or above 150. The scores for each platform are measured on the same scale. If a platform has a very low score, it has performed much worse than the other platforms. In future campaigns, it could be considered leaving this platform out. Platform effectiveness shows the division of labour between the platforms. Again, it is an index: If the platform effectiveness is 100, the campaign fares just like the other campaigns. If the number is lower, it fares worse than the other campaigns. If the number is higher, it fares better. If the platform effectiveness falls below 50, it should be considered an indication that the platforms have tried to do the same things (for instance, generate interest but nothing beyond that). In future campaigns, it should be considered to include more diverse platforms. 36

EPINION COPENHAGEN EPINION AARHUS EPINION OSLO EPINION STAVANGER EPINION MALMÖ EPINION SAIGON RYESGADE 3F 2200 COPENHAGEN N DENMARK T: +45 87 30 95 00 E: TYA@EPINION.DK W: WWW.EPINION.DK NORDHAVNSGADE 1-3 8000 AARHUS C DENMARK T: +45 87 30 95 00 E: TV@EPINION.DK W: WWW.EPINION.DK BISKOP GUNNERUS GATE 2 0155 OSLO NORWAY T: +47 40 45 89 00 E: MRB@EPINION.NO W: WWW.EPINION.NO HOSPITALSGATA 6 4006 STAVANGER NORWAY T: +47 90 17 18 99 E: SM@EPINION.NO W: WWW.EPINION.NO ADELGATAN 5 21122 MALMÖ SWEDEN T: +45 87 30 95 00 E: HAL@EPINION.SE W: WWW.EPINION.SE 11TH FL, DINH LE BUILDING, 1 DINH LE, DIST. 4, HCMC VIETNAM T: +84 8 38 26 89 89 E: OFFICE@EPINION.VN W: WWW.EPINION.VN