mon-palis-410-mp4-v2-to tweet or not to tweet - cdn.thearf.org audience measurement/am... ·...
TRANSCRIPT
#ARF2017AM#ARF2017AM
Sean Casey
President,
Nielsen Social
Nielsen
Carl Marci, Ph.D.
Chief Neuroscientist
Nielsen Consumer
Neuroscience
Thomas Ciszek
Media &
Entertainment Research
To Tweet or Not to Tweet?d
Super Bowl Ads: The #SecretSauce for Scoring Tweets
#ARF2017AM#ARF2017AM
To Tweet or Not to Tweet?d
Super Bowl Ads: The #SecretSauce for Scoring Tweets
#ARF2017AM
Today’s Presenters
Dr. Carl MarciChief Neuroscientist
Nielsen
@CMBiometrics
Sean CaseyPresident
Nielsen Social
@prana9
Thomas CiszekMedia & Entertainment
ResearchTwitter
@ciszek
#ARF2017AM
#ARF2017AM
Study Objectives
What makes a Super Bowl ad more Tweet-worthy?
Identify whether advertisers can improve their creative to drive social
activity – before it ever runs.
Explore the relationship between high volume (top ads) vs. low volume (bottom ads) Twitter activity with
neuroscience measures used in pre-testing video ads.
Can advertisers generate more Tweets beyond :30s?
#ARF2017AM
Importance of the Super Bowl
Over 100M Viewers $385M spent on ads
SB XLIX (49) was the most-watched telecast in TV history
~$5M per 30-sec ad~$160K per second
The most expensive of all time: $12.4M Chrysler ad in 2011
cases of beerpounds of chips
The game is broadcast around the globe in 34 different languages
11M 50Mnew hires at Pizza Hut
11Kchicken wings
1.3B
#ARF2017AM
Super-Sized Social Conversation
3.8M people in the US sent 16.9M Tweets about the Super Bowl, 27%
of which were about advertisers
Each unique person Tweeting about
the Super Bowl sent 4.4 tweets, compared to 2.3 Tweets/unique during
a regular season game.
SB50 TWEETS
#ARF2017AM
Super Bowl 50 Minute-by-Minute
Super Bowl 50: Minute by Minute (PM)
P2+ AA Proj Tweets
MOUNTAIN DEW KICKSTART AD7:04PM
6:30PM 7:00PM 7:30PM 8:00PM 8:30PM 9:00PM 9:30PM 10:00PM 10:30PM10K Tweets
170K Tweets
100M
120MHALFTIME
vs.
24 10
BRONCOS PANTHERS
#ARF2017AM
Nielsen Social Measurement ProcessIndependent Methodology
Direct Data Access & Audit
Signal of What’s Airing
EVOLVING CLASSIFIERSSHIFTING USE BASED
ON LINEAR TV
Official Super Bowl HashtagsOrganic Hashtags
Player and Team HandlesAnnouncer and Talent Handles
Ad and Brand Keywords
SOCIAL CONTENT RATINGSTM
Standardized Third-Party
Measurement
#ARF2017AM
Our Research Approach
Nielsen Social
• EEG• Facial Coding
• How ads were picked• Tweets vs. Retweets
Nielsen Consumer Neuroscience
+
#ARF2017AM
ü Top 6 ads mean: 70,415 Tweets
Distribution of Tweets for All Super Bowl Ads
0102030405060708090
100
Number of Tweets & Retweets (000)
Top Tweeted Ads Bottom Tweeted Ads
A wide gap exists between Top and Bottom Tweeted ads
*CPG, Auto, Entertainment, Tech/Telco, Financial Services
Ad category does not appear to have played a role
ü Both top and bottom Tweeted ads contained a mix of categories*
ü Bottom 8 ads mean: 3,477 Tweets
#ARF2017AM
Study Methodology
SELF REPORT
FACIAL CODING
EEG
Multiple sensors to measure motivation,
memory and attention
Expressed emotions (positive, negative, neutral)
Voice of the consumer
#ARF2017AM#ARF2017AM
The Results
#ARF2017AM
Self-Report: Easy to Recall
25%
65%
55%
83%
12%
46%
28%
63%
Brand Ad Appeal Ad Memorability Brand Memorability Brand Linkage
Top Ads
Bottom Ads
12% 20% 26% 19%Difference
#ARF2017AM
18%
2%1%
6% 5%3%
Positive Negative Surprise
Top Ads
Bottom Ads
Facial Coding: Top Ads More Smiles Viewers Smiled 3x More in Response to “Top” vs. “Bottom” Ads
#ARF2017AM
EEG Results: Higher Memory Activation
Consistent with the TVBE results, on average, top ads had:
ü more emotionally motivating beginnings
ü endings that activated memory more strongly than bottom ads
7.6
9.0*
Bottom Ads Top Ads
Memory Activation Score During Branding* Indicates significant statistical difference
Top ads branding & tagline length: 2.7 seconds
Bottom ads branding & tagline length: 3.25 seconds
#ARF2017AM
EEG Results: Higher Wear-In
R² = 0.50997
-20,000
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
-0.40 -0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80
*Wear In = increase in effectiveness on the second and third view
Greater Wear-In* Correlated with Higher Number of Tweets
#ARF2017AM
Bottom Ads Showed a Pattern Consistent with Confusion in the First Half
EEG Results: Bottom Ads More Confusing
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
rolling att rolling em rolling mem
Initial Confusion/ComplicatedProcessing
Attention Emotion Memory
#ARF2017AM
Mt. Dew: Puppy-Monkey-Baby
#ARF2017AM
Self-Report: Easy to Recall
80%
71%
88%
65%
55%
83%
46%
28%
63%
Ad Memorability Brand Memorability Brand Linkage
Mt. Dew Ad
Top Ads
Bottom Ads
#ARF2017AM
0
5
10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Mt. Dew: Generates Smile Activity in FAC
MEMORY ACTIVATIONPOSITIVE NEGATIVE
End of Ad Generates Smiles and Very High Memory Activation with EEG
#ARF2017AM
6.4
7.1
Exposure 1 Exposure 2+3
Wear-In Profile
Mt. Dew: EEG Wear-In ProfileSuggests Subsequent Views Generate Increased Engagement
#ARF2017AM
0
5
10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Attention Emotional Engagement
Mt. Dew: High Emotion & Attention EarlyUnlike the Low Tweet Ads, Mt. Dew had High Emotion Early in the Ad
#ARF2017AM
Overview of Conclusions
Bottom Ads (N=8)
ü Less likely to be recalled
ü Generates fewer smiles
ü Show an EEG pattern consistent with confusion in the first half of the ad (higher EEG attention)
ü Show less EEG “wear in” over time
Top Ads (N=6)
ü Easier to recall on self-report
ü Generates more smiles
ü Higher EEG memory activation in final branding
ü Show more EEG “wear in” suggesting that subsequent views will be equally or more engaging
#ARF2017AM
Implications for Advertisers
PRE DURING POST
Testing ads with the right tools, such as neuroscience, can help
ensure your creative will drive earned media before it even airs.
In order to gauge campaign effectiveness, it’s important to
measure how paid TV and earned media drove (or didn’t drive)
campaign success.
Social engagement throughout the program is critical. Advertisers
should interact with fans real-time to boost brand buzz.
#ARF2017AM
