DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN BRC’S PRESENTATION
ON CROSS MEDIA RESEARCH
(Slide 7 - Recognition is accurate and complete)
The attached paper by Churchill, long one of the most respected academicians in the fields of advertising and marketing research, along with Singh and Rothschild, is recommended as probably the most definitive work ever on the benefits of recognition. It is the culmination of years of research they conducted at several universities in the Midwestern US. It compares recognition with recall and finds recognition is accurate, more sensitive and more discriminating. (There is a more detailed summary of this document in the reference for Slide 83; our summary of the major validity studies in advertising research)
Singh, Rothschild, & Churchill, " Recognition Versus Recall as Measures of Television Commercial Forgetting," Journal of Marketing, February 1988
This is the first of a number of papers on recognition written by Herb Krugman, the head of research at GE for an extended period and long one of the most prolific writers and speakers favoring recognition. Herb Krugman often used research in psychology to document his points. He cites picture sorting experiments to show visual recognition is something people can do very easily and very accurately, capitalizing on one of the great strengths of the human mind. A person looks through a stack of hundreds of snapshots. Then hundreds more are shuffled into the stack and the person is asked to sort the new ones from the old ones. It proved to be a task the average person can do with remarkable 98%-99% accuracy. He contrasts that with the mind’s less than perfect ability to recall things from memory, like names, addresses and phone numbers. Krugman was the first to speculate about the reasons recall is not related to sales. There are too many people who are influenced to buy a product by low involvement exposure to advertising. They cannot recall the ad. So recall misses those purchases even though they are actually generated by advertising. However, those same people are likely to recognize the ad when it’s shown to them. In short, recognition catches the purchases that recall misses. (These theories were expressed years before ARF and IRI documented the surprising lack of correlation between recall and sales.)
Herbert E. Krugman, "Memory Without Recall, Exposure Without Perception" Jrnl. of Adv. Rsch., Aug 1977
(Slide 21 Comparison with IAG tracking - Slide 21)
These copies of emails with Garry Getto, the VMS VP who is working on their "Vantage" tracking program, go into further detail on the points listed on the slide where we attempt to compare our tracking with that being offered by Nielsen’s IAG that appears to be triggered by brand cue recall.
(Slide 22 Lift measures vs. before and after studies)
This article goes into greater detail about the pros and cons of before and after studies vs. single survey "lift" measures. It was based on some rather public discussions of these techniques with Chuck Chakrapani, then head of Millward Brown in Canada, after a presentation in Toronto, and some private discussions with a number of others including Jack Bookbinder after we had an opportunity to view results from both approaches in Waves 1 and 2 of your program to track the impact of KP’s TV advertising.
(Slide 23 Validity of photoboard recognition vs using OTC groups)
This is a 7 page file of our email correspondence with James Galpin, Millward Brown VP in the UK who is active in the development of their "AdIndex" procedure, in which he and Don Bruzzone discuss a wide variety of issues about the measurement of advertising's effects..
(Slide 23 - Our capabilities in modeling advertising)
This paper by Don Bruzzone, delivered as he chaired the IIR Chicago Conference on Marketing Mix Modeling in 2002, emphasized the futility of trying to model the effects of advertising without allowing for differences in the quality of the creative. It is believed to be the first time modeling was accused of being responsible for the preceding decline of profits in the package goods industry. Models that only considered the amount of advertising being conducted couldn’t account for much of the change that was taking place in sales. However models of the effect price was having showed a much better fit. They erroneously concluded advertising had little effect of sales, price had a great effect, and they decreased advertising and increased price competition. This is a view that has since been repeated by a number of other observers.
"Modeling Advertising? First, find out is it is good, average or bad." Don Bruzzone, Quirk’s 3/03
(Slide 33 Dave Aaker collaborations)
One mark of success in life is when you get paid to write your autobiography. This excerpt from the autobiography of UC’s internationally renowned guru of Brand Equity describes what was learned from his collaboration with Don Bruzzone on several research projects. He only mentioned two papers they co-authored, so he was reminded there was a third and two more Dave co-authored with other academics based on the access BRC provided to its complete database. For more on these papers see the Articles Papers & Talks section of BRC’s website.
(Slide 33 Alex Biel on Likability)
This paper by David Ogivly’s head researcher describes what he had learned years earlier from research he had BRC conduct showing why Likability was important. It was written at the request of the Advertising Research Foundation after they completed their major study on the validity of a number of measures used in advertising research and found likability was the best predictor of sales impact. The section on Research Design ncludes some favorable comments about BRC’s recognition-based procedure for tracking the impact of advertising.
(Slide 33 Ed Papazian’s use of BRC data)
These pages from the latest of his annual editions of TV’s statistical bible show the variety of BRC data he has been including for years to document the decline of TV commercial impact over what now amounts to a 30 year period. It also shows how reactions to commercials has been changing and how much difference there is in advertising’s impact for different product classes. It also includes his comments on these differences and on the BRC recognition-based tracking procedure.
This article by Ann Breese. Starbuck’s Director of Research at the time, and Don Bruzzone, details the cross media research summarized in the Starbucks case history charts included in this presentation for KP. Of particular interest may be the metrics used to compare the ROI of different types of advertising conducted in different areas. Since Out-of-Home performed better than TV Starbucks discontinued all TV advertising shortly after this study was conducted.
"OOH vs. Other Media. Getting Comparable ROIs from Tracking" Ann Breeze & Don Bruzzone, Quirk’s 4/04
(Slide 33 Cross media research for Blue Cross)
The research summarized in the Blue Cross case history slides is described in detail in this article by Liz Reyer, Director of Research at Blue Cross of MN at the time and Don Bruzzone. A unique part of this research is shown on the chart that shows the lift in various perceptions produced by each of the ads, tv commercials and radio commercials tested.
"Comparing the ROI of Print, Radio, and TV Ads" Lizabeth Reyer/Don Bruzzone Quirk’s 3/99
(Slide 33 Research for PacBell)
This does not cover the pioneering modeling work covered in the PacBell slides, but it documents some of our other work for PacBell, using our Advertising Response Models from post testing to show what to look for in pretesting their commercials. It was written by Deborah Tallyn, then a Director of Research at PacBell (the same person we conducted the modeling for) and Don Bruzzone.
(Slide 83 Consistent with all major validity studies)
Documentation of this point in BRC's review of 11 major studies of the validity of various measures to determine the effectiveness of advertising
"BRC’s Recap of Ad Testing Validity Studies"
(Slide 89 Likability: The ARF Validity Study)
"ARF Copy Research Validity Project" JAR, April/May 1991