The company
you keep
engagement + context = more advertising value
“It is impossible to
overstate the
importance of context”
Rory Sutherland, shift 2015
“
Priming
Visual context
Behavioural impact
Context based predictions
““Generally, we don’t Snapchat our grandparents
(here’s hoping, anyway) or send urgent business
correspondence by regular mail. We write Granny
a letter and email (or text) our boss; we send
wedding invitations by mail and meeting invites
digitally.…. And we make all these decisions not
based on the unlimited technology available but on
the specific people involved in a certain
communication context.”
Peter Farrago, CMO Accompli
“Ads that appeared on
sites with lower brand
recognition and trust
scored much lower in
perception.”
Media Line review of Millward
Brown research, July 2014
“
“The commercial argument for
choosing not to be selective in your
placement would need to be very
strong, because our research shows
that quality content instils trust.”
InSkin Media/RAPP, October 2014
“
“… a Land Rover ad on
The Independent website
was 71% more likely to
be rated positively than
on lesser-known site,
Catster….”
Consumers believe
established media brand
sites more appropriate for
ads than emerging sites
#fthalo
The newsbrand context should have powerful effects…
brand context effect
Engagement Trust Personal identification
8,000
14
600
online reading task & interview
read physical paper/tablet edition,
followed by online questionnaire
filmed depths
8 campaigns
3 platforms
Results
Print
+11%
+13%
+16%
Brand love
Tablet
+14%
+20%
+38%
Computer
+10%
+14%
+31%
Newsbrands vs non-readers
Buzz
Consideration
Context effect offsets dislike of online ads
&
But….. print and tablet effects are
underestimated when researched online
The context effect increases
significantly when people
interact with the physical
newspaper or tablet edition
Brand love
+9.9%
Buzz
+17.0%
Consideration
+43.6%
Physical interaction increases context effect for print & tablet
Print
+22%
+40%
+66%
Brand love
Tablet
+25%
+40%
+97%
Computer
+10%
+14%
+31%
Using all the senses (projections)
Buzz
Consideration
Brand love Buzz Consideration
Regular newsbrand readers versus non-readers
Projections from physical test
+21% +31% +68%
Context effect helps offset demographic differences
Men Women Men Women Men Women
+15%
+10%
+19%
+13%
+28%
+20%
Non-readers
Newsbrands
Brand love Buzz Consideration
18-34 50+
+8% +16%
+12%
+22%
+25%
+27%
Non-readers
Newsbrands
Brand love Buzz Consideration
18-34 50+ 18-34 50+
bigger context effect
Stronger creative
=
Lowest
scoring
ads
+15%
+12%
+16%
+16%
+11%
+33%
Non-readers
Newsbrands
Brand love Buzz Consideration
18-34 50+
Lowest
scoring
ads
Highest
scoring
ads
Highest
scoring
ads
Lowest
scoring
ads
Highest
scoring
ads
The more engaged the
reader, the stronger the
context effect
Brand love Buzz Consideration
Regular newsbrand readers versus non-readers
+12% +15% +25%
Brand love Buzz Consideration
Committed newsbrand readers versus non-readers
+18% +33% +50%
Impact of relevant
editorial context
If it’s into your frame of mind at the time, it
sticks with you a bit more, when you’re actually
reading things around the subject matter
“
News
context
Relevant
context
+ 5.2%
Buzz
Motoring
+18.3%
Technology
+10.5%
Buzz
Summary and implications
1. Context matters
4. Be very careful about
choosing the company you keep
2. The newsbrand context is
particularly powerful
3. The effect is measurable
across platform
Methodology and sample definitions
The company
you keep
Sample for quantitative research
• Total sample: 8,600
– Main sample : 8,000 completed online reading task followed by online questionnaire
– Face to face sample: 600 read physical paper/tablet edition, followed by online
questionnaire
• Each respondent saw one test ad, placed in one platform/title, but were not
made aware of the ad, or asked advertising questions until all brand
questions were completed
• Main sample split:
– equal groups read (online mock-up of) print, computer or tablet edition
– equal groups across six titles, equal groups for main news and relevant editorial
placement for each advertiser
• Face to face sample:
– 300 saw ad in physical tablet newsbrand, 300 saw ad in physical print newsbrand
8 campaigns
3 platforms
Respondents choose an
avatar
and move in visual
animations
Proximity
Methodology
© Copyright 2014 Conquest Research & Consultancy Ltd. All rights reserved. The Metaphorix®
tool and brand name Metaphorix® are the exclusive property of Conquest Research &
Consultancy Ltd.
Mix of conventional questions, indirect questions (see below) and implicit measurement
Brand love
Buzz
Consideration
composite of three indirect engagement metrics – how close
people feel towards the brand, the warmth of their feelings, and
the brands empathy with them.
Key metrics, averaged across all brands & titles
how much people feel the brand is being talked about (indirect)
intention to purchase the brand the next time in market;
direct question: results based on definitely/probably will choose
Key groups - definitions
• Newsbrands (regular readers)
– regularly read national newspaper brand and platform
– saw ad in the national newspaper brand they regularly read
• Non-readers
– saw ad in newsbrand context during research, but do not read any national newspaper or
native news title (Huffington Post/MSN) on any platform, ie are not familiar with/not
‘primed’ by the newsbrand context
• Committed readers (chart 49)
– regular newsbrand reader and consider title to be like a close friend
– saw ad in the national newspaper brand they regularly read and feel very close to
• Print, tablet and computer results (eg chart 35) compare groups of regular readers of
national newsbrands who saw the ad in their chosen regular platform with non-readers who
saw ads in the same titles and platform
Key groups - definitions
• Committed readers (chart 49)
– regular newsbrand reader and consider title to be like a close friend
• Additionally, we show results from the face to face sample who read the
physical newspaper or tablet on Chart 39
• And use these data to model projected results for the total sample of 8,600
if everyone had completed reading task using the physical tablet or newspaper,
instead of mocked up on desktop (Charts 40 & 41). Results for Computer are
obviously unaffected.