Interactive Advertising Bureau 2007

(1)

Interactive Advertising Bureau

2007

(2)

• Introduction :

10 minutes

– Who’s is IAB

– The Advertisers Road show

• Part 1 : Facts and Figures

45 minutes

– Internet in Belgium

– Household products & Surfers : Exclusive IAB study

– Advertising investments

• Part 2 : Understanding

30 minutes

– Open discussion about Internet

– Hurdles and Difficulties

• Conclusion and Next steps

5 minutes

(3)

IAB Belgium

(4)

Association representing the online Industry

• Vision : moving from passive and intrusive marketing into permission

based and interactive marketing

• Mission : promote and develop the market

• Organisation : Educate, Defend, Regulate and Promote

– WG : Training, Research, Legal, Channel Guidelines, Cases and

e-Business

– More than 40 events/year and more than 10 publications & white

papers/year

• Structure :

– Members (185), Board (15), Staff (5), Workgroups (6) and

Taskforces (20)

– IAB Europe and 13 National IAB’s

• Taskforce « Develop the Market » :

– Research : exclusive content

– Press : awareness

– Road show : dialogue

– Action plan : support

(5)

1. Internet usage in Belgium

(6)

Internet penetration in Europe

Number of Internet connections for 100 households

22 22 19 17 16 13 12 11 ₁₀ 4 1 66 63 57 53 51 44 48 44 40 37 34 34 _{34 33 32} 30 29 24 23 Ne th er la nd s De nm ar k No rw ay Fi nl an d Sw ed en Be lg iu m Lu xe m bo ur g Un it ed K in gd om Ma lt a Es to ni a EU ( 15 c ou nt ri es ) Ge rm an y Sl ov en ia Au st ri a EU ( 25 c ou nt ri es ) Fr an ce Sp ai n Po rt ug al La tv ia H ung ar y Po la nd Li thua ni a C ze ch R epu bl ic It al y Ir el an d Cy pr us Sl ov ak ia Bu lg ar ia G reec e Ma ce do ni a

(7)

•

More than 2.6 million connections

•

89% broadband

Source : ISPA – Q3 2006

Number of connections in Belgium

0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 Q 1 2 001 Q 2 2 001 Q 3 2 001 Q 4 2 001 Q 1 2 002 Q 2 2 002 Q 3 2 002 Q 4 2 002 Q 1 2 003 Q 2 2 003 Q 3 2 003 Q 4 2 003 Q 1 2 004 Q 2 2 004 Q 3 2 004 Q 4 2 004 Q 1 2 005 Q 2 2 005 Q 3 2 005 Q 4 2 005 Q 1 2 006 Q 2 2 006 Q 3 2 006

Broadband

Smallband

Î

Better user experience = Increased usage

(8)

1. Internet usage in Belgium

(9)

Total Internet penetration

(% of 12+ population)

5 030 000 individuals have used Internet across past months

Î

56% of the Belgian population 12+

Source : CIM PluriMediaProduct Study ’05-’06

27

24

30

33

28

36

38

33

40

38

50

44

52

54

47

56

43

45

Websites

E-Mail

Web or Mail

(10)

Total Internet penetration

(Web or mail usage - % per age group)

Average 12+ population

56

88

93

84

76

73

71

70

62

52

39

29

18

10

4

A

ver

ag

e 1

2

+

12-1

4 y

.o

.

15-1

7 y

.o

.

18-2

0 y

.o

.

21-2

4 y

.o

.

25-2

9 y

.o

.

30-3

4 y

.o

.

35-3

9 y

.o

.

40-4

4 y

.o

.

45-4

9 y

.o

.

50-5

4 y

.o

.

55-5

9 y

.o

.

60-6

4 y

.o

.

65-6

9 y

.o

.

70-7

4 y

.o

.

75 y.o

. +

(11)

There are 3 795 100 Belgian surfers on an average day

Î

42% of Belgians 12+

Yesterday use of web or e-mail

(% of 12+ population)

11

15

16

22

20

27

23

29

38

32

33

42

24

32

Websites

E-Mail

Web or Mail

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

(12)

Average 12+ population

42

59

73

74

68

58

55

54

45

39

30

21

12

7

3

A

ver

ag

e 1

2

+

12-14 y

.o

.

15-17 y

.o

.

18-20 y

.o

.

21-24 y

.o

.

25-29 y

.o

.

30-34 y

.o

.

35-39 y

.o

.

40-44 y

.o

.

45-49 y

.o

.

50-54 y

.o

.

55-59 y

.o

.

60-64 y

.o

.

65-69 y

.o

.

70-74 y

.o

.

75 y

.o

. +

Yesterday use of web or e-mail

( % per age group)

(13)

48

37

46 47

35 34

46

37

32

39

43

51 49

44

70

48

30

16

35

49

42

A

ve

rag

e 12+

Men

Wo

m

en

Ma

in

s

h

op

p

er

1

8

-5

4

FR

NL

An

tw

er

p

en

Bruss

el

s 1

9

Ha

in

au

t

Li

m

bu

rg

Li

eg

e

Lu

xe

m

bo

u

rg

Na

m

u

r

Oo

st

V

l.

V

lam

s B

rab

ant

B

rab

ant

w

al

lo

n

We

st

V

l.

SG 1

-2

SG 3

-4

SG 5

-6

SG 7

-8

Yesterday’s use

(Web or e-mail usage - % per target)

Average 12+

(14)

Yesterday’s use of Internet

Evolution on Main Shoppers 18-54

23.4

28.2

33.4

43.1

48.0

(15)

Online activities

2 171 Logo/Bel 1 108 Online Transaction 5 422 Life Sport 5 473 Tv Prog 5 475 Jobs 6 541 Jobs Sites 7 610 Sms 10 877 Radio 10 878 E-Shopping 11 955 Chat 12 1 048 Online Games 12 1 073 Press 14 1 227 Music 14 1 255 Download 21 1 929 Pc-Banking 24 2 181 Document 24 2 194 Surf 27 2 425 Product Info 12+ (%) 12+ (000) Activity 2 58 Logo/Bel 1 36 Online Trans. 5 138 Life Sport 6 170 Tv Prog 7 201 Jobs 8 231 Sms 8 250 Chat 8 259 Jobs Sites 9 267 Online Games 10 307 Music 10 312 Radio 13 400 Download 13 408 E-Shopping 14 441 Press 26 785 Surf 28 870 Document 29 890 Pc-Banking 35 1 067 Product Info MS 18-54 (%) MS 18-54 (000) Activity

(16)

Windows Live Search MSN Portal

Ebay.be

Windows Live Spaces Wikipedia.org

Zita (Telenet) Skynet.be

Windows Live Messenger Hotmail-Windows Live Mail Google Search

Top Sites (Comscore panel)

Source : January 2007 493 797 495 010 516 930 597 022 601 696 690 629 690 781 694 602 745 884 826 710 885 056 950 743 1 208 724 1 219 032 1 279 450 1 727 296 2 002 323 3 155 338 4 12 0143 4 721 430 Regular visitors 32 337 Autoscout24 194 188 HLN.be - 7sur7.be Website

155 615 Zita 295 649 Skynet 99 469 VRT NIEUWS NET 89 511 De Standaard Online 87 354 Kapaza 80 113 Pages d’Or - Gouden Gids

191 964 SKYBLOG.com 121 999 Het Nieuwsblad 552 721 MSN Belgium 42 840 Gazet van Antwerpen

34 887 Infobelcom 37 556 VTM 47 777 één 55 227 Immoweb 29 383 NetOnline 43 485 SeniorenNet 60 431 2dehands.be 961 412 Hotmail Daily average Top 20 Sites (Metriweb)

(17)

1. Internet usage in Belgium

(18)

Source : CIM Audimetrie January – December 2006

3:55

2:24

3:38

2:43

4+ No Internet

at home

4+ Internet at

home

MS 18-54 No

Internet

MS 18-54

Internet

- 1h31

- 55 min

Internet influences other media usage

Total TV screen usage : minutes per day

(19)

(20)

Consumption moment

All day 0 100 200 300 400 4h 7h ₁₀h ₁₃h ₁₆h ₁₉h _22h 1h Co nsum p tio n I n de x Internet Magazines Morning 0 100 200 300 400 4h 7h ₁₀h ₁₃h _16h ₁₉h ₂₂h 1h Co nsum p tio n I n de x Newspaper Radio Evening 0 100 200 300 400 500 4h 7h ₁₀h ₁₃h ₁₆h ₁₉h _22h 1h Cinema TV

(21)

2. Household Products & Surfers

(22)

IAB 10before10 – Barometer II: Household 2007

A DMU surfer is “an Internet user who is responsible for or influences the purchase decision of a certain product category, in this case Household products

Population composition

53% of Belgians are surfers responsible for household purchase

6.800.000 Belgians (15-65)

4.600.000 Belgian surfers (15-65)

3.000.000 Belgian DMU surfers (15-65), responsible for the purchase

of household products

68%

(23)

N = 942

Filter: Belgian DMU surfers

59% 44% 40% 25% 14% 8% 6% 4% 3% 8% 27% 35% 45% 45% 60% 40% 43% 32% 26% 16% 26% 24% 47% 46% 60% 67% 2% 4% 84%

Washing-up liquids / detergents Laundry cleaners Kitchen cleaners Toilet care products All-purpose cleaners Bathroom cleaners Bleaches & disinfectants Floor, furniture, carpet cleaners & polishes Metal, oven cleaners, anti-limescale products Window & glass cleaners

Almost daily Once a week Less than once a week Never

How often you use the following products at home?

(24)

What surfers use more ?

Source : CIM PluriMediaProduct Study ’05-’06 80 93 74 47 Descaler 76 100 77 46 (Not)Conc.Fabric Softner 84 91 77 46 Product Kitchen 84 93 78 47 Abrasive 88 92 80 46 Product Bathroom 89 91 81 46 Floor 90 91 82 46

Dishes Cleanser Hand

89 92 82 46 Descaler Toilet 27 108 29 50 Washing tablet 35 99 35 50 Cleaning Tissues 34 103 35 48 Concentr.Washing powder/Pearls 48 86 41 43 Carpet 46 113 52 57 Dishes Cleanser 64 95 61 48 Toilet Basket 69 98 68 45

Normal Washin gpowder

74 96 71 48 Product Windows 67 107 71 50

Liquid Washing powder.Nor/Conc.

67 109 73 50 Spot Remover 84 87 74 44 Javel Water 92 101 93 47

Use Washing Machine

% population who uses this type of

product

Affinity % surfers who use

this type of product % of consumers

who are surfers Product

12+

(25)

2. Household & Surfers

(26)

Which of the following information sources would you consult to

decide upon the brand for a household product? Multiple answers

possible.

N = 942 Filter: Belgian DMU surfers

Would you consult information sources to

decide upon the brand for a household

product?

N =838 Filter: Belgian DMU surfers with intention to consult other information sources Yes 89% No 11% 42% 33% 32% 27% 25% 25% 11% 11% 8% 7% 6% 0% 55% 4% Friends, relatives,... In-store material Product packaging Free local papers Offline advertising Magazines TV programmes Newspapers Shop assistant Websites Other Radio programmes Online advertising Brand call centre

Word of mouth is n°1

information source

Word of mouth is n°1

information source

(27)

53% has already visited household products

websites in the past

53% has already visited household products

websites in the past

How do you get to household websites ?

16% 15% 9% 9% 8% 6% 5% 4% 1% 26% Search engine TV/radio programme or press article Link product packaging Directly by entering url WOM Link different site / newsletter Different way Commercial or ad Banner Bookmarks / favourites

(28)

Which of the following websites would you visit?

Multiple answers possible.

Most visited household product related websites are websites with

cleaning tips (68%), websites for familiar household product brands

(61%) and websites specialized in household products and cleaning

(61%).

Most visited household product related websites are websites with

cleaning tips (68%), websites for familiar household product brands

(61%) and websites specialized in household products and cleaning

(61%).

N = 76

Filter: Belgian DMU surfers with intention to consult websites as information sources

61% 61% 52% 46% 25% 23% 16% 68%

Websites with cleaning tips Websites for known household product brands Websites specialised in household products and cleaning Columns regarding household products / cleaning on general

website

Websites for unknown household product brands Online shopping sites Discussion forums / blogs Other websites

(29)

N = 942

63% 56% 54% 51% 49% 45% 40% 35% 25% 24% 17% 13% 9% 6% 11% 65% Product usage Product pricing Request product samples Request discount coupons Where to buy the product Composition of househhold products Contests to win free products Ask sugestions to manufacturers Contact info manufacturer Subscribe to a newsletter General info manufacturer Buy products online Latest advertising campaigns Online games Goodies None of the above

Most expected information on household products websites are product usage information (66%),

product pricing (63%) and the ability to request product samples

or discount coupons (+/-55%). Least expected are online games

and goodies.

Most expected information on household products websites are product usage information (66%),

product pricing (63%) and the ability to request product samples

or discount coupons (+/-55%). Least expected are online games

and goodies.

Which information and services regarding household

products do you expect to find on the Internet?

(30)

N = 942

36% 35% 32% 24% 22% 19% 15% 6% 15% 27% 15% 18% 32% 32% 36% 44% 58% 50% After I purchase a household product I find it important to have

the possibility to look up additional product information on the internet

I would switch brands if I had access to interesting promotions (for another brand) via the internet

I think it is important for household product manufacturers to have a well-designed website

Household products are not fit to be sold via the internet

I would switch brands if I could receive advice or personalised information on a specific household product via the internet If I were very satisfied with the website for a household product

manufacturer I would buy more products from this manufacturer in the future

Before I purchase a household product in a supermarket I find it important to look up information online

I would change my opinion on a household product manufacturer, if I was dissatisfied with the website

I would switch to another brand if I could buy this other brand online

Agreement (top 2) Disagreement (bottom 2)

Do you agree with the following statements regarding household

websites?

(31)

N = 497

Filter: Belgian DMU surfers who visited a Household website before

Household Websites mapping

Mean all items

Importance (=correlation with overall site satisfaction)

Perf ormance (= % agree + full y agre e in divid ual items)

Mean all items

Long term care

Nice to have Weakness Strength Loading speed Graphic elements Transparent site structure Readability User-friendliness Technical performance

General product information

Information on product usage

Exclusive information

Exclusive online promotions

Cleaning advice

Contact information

Answering speed questions sent via e-mail / online form

Quality reply questions sent via e -mail / online form

15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 0,12 0,14 0,16 0,18 0,20 0,22 0,24 0,26 0,28 0,30 0,32 0,34 0,36 0,38 0,40 0,42

(32)

4% 7% 29% 24% 23% 9% 1% 1% 1% _1% 1 V e ry di ss a ti sfi e d 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 V e ry sa ti sf ie d N = 497

Filter: Belgian DMU surfers who visited a Household website before

Household website : lower satisfaction

Household prod

5.8

0 1 3 4 2 2 5 15 4 15 22 19 25 22 19 18 13 8 7 4 3 2 ₀ 6,4 6,5 6,6 6,7 6,8 6,9 7,0 7,1 7,2 7,3 7,4 7,5 7,6 7,7 7,8 7,9 8,0 8,1 8,2 8,3 8,4 8,5 8,6 Average for N = 214

7.6

8.1 90% 7.9 80% 7.8 70% 7.7 60% 7.6 50% 7.5 40% 7.4 30% 7.3 20% 7.1 10% Percentiles (N=214 websites)

External site benchmark

(214 other sites)

(33)

Visited (% ever) Visited (% last month) Purchase online (% yes) Purchase intent (% Top 2) Repurchase intent (% Top 2)

Visited (% ever) Visited (% last month) Purchase online (% yes) Purchase intent (% Top 2) Repurchase intent (% Top 2)

53 6 6 4 50 53 6 6 4 50 Visited websites Visited websites Purchased online Purchased

online _{intention online}Purchase

Purchase intention online Repurchase intention online Repurchase intention online 53% 1.600.000 DMU surfers 96.000 DMU surfers 48.000 DMU surfers 64.000 DMU surfers 4% 6% 50%

(34)

(35)

Belgium vs other countries

• Comparability? Benchmark 2006 : Display Advertising, Content

Integration, E-mail, Search, Affiliate and Classifieds (Directories not yet)

• First estimations 2006 through National IABs and AdEx benchmark

3blj€ 1,3blj€ 1,9blj€ 310mlj€ 500mlj€

Re

ac

hi

ng

8

Bil

lio

n€

fo

r

20

06

Eur

ope

an

onl

in

e

In

ve

st

m

en

ts

(36)

Europe and US

€ 0 € 2 € 4 € 6 € 8 € 10 € 12 € 14 Europe US Billions

€8.003 bn

€12.81 bn

(37)

Market Share by Format

Display

31%

Classifieds

22%

Email

2%

Search

45%

(38)

Share of European Market by country

Source: IAB Europe/PricewaterhouseCoopers UK 38% Germany 22% France 15% Netherlands 7% Italy 6% Spain 4% All other 5% Denmark 3%

(39)

Expenditure per user in €

Ū 82.46 Ū 60.66 Ū 56.96 Ū 46.79 Ū 38.22 Ū 35.71 _Ū_34.71 Ū 27.76 Ū 21.32 Ū 15.72 Ū 15.61 Ū 9.94 Ū 4.29 Ū 1.57 Ū 0.00 Ū 10.00 Ū 20.00 Ū 30.00 Ū 40.00 Ū 50.00 Ū 60.00 Ū 70.00 Ū 80.00 Ū 90.00 UK _USA Denmar k Netherla nds Franc e Belg ium Ger man y Finlan d Aust ria Spain Italy Slovenia Gr eece Croatia

Source: IAB Europe/ IAB US/ PricewaterhouseCoopers/ www.internetworldstats.com/Stats 4

(40)

Media consumption

• Evolution of hours spent since 2004

14.5 13.0 8.8 5.3 _4.5 15.4 _14.9 10.2 5.3 _4.2 15.3 _14.8 11.3 5.2 4.0

Watch television Listen to the Radio

Use the Internet Read Newspapers

Read Magazines

2004 2005 2006

Source : EIAA 2006

(41)

Zoom on the household sector

100.0%

0.0%

0.4%

1.2%

1.3%

96.6%

Media Mix Household cleaning 100%

2.8%

78.8

TOTAL 1.6% - 3.9%*

0.0%

-Internet

1.0%

0.0%

-Movie

11.4%

0.0%

0.0

Radio

6.1%

0.2%

0.3

Free sheets

7.9%

0.1%

0.3

Outdoor

24.5%

0.1%

1.0

Dailies

10.0%

0.4%

1.0

Mag

37.4%

7.1%

76.1

TV

Media Mix all sectors Share of voice Household cleaning vs other sectors Household cleaning invest (mio €)

(42)

20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 409 754 Ford 418 875 Eurostar 421 747 Electrabel 438 601 Peugeot 450 032 Sncb 516 363 Sony 543 589 Opel 550 823 Mobistar 602 128 Warner Bros Movie World

610 326 Hewlett Packard 641 769 Cofidis 708 064 Telenet Digital Tv 923 319 Dexia 962 991 Carrefour 991 524 Cbc 1 025 269 Telenet Operaties 1 162 898 Microsoft 1 224 656 Proximus 1 366 342 Ebay 3 298 243 Direct Cash 46 519 730 Total Internet in € Advertisers

Source CIM MDB, January – December 2006

Average budget per Display campaign

67 869 €

Average budget per Display campaign

67 869 €

(43)

Source CIM MDB, January – December 2006

Online household products advertisers

No data in the CIM MDB study for 2006

2005 : Robijn

2003 : Ajax

(44)

4% 4% 49% 39% 1% 2% 3% Will drop by more than 50%

Will drop by 20 to 50% Will drop by a maximum of 20% Will remain unchanged Will increase up to 20% Will increase between 20 to 50% Will increase more than 50%

68% 18% 9% 2% 1% 1% 1% '0% 1-10% 11-20% 21-50% 51-75% 76-99% 100%

What percentage of the total media budget in Belgium in 2006 does your company spend on online advertising?

To what extent will the online advertising budget for 2007 change in comparison with 2006?

Advertisers’ opinion

(45)

In how far do these reasons for (not) spending more

on online advertising apply to you?

Strongly

disagree Disagree Partly agree

Completely agree

The cost is too high 13% 32% 43% 12%

Negative past experiences 41% 41% 16% 2%

The impact/return is too modest 20% 28% 36% 16%

Limited know-how within the company 22% 35% 36% 8%

Internet adoption in my target group is too low 30% 36% 24% 9%

My product/service is not suitable 39% 33% 21% 7%

The players on the online advertising market syphon off too large a portion of the budget 10% 23% 53% 14% the market (media, planners, production) is not clear or transparent enough 16% 33% 41% 9% Impossible to verify whether the media plan is executed as agreed 26% 38% 33% 3% My current advertising agency has too little online experience 34% 35% 24% 7% Online advertising is still in its infancy and has to prove itself first 29% 39% 28% 4% Negative attitude amongst internet users toward internet advertising 23% 36% 32% 9%

Too little faith in the results 23% 34% 39% 4%

Too little feedback / not sufficiently measurable 21% 29% 41% 9%

Too specialised 31% 47% 17% 6%

No budget 31% 33% 29% 7%

Limited to current level by management / headquarter directives 50% 27% 19% 4% Insufficient trust in the players on the online advertising market 19% 41% 35% 5% Advertising formats don't offer enough possibilities to get my message across 24% 41% 30% 6% The creative possibilities of online advertising are too limited 41% 39% 19% 1%

My competitors make little or no use of the medium. 31% 31% 31% 6%

(46)

2. Why online ? Or why not?

(47)

Evaluation advertising channels

Ranking different media

The results achieved

N = 287

Filter: only experienced users and non-users

Q:Below you see a number of aspects of media. Please indicate to what extent each medium matches those aspects by using a 1 to 7 point scale. For example, give a 1 to the medium that best matches the aspect and a 7 to the medium that least matches it.

Top 1 score: ranked item on 1st place

{

The cost effectiveness of a campaign

{

To obtain a young image

{

Easy to justify internally

{

6% 7% 6% 18% 15% 7% 10% 10% 4% 13% 4% 5% 4% 13% 4% 13% 13% 26% 25% 10% 14% 16% 15% 38% 33% 22% 14% 56% 50% 30% 29% 8% 13% 10% 15% 2% 4% 10% 11% 16% 20% 18% 25% 6% 6% 18% 25% 9% 9% 5% 9% 3% 7% 5% 7% 9% Experienced user Non-user Experienced user Non-user Experienced user Non-user Experienced user Non-user

Cinem a Radio TV Internet Print (new spaper) Print (magazine) Outdoor (billboards)

(48)

N = 287

Filter: only experienced users and non-users Quick to start up a

campaign

{

The knowledge about this medium available in our company

{

The knowledge about this medium available in my advertising

agency

{

The clarity and

transparency of the advertising market within this medium

{

6% 7% 5% 8% 11% 10% 14% 5% 3% 8% 6% 5% 4% 8% 4% 18% 9% 8% 13% 21% 9% 26% 15% 18% 27% 54% 38% 14% 19% 12% 13% 18% 16% 12% 20% 19% 20% 16% 21% 24% 28% 5% 9% 25% 29% 18% 19% 10% 11% 7% 9% 8% 9% 10% 14% 4% Experienced user Non-user Experienced user Non-user Experienced user Non-user Experienced user Non-user

Cinem a Radio TV Internet Print (new spaper) Print (magazine) Outdoor (billboards)

Part 2

Evaluation advertising channels

(49)

N = 287

It is suitable for direct marketing campaigns

{

It is suitable for branding campaigns

{

The unique character of this medium

{

26% 22% 7% 7% 11% 4% 4% 4% 6% 6% 4% 10% 19% 43% 34% 5% 11% 43% 26% 11% 11% 56% 40% 3% 6% 7% 7% 8% 17% 9% 11% 16% 17% 11% 11% 4% 13% 12% 13% 6% 8% 13% Experienced user Non-user Experienced user Non-user Experienced user Non-user

Cinem a Radio TV Internet Print (new spaper) Print (magazine) Outdoor (billboards)

Part 3

Evaluation advertising channels

(50)

N = 287

Time the consumer spends on using this medium

{

It is suitable for generating sales leads

{

It is suitable to develop awareness

{

6% 11% 5% 4% 6% 11% 7% 4% 4% 11% 9% 41% 36% 12% 12% 46% 43% 13% 9% 46% 28% 16% 21% 10% 10% 13% 11% 9% 9% 8% 18% 14% 26% 8% 8% 11% 9% 5% 13% 5% 5% 6% Experienced user Non-user Experienced user Non-user Experienced user Non-user

Cinem a Radio TV Internet Print (new spaper) Print (magazine) Outdoor (billboards)

Part 4

Evaluation advertising channels

(51)

What do you think ?

• Believes

• Hurdles

• Difficulties

(52)

Conclusion and next Steps

Marketers Must Shift Communication Strategies to

Accommodate Empowered Consumers

Source: JupiterResearch (11/05)

REQUIRED SHIFT IN MARCOMS APPROACH

Pre-digital

Post-digital

MARCOMS Mass Broadcast One-dimensional Intrusive monologue Basic information Advertiser authority Organization-dictated delivery Channel silos CONSUMER Aggregated Homogeneous Passive (Receiver) Uninformed Disconnected Low expectations Singular media consumption MARCOMS Mass Broadcast One-dimensional Intrusive monologue Basic information Advertiser authority Organization-dictated delivery Channel silos CONSUMER Aggregated Homogeneous Passive (Receiver) Uninformed Disconnected Low expectations Singular media consumption CONSUMER Fragmented Heterogeneous Active (Participant) Informed Interconnected High expectations Converged media consumption MARCOMS Targeted narrowcast Multi-dimensional Inclusive dialogue Rich infotainment Consumer authority Consumer -dictated delivery Channel integration CONSUMER Fragmented Heterogeneous Active (Participant) Informed Interconnected High expectations Converged media consumption MARCOMS Targeted narrowcast Multi-dimensional Inclusive dialogue Rich infotainment Consumer authority Consumer -dictated delivery Channel integration

(53)

Respond To Emerging Consumer Traits to Build

Effective Online Brand Communications

Source: JupiterResearch (11/05)

Maintain mutually beneficial dialogue More communicative

Ability to communicate and interact

Enable quick and efficient satisfaction of needs

More exacting Ability to gain satisfaction

on-demand

Encourage consumer connections/brand community

More socially networked Ability to interconnect and

congregate

Offer invitation to participate and personalize

More in control Ability to customize consumption

Offer invitation to co-create and contribute

More publicly expressive Ability to publish self-expression

Improve relevance, targeting, offer access to unique infotainment

More savvy, well-informed Ability to access abundance of

Information

Required Marketing Response Consumer Impact

(54)

Thank you for you attention

Your contacts at IAB

President : Alain Heureux