1. Cross
Media
Analysis
Measuring
YouTube
Masthead
ROI
in
the
media
mix
Heineken
Buizenpost

2. Main
content
Summary
(slides
3-­‐4)
Set-­‐up
and
Objec;ves
(slides
5-­‐10)
• Campaign
objec;ves
• Study
objec;ves
• ROI
Model
• Set-­‐up
research
Analysis
(slides
11-­‐23)
• Cost
• Targe;ng
• Impact
• Cost/Effect
Outcomes
&
implica;ons
(slide
24-­‐26)
Back-­‐up
(slides
27-­‐28)
• Monthly
efficiency
indices
2 Google Confidential and Proprietary

3. Summary
Main
conclusions
TV
most
effecDve,
Masthead
most
efficient
1
Due
to
high
reach
TV
affects
most
people,
however
when
you
correct
for
investment
YouTube
Masthead
is
more
efficient
due
to
larger
impact
per
contact.
Masthead:
15%
of
the
effect
with
9%
of
the
budget.
TV:
85%
of
the
effect
with
91%
of
the
budget.
Highest
impact
occurs
when
TV
and
Masthead
are
combined
2
For
almost
all
KPIs
the
combined
impact
of
TV
and
Masthead
is
higher
than
the
impact
of
the
individual
medium.
So
there
is
a
clear
impact
synergy
between
the
two
media.
3
Masthead
works
most
efficiently
for
target
groups
Men
20-­‐34
and
20-­‐34.
Masthead
is
limited
in
reach,
therefore
TV
is
s;ll
required.
Background
ROI
Model
Industry
Beer
Heineken Cost
Target
audience
Beer drinkers (m/v) 18-49
ObjecDve
The objective of this report is to show the effects
of contacts with the TV campaign, Masthead
campaign, and the synergistic effect of both
campaigns on KPIs.
TargeDng
Cost/Effect
Most relevant KPIs for Heineken are: Top of mind
brand awareness and sales.
Research
Type
YouTube Masthead in Cross Media Campaigns
Impact
3 Google Confidential and Proprietary

4. TV
is
more
effec;ve
in
driving
TOMA
and
sales,
while
Masthead
is
more
efficient
in
doing
so
Impact
Effec;veness
Cost/effect
KPI
score
on
KPI
score
on
Impact
x
Reach
Impact
x
Reach
-
exposed
group
unexposed
group
Budget
172
165
115
118
100
100
110
100
102
102
100
102
100
100
17
17
Top
of
Mind
Brand
Awareness
Sales
Top
of
Mind
Brand
Sales
Top
of
Mind
Brand
Sales
Awareness
Awareness
Significant
increase
(95%)
Significance
measured
against
no
contacts.
Reduce
of
20%
TV
contacts.
Significant
decrease
(95%)
4 Google Confidential and Proprietary

5. Set-­‐up
and
ObjecDves
5 Google Confidential and Proprietary

6. Campaign
objec;ves
&
crea;ve
materials
Campaign
objecDves
• Drive
top
of
mind
awareness
and
sales
for
Heineken
brand
and
products
TV
YouTube
Masthead
6 Google Confidential and Proprietary

7. Study
objec;ves
Main
Research
quesDons
1
Online
and
off-­‐line
have
different
“languages”:
how
do
we
integrate
towards
one
currency?
2
Online
and
off-­‐line
have
different
impact
and
cost:
how
do
we
compare
them?
Research
QuesDons
TV
&
YouTube
Masthead
• How
do
cost
per
GRP/Impressions
for
TV
and
YouTube
Masthead
compare?
• How
do
reach
and
(effec;ve)
frequency
compare?
• How
much
of
the
Masthead
reach
is
unique?
• How
does
targeDng
of
Masthead
compare
to
TV?
• What
is
the
impact
of
TV
and
Masthead
on
brand
funnel
and
store
purchases?
• How
do
cost/effect
(ROI)
scores
for
TV
and
Masthead
compare?
• What
is
the
synergy
between
TV
and
Masthead?
7 Google Confidential and Proprietary

8. ROI
Model
Cost
TargeDng
Cost/Effect
Impact
8 Google Confidential and Proprietary

9. Set-­‐up
Research
This
research
is
conducted
in
two
different
panels.
Within
one
panel
where
we
measure
Brand
statements,
the
other
panel
scans
purchases.
Media
consump;on
is
being
measured
on
both
panels.
Day
Augustus
September
October
Week
31
31
32
33
34 35
36
37 38
39
40
41 42
43
Monday
2
2
9 16
23 30
6
13 20
27
4
11 18
25
Tuesday
3
3 10
17
24 31
7
14 21
28
5
12 19
26
Wednesday
4
4 11
18
25
1
8
15 22
29
6
13 20
27
Thursday
5
5 12
19
26
2
9
16 23
30
7
14 21
28
Friday
6
6 13
20
27
3 10
17 24
1
8
15 22
29
Saturday
7
7 14
21
28
4 11
18 25
2
9
16 23
30
Sunday
8
8 15
22
29
5 12
19 26
3 10
17 24
31
M/V
18-­‐49
Cross
Media
Campaign
Buizenpost
TV
Flight
Post
Out
of
Home
0
-­‐
Measure
XMOS
Brand
beer
drinkers
=
Youtube
Masthead
Measure
Correc;on
Media
Efficiency
Panel
Purchase
XMOS
N
=
2.800
Con;nuous
Registra;on
of
Purchases
and
Media
=
Awareness
Measurements
within
the
FMCG
Scan
Panel
0-­‐Measure
Measure
of
brand
metrics,
demographics
and
media
consump;on:
N
=
373
Awareness
of
Brand
and
Adver;sing,
Image,
Purchase
behavior
and
inten;on,
etc
Brand
XMOS
Post
Measure
50%
random
media
target
group
N
=
1.511
50%
YouTube
Masthead
exposed
group
for
detailed
analysis
Samples
have
been
sent
out
representa;vely
based
on
age
and
gender.
Samples
are
weighted
on
frequency
of
visi;ng
the
YouTube
website.
9 Google Confidential and Proprietary

10. Media
Efficiency
Panel:
Single
Source
Media
Research
Media
Single
Source
Effect
Contacts
Rela;on
Metrics
Purchases
TV
(OTS
Calcula;on)
YouTube
Masthead
(Tagging)
Brand
Funnel
“Single
Source”
measurement
means
that
from
each
member
of
the
panel
we
know
the
media
consump;on
(TV
and
online)
as
well
as
the
purchase
behavior
and
the
brand
percep;on.
This
allows
for
calcula;on
of
media
impact
on
both
metrics.
10 Google Confidential and Proprietary

11. Analysis
1:
Cost
Cost
TargeDng
Cost/Effect
Impact
11 Google Confidential and Proprietary

12. Reach
&
Average
contact
frequencies
Increase
in
reach
of
the
Masthead
campaign
diminishes
as
you
increase
the
number
of
Mastheads.
Budget
Reach
of
the
TV
campaign
is
5.7
;mes
higher
allocaDon
than
the
reach
of
the
Masthead
campaign.
YouTube
9%
The
target
group
is
8.14
;mes
reached
by
the
TV
campaign
and
2.7
;mes
by
the
Masthead.
TV
91%
Increase
in
reach
of
the
Masthead
campaign
diminishes
as
you
increase
the
number
of
Mastheads.
Net
cost/GRP
Reach
1+
3%
97%
37%
Masthead
3
6%
Masthead
2
173
Masthead
1
100
25%
17%
8%
8%
7%
9%
TV
Youtube
Masthead
1
Masthead
2
Masthead
3
Reach
Totaal
Average
frequency
8.14
2.7
GRP’s
790
46
Source:
Kobalt,
Google
&
GfK
–
Target
market
M
18-­‐49years
old
(n=749).
16%
of
the
target
group
is
reached
by
YouTube
Masthead.
YouTube
Masthead
reach
is
corrected
for
both
O.o.H.
internet
usage
and
cookie
dele;on.
12 Google Confidential and Proprietary

13. Masthead
reach
largely
overlaps
with
TV
campaign
(1+
reach)
1+
reach
80%
Unique
TV
Reach
0%
Unique
Masthead
Reach
17%
Overlap
Reach
97%
Total
1+
Reach
Based
on
control
group
N=855
Source:
Gp
Media
Efficiency
Panel,
cross
media
analysis
for
Heineken
campaign
13 Google Confidential and Proprietary

14. Analysis
2:
TargeDng
Cost
TargeDng
Targe;ng
Cost/Effect
Impact
14 Google Confidential and Proprietary

15. The
Masthead
reaches
more
young
men
than
TV
does
Category
Buyers
Index
Young
Men
(18-­‐35)
(MEP
Panel,
N=15.000)
122
100
102
100
TV
Online
TV
Online
Index
Low
EducaDon
Index
AB1
117
100
100
91
TV
Online
TV
Online
Based
on
control
group
N=749
Due
to
large
differences
between
non
exposed
/
TV
exposed
and
YouTube
exposed
and
large
differences
in
image
and
awareness
amongst
these
groups,
cell
weighing
is
being
applied
in
following
media-­‐analyses.
15 Google Confidential and Proprietary

16. Analysis
3:
Impact
Cost
TargeDng
Targe;ng
Cost/Effect
Impact
16 Google Confidential and Proprietary

17. All
KPIs
are
posi;vely
influenced
by
the
combined
campaign
120
108
113
107
103
100
100
100
100
100
Spontaneous
Ad
Awareness
Top
Of
Mind
Brand
Awareness
Image
Preference
Sales
Significant
increase
(95%)
Pre
Measure
Post
measure
Flight
3
Significant
decrease
(95%)
*)
Base
post
measure
=
control
+
contact
group
(weighed
in
to
have
same
distribu;on
of
YouTube
Masthead
reach
as
control
group)
Base:
all,
except
image,
most
osen,
regular,
preference
1)
Image
=
average
of
“Heineken
is
groots”,
”bier
is
goed”,
“posi;eve
energie”,
“Inven;ef’,
“preug
mee
voelen”,
“deel
ik
mijn
interesses”)
17 Google Confidential and Proprietary

18. Combina;on
of
both
TV
and
Masthead
has
the
strongest
impact
on
all
KPIs
Impact
Explana;on;
shown
is
the
effect
of
each
contact
group.
Campaign
Contacts
TV
&
YT
Sample
Size
32%
No
Contact
N
=
135
30%
23%
25%
24%
Only
TV
N
=
499
In
yellow:
Mainly
MH
N
=
275
Measurement
GfK
Panel
Services
None
TV
YouTube
Both
N
=
537
Significant
increase
(95%)
Scores
are
indexed
Significant
decrease
(95%)
N
=
6000
133
136
121
118
115
131
122
118
119
117
108
110
100
100
102
102
100
100
100
102
Spontaneous
Ad
Awareness
Top
of
Mind
Brand
Awareness
Image
Preference
Sales
Source
GfK
Daphne
Significance
measured
against
no
contacts
|
Groups
are
weighed
on
age*gender
|
TOMA
is
derived
from
GfK-­‐Daphne
research
Due
to
high
TV
reach
lowest
TV
contacts
have
been
added
to
the
no
TV
contact
group
18 Google Confidential and Proprietary

19. Op;mal
contact
frequency
for
TV
is
between
5
and
6
Op;mal
contact
frequency
for
Masthead
is
between
2
and
3
Top
of
Mind
Awareness
uplii
Sales
uplii
→
Total
Contacts
Avg.
Avg.
→
Total
Contacts
2.7
8.14
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18+
Source:
Panel
GfK
Daphne
–
Target
market
(M/V
18-­‐49
years
old).
*
Based
on
total
sample,
aware
of
Heineken;
YouTube
and
TV
group
are
weighed
on
same
distribu;on
age*gender
groups
19 Google Confidential and Proprietary

20. Analysis
4:
Cost/Effect
Cost
TargeDng
Cost/Effect
Impact
20 Google Confidential and Proprietary

21. Calcula;on
of
effec;veness
and
efficiency
Vision & KPI
score
on
KPI
score
on
Impact
Mission
=
exposed
group
-­‐
unexposed
group
Effec;veness
=
Impact
x
Reach
Impact
x
Reach
Cost/effect
=
____________
Budget
Source:
Gp
Media
Efficiency
Panel,
cross
media
analysis
for
Aviko
Frideaal
campaign
21 Google Confidential and Proprietary

22. TV
is
more
effec;ve
in
driving
TOMA
and
sales,
while
Masthead
is
more
efficient
in
doing
so
Impact
Effec;veness
Cost/effect
KPI
score
on
KPI
score
on
Impact
x
Reach
Impact
x
Reach
-
exposed
group
unexposed
group
Budget
172
165
115
118
100
100
110
100
102
102
100
102
100
100
17
17
Top
of
Mind
Brand
Awareness
Sales
Top
of
Mind
Brand
Sales
Top
of
Mind
Brand
Sales
Awareness
Awareness
Significant
increase
(95%)
Significance
measured
against
no
contacts.
Reduce
of
20%
TV
contacts.
Significant
decrease
(95%)
22 Google Confidential and Proprietary

23. Masthead
more
efficient
than
TV
on
all
audiences,
par;cularly
for
Men
20-­‐34
and
20-­‐34
For mass reach TV is still required
The
rela;ve
efficiency
can
vary
due
to
the
fact
that
TV
varies
prices
for
target
groups,
which
is
not
the
case
for
a
Masthead.
Masthead
is
not
targeted
which
means
that
Masthead
works
beyer
for
target
groups
that
visit
YouTube
more
osen.
2.5
Masthead
efficiency
in
driving
sales
(Indexed
against
TV
efficiency)
2.1
2
1.8
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.4
1
0.5
0
20-­‐34
20-­‐49
Shoppers
20-­‐49
Shoppers
+
Kid
Men
20-­‐34
Women
20-­‐49
Since
GRP’s
and
therefore
price/GRP,
targe;ng
and
Impact
are
known,
the
efficiency
within
different
target
groups
can
be
calculated.
23 Google Confidential and Proprietary

24. Outcomes
&
ImplicaDons
24 Google Confidential and Proprietary

25. Outcomes
&
implica;ons
TV
most
effecDve,
Masthead
most
efficient
1
Due
to
high
reach
TV
affects
most
people,
however
when
you
correct
for
investment
YouTube
Masthead
is
more
efficient
due
to
larger
impact
per
contact.
Masthead:
15%
of
the
effect
with
9%
of
the
budget.
TV:
85%
of
the
effect
with
91%
of
the
budget.
Highest
impact
with
combined
use
of
TV
and
Masthead
2
For
almost
all
KPIs
the
combined
impact
of
TV
and
Masthead
is
higher
than
the
impact
of
the
individual
medium.
So
there
is
a
clear
impact
synergy
between
the
two
media.
3
Masthead
works
most
efficiently
for
target
groups
Men
20-­‐34
and
20-­‐34.
Masthead
is
limited
in
reach,
therefore
TV
is
s;ll
required.
25 Google Confidential and Proprietary

26. Masthead
higher
efficiency
than
TV
due
to
more
impact
per
contact
Cost
Brand
Index:
0.58
Sales
Index:
0.58
TargeDng
Cost/Effect
Brand
Index:
1.02
Brand
Index:
1.44
Sales
Index:
1.02
Sales
Index:
1.72
Impact
Brand
Index:
2.4
Sales
Index:
2.9
Impression
Efficiency
=
Cost/GRP
of
YouTube
Mastheads
/
Cost/GRP
of
TV.
Targe;ng
Efficiency
is
the
%
of
category
buyers
reached
of
YouTube
Mastheads
/
TV
Efficiency
R.O.I.
index
=
R.O.I.
score
of
YouTube
/
R.O.I.
score
of
TV.
(Efficiency
R.O.I.
Score
Index
is
the
average
score
of
ToMA,
Image
and
Preference)
Impression
Impact
=
Efficiency
R.O.I.
/
(Impression
Efficiency
*
Targe;ng
Efficiency)
26 Google Confidential and Proprietary

27.
Back-­‐up
slides
27 Google Confidential and Proprietary

28. Cost/effect
of
Masthead
indexed
against
TV
Calculated
for
all
audiences
and
months
due
to
varia;on
in
TV
pricing.
Index
of
monthly
prices
Jan
Feb
Mrt
Apr
Mei
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Okt
Nov
Dec
STER
100
61
74
82
104
129
114
75
71
128
126
127
109
RTL
100
58
72
89
113
133
123
79
79
127
133
133
109
SBS
100
56
73
87
111
129
117
74
73
125
127
127
101
Avg.
100
58
73
86
109
130
118
76
74
127
129
129
106
EsDmaDon
Impact
Efficiency
Index
Masthead
(indexed
against
TV)
Net
cost/GRP
Jan
Feb
Mrt
Apr
Mei
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Okt
Nov
Dec
58
73
86
109
130
118
76
74
127
129
129
106
13+
625
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.6
1.8
1.7
1.1
1.1
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.5
20-­‐34
795
1.1
1.3
1.6
2.0
2.4
2.1
1.4
1.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
1.9
20-­‐49
691
0.9
1.1
1.3
1.7
2.0
1.8
1.2
1.2
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.7
BDS
20-­‐49
633
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.6
1.9
1.7
1.1
1.1
1.8
1.8
1.9
1.5
BDS
+
Kind
625
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.6
1.8
1.7
1.1
1.1
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.5
M
20-­‐34
925
1.2
1.5
1.8
2.3
2.7
2.5
1.6
1.6
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.2
V
20-­‐49
624
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.5
1.8
1.7
1.1
1.1
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.5
Heineken
Case
SpecificaDons
Target
Group
20-­‐49
Cost/GRP
pre-­‐roll
1304
Targe;ng
efficiency
index
Masthead
1.02
Impression
impact
index
Masthead
2.9
*
Montly
Cost
for
TV
is
derived
from
Carat
Media
Facts,
the
average
discount
of
70%
has
been
taken
into
considera;on.
**
Within
the
cell
the
average
efficiency
score
is
shown
for
the
market
based
on
the
Aviko
research;
Cost
TV
within
the
specific
month
/
Cost
Pre-­‐roll
*
Targe;ng
Efficiency
*
Impression
Impact
28 Google Confidential and Proprietary