5
How share of voice wins market share New findings from Nielsen and the IPA dataBANK Promoting the value of agencies

How share of voice wins market share, IPA Report July 09

  • Upload
    the-ipa

  • View
    3.687

  • Download
    5

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Excerpt from the IPA's 'How share of voice wins market share' report, July 2009

Citation preview

Page 1: How share of voice wins market share, IPA Report July 09

How share of voice wins market share

New findings from Nielsen and the IPA dataBANK

Promoting the value of agencies

Page 2: How share of voice wins market share, IPA Report July 09

Contents

Foreword 3

Introduction 4

Managementsummary 6

InputsfromtheIPAdataBANKanalysis 8

FindingsfromtheNielsenanalysis 12

Contacts 18

Additionalreading 18

Appendix 19

IPAdataforservicesanddurablessectors 21

Glossary 22

“The benchmark ratios revealed in this publication are extremely significant at the moment. In a recession such as this, there is a double-whammy effect which makes buying Excess Share of Voice (ESOV) markedly cheaper. Not only are media costs falling but so are levels of competitor spending. This provides a strong case for bravery for anyone who sees the recession as an opportunity to steal a march on competitors – and take market share from competitors which they may find ruinously expensive to buy back when the economy improves. To more timid advertisers it offers a rough guide to what the likely consequences may be of cutting back on advertising expenditure. To anyone planning to grow market share, it suggests that this cannot normally be done without planning for the cost of ESOV. And it provides all of us with a fairly useful rule of thumb which allows us to see whether we are getting the return we might expect on our budgets, and whether a declining share of market is caused by spending too little money or spending more than enough money but badly. Who knows, it could even form the basis for a system of remuneration.”

Rory SutherlandIPA President and Executive Creative Director & Vice-Chairman, OgilvyOne London & OgilvyGroup UK

Rory Sutherland

Page 3: How share of voice wins market share, IPA Report July 09

ForewordWe are indebted to Nielsen Analytic Consulting, the econometrics

arm of Nielsen, for rising to the challenge we gave them to validate

(or disprove) the relationship between a brand’s share of voice and

its share of market.

Their acceptance of it and the rigour with which they have

approached their task has resulted in some truly significant

findings. Not only have they re-validated the relationship, they

have provided an industry benchmark.

Nielsen’s analyses provide finance directors, marketing directors and agency directors

with the market-based metrics and benchmarks they need to plan marketing

expenditure and assess agency performance.

It’s a wake-up call to those marketing clients who set unrealistic targets; those finance

directors who negotiate unrealistic budgets; and those agencies who accept PBR terms

and conditions without checking the small-print.

Its publication is timely for the industry, being at a point when second half-year budget

revisions are being made and plans for the year ahead are beginning to be considered.

Hamish Pringle

IPA Director General

Hamish Pringle

Page 4: How share of voice wins market share, IPA Report July 09

IntroductionIn a difficult economic climate, extremes apply. Some

companies go under, others grow at their expense. All

previous recessions have taught us that in periods of

downturn the strong tend to get stronger, and the weak tend

to go to the wall. This is not comforting reading, but it is

typical, and there are reliable precedents.

What is true of companies is especially true of brands. Strong brands, able to invest in

a period of uncertainty, can gain share relatively cheaply because the competition for

media reduces, rates are lower, and weaker competitors disinvest, thus increasing the

strong brand’s relative share of voice.

Determining the relationship between share of voice and share of market in order to

guide investment strategy in difficult economic circumstances may not be fashionable,

but it is no less relevant for that. Marketers must pay heed to this key relationship and

use it as the basis for setting their brand communications budget. This new publication

helps them do just that. It interrogates old truths, re-asserting their relevance, and

their application.

The relationship between market share and share of voice has been a topic of discussion

in marketing circles for many years. Indeed, the IPA first published PIMS analyses in

2003 and again in 2008. But it is in the last two years that interest has been reawakened

in this subject, with the publication of telling evidence from the IPA dataBANK

of effectiveness cases in Marketing in the Era of Accountability, an IPA/WARC

publication authored by Les Binet and Peter Field.

Their analysis of a sample of 123 cases, from the 880 under investigation, established

important new benchmarks for relating required share of voice to share of market targets.

Their findings were headline news at a Marketing Effectiveness event at Cranfield in

2008 and have been presented on numerous platforms across the world since then.

Of course, the analysis provided by Les and Peter was derived from an elite source

- the IPA Effectiveness Awards cases - which are ‘best in breed’, rather than typical

everyday campaigns. There is, therefore, a risk that they will present unrealistic and

unrepresentative scenarios rather than everyday benchmarks, despite the use of a

statistical technique (Tobit) in the analysis to estimate the relationship for everyday

campaigns. The cases in the IPA dataBANK also cover a 30-year time span from 1980

Janet Hull

Page 5: How share of voice wins market share, IPA Report July 09

to 2008, during which time the communications landscape has changed radically: some

now question whether a relationship between SOV and SOM exists at all in the digital

era and so for that reason the contemporary relevance of the analysis is sometimes

questioned.

To address these issues once and for all, we designed the project which forms the basis

of this publication, and of an IPA seminar given on 9th June. The idea was to replicate

the IPA analysis, but with Nielsen’s fully representative and contemporary database

of FMCG brands’ sales and their media impacts. By comparing and contrasting the

findings of the IPA dataBANK with Nielsen, not only would the true nature of the

relationship between SOV and SOM be revealed for everyday campaigns, but the

validity of the IPA data and its analysis would also be examined.

The project also drew on largely unexplored IPA data on different market sectors,

residing in the online appendix of Marketing in the Era of Accountability, as well as

new analysis of how the relationship between SOV and SOM varied for award winners

and non-winners. And from Nielsen it drew out revelatory data exploring differences

between brand leaders and challenger brands, and between brands with ‘new’ news and

established brands.

Finally, and perhaps most excitingly, by studying the differences between the two data

sets, it quantified empirically, for the first time, the real added value contributed by

campaigns with top quality strategies and executions.

In the process it provides practical industry benchmarks and a proven analytical

framework for justifying brand budgets, setting market share targets, and

demonstrating effectiveness.