purchase decision

Top Influence on Online Purchase Decisions? Deals and Discounts

source: http://www.marketingcharts.com/wp/topics/e-commerce/top-influence-on-online-purchase-decisions-deals-and-discounts-36149/?utm_campaign=rssfeed&utm_source=mc&utm_medium=textlink

RetailMeNotIpsos-Purchase-Influences-When-Shopping-Online-Aug2013Reviews matter when it comes to online purchase decisions, but not as much as deals, according to a RetailMeNot.com survey conducted by Ipsos. 56% of US respondents said that deals, discounts or sales on the product they’re purchasing influences their decision, while 51% counted reviews, ratings or opinions of customers who have already bought the product as an influence on their purchase decision.

Not far behind, 45% of US respondents said that the trustworthiness of the retailer plays a part in their decision-making process. Fewer pointed to factors such as speed and convenience of delivery for the product (29%), reviews, ratings or opinions of professional journalists or industry experts that have used the product (26%), and comments, reviews and opinions from peers on social media (22%).

It’s interesting to see customer reviews showing up as far more influential than professional reviews, as Weber Shandwick found the same result when looking at consumer electronics purchases.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, August 26th, 2013 news No Comments

Looking for the Best Gas Prices? Mobile Searchers Convert Quickly

source: http://www.marketingcharts.com/wp/interactive/looking-for-the-best-gas-prices-mobile-searchers-convert-quickly-35082/?utm_campaign=rssfeed&utm_source=mc&utm_medium=textlink

xAdTelmetrics-Mobile-Gas-Convenience-Searchers-Conversions-July2013Smartphone and tablet users who search for gas and convenience store information (“gas and convenience searchers”) tend to be ready to act on what they find, according to the latest data release from the “Mobile Path-to-Purchase Study” [download page], conducted by Telmetrics and xAd. About 2 in 3 smartphone searchers said they look to make a purchase decision immediately (35%) or within an hour (31%) of their search, with another 24% saying they’ll make their purchase that day.

Tags: , , ,

Monday, July 22nd, 2013 news No Comments

The generalization that TV ads are more “helpful” than internet ads is simply false and irresponsible

In the following study published by Harris Interactive and Adweek Media, they show a chart which seemingly shows that TV ads are “most helpful” in making a purchase decision. If you were give the following list of choices —  TV ads, newspaper ads, search engine ads, radio ads, banner ads, and none — and asked to select which was most helpful to your purchase decision; which would you choose? And would you choose that because it was more familiar to you (e.g. TV), seen more frequently, etc. Or is it that banner ads are generally known to be ignored (eye tracking studies show that most users know not to look at the top and right sides of a web page, knowing that banner ads typcially go there).

for new products
where the missing link is simply awareness
TV is very effective
in driving an initial burst of sales
starting pt is zero sales
so if you make people aware
some will buy
11:04 PM in the case of new products
online ads are not great
but you have to break online ads into 2 types
banner ads (push) versus search ads (pull)
search ads are not useful here
because it is a new product and people
wont know to search for it
11:05 PM banner ads may work
because they are for awareness
and they are displayed on pages where people are looking at content
but compared to TV advertising
people have accepted ads as part of the “price” of TV
on the contrary
people have always expected itnernet content to be free
and they have devloped habits to
11:06 PM avoid lokoing at top of page and right side
so banner ads are pretty damn bad at
generating awareness
because people simply dont look
so of the 3
tv ads, banner ads and search ads
tv ads are better in the case of new products where the missing link is awareness
11:07 PM when you get to more established products
the balance changes
the missing link is not awareness
the missing links are further down the funnel
e.g. consideration
modern consumers need more info
they dont just trust an advertiser
and TV ads give them too little info to be useful
11:08 PM banner ads are still ignored just as much as before
but search ads become more important
by looking at what people are searching for
yu know what part of the purch funnel they are at
and what missing link they are trying to solve
so in summary
11:09 PM making the generalization that TV ads are more effective than internet ads is simply false and irresponsible; we must take into account dozens more parameters that impact purchase
decisions


Source: http://www.marketingcharts.com/television/tv-ads-most-helpful-web-banners-most-ignored-9645/


More than one-third of Americans (37%) say that TV ads are most helpful to them in making a purchase decision, while nearly half say they ignore internet banner ads, according to (pdf) a poll from AdWeekMedia and Harris Interactive.

In terms of the helpfulness of ads in other media, newspapers rank second behind TV, with 17% reporting that newspaper ads are most helpful, while 14% say the same about internet search-engine ads:

harris-poll-adweek-media-most-helpful-ads-june-2009.jpg

At the other end of the spectrum, Radio ads (3%) and internet banner ads (1%) are not considered helpful by many people. The poll found also that more than one fourth (28%) of Americans say that none of these types of advertisements are helpful to them in the purchase-decision-making process.

Not surprisingly, the types of ads Americans find helpful vary by age and, slightly, by region:

  • 50% of people ages 18-34 find TV ads most helpful.
  • 31% of those ages 55+ say newspaper ads are most helpful.
  • 40% of Southerners find TV ads most helpful, while only one-third (33%) of Midwesterners feel the same.

Banner Ads Most Ignored
Almost half of Americans (46%) say they ignore internet banner ads, according to the study. Much further down the list of ignored items are internet search engine ads (17% of people ignore), television ads (13%), radio ads (9%), and newspaper ads (6%):

harris-poll-adweek-media-most-helpful-ads-june-20091.jpg

One in ten Americans (9%) say they do not ignore any of these types of ads.

Age and regional differences:

  • 50% of those ages 35-44 and 51% of Midwesterners say they ignore Internet banner ads compared with 43% of 18-34 year olds as well as Easterners and Southerners.
  • 20% of Americans 18-34 years old (20%) say they ignore Internet search engine ads while 20% of those ages 55+ ignore TV ads.

Harris Interactive suggestes that these findings are important because, despite online video and the ability to use a DVR to shift live programming, TV ads remain most helpful to consumers. Conversely, while an internet strategy is essential for a comprehensive ad campaign, banner ads are only considered helpful by a few and are ignored the most, the polling fiirm said.

About the survey: The AdweekMedia/The Harris Poll was conducted online in the US from June 4-8, 2009 among 2,521 adults (ages 18+). Figures for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, region and household income were weighted where necessary to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the population. Propensity score weighting was also used to adjust for respondents’ propensity to be online.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, July 28th, 2009 digital No Comments

Branding is still a useful activity? Reach and frequency is still a useful metric?

Source: http://community.microsoftadvertising.com/blogs/analytics/archive/2009/07/06/getting-back-to-basics-why-web-advertising-needs-traditional-media-metrics.aspx

Getting Back to Basics – Why Web Advertising Needs Traditional Media Metrics

posted Mon, Jul 06 2009

by Young Bean Song MSFT

Trying to build a brand marketing campaign without traditional target reach and Gross Rating Points (GRP) estimates is like trying to diet without the concept of calories. The analogy of dieting and advertising works on many levels.

continue reading Young Bean Song…

My response…

RE: “Patty Wakeling, an industry veteran who leads Unilever’s Global Media Insights Group, recently reminded me that in today’s retail environment, the choice between the branded versus the generic option are separated by less than an inch on the shelf. It was a sobering reminder of the power of branding, and why so many companies are willing to spend so much to build their brand equity.” But in the case of Whole Foods’ own store brand, 365, many people perceive it to be better than branded options (or at least equivalent). So they tend to choose to buy the 365 product instead. In other cases, what used to be brand equity/value is now perceived as an undesirable premium. Take another example — the rise and popularity of Trader Joe’s where 80% of the products sold are house brands. Consumers care about the product and its quality and value; consumers no longer care (as much) about the brand that is slapped on the package if the contents inside suck.

A brand used to be a mark or symbol burned onto a cow’s butt to signify what ranch it came from. And if people knew the ranch had a good reputation for raising healthy cows, they would buy the cow. The brand helped simplify the purchase decision. These days, advertisers carefully manicure “brand messages” and shout them at target consumers using various one-way channels such as TV, print, radio, and banner ads. But like Scott Cook, Intuit, said, “A brand is no longer wht we tell the consumer its – its what the consumers tell each other it is.” So branding as we know it (advertisers shouting claims at target customers) is less relevant or even unwanted entirely by modern consumers. And brand equity, which used to be a large, fungible item on the balance sheet (technically known as “good will”) may be far less valuable today. Consumers don’t just take the advertisers’ word for it; they will do their own research and buy what is actually valuable and useful.

Companies that actually develop useful and valueable products or services that consistently deliver on their promise — Apple, Drobo, Zappos, JetBlue, etc. — can even cut out their brand advertsing entirely because their brand IS their consistent delivery on the promise of value and usefulness. For example, has Apple EVER claimed they have awesome design and are easy to use? NEVER! But their products consistently deliver on those 2 attributes. So that’s how modern users would describe Apple’s brand to their friends.

A “brand” is earned over time. “Branding” is no longer a useful activity (and furthermore it is damned expensive — media costs — and ineffective — because it is the advertiser making claims that modern consumers don’t believe, assuming they saw the ad in the first place).

From AdAge — people buying private label, generics, or store brands (quality of which are pretty comparable to name brands)

Private Labels winning the battle of the brands
http://adage.com/article?article_id=134791

What do you think?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, July 8th, 2009 digital 3 Comments

lift in search due to paid TV advertising

List of 2009 Superbowl spots on AdAge.com

http://adage.com/superbowl09/article?article_id=134136

Lift in search is a great indicator of interest. Modern consumers may be inspired by TV ads, but they usually go online to do more research for themselves, to inform their own purchase decision. The following examples show the lift in search after Superbowl commercials or for launch of products like Subway Footlongs. The use of unique, made-up words makes it easier to detect lift in search (see related post: made up words are great for tracking buzz and search volume ). There is now a correlation between offline paid advertising and online behaviors of modern consumers that can be tracked and ultimately related to sales.

What is harder to do is track lift in search from smaller TV media buys or from terms which are generic — e.g. American Express OPEN, Proctor & Gamble’s TAG (men’s deoorant), etc. And furthermore, people may or may not remember the brand name itself and may type in a more general search query — e.g. “talking baby” instead of” e-Trade” or “dancing lizards” instead of “SoBe LifeWater.” And most people usually forget to type in special URLs specified in the ads. So the opportunity is to 1) use made-up words which can be used to detect lift in search and 2) search-optimize around other more generic terms that people may search for if they remembered the ad, but did not remember the brand name itself.

key learnings include:

1. only the superbowl TV ads generates enough awareness to drive lift in search volume detectable above the noise or normal levels

2. made up words are useful in correlating paid advertising and subsequent online actions (e.g. search) because most users forget or are too lazy to type special URLs

3. is is always better to have real analytics from the site to see when paid campaigns hit; site analytics will also reveal more information about users including demographic information, what they are looking for, and even whether they “convert” to a sale or a desired action — like print off a coupon, etc.

Notice the January spikes for several of the examples below — these are their Superbowl ads in action. But also notice how sharp the spikes are — most of them go back to prior levels within 1 – 3 days (see related post: the ephemerality of the Superbowl halo )

Source: Google Insights for Search

footlongs

jackinthebox

dennys

ecoimagination

godaddy1

lifewater

drinkability

etrade

cash4gold

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

CCA – cost of customer acquisition

how do we judge the relative merit and effectiveness of different types of advertising? By finding a common parameter that can be used to compare “apples to apples.” We argue that cost of customer acquisition is a great candidate for such a parameter.

For example, if television advertising cost $50 million to produce and air, and 1,000 people came to the acquisition website, and 10 people applied for and received credit cards then the CCA — cost of customer acquisition would be $5 million ($50 million / 10 people who got the credit card). Of course television advertisers would claim that the “impressions” from TV would have “branded” millions more people and they would eventually get a credit card from the company. That’s possible. But for the purposes of this exercise, if there is no absolute end-to-end tracking, we don’t count it. Because, for example, many other possible scenarios can also occur, like the person saw this ad for a credit card but ended up getting a card from a different bank, they saw and remembered the ad but they already had several credit cards from the company, etc.

With “online” we can easily see lift in search activity around the time that brand/awareness advertising is in-flight. This is one of the best indicators of interest — the person saw the TV ad, and was inspired enough to go online to do more research to inform their own purchase decision. Modern consumers will typically search and then click through. In rare instances, they will type the URL, but it is usually the domain name, not the special URL — domain_name.com/special_url — just because of pure laziness or simply because they forgot the /special_url portion.

Now let’s look at a print example: a print ad cost $5 million to produce and traffic in targeted magazines. About 1,000 people came to the website and 10 people ended up purchasing the advertised product. So the CCA is $500,000 per customer acquired.  There may be more people who saw the ad and eventually came in to buy a product. But again, there is a problem of attribution.

Now a final example from “online” marketing.  Search ads were run using Google Adwords and a $1 CPC (cost per click) was paid. Of those people who clicked through 1 in 20 purchased a product. So it took 20 clicks at $1 each to achieve 1 sale – so the cost of customer acquisition is $20.

OK, so what about prodycts not sold online? We can use a proxy which has a known conversion to sales. For example, once a coupon is printed from the website, from historic data the advertiser knows that 30% end up using the coupon – i.e. redeeming with a purchase. So, again, if we used a $1 CPC and 1 in 20 ended up printing the coupon and 30% of those “converted” to an offline sale, the CCA would be $66.67  ($20/0.30).

So to recap

Television – $5 million CCA

Print – $500,000 CCA

Paid Search – $20 CCA

Paid Search + Offline Sale – $67 CCA

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, February 21st, 2009 digital, integrated marketing, marketing No Comments

Dr. Augustine Fou is Digital Consigliere to marketing executives, advising them on digital strategy and Unified Marketing(tm). Dr Fou has over 17 years of in-the-trenches, hands-on experience, which enables him to provide objective, in-depth assessments of their current marketing programs and recommendations for improving business impact and ROI using digital insights.

Augustine Fou portrait
http://twitter.com/acfou
Send Tips: tips@go-digital.net
Digital Strategy Consulting
Dr. Augustine Fou LinkedIn Bio
Digital Marketing Slideshares
The Grand Unified Theory of Marketing