Marketing mix research tells us that advertising and word-of-mouth are significant drivers of sales. We also know that advertising has a greater impact when it generates word-of-mouth. According to a 2014 marketing mix project by Analytic Partners for the Word of Mouth Marketing Association (WOMMA), about a third of the sales impact of word-of-mouth is attributable to it acting as an amplifier to paid media. Yet only some television advertising is effective at sparking conversations. In a recent study, advertising agency UM evaluated the types of messages that were more likely to be shared online. And to better understand which types of creative are most likely to generate word-of-mouth, Keller Fay Group partnered with CBS to test the “talkability” of advertising creative. The results of each study provide valuable guidance

Offline word-of-mouth impression drives at least 5 times – and up to as much as 100 times – more sales – than a paid advertising impression. Thus, it pays for brands to create advertising campaigns that get people talking. This isn’t as easy as it seems. If it were, both brands and agencies would be consistently successful. But brands and agencies that build “creating buzz” directly into creative process itself find they can more reliably drive conversation with their campaigns. One agency that does this exceedingly well is CP+B Group, whose co-founder and Chairman, Chuck Porter, spoke at the PR Summit hosted by the Holmes Report last fall. The war is over. #PR won. Inspiring thoughts from Chuck Porter about the power of what we do. #PRSummit pic.twitter.com/joLywjpA3A — Elise

Presentation by Facebook and The Keller Fay Group on Total TV Chatter at the Advertising Research Foundation’s RE:THINK 2014, NYC, March 2014   TV viewing and program selection is a highly social phenomenon, both on-line and off-line. Nearly 50 2013 Fall TV shows were assessed by two measures: online social chatter as measured on Facebook, and offline word of mouth about television as measured by Keller Fay’s TalkTrack®. A 0.73 correlation was found between the two methods, with instructive differences based upon demographics, genre, and high-interest episodes. Responses to specific popular programs such as Dancing with the Stars, Glee, The Big Bang Theory, and Scandal were analyzed.

By VINDU GOEL  April 10, 2014, 7:00 AM on the New York Times Social Blog at: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/10/twitter-and-facebook-wield-little-influence-on-tv-watching/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&src=busln&_r=1& Listen to executives at Twitter and Facebook talk about how we watch television and you might walk away thinking that Americans are chattering nonstop on the social networks while watching their favorite shows. The reality is that most of us don’t tweet or post at all while we’re plopped in front of the tube. When we do, half the time we’re talking about something other than TV. And social media conversation is far weaker than traditional factors, like TV commercials for new shows or our sheer laziness in changing channels, in prompting us to tune into each season’s new offerings. Those are among the crucial findings of a new study released Thursday by the Council for Research

By Ed Keller “Social TV” is all the rage, or so it feels. An estimated 40% of Twitter traffic during the prime time period is about television, according to Wired Magazine’s recent “Platinum Age of Television” issue. “ And that’s why, some day in the near future, a show’s tweetability may be just as crucial as the sheer size of its audience,” writes Wired. But what role does social media really play in driving people’s viewing behavior? Is social TV “the real deal” as some argue, or is the industry making more of it than consumer behavior would suggest it should? At the ARF’s recent Audience Measurement 8.0 conference, Beth Rockwood, SVP of Discovery Communications and Richard Zackon from the Council for Research Excellence (CRE) shared results from an ambitious

The End of Social Media

Wednesday, 13 June 2012 by

Posted on MediaPost by Mike Bloxham In the dot com era, the prevailing mantra from Silicon Valley and the crop of newly emerged businesses on the Web was that “traditional” media owners, bricks-and-mortar businesses and any other entity that represented the pre-Web world was basically consigned to an inevitable demise. Reality, if course, had different ideas. More of the Internet upstarts fell victim to the fate of “not getting it” than did those that pre-dated them. Skip forward a few years to when the dot-com bust was starting to become a memory rather than an impediment to business. We saw the more sensible integration of digital and traditional media within the operations of agencies, media owners and marketers alike. Different departments and different teams (often with different perspectives) eventually started

By Ed Keller When people consume media together, either in-home or out-of-home, does it help or hurt advertising effectiveness? The argument that it hurts the advertiser is the “distraction” model, which argues that the presence of other people distracts people from on-screen content, reducing value to the advertiser. This is an argument put forth by Steven Bellman et al. in their 2011 paper “How Coviewing Reduces the Effectiveness of TV Advertising”. The argument that it helps the advertiser is the “social influence” model, which posits that the presence of other people leads to more emotional engagement and the sharing of advertising content, leading to higher ad effectiveness.  This is an argument that Brad Fay and I put forth in The Face-to-Face Book, forthcoming from Simon & Schuster/Free Press in May

In his keynote speech to the Advertising Research Foundation’s recent media conference, New York Times columnist David Brooks talked about key themes from his new book, The Social Animal, that relate to marketing.  He told the audience of nearly 700 that he believes the primacy of emotion is one of the three most important “foundations” coming out of scientific inquiry in the fields of neuroscience and psychology.  “Emotions are central to how we think and to the wiring of the fibers of the brain,” he said. At the same conference, I presented a paper with MediaVest’s Emily Vanides on the topic, “Conversation Triggers:  Sparking Conversation with Advertising and Media.”  Consistent with the point made by Brooks, our research shows that strong emotional content is key to people’s desire to pass

With the buzz surrounding word-of-mouth marketing on the rise, there has been a greater effort to track and analyze this phenomenon. At the ARF/Advertising Research Foundation’s Measurement 6.0 conference in New York on Monday, word-of-mouth research was high on the agenda. Evaluating and quantifying the dynamics of consumer conversations was the topic of a joint study conducted and presented by Ed Keller, CEO of Keller Fay Group and Emily Vanides, VP connections research and analytics at MediaVest. Their research was based on Keller Fay’s TalkTrack methodology that measures conversations online and offline. Using a diary-based survey program, respondents kept track of their conversations and later reported them in an online survey. Some of the findings were quite surprising. Positive experiences (75 percent) are more likely to generate word of mouth

I’m certain I’m not alone in my thinking of social media as a platform to scale word of mouth (WOM) marketing. People participate in social media to interact with friends and like-minded strangers about things that interest them. Social media marketers engage their customers in ways that encourage them to spread the word. Viola! Everyone is talking about brands. Well, that may not be what’s happening. Compared to offline, there’s very little WOM being generated on social media. What’s going on and what does this mean for our social media strategies? This week’s The Advertising Research Foundation’s Audience Measurement 6.0 Symposium included a session on WOM with Ed Keller of Keller Fay Group and Emily Vanides of MediaVest. Conversation Triggers commenced with the accolades for WOM I expected. Vanides cited

TOP