Pg 1

Millward Brown 2006 Methodology

Pre (N=1400)
Quotas set on media consumption      350 regular TV viewers 225 regular NP readers 350 regular TV + NP 125 non-regular TV + NP 350 who do not fit into consumption groups above
Same respondents invited back although some will not respond

Post (N=1000 approx)

Sample large enough to provide sufficient ad recognisers in the following groups:    Recognise TV only Recognise TV + NP Recognise NP

Pg 2

Why do we need to speak to the same respondents in the post dip?

 The effect of any pre-existing brand biases was removed by interviewing the same people both pre and post the marketing activity.
 People who already feel more positive about a brand, or use it more, may be more likely to notice the brands advertising, and so recognise it on a survey (resulting in the Rosser-Reeves fallacy)

 

We identified the different recognition cells only at post stage. We then tracked these peoples answers back to the pre-stage to see how much answers shifted. Media effects were measured by comparing the pre-post shifts on key brand health metrics among Ad Recognisers of each group:
 Recognise TV only, Recognise TV+NP, Recognise Any NP

Even if people recognising both TV + Newspaper advertising were more favourable to the brand before they saw the ads, they still showed the greatest shifts in attitudes and behaviour after they saw the ads.

Pg 3

The Brand Dynamics pyramid

Millward Browns validated approach to understanding brand equity
 Millward Browns Brand Dynamics pyramid shows how many consumers have a relationship with the brand at five key stages. From simple awareness (Presence) through personal Relevance and good enough Performance, to the proportion recognising a clear competitive Advantage and finally those who are closely Bonded with the brand

Millward Browns Brand Dynamic construct has been validated against change in market share

Pg 4

The Brand Dynamics pyramid

  It has been validated against change in market share and shows that people who reach the bonding stage account for the highest expenditure on the brand Equity and voltage were measured pre-campaign (see Kraft Philadelphia example below). Changes in brand equity post-campaign were analysed according to media exposure
High

Philadelphia Pre-Wave

41%

Olympic

Philadelphia

84%

Potential to grow (Voltage)

Specialist Little Tiger

Competitor

Classic

Competitor Competitor

86%

Defender
Competitor Competitor

87%
Low

Competitor

Clean Slate

Weak

Fading Star

96%

Low

0 Presence % relative to category average

High

Pg 5

Some Key Metrics*

Brand Commitment How likely would you be to choose BRAND the next time you choose? Top 2 Box: The only make/one of only two or three Brand Involvement How would you feel about BRAND if it came to life as a person Top 2 Box: Someone Id really like/like quite a lot and have lots/some things in common with Depth of Information The advertising gives me enough information to decide whether BRAND is for me Re-appraisal The advertising is surprising and gets me to think differently about BRAND Brand Values The advertising really helps me to connect with BRAND and identify with it more closely Call to Action The advertising gives me a reason to go out and but BRAND

*Metrics developed by Hall & Partners