Promo - February 2008 - (Page 20)

EXPERIENTIAL Larr y Jaf fe e HOW EFFECTIVE? ARF study findings prove experiential worthiness Experiential marketing is premised on the notion that consumers are motivated by what they’re encountering. In a best-case scenario they might even be driven to make a purchase. Sure, there’s an ulterior motive on the part of the marketer, but somehow the entertaining nature of such engagement doesn’t bother participants as much as crass commercial pitches. Moreover, such empirical data would enable experiences, such as events, to better compete with other channels in the marketing mix. It’s indisputable that mounting an experience is a great way to get exposure for a product, but how effective is experiential marketing really? To answer that question, several event marketing executives, led by Dan Belmont, president of sports marketing agency Millsport, implored the Advertising Research Foundation to embark on a research study to determine the effectiveness of their chosen profession. “We always felt there’s an emotional connection in what we do,” Belmont said last month when the research was released. “But the promotional marketing industry lacked some empirical data to prove its point. We know we’ve moved the bar in terms of events and brand fit and intent to purchase. We’ve realized that brand-sponsored events are driving metrics pretty strongly.” The council concluded that a comprehensive method for measuring the full impact of its effectiveness was required, and until it existed, events were at a disadvantage when evaluated as part of the overall marketing strategy. The ARF commissioned Harris Interactive to study B-to-C sponsorship events, and a partnership between Gallup & Robinson and Exhibit Surveys to analyze B-to-B trade shows. Among the findings: • Attendees are apt to be more receptive to marketing messages and images associated with the event than they are to those presented via other methods. • Experiential marketing often goes beyond short-term effects to generate a longer term brand value. • It is clear that the initial stages of event engagement have extraordinary power. • Brand experience, brand consideration and likelihood to recommend are all valid outcomes of event engagement. • There is considerable overlap between ratings of brand experience, emotional brand connection, aspirational brand “fit,” and likelihood to recommend. • Trade shows have both direct and indirect benefits, generating interest and awareness, as well as incremental sales and profits. The leading firms sponsoring this event engagement study included AOL, Cadbury-Schweppes, Carat, CEMA, Cisco Systems, Coca-Cola, eBay, Free-Car Media, Frito-Lay, IBM, Intel, Jack Morton Worldwide, Microsoft, Oracle, ProMotion, State Farm, Texas Instruments, Toyota, Xerox and The Marketing Arm (Millsport is the sports-oriented agency of Omnicom-affiliated The Marketing Arm). Merely handing out samples at an event is not enough, the report points out. How a campaign’s various emotional, relationship and experiential elements work together should be considered at the planning stage. For example, some consumers prefer to try a product before deciding whether to buy it, while others may still have trouble determining the product’s quality or value even after giving it a try. The report concludes that event efforts should focus on emotional and engagement-rich activities to attract and bring people in. Marketers should then reinforce those emotional, self-fit and brand elements in follow-up contacts. Regarding trade shows, the study notes that non-customers sometimes take positive post-show actions, a number of which are viral in nature. This has the potential to extend the reach of the brand (and maximize the investment in the show). “Trade shows have a unique viral effect. They influence PARTICIPATION AT EVENTS The B-to-C research set out to find the response differences between active and passive event attendees. Aware Outcome Metrics Unaware Only Purchase Intent 20% 27% Consider Using 32% 38% Emotional 15% 19% Connection Brand Fit 21% 35% Net Promoter 29% 35% Brand Familiarity 45% 57% Passive (Look Active Total Only) (Interact) Lift 36% 54% +34% 48% 57% +25% 31% 46% +31% 47% 47% 72% 62% 62% 83% +38% +33% +38% SOURCE: ARF EVENT AND SPONSORSHIP ENGAGEMENT WHITE PAPER 20 February 2008 / WWW.PROMOMAGAZINE.COM / Promo http://www.promomagazine.com

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Promo - February 2008

Promo - February 2008 Contents Editor's Note Reality TV Products Rebound - Soon? The Real World Young But Not Stupid Social Tease Health Quencher How Effective? Big Game in Big Easy Commentary Mailbox Marketing Q&A: Coke's Kruse Control Gift-Card Monte Room Service The Agency Center Resource Center Can't Beat Loyalty Index of Advertisers

Promo - February 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.