Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1
Average Change in Brand Preference for 30-Second Television Ads and Category Switching Over Time
- Figure 2
Correspondence of Share Change and Ad Power Left from Wearout
Source: Masterson, 1999
- Figure 3
Predicted vs. Actual Advertising Power Left
Source: MSW Research CCPersuasion Scores and Nielsen Research Gross Rating Points
- Figure 4
Television Wearout Rate Over Time
Source: MSW Research CCPersuasion Scores and Nielsen Research Gross Rating Points
- Figure 5
Effective Frequency by Media Types
- Figure 6
Case Study on the Use of Persuasion Rating Points
- Figure 7
StarKist Predictions vs. Actuals
- Figure 8
Increase in Advertising Return with Partial GRP Optimization
Tables
- Table 1
Evidence of CCPersuasion™ Validity
Change in Brand Preference Range Average Share Change Percentage of Advertisements Achieving Share Point Difference of: 0.0+ 0.5+ 1.0+ 2.0+ 21.0+ +5.1 100 100 95 80 16.0–20.9 +2.3 100 97 71 51 12.0–15.9 +1.8 98 88 63 40 7.0–11.9 +0.8 83 53 34 9 5.0–6.9 +0.3 68 32 16 3 3.5–4.9 +0.1 60 23 8 0 <3.5 –0.1 52 13 4 1 - Table 2
Traditionally Planned Gross Rating Points versus Persuasion-Rating-Point-Optimized Gross Rating Points
Commercial Brand Preference Building Power Planned GRPs Optimized GRPs Commercial A:60 5.9 34 ↑ 166 Commercial B:60 5.5 116 ↓ 65 Commercial C:60 2.6 162 ↓ 81 Commercial D:30 4.3 42 ↑ 106 Commercial E:30 3.0 36 ↓ 18 Commercial F:30 2.9 58 ↓ 29 Commercial G:30 2.3 35 ↓ 18
Vol 60 Issue 4
