i to i research

Tracking philosophy
Our perspective on how advertising works starts with a question: what is the advertising trying to achieve? This is because we do not believe that all advertising works in the same way.

Although it is not a unique idea, we strongly believe that advertising does not work in a vacuum but operates within an environment that includes both controlled media – e.g. press, PR, TV, point of sale etc, but also increasingly uncontrolled messaging. We are witnessing the destruction of weapons of masscommunication, as consumers tire of the age-old format of the 30-second TV spot and pick and pull their own media and content.

The trick is to create sticky messages and seed them through a multiplicity of channels in an effect described as ‘drop a pebble, create a ripple’. With increasing reliance on consumers pulling the content they want from the channels they engage with, there is a need for a single analytic framework to measure this ‘ripple’ effect. This framework is the i to i way.

All these issues impact on our conceptual model of how advertising works and, perhaps more importantly, how we measure it.

It is our view that the way a person’s memory performs means that the more often we process something the stronger the link to the brand. Consequently it is these perceptions, repeatedly stored through low or high attention processing, that end up defining brands or services in the minds of consumers, and influencing their decisions. This is why we explore the priming and combinational effects of advertising and other communications.


Distinctive features
Our i to i tracker® tool measures the impact and influence of all channels – buzz, blogs, billboards, web 2.0, online, TV, PR, point of contact – and messages on the target.

We answer the four questions that get to the heart of marketing efficiency:

WHAT?
What works, and what doesn’t work at the campaign level and at the individual channel level?

WHY?
Why is the channel or the message working or not working?

SO WHAT?
So what do I learn from this? Could the campaign have been more successful or cost-effective if done differently?

NOW WHAT?
Now what do we do differently in terms of mix of channels and messages?

Our approach addresses four of the main concerns clients have about their measurement systems.

1. Advertising-centric: whereas we evaluate in the round and advise on return on integration (ROI).
2. Rear-view mirror: we advise on the optimum mix of channels and messages going forwards.
3. Chicken or egg? We deal with the ageold problem of causality: was it the communications that made the difference or was it just that those predisposed to your issues responded to the campaign?
4. Dust gathering: our findings are actionable, like a graphic equaliser we will tell you what to turn up and what to turn down.

• Campaign awareness
  • overall campaign and channel/activity level
  • aided and unaided awareness
  • message take-out
• Campaign effectiveness
  • KPIs/attitudinal/behavioural statements
    • which channels/activities best moved people
• Additive effects*
  • which channel combinations were most effective
  • were there diminishing returns on repeated exposures
• Additional effects*
  • uncontrolled publicity and messaging
  • word of mouth

Media	Track	Specialise
TV
Press
Word of mouth
Radio
Cinema
Posters
Sponsorship
PR
Experiential
Web 2.0