Necessity may be the mother of invention, but in the current economic climate, necessity is also the mother of rediscovery, serving as a forcing function for brands to squeeze value from existing inventory. Reduced budgets are translating to an urgent need for efficiency, and when we look at a good number of today's digital campaigns, there is an all-too-common inefficiency present: blind, siloed targeting efforts. Thankfully, there is a solution to the problem -- behavioral targeting, meet contextual targeting. It's time for you two to get to know one another.
The problem is, a majority of digital media organizations contemplate their budgets and tactics based on the notion of bucketed targeting strategies -- namely a "behavioral" bucket and a "contextual" bucket. The primary reason for this siloed approach is publishers. Online properties have traditionally packaged and sold their media to agencies in this manner. Behavioral was the sexy new opportunity that required a little more explanation and definition. This segmentation had an unplanned and unwanted result -- wasted time and efficiency on the part of media planning groups trying to differentiate and decipher different targeting budgets.
In practice, this is seen daily across our industry. Currently, only about 40 to 50 percent of campaigns with Jumpstart Automotive Media reflect a blended targeting approach -- most still follow the old model. Now that we're past the initial education phase required by the introduction of behavioral targeting, it's high time we break down the silos and harness a valuable audience by increasing message frequency and impact through the combination of contextual and behavioral targeting.
To get to the bottom of this long-suspected and oft-debated inefficiency, we recently conducted an in-depth consumer study among in-market auto shoppers to examine the effects of combining targeting approaches versus the common approach of looking at the two as incongruent. The results got our attention: The campaigns we studied showed as much as a 70 percent increase in purchase intent, brand favorability, and awareness among consumers when targeting efforts were used in tandem. That's a number brands can't afford to ignore.
The study: If you connect targeting, do the consumers follow?
To study the impact of a combined targeting approach, we conducted a two-month survey of 1,275 qualified auto consumers' reactions to two distinct brands' digital campaigns. Throughout the study, we compared the difference between two groups: consumers exposed to messaging only through contextual targeting and consumers exposed to messaging via both contextual and behavioral targeting.
We isolated two campaigns, one from an import brand, and the other from a domestic brand. The import brand focused its messaging on cash-back incentives, while the domestic brand focused on fuel efficiency. By targeting highly qualified auto shoppers (more than 80 percent of those surveyed indicated they were actively in-market for a car), the study delivered a clear view of the impact of joint versus separate targeting approaches.
The result? Between both the domestic and import brand, consumers showed a 45 percent increase in purchase intent after being presented with ads in both contextual and behavioral environments. Additionally, brand attributes and favorability increased by as much as 60 percent when targeting was used in tandem.
Would you pass up a 130 percent improvement in brand perception?
Let's take a closer look at the domestic brand campaign, which pushed messaging intended to change or influence consumer perception of the brand's core values around fuel efficiency, value, and environmental friendliness. When served with contextual ads only, more than 35 percent of consumers believed the brand was "not environmentally friendly." Compare that to the group targeted with both behavioral and contextual ads, which showed a 47 percent decrease in this perception.
Similarly, both groups were surveyed for perceptions around the idea that the company sells vehicles that have "excellent gas mileage." With contextual only ads, only 9 percent agreed with this statement. However, when targeting was used in tandem, this perception rose a whopping 114 percent, an invaluable impact among an in-market audience.
A staggering change was also seen around perception of the brand's value. Contextual-only ads resulted in 19 percent of respondents believing the brand is "a good value." When targeting was combined, this perception skyrocketed to 44 percent.
In the case of the import brand, the strongest results were found where the brand had hoped: with purchase intent. Its "buy now" incentive-based messaging drove an unprecedented 57 percent lift in purchase intent when behavioral and contextual targeting were blended.
The conclusion: Significantly impacting the various points within the purchase funnel is possible, as there are some incredible untapped resources available to brands. Through the combination of behavioral and contextual targeting, brands can find greater efficiency in their media planning, stronger performance, and greater impact of their message.
The lesson: Be smart with what you've got
It is not a time to be inefficient in how we do business. Budgets may be tighter, but better results are expected. While this presents a riddle for today's marketers, it's critical to ensure brands are making the most of all resources available, particularly current investments. The results of the study speak for themselves: Failing to connect the dots between contextual and behavioral targeting is a missed opportunity. As digital strategies adapt to a changing market, brands should be sure to check this connection off the list.
Joe Kyriakoza is VP, strategic insights, at Jumpstart Automotive Media.
