PART II ‐ PLANNING EXPERIENTIAL BRANDING
16 M EASURING AND EVALUATING CAMPAIGN EFFECTS
event (Web 2.0) could as getting attendees pre‐event be attempted through “leaking” of information, pictures or video of the events unfolding in the weeks or months following the campaign.
Hence, as such studies are based on continuous measures on constant parameters they are on most points irrelevant in evaluating the case specific effects of a single experiential branding campaign.
However, tracking provides dynamic and reliable data on the overall effects of all the company’s marketing communication initiatives over time, knowledge that can be utilized to understand and evaluate the actual effects of different marketing communication initiatives on a historical basis, including those from experiential branding campaigns. Since individual experiential branding campaigns as described will often be time limited and e.g. yearly recurring campaigns, undertaking regular expensive tracking studies measuring constant parameters to document the direct effects of experiential branding is not recommended(Franzen, 1999, pp. 250‐260). Hereby not said that companies with already established tracking solutions should not continue utilizing the insights these provide, however it is most likely necessary to supplement these data with other research in order to gain insights in relation to the specific campaign objectives set.
Setting up regular tracking to measure the effects of experiential branding (and other types of marketing initiatives for that matter) could however be ideal in the situation where the communications strategy of the staging company is based on frequently recurring campaigns.
16.2 Oneoff effect measurement studies
To measure the effects of individual experiential branding campaigns in relation to the objectives set, the company should rather engage in one‐off effect measurements through research conducted post‐campaign as opposed to conducting tracking studies as described above. In this way the measurements can easily be adapted in order to gather the needed data for evaluating a given campaign in relation to the objectives set.
16.2.1 Subjects of effect measurement
Following our analysis of the overall categories for objective setting in experiential branding, the specific subjects of effect measurement are those listed below.
However, apart from measuring the direct effects of the event on participants we have argued that the company through campaign activation initiatives should seek to build brand equity with the non‐
participating share of the target group. Hence, the company will naturally need to conduct campaign effect measurements in both groups with different subjects of measurement:
• Subjects of measurement in relation to both participants and non‐participants
o Effects on the CBBE model – with particular focus on uncovering the influence of the campaign on the top levels in the model and with specific attention to the effects hereon of the “imagery” of the events (and likewise in relation to word of mouth
effects). For non participants, the research should not necessarily focus on the top levels of the model, but rather its entirety.
• Subjects of measurement in relation to participants only
o Event specific characteristics – with focus on uncovering attitudes towards the event, emotional attachments to the event, and perceived fit between brand and event, as these are predictors of the building of brand equity.
o Characteristics of participants – to uncover whether a satisfying share was from the target group i.e. uncovering whether brand equity was built in relation to the individuals sought.
• Subjects of measurement in relation to non‐participants only
o Word of mouth influence and sources – to uncover whether non‐participants spoke or wrote online with others of the events and to uncover the possible effects hereof.
o Public Relations influence – uncovering whether post‐event media coverage influenced perceptions of the event and brand.
16.2.2 Type of research needed
In relation to event participants the effect measurement through one‐off studies could be a natural part of the post‐event research conducted to evaluate the content of events as mentioned in section 14.3. The need for validation, generalizability and the objective of collecting state‐of‐mind data relating to the event among the participants, being the common features of the two research initiatives. Hence, the effect measurement conducted in relation to participants should be quantitative with questions containing ordinal or ordinal‐interval scales to uncover state of mind data and could well be administered through internet surveys.
Conducting this research with participants from the events naturally requires that the company has obtained contact information through preliminary registration e.g. through the Internet, or by asking the participants to sign in when they arrive at the event. Should the company fail to obtain contact info from participants, detailed knowledge of the effects of the campaign cannot be attained and the company must rely on measuring the secondary effects through research in the entire target group.
To increase the likelihood of obtaining responses from a satisfactory share of participants, the company could include a reward system to provide incentive for the individuals to respond.
Effect measurement in relation to non‐participants is naturally not dependent on obtaining contact information from participants, and this is virtually the only difference between the two types of research, as this should seek to uncover the same type of data validly and generalizable. Hence, we again argue for the use of internet surveys where screening questions however must be applied to
ensure that responses are gathered only from individuals of the target group, and that respondents did not participate at the events.
In cases where the company has a customer panel consisting of members of the target group, the effect measurement could be conducted among these individuals to lower the cost of the research.
16.3 Other measurements
Other measurements are those not related to perceptions of participants or non‐participants, but rather those the company can obtain otherwise. Relating to the categories for campaign objectives described in chapter 12 such other measurements would include those related to the number of participants at events and the amount of public relations generated in terms of media space. These measurements are directly observable through the attendance at events and through a review of media in the weeks following the event.
The figure 16.1 below presents a total summary of the main aspects of the guide for strategic planning of experiential branding campaigns, following Part II of the thesis above.
Objective setting
• Brand equity based objectives
• Participant related objectives
• PR and Word of mouth related objectives
Research designs
• Marketing research for campaign planning
• Marketing research during event
• Marketing research for campaign follow‐up
Leveraging campaign effectiveness
Pre‐event: Getting participants
• Public relations
• Advertisement in traditional media
• Word of mouth initiation
• Influencesing Web 2.0 Focused Broad reach
Pre‐event: Campaign activation
• Public relations
• Word of mouth initiation
• Influencesing Web 2.0
Sharing the experience
Event composition
Schmitt’s Strategic Experience Modules
• Sense experinces
• Feel experiences
• Think experiences
• Act experiences
• Relate experiences
Experiential hybrids
Pine and Gilmore’s exeperience realms
• Active participation/Immersion
• Active participation/Absorbtion
• Passive participation/Immersion
• Passive participation/Absorbtion
Diversified experiences
Effects measurement
• One‐off effect measurement studies
o In relation to participants and non participants
Chosing event content