How Effective?

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 the attendees, large numbers whom also influence their peers, something that most advertising does not do. Like pass-along audiences in magazines and TV, event reach calculations should go beyond just direct attendees,” the report said.

Jonathan Cox, CEO of Exhibit Surveys Inc., noted the importance of handing out marketing materials at a convention booth because such literature is then disseminated to co-workers back at the office.

Follow-up on the back-end is key to leveraging the “feeling” toward the event sponsorship. ARF suggests that marketers could, for example, try to re-establish those feelings with photos of customers, or of celebrity activities along with sales collateral sent following the affair.

NEXT RESEARCH STEPS

The answer to the question: “how do events and sponsorships fit into the larger marketing mix?” is unanswered here, the report concedes.

“I think it’s a good start,” Belmont said.

While the research made great strides in demonstrating the value of experiences, more work needs to be done in further measuring effectiveness, ROI and intent, the researchers admit.

“But to be done correctly, this sort of analysis would need to be completed on an individual client basis and would require multiple years of data, which is not conducive to the multi-client studies the ARF supports,” the report states.

At the council meeting where the findings were first made public, Belmont pressed the researchers for models from the report that would enable it to favorably compare itself with other forms of advertising. The surveys, as conducted, would not allow for such comparisons, they concurred.

Raymond Pettit, the author of the white paper, cautioned that one of the problems in making such generalizations is that attendance at an event is miniscule to the reach of a mass medium such as a television commercial. That, for example, would be like comparing apples and oranges and not be valid.

Belmont pointed out that another area ripe for further examination is how long event impact lasts. “Is it six days, or six weeks or more permanent?”

“I can say that events do drive engagement with brands,” responded Marianne Foley, senior vice president of Harris Interactive, basing her assertion on the data. “Driving awareness of an event can be almost as good as driving attendance.”

While she was non-committal on the possibility of establishing cross-media models, Foley thought it was possible to analyze some of what’s been already learned in the study against previous benchmark studies. But the most important thing for marketers to keep in mind is “what’s relevant to your brand in the marketplace. That’s what really matters,” the report said.

Belmont estimates that the first round of the research cost between $250,000 and $300,000, and was underwritten by about 16 companies. Conspicuous by absence were major packaged goods companies, banks and pharmaceutical marketers, all whom could benefit by such knowledge, and are likely to be approached about support for follow-up studies, he notes.

The ARF report on experiential marketing is available free of charge by e-mailing [email protected].

For more articles on experiential marketing, go to http://promomagazine.com/eventmarketing/

PARTICIPATION AT EVENTS

MARKETING AT CONVENTIONS