1 july- sept ’07 tracking presentation prepared for mla, nov 7 th 2007. by: sam almutair, trina...

1

July- Sept ’07 tracking presentation

Prepared for MLA, Nov 7th 2007. By: Sam Almutair, Trina Leigh, Huw Williams

2

What we are covering….

• A first read on ‘Lamb is in the air’ − Response to the advertising− Initial results on the brand

• An overview of the 2nd burst of ‘Beef kids’− Do the diagnostics support the potential for a 3rd burst?

• The evolution of Foundation food− How has the 30’ performed?− Where is red meat currently sitting?

• Benchmark measures on WCRF and cancer association

3

What 100 interviews per week in metro cities

When

Who18-64 year olds who are personally responsible either mainly or equally for the household grocery shopping and cooking. Buyers of meat.People who live in the metro areas of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide or Perth.

This presentation covers data to 30th September 2007

• WCRF measures include data up to 30th October 2007

• CSIRO measures include data up to 4th November 2007

How Online interviewing via a Lightspeed panel

How the data is collected

Click to edit Master title styleLamb

• How is ‘Lamb is in the air’ working?• What impact does the campaign have on Lamb brand measures to

date?• Has limited ATL (pre- September) impacted Lamb?

• How is ‘Lamb is in the air’ working?• What impact does the campaign have on Lamb brand measures to

date?• Has limited ATL (pre- September) impacted Lamb?

5

Tarps - Total vs Mums

MEAT tarp01Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

2007Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

TARPS

0

250 616 681 416

Red Meat- TotalTARPS

0

250 616 440 508

Red Meat- Mums w kidsTARPS

0

250 577 560 427

Beef- TotalTARPS

0

250 540 531 533

Beef- Mums w kidsTARPS

0

250 413 339 434

Lamb- Total

TARPS

0

250 357 333 593

Lamb- Mums w kids

The TARPs behind the current Lamb activity exceed previous campaigns- more TARPs delivered against mums

6

In their own words…..very positive

“A refreshing take on advertising what could be a bland subject. I actually thought- for about 15 secs- that it was a new movie coming out and that’s what held my attention. The the joke dawns on you and you are captivated- waiting for the joke you know is coming”

“Very creative and entertaining. Certainly an ad where many catch phrases will be used

everyday!”

“I think it’s great…. Very amusing and well thought out. Though it did take me to the end to work out is was an

ad for lamb and not a new and bizarre movie coming out!”

“A clever way of attracting people’s attention. And it makes me hungry…

great ad”

“It was very clever that they made it like a mini movie… it was very

amusing and I would love to see it more on television… the meat

puns were funny”

7

The ad treads the line of funny/cheesy, with a small minority not realising the joke (believing the ad to be a movie trailer)

“Not much information on lamb but the movie looks okay”

“It’s a silly ad and I don’t know what it has to do

with lamb”“A bit cheesy but entertaining”

“Clever but I though it was an ad for a movie at first. Rosemary Spriggs and Clive Ovens are really cheesy and so are the

lamb jokes. The “Shanks” bit at the end is the worst!”

“I really thought it was a movie trailer for a movie about to come

out”

8

… But the overwhelming response

If you could talk back to the people who made this ad, what would you say about it?

Tone of feedback to ad makers

NET Positive

63%

Mixed response

4%

NET Negative

13%

7% thought it was a movie trailer

Ad was clever/ creative/

interesting/ funny

45%

Other positive feedback

18%

Ad was clever/ amusing but

initially confusing

4%

Missed the connection

between the idea and

lamb

5%

Silly/ lame/ corny

7%

Base: n=150 feedback verbatims from those seen the streamed ad

9

3140

48

6162

8978

1269

26

513 28

10

%

‘Lâmb’*TV%

‘Lamb is in the air’

TV%

MB AustraliaTV

Norms%

Branding:There are some ads that people remember but never know what they are for. Which one of these phrases applies best to this ad?

I would definitely remember the ad was for Lamb

I wouldn’t be sure which meat the ad was for

I wouldn’t even be sure that it was an ad for meat

Base: (n=63) (128 ads)

Mum’s with kids:

Recognition : ‘Lamb is in the air’ 37% (n=54)‘Australia Day’ 15sec 37% (n=43)‘Lâmb’ 50% (n=143)

(n=297)

Recognition:Have you seen this advert on TV?

‘Lamb is in the air’ yet to hit recognition levels of Lâmb, however, the connection to lamb is strong.

Base (n=202) (n=200) (n=500)

(n=241)

‘Australia Day’ (15 sec)

TV%

‘Lâmb’TV%


TV%


TV%

434 TARPs

339 TARPs

413 TARPs

*aired previously

10

83

52

42

31

36

34

Based on those that recognise ad

Is different to other food ads

It was clever

It was amusing

Is better than other food ads

I enjoyed watching it a lot

It held my attention more than other food ads

It's the sort of ad I would talk about with friends

I am getting fed up with seeing it

It was confusing

As seen via the verbatims ‘Lamb is in the air’ is perceived as clever, amusing and highly enjoyable- albeit not as novel as Australia Day and Lâmb

69

69

66

60

58

53

39

28

23

Thinking about that advert for lamb, please indicate whether you agree or disagree with each of these statements.

Agree -

CAWI StillsNorms

%

Base: (n=63) (128 ads)


TV%

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

51

n/a

27

29

n/a

85

61

58

55

21

10

‘Australia Day’

(15 sec) TV%

‘Lamb’ TV%

(n=297) (n=241)

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

11

Distinctive

Interesting

Soothing

Pleasant

Gentle

Weak

Ordinary

Boring

I rritating

Unpleasant

Disturbing

Involving

Involvement diagnosis

The mock-trailer style of the ad contributes to its distinctiveness and while not to the extent of Australia Day it is a very involving execution

Based on seen ad (Total): ‘Lamb is in the air’ (n=63), ‘Lamb’ (n=241), ‘Australia Day’ (15 sec) (n=297), MB CAWI Norm (n=128 ads)

*Caution: Low base


‘Lâmb’


MB CAWI Norm

Interesting 48 54 39

Distinctive 66 72 49

Involving 52 71 28

Mean: 6.55 7.706.09

‘Lâmb’TV%


TV%


TV%

12

… it is delivering clear communication around lamb’s delicious taste, popularity and ability to bring people together, well above Lâmb on deliciousness

How strongly do you think the advertising gave you these impressions?

‘Lamb is in the air’ TV

%

Strongly suggests

Strongly/Slightly suggests


Base: (n=63)

91

90

89

87

87

87

86

73

65

67

65

64

64

50

Is delicious to eat

Brings people together

Is popular

Is tender

Is for special moments

Is perfect for spring

Is loved by everyone

Lâmb:

‘Is delicious to eat’ 48% (n=241)

13

54

40

31

15

13

57

40

38

33

26

41

19

21

15

14

It made lamb seem more appealing

The points made in the ad were relevant to me

It made me more likely to eat lamb

It made me think differently about lamb

It contained new information about lamb

…and this communication is contributing to good levels of brand appeal (a weakness of the Lâmb execution, which was polarising)

Thinking about that advert for lamb, please indicate whether you agree or disagree with each of these statements.

Agree -CAWI Stills

Norms%

Base: (n=63) (128 ads)


TV%


51

37

35

30

38


TV%

‘Lâmb’ TV%

(n=297) (n=241)

14

0

20

40

60

80

100

3645

63

2532

Communication Awareness -LambBased on Total Sample Rolling 4 weekly data

MEAT ex0271Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec


40% On television

44% Total Communication Aw

TARPS

0

500 616 681 416


0

500 577 560 427

Beef- TotalTARPS

0

500 413 339 434

Lamb- Total

In line with the strong ad response a notable uplift in communication awareness with ‘Lamb is in the air’ – we will see the full impact with October data

Steady decay in communication awareness in the absence of ATL

activity

15

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Ad Awareness

GRPs

5

60

40

20

0250

0

Camp aign A2000 G RPs

Ca mp aign B2000 G RPs

Cam paign C1500 GRPs

Different ad campaigns produce different levels of Ad Awareness….

….but they are supported by varying levels, and patterns, of Media Spend.

Introducing the Awareness Index… what we are trying to understand

16

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Ad Awareness

GRPs

5

60

40

20

0250

0

Camp aign A2000 G RPs

Ca mp aign B2000 G RPs

Cam paign C1500 GRPs

Modelling Ad Awareness is all about how we relate this….

The aim is to disentangle quality from quantity to see how well each campaign has leveraged the media spend.

….to this.

..so we can understand the efficiency of your creative in cutting through

17

= Branded EngagementBranding

Enjoyment +/or

Involvement Creative Stopping Power =

+

What creates ads with high AIs and ensures you cut through the clutter?

3 key elements help you break through the advertising noise

18

Lamb - tvr

Red Meat in general - tvr

Beef - tvr

0 9 018

0 90 9 018

0 9413 339 434

TA

RP

S

0

250 AI

0

50

11616 681 416

TA

RP

S

0

250 AI

0

50

0 3 1 00 3 1 0577 560 427

TA

RP

S

0

250 AI

0

50

%

0

20

40

60

80

%

0

20

40

60

80

Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec J an Feb Mar Apr May J un J ul Aug Sep2006 2007

BaseModelLamb

AI reported per 100 TARPS



The initial read on ‘Lamb is in the air’, suggests an AI in the region of 9 – cutting through efficiently

19

Lamb is also being supported by the recent ‘You’ll love Coles- Lamb’ activity appears to work as a complement to ‘Lamb is in the air’ with high recognition and attribution to lamb

Yes46%

No54%

Base (n=101)


I would definitely remember the ad was for Coles

I wouldn’t be sure which supermarket the ad was for

I wouldn’t even be sure that it was an ad for a supermarket

6148

35

18

28

9

%

‘You’ll Love Coles

(Lamb)’%

Base: (n=46) (128 ads)

MB Australia TV

Norms%


*Caution: Low base

44

35

15

6

Coles and Lamb

Base: (n=46)

%

Lamb but not remember if was also for Coles

Coles but not remember it was for Lamb

Would not remember it was for Coles or Lamb

79% brand the ad to lamb

20

10 10

4549

77

197

32

1638

17

%

‘Lâmb’Print

%

‘Lamb is in the air’Print

%


I would definitely remember the ad was for Lamb



Base: (n=131) (57 ads)

Mum’s with kids:

Recognition : ‘Lamb is in the air’ 11% (n=36)‘Lâmb’ 9% (n=143)

Recognition:Have you seen this advert on Print?

Recognition of the print and POS copy is equal to Lâmb- however, branding is far superior

Base: (n=131) (n=500)

(n=500)

‘Lâmb’Print

%

‘Lamb is in the air’Print

%

MB Print Norms

%

21

‘Lamb is in the air’ print is highly intriguing, original and stylish- not limited by some confusion and irritation with ‘Lâmb’. Appeal and relevance of this print also superior to ‘Lâmb’.

Intriguing

Original

Stylish

34

66

50

Straightforward

Informative

Direct

46

14

30

Confusing

Irritating

Unattractive

13

5

8

Dull

Ordinary

Plain

8

15

12

Which one of these words do you think applies most to the advert?

Base:

21

27

31

46

25

30

11

10

12

22

38

27

(n=500)(n=131)


MB Print Norms

%


%

‘Lâmb’%

38

50

57

22

7

12

28

18

14

11

25

17

(57 ads)

Eye-catching 7260

Clever 6745

Appeal 3837

Relevance 3320

LIITA Lâmb

22

What has been the brand response to ‘Lamb is in the air’?

23

0

20

40

60

80

100

13

37

55

85

43

5257

7

83

30

90

14

42

83

74

43

Bought in last 7 daysBased on Total Sample Rolling 4 weekly data



11% Veal

36% Pork

50% Lamb48% Fish

87% Chicken80% Beef

TARPS

0

500 616 681 416


0

500 577 560 427

Beef- TotalTARPS

0

500 413 339 434

Lamb- Total

Signs of an uplift in recent Lamb purchase in line with TV activity

24

0

20

40

60

80

100

6

28

55

37

4

1025

60

Disposition - LambBased on Total Sample Rolling 4 weekly data



8% Very/Somewhat negative

30% Somewhat positive

54% Very positive

TARPS

0

500 616 681 416


0

500 577 560 427

Beef- TotalTARPS

0

500 413 339 434

Lamb- Total

Although yet to see an impact on positive disposition

25

And some (directional) improvement in endorsement of lamb’s irresistable aroma, ease of cooking/preparation and kid’s appeal

62

48

24

4

4

3

On airSept ‘07

%

Diff. toJune-July ‘07

%

Easy to cook and prepare

Has an irresistible aroma

It's a children's favourite

Based on total sample

(n=402)(n=897)

Function of Coles work?

26

Loved by Australians

It's expensive

Encourages sharing and togetherness


It's normally juicy and tender

I trust the safety of this meat

Makes an everyday meal occasion special

Is consistently high quality

I'm proud to buy and serve this

I'm willing to pay a bit more for it

It's delicious to eat

Is well liked in our household



Contains a range of vitamins and minerals

Are good for a variety of dishes

Makes healthy meals

Is an essential part of a healthy diet

Good in a weight loss diet

18

11

11

13

12

10

5

3

2

2

1

-4

-3

-6

-9

-10

-14

-17

-21

18

12

12

11

10

9

4

3

2

1

0

-4

-4

-6

-7

-9

-12

-15

-20

In the long term, lamb’s imagery perceptions remain stable- however, personality is less old fashioned and slight build in local hero

28

14

4

9

6

-5

-1

-1

-1

-1

-5

-8

-7

-5

Proud Australian

Old fashioned

Local hero

Friendly

Honest

A real bloke

Larrikin

Easy going

Fun

Trend setter

Boring

Larger than life

Confident

Brave

Image profile: Personality profile:

July- Sept ‘06

July- Sept ‘07

26

8

7

6

3

-1

-1

-2

-2

-3

-5

-5

-5

-5

July- Aug ‘07

Sept ‘06

Based on total sample: (n=1200) (n=1299) (n=300) (n=601)

27Based on mums with kids aged 5-17 yrs old

Lamb targets amongst

mums with kids

Q1 July-

Sept ’06

Top of mind awareness 20% 23% 21% 16% 18%

Very positive disposition 56% 53% 51% 52% 57%

Proud to buy (disposition indicators)

I'm proud to buy and serve this 62% 62% 60% 59% 65%

Is well liked in our household 61% 64% 58% 60% 64%

I trust the safety of this meat 58% 59% 58% 58% 60%

Enjoyed and loved (disposition indicators)

It's normally juicy & tender 61% 62% 57% 64% 59%

Is loved by Australians 76% 76% 75% 78% 74%

It's delicious to eat 73% 73% 67% 74% 73%

Mean serves 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.96

Q2 Oct-

Dec ’06

Q3 Jan-

March ’07

Q4 April-

June ’07

Q5 July-

Sept ‘07

Lamb KPI performance: quarter-on-quarter

28

Lamb summary

• Although still early days, the recent ‘Lamb is in the air’ activity is working well− Cut-through measures of branding, involvement and enjoyment are

high (on par with Australia Day and a marked improvement on Lâmb)− Initial indications suggest an efficient execution with a strong AI − The creative idea is well-received (clever and amusing), communicates

on strategy and does a reasonable job of building appeal> Also translates well in print/POS copy

− Brand response to the activity will become more apparent next month

• While difficult to isolate without specific TARP information there is an impact on Lamb from the Coles activity

• In the long term, despite a sustained period off air this year’s activity has maintained lamb’s imagery perceptions− Lamb’s imagery profile remains the same year-on-year, however lamb

has become less old-fashioned

29

Next steps lamb

• Executionally a strong performer, potential to elongate spend through next burst given power of the creative to cut through − Confirm with next month of data when AI becomes clearer

• Coles work is impacting on Lamb as seen by our diagnostics − What potential exists to integrate media lay down? − Increase in kids favourite for lamb is interesting in the context of beef

30

How we can use the AI- A case study

31

What ‘styles’ of ad are there in the lager market ?

Character

Story

Lads

Mood/Style

Event related

Not necessarilyindependent groups

32

Humour

No humourSubtle

humourFunny Silly

Click to edit Master title styleBeef

• Has Beef Kids (Winter Meals) been as successful as the Summer Meals version?

• How has media spend impacted the ad’s performance?• Can the campaign be stretched- re-aired in February?

• Other factors influencing Beef’s performance?

• Has Beef Kids (Winter Meals) been as successful as the Summer Meals version?

• How has media spend impacted the ad’s performance?• Can the campaign be stretched- re-aired in February?

• Other factors influencing Beef’s performance?

37




TARPS

0

250 616 681 416


0

250 616 440 508


0

250 577 560 427

Beef- TotalTARPS

0

250 540 531 533


0

250 413 339 434

Lamb- Total

TARPS

0

250 357 333 593

Lamb- Mums w kids

Total TARPs behind the second burst of Beef Kids lower than March/April ‘07- however, TARPs against mums have been similar

38

0

20

40

60

80

100

3643 45

51

2328

Communication Awareness -BeefBased on Total Sample Rolling 4 weekly data



23% On television


TARPS

0

500 616 681 416


0

500 577 560 427

Beef- TotalTARPS

0

500 413 339 434

Lamb- Total

Some uplift in advertising awareness in line with Beef Kids (Winter)- however not reaching the peak achieved in the first burst

39

Beef - tvr


Lamb - tvr

22 21 20

16

22 21 20

16

%

0

20

40

60

%

0

20

40

60

0 2 0 2 00 2 0 2 0413 339 434

TA

RP

S

0

250 AI

0

50

4 0 4 0 2 04 0 4 0 2 0616 681 416

TA

RP

S

0

250 AI

0

50

0 3 0 6 0 6 00 3 0 6 0 6 0577 560 427

TA

RP

S

0

250 AI

0

50


BaseModelBeef




..However the model suggests equal efficiency of cut through – an AI of 6 in line with the first burst

40

0

20

40

60

80

100

25

38

4740

53

16

Communication Awareness -BeefBased on Mums with kids aged 5-17 yrs

Rolling 4 weekly data



17% Supermarkets17% On television


TARPS

0

500 616 440 508


0

500 540 531 533


0

500 357 333 593

Lamb- Mums w kids

…but amongst mums there was an uplift from June, outside any specific MLA activity - any thoughts?

Note the strong supermarket presence

in June-Aug

41

3949


I would definitely remember the ad was for Beef



615650

2629

1820

28

10

%

Beef Kids Winter

%

Base: (n=235) (128 ads)

CAWI (Stills)Norms

%

Mum’s with kids:Recognition

Summer: 42% (n=156)Winter: 59% (n=101)

(n=195)

Mum’s with kids:Top box branding

Summer 43% (n=65)Winter 66% (n=59)


Recognition and branding of Beef Kids improved since first aired, particularly amongst Mums (a likely combination of executional tweaks and the association with kids building with a 2nd burst)

Beef Kids Summer

%

Base (n=601) (n=401)

Beef Kids Winter

%

Beef Kids Summer

%

Difference significant at 95% confidence level

427 TARPs

560 TARPs

42


I'm getting fed up with seeing it

62

58

72

31

17

73

64

62

37

28

Agree -

Base: (n=195) (128 ads)

Beef Kids Winter

%


It's the sort of ad I would talk about with friends

Diff from Beef Kids Summer

%

Beef Kids Winter(Mums)

%

Diff from Beef Kids

Sumer(Mums)

%

(n=59)

Enjoyment has increased with the 2nd burst, particularly to mums – sign of wear in of campaign

+5

+6

+5

+4

+7

-6

-1

+16

-2

-4



-

-

-

24

22

CAWI (Stills)Norms

%

Thinking about that advert for beef, please indicate whether you agree or disagree with each of these statements.

43

Beef Kids Winter

%

Interesting

Distinctive

Involving

31

56

52

28

67

56

-3

+15

+7

Pleasant

Soothing

Gentle

53

14

35

64

12

37

+11

0

0

Irritating

Unpleasant

Disturbing

10

4

2

2

2

2

-5

-1

+1

Boring

Ordinary

Weak

6

26

11

5

19

5

-4

-15

-9


Base:

37

46

42

33

10

28

16

6

7

13

37

21

4.96

(128 ads)(n=195)


Mean score: 5.12 5.27

Active +

Passive +

Active -

Passive -

Diff. from Beef Kids summer

(Mums)%

Beef Kids Winter(Mums)

%

(n=59)

… and is seen as more distinctive and involving amongst the Mums target

CAWI (stills) Norms

%

44

91

78

76

75

67

51

72

47


Base: (n=59)

Beef Kids Winter

%

Strongly suggests:


Diff. fromBeef Kids Summer

%

Beef is loved by kids

Beef is a perfect meal for kids

Beef makes healthy meals for kids

Beef is a valuable source of iron that kids need

Beef gives kids energy

Beef is loved by Australians

Shepherds Pie is loved by kids

Mums Roast Beef is loved by kids

The ad continues to communicate beef’s appeal and health qualities- fewer believe kids ‘love’ the winter meal options

+9

0

+4

+5

+5

+6

Meatballs are loved by kids 77%

Spaghetti Bolognese is loved by kids 75%

Mums with kids aged 5-17yrs

(n=65)

45

74

55

67

35 +12

+16

+12

+6

+10

It made me more likely to eat beef

72

51

49

33


Agree -CAWI Stills

Norms%

Base: (n=195) (128 ads)

Beef Kids Winter

%


49

51

37

35

…and response is improved in the winter version

The points made in the ad were believable

Diff. from Beef Kids Summer

%

Beef Kids Winter (Mums)

%

Diff. from Beef Kids Summer(Mums)

%

(n=59)

The points made in the ad were relevant to me

It made beef seem more appealing +3

+8

+6

(n=235) (n=65)

Hypothesis: The summer meal featured in the ad are already part of Mum’s regular repertoire and she knows her kids love them but the winter meals provide new meal options

46

What has been the brand response to ‘Beef Kids (Winter)’?

•Has this improved on the response to Beef Kids (Summer)?

47

0

20

40

60

80

100

72

23

75

68

19

28

Imagery - Its a childrens favouriteBased on Total sample Rolling 8 weekly data



74% Chicken

26% Beef

TARPS

0

500 616 681 416


0

500 577 560 427

Beef- TotalTARPS

0

500 413 339 434

Lamb- Total

…no further build in a childrens favourite, but initial rise has been sustained

48

0

20

40

60

80

100

88

7466

91

8284

Imagery - Is well liked in our householdBased on Mums with kids aged 5-17 yrs old




86% Chicken

74% Beef

TARPS

0

500 616 440 508


0

500 540 531 533


0

500 357 333 593

Lamb- Mums w kids

However, ‘Well liked in the HH’ has continued to build from Feb ’07, reaching it’s peak as Beef Kids (Winter) is aired

49

0

20

40

60

80

100

91

7473

93

8784

Imagery - Are good for a variety of dishesBased on Mums with kids aged 5-17 yrs old




89% Chicken

76% Beef

TARPS

0

500 616 440 508


0

500 540 531 533


0

500 357 333 593

Lamb- Mums w kids

..And Beef Kids (Winter) working harder to close the gap between chicken and beef in perceived versatility

50

0

1

2

3

2

2.0

2

Mean score Serves per week- BeefBased on Mums with kids aged 5-17 yrs




2 Beef

TARPS

0

500 616 440 508


0

500 540 531 533


0

500 357 333 593

Lamb- Mums w kids

Long term build in mean serves amongst Mums target observed up to 2nd burst

51

9

10

9

5

2

4

1

1

5

1

1

2

1

-1

-1

-10

-9

-8

-20

11

10

9

6

3

3

2

2

2

2

1

0

0

-1

-1

-6

-9

-9

-20

The long term impact of Beef activity has been to reduce beef’s perceived blokeyness and lessen the gap (versus chicken) on kid’s appeal

53

22

21

13

13

14

-7

-7

-9

-9

-15

-19

-18

-21

Image profile: Personality profile:

Is loved by Australians








It's expensive








Makes healthy meals



A real bloke

Brave

Larger than life

Proud Australian

Confident

Local hero

Old fashioned

Honest

Larrikin

Boring

Trend setter

Easy going

Friendly

Fun

48

19

18

10

8

6

-3

-3

-6

-9

-13

-16

-17

-18

Based on total sample: (n=1200) (n=1299) (n=300) (n=601)

July- Sept ‘06

July- Sept ‘07

July- Aug ‘07

Sept ‘06

52

11

2

3

2

9

10

-9

2

0

1

-1

3

-6

-1

0

6

-9

2

-20

18

12

12

11

10

9

4

3

2

1

0

-4

-4

-6

-7

-9

-12

-15

-20

Loved by Australians

It's expensive















Makes healthy meals



Lamb and beef comparison

Proud Australian

Old fashioned

Local hero

Friendly

Honest

A real bloke

Larrikin

Easy going

Fun

Trend setter

Boring

Larger than life

Confident

Brave

Image profile: Personality profile:Beef

26

8

7

6

3

-1

-1

-2

-2

-3

-5

-5

-5

-5

Based on total sample. Imagery July-Sept ’07 (n=1299). Personality July-Aug ’07 (n=601)

Lamb

10

-3

6

-17

-3

48

-6

-16

-18

-13

-9

18

8

19

BeefLamb

53

Beef summary

• Recognition of beef Kids and branding has improved with the winter version of the ad

• Indication that recognition and branding have been enhanced by the executional tweaks while the campaign has also had increased exposure

• The campaign has gained momentum in communicating beef’s appeal and health attributes and response to the winter version of the ad is overall stronger

• The brand response is more limited, children’s favourite has maintained earlier increase although, ‘well-liked in the HH’ and perceived versatility of beef has built

54

Next steps Beef

• Response to the execution is positive and no areas to address

• Evidence supports the possibility of a 3rd burst dependent on where you are in creative development

55

Evaluation of Foundation Foods campaign 2007:• How has the latest burst of Foundation Foods performed?

• Is the 30 working as hard as the 60”?• How has the second burst of Library fared?

Evaluation of Foundation Foods campaign 2007:• How has the latest burst of Foundation Foods performed?

• Is the 30 working as hard as the 60”?• How has the second burst of Library fared?

Red Meat

Brand response to the campaign:•Impact on the KPIs- in the short and long term

56




TARPS

0

250 616 681 416


0

250 616 440 508


0

250 577 560 427

Beef- TotalTARPS

0

250 540 531 533


0

250 413 339 434

Lamb- Total

TARPS

0

250 357 333 593

Lamb- Mums w kids

Although overall TARP spend lower than previous bursts of Foundation Foods, the current burst did achieve more tarps against mums with kids

57

3846

605347

Evolution 60”July/Aug ‘06

%

Evolution 60”Feb/March ‘07

%

LibraryJuly/Aug ‘06

%

Recognition

Yes %

(1100) (898) (298) (298)Base:

Evolution 60” & 30”Aug ‘07

%

LibraryAug/Sept ‘07

%

(1100)

Recognition of Evolution and Library consistent across the bursts

58

Definitely remember ad was for Red Meat

Wouldn’t be sure which meat ad was for

Wouldn’t even be sure it was an ad for meat

6178

678176

1621131728

6612

79

%

60” & 30”Aug ‘07

%

Based on seen ad: ‘Evolution’ July/Aug ’06 (n=322); Aug ‘07 (n=158) , ‘Library’ July/Aug ‘06 (n=375); Aug/Sept ‘07 (n=153)

MB CAWI Norm

%

Evolution

60” July/Aug ‘06

%

Library

Aug/Sept ‘07%

July/Aug ‘06%

Branding for the cut-down of Evolution remains strong. Library builds on its attribution to red meat when re-aired.

59

Base: (n=158) (n=46) (n=xx)


Based on those that recognise ad. Time Period:27/8-30/9/07

Active +

Passive +

Active -

Passive -

Seen Evolution Seen Library

MB Australia Online Norms

%

Interesting 49 43 37

Distinctive 68 69 46

Involving 62 64 42

Pleasant 35 35 33

Soothing 4 3 10

Gentle 21 17 28

Irritating 7 11 16

Unpleasant 3 2 6

Disturbing 7 6 7

Boring 9 12 13

Ordinary 24 26 37

Weak 10 13 21

Mean score: 6.54 6.54 5.00

Base: (n=158) (n=153) (128 ads)

Mums with kids

Mean involvement score (Aug/Sept ’07) :

Evolution 6.55 (n=35)

Library 6.43 (n=39)

Evolution remains highly actively engaging. Library involvement is consistent with the first burst.

Difference significant at 95% CL against norms

60




The sort of ad I’d talk about with friends

I am getting fed up with seeing it

70

52

40

24

27

Thinking about the advert for Red Meat, please indicate if you agree or disagree with each of these statements…

Agree -Evolution

July/Aug ‘06%

Base: (n=322)

Based on those that recognise ad.

68

55

51

30

23

EvolutionFeb/March ‘07

%

(n=96)

77

64

51

24

20

EvolutionAug ‘07

%

(n=158)

Difference from

Feb/March to Aug ‘07

Still no problems with wear out of Evolution

+9

+9

0

-6

-3

61Based on those that recognise ad.

How strongly do you think the advertising (Evolution) gave you these impressions?

Strongly suggests:

Base:

Evolution 60”July/Aug ‘06

%

Evolution 60” & 30”Aug ‘07

%

(n=322) (n=158)

74

74

75

76

69

72

61

64

Is essential for a healthy diet

Is meant to be eaten 3-4 times a week

Is essential for a healthy mind

Is a rich natural source of nutrients

Should be included in the diets of more families

Is natural to eat

Is more important for health than we thought

Played a key role in evolution

78

78

76

76

76

74

70

67

And communication remains consistent

Difference from ‘06 vs ‘07

+4

+4

+1

0

+7

+2

+9

+3

62

65

48

44

19

29



Agree -Library

July/Aug ‘06%

Base: (n=375)


LibraryAug ‘07

%

(n=153)




The sort of ad I’d talk about with friends

I'm getting fed up with seeing it

79

64

56

31

21

Library claimed to be more enjoyable and differentiating in the second burst

+14

+16

+12

+12

-8

Difference significant at 95% CL between time periods

63

73

57

55

46

37

26



Agree -Library

July/Aug ‘06%

Base: (n=375)


LibraryAug ‘07

%

(n=153)

The points made in the ad were believable

The points made were relevant to me

It made red meat seem more appealing

It contained new information about red meat

It made me more likely to eat red meat

It made me think differently about red meat

79

64

61

52

44

41

And response to the ad also shows improvement year-on-year

+6

+7

+6

+6

+7

+15


64Based on those that recognise ad.

How strongly do you think the advertising (Library) gave you these impressions?

Strongly suggests:

Base:

Library July Aug ‘07

%

Library Aug ‘07

%

(n=375) (n=153)

75

70

80

76

71

71

64

63

Is essential for a healthy diet

Is meant to be eaten 3-4 times a week

Is essential for a healthy mind

Is a rich natural source of nutrients

Should be included in the diets of more families

Is natural to eat

Is more important for health than we thought

Played a key role in evolution

79

84

80

76

72

73

70

71

Communication take out remains strong- the 3-4 times per week message and red meat’s importance to health appear to resonate more strongly as the Foundation Foods campaign develops



+4

+14

0

0

+1

+2

+6

+8

65


Beef - tvr

Lamb - tvr

7 0 7 0 7 0 77 0 7 0 7 0 7616 681 416

TA

RP

S

0

250 AI

0

50

22577 560 427

TA

RP

S

0

250 AI

0

50

1 2 11 2 1413 339 434

TA

RP

S

0

250 AI

0

50

%

0

20

40

60

80

%

0

20

40

60

80


BaseModelRed Meat in general




The AI is consistent with the February burst ( an AI of 7)

66

How successful has the Foundation Foods campaign been to date?

1) How has the latest burst (60” and 30”) impacted Red Meat KPIs?

2) What is the long term campaign impact upon:• Red Meat KPIs- amongst total market and

Mums• Red Meat segments- particularly the intended

Resistor target

67

The latest burst of Foundation Foods had a clear positive impact on Red Meat KPIs

48

43

40

39

29

24

14

11

7

Essential part of a healthy diet

Essential for vitality and wellbeing

Meant to eat red meat 3-4 times per week

Essential for a healthy mind

The richest natural source of nutrients

More important for my health than I believed


Could cause cholesterol or heart problems

Could cause weight problems

5

6

9

8

5

2

1

2

1

How strongly do you agree/disagree with the following statements about red meat?

On air(Aug-Sept ’07)

%

Strongly agree: Diff from June-July ‘07

%

Based on total sample

(n=898) (n=903)

Difference significant at 95% confidence level

68

68

62

58

57

40

35

20

9

8

8

5

12

11

5

6

0

2

4

43

33

32

33

24

19

11

10

5

8

8

11

12

8

2

3

2

-2

Working particularly hard to appreciators and acceptors

How strongly do you agree/disagree with the following statements about red meat?


Essential for vitality and wellbeing

Essential for a healthy mind

Meant to eat it 3-4 times per week

Richest natural source of nutrients

More important for health than I believed


Could cause cholesterol/heart problems

Could cause weight problems

On air%

Diff from pre %

On air%

Diff from pre%

Appreciators Acceptors

On air time period: Aug-Sept ’07. Pre-period: June-July ’07Based on: Appreciators On air (n= 394), Pre (n=425); Acceptors On air (n= 320), Pre (n=298); Resistors On air (n= 135), Pre (n=132).

Strongly agree:

69

0

20

40

60

80

100

25

37

50

21

30

43

25

Impact on key Red Meat KPIsBased on Total Sample Rolling 12 weekly data



24% More imp for health

37% Meant to eat 3-4 pw

46% Essential in diet

TARPS

0

500 616 681 416


0

500 577 560 427

Beef- TotalTARPS

0

500 413 339 434

Lamb- Total

In the long term foundation food has built key KPIs through 2007 after decaying from a peak seen after the initial launch and heavy weight support

70

0

20

40

60

80

100

47

41

65

36

56

35

71

45

Impact on key Red Meat KPIs- Resistors [Agree]Based on Total Sample Rolling 12 weekly data



40% More imp for health

44% Meant to eat 3-4 pw

68% Essential in diet

TARPS

0

500 616 681 416


0

500 577 560 427

Beef- TotalTARPS

0

500 413 339 434

Lamb- Total

Resistors have seen a more exaggerated long term growth in ‘Essential for a healthy diet’

71

0

20

40

60

4

17

36

44

3

19

40

37

8

33

49

12

Attitudes to meats - Red meatBased on Mums with kids aged 5-17 yrs




3% Rejectors

12% Resistors

39% Acceptors

46% Appreciators

TARPS

0

500 616 440 508


0

500 540 531 533


0

500 357 333 593

Lamb- Mums w kids

..amongst mums we have seen the strongest build in appreciators and decay in resistors through the campaign- the combined resitor/rejector group 15%

72

Red Meat KPI performance: quarter-on-quarter

Foundation Food KPI’samongst mum’s with kids

Based on mums with kids aged 5-17 yrs old

Q1 July-

Sept ’06

Awareness of Red Meat communication

63% 56% 51% 47% 46%

Red Meat serves per week (mean)

3.32 3.35 3.23 3.37 3.42

Lamb mean serves 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.96

Beef mean serves 2.18 2.19 2.04 2.27 2.23

Red Meat Essential part of a healthy diet*

57% 50% 45% 49% 48%

We are meant to eat Red Meat 3-4 times per week*

41% 35% 39% 39% 41%

Essential for a healthy mind*

41% 32% 34% 38% 38%

The richest source of nutrients*

33% 26% 26% 25% 26%

A diet including Red Meat is more important for my health than I previously thought

27% 25% 26% 22% 22%

Total Resistors and Rejectors 20% 22% 26% 20% 14%

Q2 Oct-

Dec ’06

Q3 Jan-

March ’07

Q4 April-

June ’07

Q5 July-

Sept ‘07

73

Red Meat summary

• As predicted, no loss in effectiveness of Evolution with the 60”/30” rotation − Cut-through measures of branding, involvement and enjoyment remain

consistent with previous bursts− Communication take out remains strong

• Response to library remains positive when re-aired− Branding and enjoyment have built in the latter burst and response to

the ad is stronger overall − Enhanced take out of the key Foundation Foods messages- ‘meant to

be eaten 3-4 times per week’ and ‘more important for health than previously thought’ reflects the cumulative impact of the campaign

• The latest burst has had a positive impact on appreciators and acceptors, while in the longer term we are seeing a fall in the number of resistors− However, becomes gradually harder to impact the core of resistors left

74

Next steps red meat

• Response to both Evolution and library remains positive, executionally both can continue to work hard for red meat

• With the falling number of resistors it becomes harder to influence them − However, clear role for ‘Chicken’

• 82% of red meat resistors are appreciators or acceptors of chicken

• Ideally Evolution should set up Chicken, however if funds are limited more important to give Chicken sufficient tarp weight, given how established the campaign is

75

WCRF pre-measures

Benchmarking the impact of the WCRF report

76

World Cancer Research Fund ScorecardRed Meat Segments

%

45

34

15

6

Appreciator

s

Acceptors

Resistors

Rejecters

Serves in past week%

3.8 serves

3.32 serves

2.66 serves

1.38 serves

Heard news stories about Red Meat%

10

60

7

31

Yes

Mainly positive

Mainly negative

Neutral

(n=135)(n=1299)

83

77

67

57

46

36

36

23

Agree with statements about red meat

%

Strongly suggests

Strongly/Slightly suggests


Essential for vitality and well being

Meant to eat 3-4 times per week

More important for my health than

previously believed

Healthy Target 2 serves or less 37%3-4 serves 58%5 or more serves 5%(n=1299)

Awareness of WCRF 58% (n=409)

Agree that diet high in red meat linked to cancer35% (n= 599)

Type of Cancer%

52

20

12

6

15

Bowel

Colon

Stomach

All

Don’t know(n=97)

(n=1299)

77

28 30 29 29 28 28 25 25

40 35 33 33 3018 10

2940 374 4

7 7 8

9 16

45 5 5 5

812

44

27 27252220

63

%Base: (n=599)

Strongly agree

Slightly agree

Neutral

Slightly disagree

Strongly disagree

Being very overweight

%Being obese

%

Consuming too much

sugar %

Drinking too much alcohol

%

Not enough exercise

%

Not eating enough fruit

and/or vegetables

%

Not eating enough fibre

%

A diet high in red meat

%

Before the release of the WCRF report, a diet high in red meat had a much association with a greater risk of cancer than other health factors

78

Think so27%

Not aware25%

Definitely48%

28 36 42 42 41 39 41

56 54 5244 48 44

11 151 11 1 1

66

6 15576

%

Base: (n=200)

Definitely agree

Sort of agree

Not really agree

Definitely disagree

Comes from a reputable

organisation %

.. And the meat-rich ‘CSIRO Well Being Diet’ is widely recognised and currently seen as reputable and nutritionally-sound eating plan

Is based on good

nutrition %

Is an eating plan for overall

wellbeing %

Is a healthy way of eating

%

Has scientific credibility

%

Is a long term lifestyle pattern

%

Is an eating plan I can

trust%

Another HH Self member

% %

Currently using diet 4 4

Have used the diet in 11 9the past

Based on those heard of the diet (n=151)

Based on those heard of the diet (n=151)

79

Summary of next steps

Lamb

• Executionally a strong performer, potential to elongate spend through next burst given power of the creative to cut through − Confirm with next month of data when AI becomes clearer

• Coles work is impacting on Lamb as seen by our diagnostics − What potential exists to integrate media lay down? − Increase in kids favourite for lamb is interesting in the context of beef

Beef

• Response to the execution is positive and no areas to address

• Evidence supports the possibility of a 3rd burst dependent on where you are in creative development

80

Summary of next steps

Red Meat

• Response to both Evolution and library remains positive, executionally both can continue to work hard for red meat

• With the falling number of resistors it becomes harder to influence them − However, clear role for ‘Chicken’

• 82% of red meat resistors are appreciators or acceptors of chicken

• Ideally Evolution should set up Chicken, however if funds are limited more important to give Chicken sufficient tarp weight, given how established the campaign is

81

Ensuring tracking meets your needs over the upcoming months

• The MB team will contact you regarding questionnaire changes

• ….But vital to understand your upcoming issues and media plans

• Data is available on a monthly basis− Need a number ( a day)− Need a short summary of a campaign (a week)− Full presentation (4 weeks notice)

• Your team − Sam Almutair 99291127− Huw Williams 99291126− Trina Leigh 99291147

82

July- Sept ’07 tracking presentation

Prepared for MLA, Nov 7th 2007. By: Sam Almutair and Trina Leigh

1 july- sept ’07 tracking presentation prepared for mla, nov 7 th 2007. by: sam almutair, trina...

Documents

silly ad

new movie

impacted lamb

lamb jokes

funnythe ad

movie trailerad

movie trailernot

bizarre movie