Source: Visual IQ [download page]
Notes: 8 in 10 marketers in the US and UK believe that it is more challenging to measure the impact of branding efforts than direct response efforts, according to a Visual IQ survey, which also finds fewer than two-thirds very or extremely confident in their ability to quantify the impact of their branding efforts using their available metrics. Of note, respondents are finding it more challenging to isolate and quantify the impact of individual digital channels on their branding metrics than to do the same for TV advertising.
The lack of advanced measurement tools and/or methodologies stands as the top challenge standing in the way of effective measurement and optimization of branding efforts, per the report, followed by the inability to tie multiple brand engagement activities into a single brand metric or overall score.
About the Data: Visual IQ describes its methodology as follows:
“An online survey was emailed to members of the SSI, e-Rewards, Critical Mix, SurveyMonkey and Cint panels located in the United States and the United Kingdom between July 1 and July 24, 2015. Respondents were offered several incentives to complete the survey, including charity donations, gift cards and points redeemable for comparable prizes. Respondents were not informed that Visual IQ was the sponsor of the survey.
All respondents self-reported their involvement in, and/or knowledge of, their organizations’ branding efforts and the key performance indicators associated with those efforts.
Respondents were from organizations employing 200 or more people, with 40% working at companies with more than 1,000 employees. Respondents were further qualified by their organizations’ use of digital marketing tactics and TV advertising, as well as by their knowledge of their organizations’ direct response efforts.
A total of 514 individuals completed the survey ”“ 359 from the United States and 155 from the United Kingdom. Primary level findings within this study are accurate with a confidence level of 95% with a 5% margin of error, and secondary level findings are accurate with a confidence level of 85%, also with a 5% margin of error. The differences in the findings across geographies and company sizes were negligible.