Is the Super Bowl the ultimate marketing ecosystem of paid and earned media? 2010 will be a huge test, as the new reality of consumer expression and cross-platform integration create a powerful new dynamic hovering over the largest single-spot ad spend on record.

What marketers urgently need to understand is not only total ROI on that mega-media buy, but the full return on all the other activities triggered or reinforced by this paid media stimulus. How does paid media drive earned media? And to what degree does earned media halo future paid media efforts? These are critical questions that Marketers need answers to – along with a metric or common yardstick that quantifies the blending of the two.

Getting Real about Real-Time
In a more agile and flexible marketing environment, where there’s actually a chance of making real-time changes based on available data, marketers need to understand the real-time role they can play in making tactical interventions to grow earned media impressions and ultimately, increase odds of success.

Twitter brings a fresh dynamic and promise to Super Bowl media efficiency. The platform reached a reach tipping point in 2009 – so much so that marketers increasingly use it to fan the flames for events, interact with brand mavens or enthusiasts, and, in a growing number of cases, manage or sandbag tension points like customer disappointment or service shortfalls.

Tweets are also increasingly embedding themselves in Facebook feeds, blog entries, and Google search results, magnifying their long-term value. Translated to the Super Bowl, positive playback about Super Bowl ads can have a “latency” effect and provide brands with an almost endless annuity of “earned media.” The same dynamic will be at work with Facebook brand fan pages, which can see massive growth – hundreds of thousands – following a major ad campaign, offline or online.

Quantifying the Big Picture
In the end, Super Bowl spots today need to meet two distinct “torture” tests – one measurable based on traditional TV scoring, and another based on unique dynamics of cross-platform engagement, most notably word-of-mouth and conversation. On a pure TV-impression alone, one can argue that the Super Bowl has become such an unusual magnet for consumer attention and recall – the one day of the year that we “celebrate” advertising – that it is worth every penny. Indeed, curiosity, anticipation, guessing, nostalgia come into play big time before this festival of brand persuasion. Consumers, after all, want to see the ads, almost akin to seeing a movie.

The entertainment halo certainly matters. Over the last three years, Nielsen IAG research found Super Bowl spots achieved a 31% higher break-through and 93% higher likability than the typical ad on television. But it’s not that simple. Timing is also a factor. First and second quarter spots yield more yardage than second half spots, and 4th quarter spots are about comparable to a “normal” TV buy in terms of generating ad recall. The viewer’s ability to associate the correct brand with the ad, and reported likability levels similarly wane over the course of the game. Surprisingly, branded integration effectiveness shows an opposite trend. Recall and brand opinion are lowest pre-game, moderate during the game, and big gainers post game. For Marketers, the mix is clear: focus on ads early and branded integration efforts late. Lastly, the SuperBowl is a touchdown for brands generally: purchase consideration for the average ad the week after increases +13% versus the week prior.

So that’s the foundation of pure “paid” measurements. What about the “earned” side of the equation, which factors in free media, consumer conversation, participation, and the like? Clearly, the Super Bowl in particular shines light across a far more complicated mix of marketing activity and user-engagement. Great copy finds life in other places.

An engaging, even participatory Pepsi game spot, for instance, might trigger a site visit, a Google search, a tweet, retweet, fan-page sign-up, or DVR rewind. It might trigger a desire to share, forward, discuss, critique, rate, or review. It might bleed over into the social media stream of a New York Times or any media reporter (a growing number of whom leverage social media across all platforms.)

The good news is that this digital trail can be quantified with high levels of precision – by volume, reach, tone, source, or even depth of brand advocacy. And much of this can be delivered in real-time, empowering today’s brand manager to make real-time changes or adjustments to the site. Last year, for instance, a large percentage of brands buying spots on the Super Bowl made real-time adjustments to their websites or social media efforts based on pre-game variables.

This year, Frito-Lay’s Doritos brand sits on the extreme of early-adjustments, as the four spots they are running are sourced from user-participation events and contests. In this case, the “earned media” is stimulating the paid side of the equation. Then again, this can work in reverse. When P&G’s Tide brand ran a highly engaging “Talking Stain” spot two years ago, it triggered a user-generated contest that created an impressive annuity of online video that quickly reshaped the brand’s search results for the better. Three years ago, Nationwide insurance estimated that the “earned media” dividend from their Kevin Federline spot totaled over $20 million dollars.

So in the end, it’s just not as simple as “buying” high-reach media. The broader ecosystems truly matter. This year, Nielsen is putting its biggest effort into measuring and quantifying the full return of Super Bowl advertising, combining a comprehensive suite of paid media and earned media metrics into a total “engagement” score. And we don’t intend to stop at the Super Bowl. Over the course of 2010, we’ll be applying our new cross-platform engagement metrics across our work on the Winter Olympics, Academy Awards, and the World Cup.

Webinar: Learn more about Nielsen’s comprehensive approach to the Super Bowl. Join Pete Blackshaw and Randall Beard for a webinar Maximizing Advertising ROI in a Paid vs. Earned Media Environment on December 8 at 2:00PM EST.

On November 12-13, I took part in a Washington D.C., hearing organized by the FDA on how pharmaceutical companies can use the Internet and social media to communicate with consumers. The hearing was a source of excitement in the healthcare industry – the FDA received more than 800 requests for 350 seats.

Over two days, more than 60 speakers – representing pharmaceutical companies, agencies, research firms, search and social media websites along with consumer organizations – shared their thoughts on how companies can responsibly engage consumers online, as well as questions and areas that need clarification from FDA.

Despite the variety of industries and agendas represented, I was surprised by the amount of consistency in the presentations and recommendations. Through the two days of the hearing, a few key themes emerged:

• No one can ignore the explosive power of social media.
  Several speakers shared great data about how often the Internet is used as a source for healthcare information. With patients, caregivers and doctors alike going online for healthcare information, it simply is not an option for pharmaceutical companies to remain separated from this discussion.
• No one company can be expected to monitor the whole of the Internet.
  In our Nielsen BuzzMetrics dataset of health-specific CGM sites, we collected an average of 83,000 messages per day over the past six months. This volume will only continue to grow, and no one can expect to monitor all of it.
• Pharma is ready to listen, but confusion persists.
  Most pharmaceutical companies would like to listen and even respond to consumer feedback online. However, there is confusion among pharmaceutical companies about how and when it is appropriate for them to engage with consumers online, and what responsibilities they have in doing so. This confusion often results in companies holding back on engaging in social media and sometimes even in listening to what their consumers are saying online.
• Adverse events are a red herring.
  Companies that have not done social media listening often have a fear that they will see a high volume of adverse events in online consumer conversation. (And for pharmaceutical companies, there is a requirement that these events are followed up and reported to the FDA.) In fact, the number of adverse events in online discussion is very low and manageable within the reporting systems that pharmaceutical companies already have in place.

This last point was the basis of my testimony at the hearing. In 2008, Nielsen analyzed online healthcare discussion to define the number of adverse events and found that just 4 of 500 messages contain adverse event information, and only 1 of those messages contained all of the criteria that are required for AE reporting.

For me, the key takeaway from the FDA hearing was this: More and more consumers are online looking for information on their health. Some of the information they find online is good, but some is not, and it’s not always easy to tell the difference. Right now anyone can contribute to the online health discussion except the pharmaceutical companies, who are waiting for guidelines from the FDA about how to engage online in an appropriate and responsible way.

There was a sense of hope among attendees at the hearing that the FDA will provide new guidelines on the Internet and social media relatively soon. When that happens, not only do we empower the pharmaceutical companies to interact with consumers online, but we give them a sense of duty to contribute to the conversation in a responsible way. Of course it’s not appropriate for pharmaceutical companies to get involved in every consumer discussion about healthcare online. But where these companies can contribute value to the discussion, let’s empower them to do just that.

Like many of my colleagues in the pharmaceutical/healthcare field, I look forward to watching and participating as the discussion continues to unfold.

• Download a healthcare-focused whitepaper authored by Melissa Davies: Listening to Consumers 101, How Marketers Can Leverage Consumer-Generated Media

Ninety percent or consumers surveyed noted that they trust recommendations from people they know, while 70 percent trusted consumer opinions posted online.

“The explosion in Consumer Generated Media over the last couple of years means consumers’ reliance on word of mouth in the decision-making process, either from people they know or online consumers they don’t, has increased significantly,” says Jonathan Carson, President of Online, International, for the Nielsen Company.”

However, in this new age of consumer control, advertisers will be encouraged by the fact that brand websites are trusted at that same 70 percent level as online consumer opinions.

Carson adds, “We see that all forms of advertiser-led advertising, except ads in newspapers, have also experienced increases in levels of trust and it’s possible that the CGM revolution has forced advertisers to use a more realistic form of messaging that is grounded in the experience of consumers rather than the lofty ideals of the advertisers.”

Brands Gaining Global Trust… In Some Regions More Than Others

In the two years the biannual study has been conducted, brand sponsorship has seen the greatest increase in levels of trust from 49 percent of Internet consumers in April 2007 to 64 percent in April 2009. Regionally, Latin American countries lead the way with 81 percent of both Colombian and Venezuelan Internet consumers and 79 percent of Brazilians trusting brand sponsorships. In contrast, sponsorships hold the least sway amongst Swedish (33 percent), Latvian (36 percent) and Finnish online consumers (38 percent). In comparison, 72 percent of United States Internet consumers trust brand sponsorships, placing the United States 12th out of the 50 countries represented in the survey.

Brand websites, globally the most trusted form of advertiser-led advertising, hold the greatest sway in China (82 percent). Following China are Pakistan (81 percent) and Vietnam (80 percent). However, brand websites tend to be trusted least amongst Swedish (40 percent) and Israeli (45 percent) Internet consumers. In the US, 62 percent of Internet consumers said they trusted brand sponsorships, placing the United States 21st out of the 50 countries surveyed.

“The regional differences provide a clear guide to advertisers as to how they should focus their ad strategy in different countries. It also shows that, despite the authority of word of mouth when it comes to consumer decision-making, advertisers still have a major say in the process. This is backed up by past Nielsen studies which showed that the majority of people posting comments online went to the advertiser website or emailed feedback to the company before they posted. The website, and monitoring feedback through it, is a golden opportunity for advertisers to shape the tone and content of consumer opinion before it reaches the digital masses,” said Carson.

For more regional data, download the Nielsen Global Online Consumer Survey press release.

There are two types of word-of-mouth occurring online: conversation resulting from natural interactions between consumers regarding a brand experience, and conversation resulting from a specific campaign or event that encourages it. WOMMA classifies these two types of conversations as Organic versus Amplified word-of-mouth.

As a long-term strategy for building brand buzz it is important to focus efforts on organic word-of-mouth. According to a Nielsen Online survey, the majority of consumers state that they post information online because they use the product and either like it or don’t. In general, organic WOM stimulates 78% of consumer messages online while 22% stem from marketing activities (amplified WOM). Accordingly, to grow buzz it is essential to focus on the consumer’s brand experience. This can be done by enhancing product performance, employee training and customer service.