A Study byII

The Brand Safety EffectHow unsafe ad placement impacts consumer brand perception
October 2018

In collaboration withExecutive Summary
CHEQ, Magna & IPG Media Lab set out to quantify the effects of unsafe ad exposure on
consumer brand perceptions. These are the key findings:

Many consumers view unsafe ad placement as an intentional
endorsement of the negative content“It’s disturbing that they
are generating revenue
through disaster”“Looks like they’reexploiting shockvalue”“They’re stating that theyagree with the negativecontent”

With unsafe ad placement, consumers’ perception of the branddeclines significantly across key brand metrics
Consumers are less willingto associate with the brandConsumers’purchase intent is stifled

2.8X Decline

2X Decline

When displayed next to generally unsafe
or brand / vertical averse content

When displayed next to generally unsafe
or brand / vertical averse content

Consumers are less likely to feelthe brand cares about themConsumers are less likely tofeel the brand is “in the know”

4.5X Decline

3X Decline

When displayed next to generally unsafe
or brand / vertical averse content

When displayed next to generally unsafe
or brand / vertical averse content

Consumers’ brandquality perception drops

Consumers are less likely
to recommend the brand

7X Decline

0.5X Decline

When displayed alongside generally unsafe
and brand / vertical averse content

When displayed alongside generally unsafe
and brand / vertical averse content

2 / In collaboration with

The digital landscape is filled with

content brands don’t want tobe near
Brands are increasingly concerned about
where their ads are being displayed.
Many advertisers have pulled ads overbrand safety violations and are actively
seeking solutions for safe ad placement
both in-house and with 3rd parties.

The scope of concern is growing as well,
as more and more subjects becometaboo, and as political and social
sensitivities continue to grow. This meansthat if unsafe content was once simple todefine, we must now broaden ourdefinitions to include new categories.

Unsafe Categoriesof Content
Violent

HatefulFake or Misleading

Offensive

TragicPolitically Sensitive

Disgusting

Criminal

Brand Averse

Disrespectful

Controversial

Vertical Averse

3 / In collaboration withSo we set out to answer the question on every brand’s mind

How does unsafe ad placement affectconsumers’ perception of the brand?

4 / In collaboration withResearchmethodology
We used controlled online lab testing

Participants

SurveyParticipants recruited from nationally
representative online panel across PC andSmartphone (n = 2,364)

Initial survey with demographic andmedia consumption questions to ensure
representativeness

Ad Exposure

Measurement

Participants randomized into test cells(safe/unsafe content) and selected a website
to visit based on their preferences

Post exposure survey to measure
traditional brand metrics and qualitative
feedback

5 / In collaboration withResearchmethodology
2 verticals
We collaborated with BMW and Hulu to test
the effect of unsafe content on brandperceptions in a controlled online
environment

4 types of content
We displayed 4 different types of content
alongside the ads ranging from safe to
generally unsafe, brand averse and vertical
averse2 types of pre-roll ads
We displayed BMW and Hulu brand video ads
to the test group, while the control group wasshown various PSA ads

2 devices
We displayed the content on both desktop
and mobile to make sure we captured andreflected consumers’ genuine ad viewing
experience

6 / In collaboration withExamples of 4 types of content

we tested (for BMW & Hulu)
All ads were displayed in a “test” environment

Safe Content
Talk Show Segment

Generally Unsafe Content
School Shooting

Displayed in a “test” environment

Displayed in a “test” environment

Brand Averse Content

Vertical Averse Content

BMW Related Incident

Dangers of Binge Watching

Displayed in a “test” environment

Displayed in a “test” environment* Images are for illustration purposes only

7 / In collaboration withThe Key Findings

Brand perception showsdemonstrable decline
when brands’ ads are displayed alongside
generally unsafe or brand / vertical averse content

8 / In collaboration withKey Findings

Consumers areless willing to associate with the brand
When displayed alongside generally unsafe or brand / vertical averse content

Consumer Feedback“I will stay away fromthe brand in the future

2.8X
DeclineWillingness toAssociate▲

Safe Content
Unsafe Content▲▲ = Statistically significant difference between test and control at >= 90%
confidence
Safe n=818; Unsafe n=1,542

9 / In collaboration with

Key Findings

Consumers’purchase intent is stifled
When displayed alongside generally unsafe or brand / vertical averse content

Consumer Feedback“After seeing a video
like that, it’s hard tothink about buying
a new car

2X
DeclinePurchase Intent▲

Safe Content
Unsafe Content▲ = Statistically significant difference between test and control at >= 90%
confidence
Safe n=818; Unsafe n=1,542

10 / In collaboration with

Key Findings

Consumers are less likely
to feel that the brand cares about them
When displayed alongside generally unsafe or brand / vertical averse content

Consumer Feedback“It’s disturbing that they
don’t care

4.5X
DeclineBrand Cares
About Me▲

Safe Content
Unsafe Content▲ = Statistically significant difference between test and control at >= 90%
confidence
Safe n=818; Unsafe n=1,542

11 / In collaboration with

Key Findings

Consumers are less likely
to feel that the brand is “In the Know”
When displayed alongside generally unsafe or brand / vertical averse content

Consumer Feedback“Not smart to place yourbrand next to negative
content

3X
DeclineBrand is“In the Know”▲Safe Content
Unsafe Content▲▲ = Statistically significant difference between test and control at >= 90%
confidence
Safe n=818; Unsafe n=1,542

12 / In collaboration with

We also measured theeffect of unsafe content when it

directly clashes with thebrand or vertical

13 / In collaboration with

Key Findings

Consumers’
brand quality perception drops
When displayed alongside generally unsafe and brand / vertical averse content

Deltas (Test- Control)

Is a Quality Brand

Generally
Unsafe Content

Safe Content

7X
Decline-1%

Unsafe + Brand / VerticalAverse

Unsafe Content▲-7%▲ = Statistically significant difference between test and control at >= 90% confidence
Generally Unsafe n=401; Unsafe + Brand / Vertical Averse n=365

14 / In collaboration withKey Findings

Consumers are less likely
to recommend the brand
When displayed alongside generally unsafe and brand / vertical averse content

Deltas (Test- Control)

Is a Brand I Would
Recommend0.5X
DeclineGenerally
Unsafe Content

Safe Content
Unsafe + Brand / Vertical
Averse Content
Unsafe-6%▲-9%▲ = Statistically significant difference between test and control at >= 90% confidence
Generally Unsafe n=401; Unsafe + Brand / Vertical Averse n=365

15 / In collaboration with

Additional Findings

16 / In collaboration with

Additional Findings

Content that clashes with the brand or vertical still causes
damage even when that content is generally safe

Is a Quality
Brand

Has a Good
Reputation

Brand is in
The Know

19%

19%

21%

DeclineDeclineDeclineIs a Trustworthy
Brand

Cares About its
Customers

Willingness toAssociate

22%

18%

21%

DeclineDeclineImpact of Brand Averse Content by those who recognized connection between ad and content.
▲ = Statistically significant difference between test groups at >= 90% confidence
Brand Averse: Ad Was Relevant n=150; Ad Was Not Relevant n=36

17 / In collaboration withDecline

Additional Findings

Many consumers view the ad placement as
an intentional endorsement of the content
Consumer Feedback

““

“

“

Seems manipulative. I’dprefer a company that
doesn’t use that kind oftechnique

Looks like they’reexploiting shock
value

“

They’re stating that theyagree with the negative
contentI think the brand is taking
advantage of people’semotions

It’s disturbing that they are generating
revenue through disaster18 / In collaboration withAdditional Findings

Consumers’ aversion to associate with brands
Is driven by “offensive” content

Impact of Content Offensiveness on Willingness to Associate: Deltas (Test – Control)

Least Offensive
Content
Willingness toassociate
Most Offensive
ContentWillingness toassociate

13%
Decline▲ = Statistically significant difference between test and control at >= 90% confidence
Most Offensive n=178; Neutral n=459; Least Offensive n=1,169

19 / In collaboration with0%

DeclineWhatwe’ve learned
01

Consumers tend to assume each ad placement
is intentional
This means that when they see ads next to unsafe
content, they view the brand as “not smart” (at best)and “manipulative” (at worst)

02

Consumers view the ad placement as anendorsement of the content
This means that by being near certain types of content, it’sseen (by the consumer) as taking a position

03

Measuring unsafe ad exposure without
preventing it could seriously hurt the brandOnce the consumer has viewed ads alongside unsafe content,
the damage to the brand is already done, and measuring
becomes futile

04

Brands must go beyond “bad” content andavoid content which counters their brand
Traditionally unsafe content like “crime” and “terrorism”
does damage, but so does neutral content, if it clashes withthe brand / vertical

20 / In collaboration with

Thanks

For further questions
and information, contact:
Kara Manatt, SVP Intelligence, Solutions & Strategy
Kara.manatt@magnaglobal.com
Daniel Avital, Chief Strategy Officer
Daniel@cheq.ai
Ben Ofer, Director of Business Strategy
Ben.o@cheq.ai

In collaboration with