BrandX campaign effectiveness · Step 6 of 6
Report and presentation
Where the $2.5 million question gets its answer
Executive Summary
Real-world practice. The report is where research earns its budget. Findings are framed as decisions, every recommendation traces to a table, and the honest limitations sit beside the confident claims. A report that only celebrates is marketing; a report that also warns is research.
Portfolio Simulation
This page illustrates the executive story that would be presented to the BrandX leadership team following the proposed study. Every conclusion is drawn directly from the analytical outputs demonstrated in Step 5, and each recommendation is linked to supporting evidence.
Step 1 framed one management decision: should BrandX sustain, refine or reallocate its television investment in the next planning cycle? The simulated evidence answers it: sustain the campaign, refine the creative, and do not move money between Channel A and Channel B. Exposure lifted every stage of the brand funnel, so the media is working. The advertising communicated taste rather than the premium-ingredients positioning it was built to carry, so the creative needs sharpening. The two channels delivered the same lift, so they can be bought on cost. And the response was strongest among heavy chip users and adults 18-34, which tells the next media plan where to concentrate. The deck below carries the full results. The section after it takes each of the four actions Step 1 put on the table and gives the evidence and the decision for each.
Presentation Deck
The full stakeholder deck, exactly as it would be presented, is embedded below. Use the viewer controls to page through it, or download a copy.
Answering the Step 1 Questions
Step 1 turned the business question into four possible actions and set out the evidence each one would need. Here is what the evidence says for each. Figures are weighted percentages among exposed (n = 500) and control (n = 500) respondents unless stated, with differences tested at 95% confidence.
Sustain the campaign and refine the creative. Keep buying both channels, on cost. Concentrate the next flight on heavy chip users and adults 18-34.
Continue TV investment
Yes, continueStep 1 asked forA meaningful lift in awareness, familiarity, consideration and recommendation among exposed consumers.
- Aided awareness 79% vs 53% in control (+26 points); unaided recall 30% vs 16%
- Consideration 58% vs 36% (+22); promoters 35% vs 18% (+17); net promoter score −9 vs −51
- All six brand measures are significantly higher and clear the 9-point minimum detectable effect set in Step 3; aided awareness is higher in 16 of 17 subgroups
DecisionKeep the campaign in market and protect its budget. These lifts become the benchmark the next wave is measured against. In line with the Step 1 guardrail, this is a brand-health case for the spend, not a claim about sales or return on investment.
Refine creative strategy
Yes, sharpen the messageStep 1 asked forEvidence of weak message comprehension: a main message other than the intended premium-ingredients claim, or uneven response to the ad.
- Main message (prompted): great taste and flavour 34%, high-quality ingredients 19%, crunchy texture 16%
- Unprompted, flavour and taste are each used by 16% of respondents; ingredients by 6% and quality by 4%
- The ad is seen as creative (45%) and memorable (43%), but impression among the aware moves least of the six brand measures (25% to 38%)
DecisionKeep taste as the lead message, because it is what lands, and attach one clear reason to believe (ingredients or crunch) in the same scenes and voice-over. Copy test the revised creative before it airs.
Reallocate channel spend
No, the channels perform alikeStep 1 asked forDifferences between Channel A and Channel B in campaign recall, brand lift, consideration or message clarity.
- Viewers of Channel A only and Channel B only show the same lift over control on every brand measure
- Neither channel leads on ad recall, enjoyment or main message: 58% vs 59% recall recent BrandX advertising, 35% vs 33% take out the taste message
- Viewers of both channels recall the ad far more often (87%), but their brand measures are no higher than single-channel viewers'
| Measure | Channel A only n = 197 | Channel B only n = 186 | Both channels n = 117 | Control n = 500 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaided recall | 30% | 32% | 28% | 16% |
| Aided awareness | 81% | 80% | 74% | 53% |
| Consideration, top-2 box | 59% | 60% | 51% | 36% |
| Promoters, 9-10 | 35% | 34% | 35% | 18% |
| Recall recent BrandX advertising | 58% | 59% | 87% | – |
Two-proportion z-tests at 95% confidence. Every channel group is significantly above control on all six brand measures. Channel A only and Channel B only differ significantly on none of the twelve brand and advertising measures tested. Highlighted: significantly higher than both single-channel groups. Ad measures are asked of exposed respondents only.
DecisionTreat the two channels as interchangeable reach and let cost per exposed viewer set the split and the negotiation. Extra frequency from reaching the same viewers on both channels buys ad recall, not brand lift, so avoid paying a premium for duplicated audiences. The single-channel groups (n = 186 to 197) can detect gaps of about 14 points or more, so smaller differences cannot be ruled out.
Improve targeting
Yes, focus where it landsStep 1 asked forDifferences in response by demographic, behavioural and category-consumption segments.
- Within the exposed group, unaided recall is 48% among heavy chip users vs 17% among light users, and 41% among 18-34s vs 21% among 55+
- Heavy users out-agree light users on all six ad statements, by 24 points on "made me want to try BrandX" (53% vs 29%)
- No significant unaided lift among 55+ (21% vs 16% control) or rural respondents (28% vs 17%)
DecisionWeight the next flight toward heavy chip users and adults 18-34. Test alternative channels or creative for 55+ and rural audiences before spending more against them.
The deck's three recommendations, Sustain the campaign, Sharpen the message and Target where it lands, correspond to decisions 1, 2 and 4. The channel answer comes from an additional split of the same weighted data by channel viewed.
Limitations & Recommended Next Research
What this study cannot claim
- Self-selection: exposure follows real viewing habits rather than random assignment, so exposed and control groups may differ in unmeasured ways (see the methodological notes in Step 3).
- Opportunity to see: "exposed" means the opportunity to see the campaign, not verified viewing, which biases the measured lifts toward conservatism.
- No sales linkage: by design, the study measures brand health, not revenue or ROI; the scope boundary set in Step 1 stands.
- Single wave: one post-campaign measurement cannot show decay or durability of the lifts.
- Channel bases: the single-channel groups (n = 186 to 197) are smaller than the exposed total, so the channel comparison can only detect gaps of about 14 points or more.
Where the research should go next
- Wave 2 tracking three months post-campaign, on the identical instrument, to measure how much of the lift holds.
- Copy test the revised creative before airing, checking that the quality message attaches without losing the taste appeal.
- NPS driver analysis: exposure lifts net promoter score from −51 to −9, but it stays negative in both groups. Advertising lifted the funnel; advocacy is a product and experience question that media spend alone will not fix.
- Channel cost pairing: the split shows the channels are equally effective; pairing it with cost per exposed viewer from each network turns that finding into a specific allocation.
Before You Go: A 60-Second Intercept Survey
Continuous improvement is a core principle of market research. This short intercept survey applies the same feedback methodology demonstrated throughout the portfolio, inviting reviewers to evaluate the clarity, methodological rigor, and overall presentation of this case study, in under a minute.
Portfolio Reflection
This portfolio demonstrates a complete commercial market research workflow using a representative business scenario and a synthetic dataset. While BrandX and the underlying data are simulated, the research design, analytical methods, statistical interpretation, and executive reporting reflect standard commercial market research practice. The objective is not to recreate a confidential client engagement, but to transparently demonstrate the end-to-end capabilities required to design, execute, analyse, and communicate a modern campaign-effectiveness study.
This concludes the six-step portfolio demonstration, illustrating how a commercial campaign evaluation can progress from an initial business question through research design, field implementation, analytical interpretation, and executive recommendation.
Revisit the process from Step 1 →