2008 Powered Roi Report Final

2008 SOCIAL MARKETING ROI REPORT AND BENCHMARK GUIDE

Prepared in January 2009 by

Table of Contents

3 Executive Summary

5 Background

7 Purpose of this Study

7 Study Methodology & Scope

9 Findings - Overall ROI Results

12 Findings – Consumer Satisfaction

14 Findings–BrandAffinityandLoyalty

16 Findings – Advocacy and Word of Mouth

17 Results Summary

18 Implications & Concluding Thoughts

20 Appendicesa. Footnotes/Referencesb. Survey Questions

2008 POWERED SOCIAL MARKETING ROI REPORT AND BENCHMARK GUIDE

PAGE 3 OF 24

Executive SummaryPowered creates social marketing programs that help brands connect and build relationships with their customers through managed online communities. Unlike other marketing programs, online communities allow businesses to engage with customers through a combination of expert content and online community interactions. Throughout the Customer Lifecycle - from Awareness to Advocacy – clients achieve measureable results with real-time data and insights. Powered’s managed online communities provide the benefits of social networking with engagement marketing, which result in a high conversion to product purchase, greater affinity for the brand and key insights into consumer behaviors.

Since 1999 Next Century Media (NCM) Global has been focused on measuring the advertising effectiveness of non-traditional advertising approaches. NCM conducted its first study of Powered social marketing programs in 2006 and found that Powered communities delivered an average of $55 for every $1 invested by the brand.

In this year’s study – using the same methodology – Powered communities delivered an average of $60 for every $1 invested, a 10% increase. The dollar return was calculated by aggregating the self-reported dollars spent by consumers on the sponsor’s brand since engaging with the Powered community.

From 2006 to 2008, the ROI of Powered social marketing sites has increased by 10%.These ROIs have consistently outperformed the Direct Marketing Association and Marketing Management Analytics ROI estimates for all of direct marketing1 and non-CPG mass media advertising2 for the past 3 years NCM has conducted this study.

50

55

60

65YEAR OVER YEAR ROI COMPARISON OF ALL ADVERTISERS

2006 2007 2008

ROI

55

63

60


PAGE 4 OF 24

In addition to the ROI results, some of the most significant findings attributed to Powered’s online communities for 2008 include:

Purchase Intent: ▪ Two-thirds of the respondents stated they were more likely to purchase to sponsoring brands products and/or services as a direct result of the learning experience offered in the community.

Brand Affinity: ▪ Two-thirds of respondents indicated an improved brand perception of the sponsoring brand.

Brand Loyalty: ▪ 63% of respondents stated that they had a more positive opinion of the sponsoring brand.

These findings come at a time when the marketing industry stands at a crossroads, questioning all of its existing approaches, and seeking solid footing with which to go forward. The rapidly-evolving future is changing everything we used to know about media and about consumers.

The broader implication of these findings when viewed in the context of all of the studies3 conducted by NCM since 1999 is that marketing approaches which give something of value to consumers without asking anything in return, appear to form a very promising class of persuasive communications. These types of programs could provide part of the solution marketers are seeking with which to navigate into the future. NCM has referred to this class of communications as “True Sponsorship”.


PAGE 5 OF 24

BackgroundPowered provides a solution that enables brands to apply the principles of social networking and engagement marketing to the consumer purchase process. In the Powered approach, the brand offers consumers a site that combines managed online communities with education oriented experiences related to a brand’s products. The site is an extension of the core brand site. Or, the site may also be sponsored by a brand on a publisher’s site. The consumer is offered – for free - a variety of text based and rich media education-oriented content experiences, and has the option to ask questions of experts and peers, gain knowledge through the opinions of others, and engage with the brand for periods of minutes to hours – with interactions typically stretching over a period of weeks. The brand’s products may be used as an instructional part of the experience - e.g. their camera is used to instruct consumers on more effective digital photography techniques. This is akin to product placement but differs from most instances of the latter in that the product appearance has an essential function within the content/consumer experience itself. In any case this form of marketing communications must be regarded as “soft sell.” NCM has found in recent years that “soft sell” approaches to persuasive marketing communications have a much higher average efficacy as compared with traditional advertising. We hypothesize that this is related to a number of factors:

Consumers have become increasingly skeptical of advertising, stemming back at least 1. to the 1957 publication of Vance Packard’s book The Hidden Persuaders if not starting even earlier than that.

The amount of advertising has been increasing. For example, in television, there 2. had been one sponsor per program in 1957. Whereas today the consumer sees 28 commercials per viewing hour. It has been estimated the average consumer sees thousands of messages per day in media and public spaces. The reality is lower than that, but nevertheless an imposing number.4 The volume of messages has increased the degree to which consumers actively screen anything perceived as advertising.

The consumer’s distrust of advertising today is part of a larger cynicism and doubt of 3. all large organizations including corporations and governments. The term “conspiracy theory” has become prevalent.

When an advertiser steps away from the expectations raised by the environment just 4. described, NCM hypothesizes that there is a heightened likelihood the advertiser will be cognitively “let in” and also creates a positive surprise effect5. When something does not look like typical advertising it is able to get through the perceptual filter.


PAGE 6 OF 24

NCM became interested in Powered as a result of NCM’s studies of True Sponsorship. True Sponsorship is defined as a form of marketing communication involving content brought to the consumer by the advertiser and the absence of ads in their traditional form. In a series of over 30 studies to date6, NCM has found a consistent pattern of exceptionally high advertising effectiveness for True Sponsorship, hence NCM’s interest in Powered. NCM’s hypothesis is that Powered would also exhibit a high level of effectiveness.

Because many of Powered’s clients are involved with considered purchase products, where self-reported purchase data are highly accurate and accepted as such, NCM proposed a series of annual studies in which the actual ROI of Powered programs would be measured by use of consumer self-reported data.

NCM conducted its first study7 of Powered Return on Investment for its clients in 2006, covering Powered programs for clients which ran in 2005. This is a report on Powered social marketing programs which ran in 2008. This report contains results not only in terms of ROI but also supplementary findings regarding consumer satisfaction, intention to reuse the brand/Powered offering, probability of recommending the brand to others, and other ancillary measures.


PAGE 7 OF 24

Purpose of this StudyThe purpose of this study is twofold:

To apprise Powered’s clients of their return on investments in Powered’s social 1. marketing programs.

To continue investigations of non-traditional advertising approaches so as to equip 2. the marketing community with the best information from which to create the most effective marketing programs in the immediate future.

Study Methodology & ScopeIn 2007, nearly a million people opted-in to Powered’s managed online community sites. These sites aggregately received over 12 million visits in 2007. Therefore the opt-ins represent a little over 8% of visits. The surveys used were administered to coincide with the conclusion of the experience, generally 6-8 weeks into the experience. Of those who opted in, 11.2% - or nearly 112,183 people - completed the survey.

Two important questions asked in these surveys were “Did you make a purchase as a direct result of taking this course?” and “If you purchased product(s), what was the approximate dollar amount of your purchase?” In 2007, the Powered client segments included in the study were personal computer manufacturers, financial services companies, retailers, publishers, office products and consumer electronics manufacturers. The sites related to how to get the best use out of specific products (e.g. one of the categories in the study was digital photography.) Each survey provided an appropriate scale of dollar ranges for filling in the multiple choice question regarding amount spent. For example, “Less than $100”, “$100-$499”, etc.

Per standard marketing research practice, in tabulating the results of these questions the midpoint price within each range was assumed, so that for “Less than $100” the assumed average price was $50, and so on. The top scale point was always “Greater than” a certain price, e.g. “Greater than $2500”, and here the NCM tabulation assumption was that the average price was 20% above that parameter, e.g. 20% higher than $2500 i.e. $3000. This assumption is consistent with industry practice in the tabulation of such questions.

Since these surveys were completed 6-8 weeks into the experience, some purchases would have been made after the surveys were collected, and these purchase effects are therefore not reflected. The ensuing ROI estimates are therefore deflated relative to probable reality. This is backed up by the survey data: the group already making a purchase was 26.3% of respondents. The group answering “yes” to the question “Do you


PAGE 8 OF 24

plan to purchase (from the sponsor) in the next 12 months” was 27.0% of respondents. The latter group was not included in the ROI calculation. If they had been included the ROI estimates for social marketing would be 2X times higher than shown below.

For the most part, the categories in the study are a considered purchase made relatively infrequently. The consumer generally remembers the price paid with high accuracy for some time thereafter. If on average the purchase was made halfway into the 6-8 week period, then the data were collected on average less than a month after the purchase was made. We would expect that the great majority of consumers checked the right box in terms of amount spent.

The findings for survey respondents were projected to total enrollments using the ratio of survey respondents to enrollees for the particular course. Since 11.2% of enrollees were survey respondents, the average projection factor was the ratio of 100 to 11.2 or 8.93. This varied slightly by individual course. ROI is defined in this analysis as incremental short term sales revenues divided by investment through Powered.


PAGE 9 OF 24

Findings – Overall ROI ResultsPowered social marketing sites yielded a 60:1 ROI, which is a 10% increase from the first year’s 55:1 ROI benchmark. The Direct Marketing Associations 2005 Economic Impact Study states “For 2005, an investment of $1 in DM ad expenditures will return, on average, $11.49 in incremental revenue across all industries.” This is close to one sixth of the ROI of Powered social marketing sites.

A more telling comparison relates to “non-direct response” advertising. Erwin Ephron and Gerry Pollak published the most extensive analysis of media advertising ROI, based on marketing mix modeling conducted by Marketing Management Analytics, the leading supplier in the field. Forty-five brands were covered, of which 25 were packaged goods brands. These 45 brands represent aggregate annual media advertising spend of $777 million. The average ROI across the 45 brands is 1.93:1.

Probably the most relevant comparison is to non-CPG and here the ROI of Powered social marketing sites is close to 30X that of non-CPG paid media advertising (non direct response).

10

20

30

40

50

60

ROI COMPARISON BY MARKETING PROGRAM

ROI

Powered Social Marketing Programs

Direct Marketing Programs

Media AdvertisingPrograms

60:1

11:1

2:1

Category # Brands Media Dollars Incremental Sales Dollars ROI

Non-CPG 20 $547,341,687 $1,226,041,600 2.24:1

CPG 25 $229,367,528 $270,654,200 1.18 :1

45 $776,709,215 $1,496,695,800 1.93:1


PAGE 10 OF 24

ROI Comparison by Brand and Program Longevity

In all findings below, NCM has masked the identity of Powered’s clients to protect proprietary information. The ROI achieved by each brand varied primarily due to two factors: the length of time the brand has their managed online community running and the commitment by the brand to reach out to consumers to drive traffic to their site.

Long-Term Programs are branded online communities that were included in all three ROI studies conducted by NCM from 2006-2008. These programs represent the longest running communities across all brands. The results would indicate that the longer an online community is sustained, the higher the ROI achieved.

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

20

40

60

80

100

120

133.3

13.9 12.1 8.56 4.24 2.73 2.31

ROI

POWERED’S CLIENTS

A B C D E F G

ROI COMPARISON BY BRAND

2006 2007 2008

ROI

ROI PROGRAM COMPARISON BY PROGRAM LONGEVITY

All Advertisers Long-term Advertisers

55

37

63

113

6066


PAGE 11 OF 24

Purchase Intent Positively Influenced

In addition to these social marketing programs driving a compelling ROI and purchase conversion rates, purchase intent is positively influenced. Two-thirds of survey respondents stated they were more likely to purchase the sponsoring brands products and/or services as a direct result of the learning experience offered in the community.

HOW DID THIS EXPERIENCE AFFECT YOUR LIKELIHOOD TO PURCHASE?

Likelihood Respondents

More Likely to Purchase 15,644 65.72%

Neither More or Less 6,749 28.35%

Not Sure 894 3.76%

Less Likely to Purchase 516 2.17%

23,803 100%


PAGE 12 OF 24

Findings – Consumer SatisfactionIn the Powered approach, the brand offers consumers a site that combines managed online communities with education oriented experiences related to a brand’s products. The consumer is offered – for free - a variety of text based and rich media education-oriented content experiences, and has the option to ask questions of experts and peers, gain knowledge through the opinions of others, and engage with the brand for periods of minutes to hours – with interactions typically stretching over a period of weeks.

Survey respondents that participated in these online communities were highly satisfied with the content experience on the site. In the past 3 studies, satisfaction scores among survey respondents consistently averaged over 90% extremely and somewhat satisfied, indicating that True Sponsorship as represented in the Powered approach is a highly effective form of marketing communication.

94% were Extremely or Somewhat Satisfied with the Overall Content.

93% were Extremely or Somewhat Satisfied with the Educational Content.

HOW SATISFIED WERE YOU WITH THE OVERALL CONTENT?

Level of Satisfaction Respondents

ExtremelySatisfied 70,161 69.87%

SomewhatSatisfied 23,773 23.67%

Neither 3,675 3.66%

SomewhatDissatisfied 1,659 1.65%

ExtremelyDissatisfied 831 0.83%

Not Sure 320 0.32%

100,420 100%

HOW SATISFIED WERE YOU WITH THE EDUCATIONAL CONTENT?

Level of Satisfaction Respondents

ExtremelySatisfied 5,612 61.05%

SomewhatSatisfied 2,981 32.43%

Neither 388 4.22%

SomewhatDissatisfied 145 1.58%

ExtremelyDissatisfied 34 0.37%

Not Sure 33 0.36%

9,193 100%


PAGE 13 OF 24

HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE OVERALL CONTENT?

Rating Respondents

Excellent 1,003 34.74%

Very Good 1,137 39.38%

Good 526 18.22%

Fair 125 4.33%

Poor 32 1.11%

Don’t Know 64 2.22%

2,887 100%

92% Rate the Content as Excellent, Very Good, or Good.


PAGE 14 OF 24

Findings–BrandAffinityandLoyaltyPositivelyInfluencedTwo-thirds of the survey respondents indicated that the Powered online community experience had improved their impression of the sponsoring brand. Nearly as high a percentage, 63%, responded that they had a more positive opinion of the sponsoring brand.

I HAVE A MORE FAVORABLE IMPRESSION OF THE BRAND.

Level of Agreement Respondents

Strongy Agree 41 25.62%

Agree 65 40.63%

Neither Agree or Disagree 41 25.62%

Disagree 6 3.75%

Strongly Disagree 0 0.00%

Not Sure 7 4.38%

160 100%

HOW DID THIS EXPERIENCE AFFECT YOUR OPINION OF THE BRAND?

Change of Opinion Respondents

More Positive View 41 25.62%

Had No Effect 65 40.63%

Not Sure 41 25.62%

Less Positive View 6 3.75%

160 100%


PAGE 15 OF 24

Powered’s social marketing programs not only yield high satisfaction and brand affinity scores, these sites help build brand loyalty by driving repeat visits and community participation. Close to 95% of survey respondents would visit the site they attended again and 96% would participate in another Powered online community.


DefinitelyWould 51,367 78.51%

Probably Would 11,407 17.43%

Might or Might Not 2,062 3.15%

Probably Would Not 350 0.53%

DefinitelyWouldNot 192 0.29%


65,431 100%

WILL YOU PARTICIPATE IN THE LEARNING EXPERIENCE AGAIN?


DefinitelyWillVisit 2,463 83.78%

Probably Will Visit 316 10.75%

Might or Might Not 82 2.79%

Probably Will Not Visit 40 1.36%

DefinitelyWillNotVisit 39 1.33%

65,431 100%

HOW LIKELY ARE YOU TO VISIT AGAIN?


PAGE 16 OF 24

Findings – Advocacy and Word of MouthAs stated previously, the ROI achieved by each brand in this study varied primarily due to two factors, one of which is the commitment by the brand to reach out to consumers to drive traffic to their site. One KPI for online communities is organic growth, e.g. community member growth through word of mouth recommendations. With the Powered approach, over 92% of survey respondents indicated they would recommend the site to a friend, while close to 85% would recommend the sponsoring brand to friends.





Probably Would Not 1,201 1.76%



68,388 100%

WOULD YOU RECOMMEND THIS EXPERIENCE TO A FRIEND?





Probably Would Not 313 2.06%



15,197 100%

WOULD YOU RECOMMEND THE BRAND TO A FRIEND?


PAGE 17 OF 24

Results SummaryPowered social marketing sites yielded a 60:1 ROI, which is a 10% increase from the ▪first year’s 55:1 ROI benchmark.

Consistently for 3 years the ROI of Powered social marketing programs (60:1) has ▪significantly outperformed the Direct Marketing Association (11:1) and Marketing Management Analytics (2:1) ROI estimates for all of direct marketing8 and non-CPG mass media advertising.9

Nearly one million people opted-in to Powered’s managed online community sites, ▪which aggregately received over 12 million visits in 2007. The average opt-in rate for a Powered online community is a little over 8% of total site ▪visits.

Of those consumers who opted in, 11.2% - or nearly 112,183 people - completed the ▪survey.

Two-thirds of survey respondents stated they were more likely to purchase the ▪sponsoring brands products and/or services as a direct result of the learning experience offered in the community.

Two-thirds of survey respondents indicated that the Powered online community ▪experience had improved their impression of the sponsoring brand.

Nearly 63% of survey respondents stated they had a more positive opinion of the ▪sponsoring brand as a result of the experience.

Close to 95% of survey respondents would visit the site they attended again and 96% ▪would participate in another Powered online community.

Over 92% of survey respondents that participated in a Powered online community ▪would recommend the site to a friend, while close to 85% would recommend the sponsoring brand to friends.

For the past 3 years, satisfaction scores among survey respondents consistently ▪averaged over 90% extremely and somewhat satisfied.

▪ 94% were extremely or somewhat satisfied with the overall content. 93% were extremely or somewhat satisfied with the educational content. ▪ 92% rated the content as excellent, very good, or good. ▪


PAGE 18 OF 24

Implications & Concluding ThoughtsPowered appears to be a reliable investment for marketers based on the 22 programs studied in the last three years. The ROI returns from Powered’s social marketing programs are virtually always above industry norms. Marketers are advised to study their target consumers and to learn what kinds of social marketing and web experiences they would likely value the most, and to test those experiences. Using the Internet and use of Powered are very likely the most efficient and effective way of doing so, given that Powered has created a process and has gained valuable know-how in the practice.

Social marketing as a relatively new non-traditional form of persuasive marketing communications is widely misunderstood. Most advertising and marketing executives assume that the term relates mainly to content generated by consumers. In fact, according to Forrester13, content generated by a person’s favorite brand has more effect upon that person than content generated by other consumers. This is a significant finding because in the history of word of mouth measurement14, before the existence of social marketing there was never an instance where consumers were more influenced by communications from brands than from disinterested parties i.e. friends and relatives.

Beyond social marketing, marketers ought to carefully investigate and test every practical means of befriending consumers by new and established forms of marketing communications which do not involve straight advertising. This includes True Sponsorship in all its forms i.e. entertainment programs as well as educational ones, in all media; cause marketing; service advertising (e.g. helping the consumer to know which products to buy and how to use them); sponsored games; sponsored processes supporting consumer generated media; and new forms which no one has thought of yet.

This area is fertile ground for the imaginations of the agencies. Instead of beginning to disappear - as oft opined in the trade press – they could be entering the most promising period they have ever faced.

The Advertising Research Foundation (ARF) in 2008 published a study of experiential marketing – a form of offline social media commonly known as trade events. Many of the learnings from this study also apply to Powered and to all of the other forms of non-traditional marketing which involve soft sell approaches to befriending consumers.

The following quote from the study shows the high degree of alignment between ARF’s derived best practices for event marketing with Powered’s approach of a managed online community model in the web social media space:


PAGE 19 OF 24

The importance of motivating positive, non-threatening interpersonal experiences at the event cannot be underestimated – informing vs. hard selling; educating rather than telling; helping rather than aggressively pushing decisions, etc.: “Threat” leads us to be wary, constrained, inhibited, and defensive, which tends to make us hold back so as not to increase the danger or make a fool of ourselves. Such a state of mind interferes with risk taking, trust, and smooth cognitive functioning.12

As this report is being prepared, the industry trades are running stories about major companies such as Kraft and Unilever who are said to be considering selling off up to half of their brands because they are no longer growing. These are brands that could be acquired by other companies for sums in the billions of dollars. From a macroeconomic point of view, simply transferring those brands to new ownership does not result in any economic improvement. Instead, what if the present owners of these brands tested new means of re-positioning those brands in the minds of consumers? The very nature of brands is that they really exist in the minds of consumers. Changing the way consumers view a brand may be far less costly than previously imagined, and far more lucrative. Instead of just testing interruptive ads in new media, and the like, we as an industry ought to be doing more testing, in all media new and old, of the soft sell.


PAGE 20 OF 24

AppendicesA – References

1 Direct Marketing Association (DMA) 2005 Economic Impact Study, Peter A. Johnson, PH.D., [email protected] MMA: “Finding The Other Half” by Erwin Ephron and Gerry Pollak, Ephron On Media website archive.3 Harvey, Gray, and Despain, “Measuring the Effectiveness of True Sponsorship”, Advertising Research Foundation Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 46, No. 4, December 2006.4 Assuming an average Cost Per Thousand impressions across all media of $10.00, the U.S. advertising volume of $285,106,000,000 (Advertising Age compilation of Robert J. Coen McCann-Erickson and TNS CMR 2006 data, June 25, 2007) implies a total of 28.51 trillion impressions per annum in the U.S. Relating this to the total U.S. population of 301,967,681 (source: World News Network) one derives a daily estimate of 259 impressions per person, much lower than the often quoted statistics which range from 2000 per day to 6000 per day, but still hefty. 5 Surprise is possibly a more important psychological phenomenon than one might suppose. When information falling upon the senses deviates from the expected model in one’s brain, a characteristic brain wave known as the P300 wave is detected. NCM in other work relating to behavioral targeting has uncovered potential evidence that surprise may be an important factor in advertising effectiveness; the eye camera records more noticing of ads found in websites where one would not expect to see an ad for that product type. The Advertising Research Foundation’s former Chief Research Officer Joe Plummer has identified as probable drivers of advertising engagement: surprise, utility, and emotional bonding.6 Harvey et al, ibid.7 “Consumer Education Produces High ROI”, report, Next Century Media, May 5, 2006. 8 DMA, ibid.9 MMA, ibid.10 MMA, ibid.11 DMA, ibid.12 “Experiential Marketing: A Master of Engagement: Research on How Engaging Events Pay”, Raymond Pettit, PhD, William Cook, PhD, Dan Belmont, Inna Sokolyanskaya, ARF Event Engagement Consortium Study Findings, January, 2008 13 “Brand Matters to Socially Connected Consumers: Brand Content Trumps Peers in Influence”, Lisa Bradner, report, Forrester, November 17, 200814 Day, George S., “Attitude Change and the Relative Influence of Media and Word-Of-Mouth Sources.” In Jagdish N. Sheth (ed.), Models of Buyer Behavior: Conceptual, Quantitative, and Empirical. New York: Harper & Row, 1974


PAGE 21 OF 24

B – Survey Questions

1. How would you rate the overall content?A. ExcellentB. Very GoodC. GoodD. FairE. PoorF. Don’t know

2. How satisfied were you with the content overall?

A. Extremely satisfied B. Somewhat satisfied C. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied D. Somewhat dissatisfied E. Extremely dissatisfiedF. Not sure

3. How satisfied were you with the educational content?

A. Extremely satisfied B. Somewhat satisfied C. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied D. Somewhat dissatisfied E. Extremely dissatisfiedF. Not sure

4. Based on this experience, how likely are you to visit in the future?

A. Definitely will visit B. Probably will visitC. Might or might not visitD. Probably will not visit E. Definitely would not visitF. Not sure

5. Would you participate in the experience again?

A. Definitely would B. Probably wouldC. Might or might not D. Probably would not E. Definitely would not F. Don’t know


PAGE 22 OF 24

6. I have a more favorable impression of the brand.A. Strongly agree B. AgreeC. Neither agree nor disagree D. DisagreeE. Strongly disagree F. I don’t know

7. How did this experience affect your opinion of the brand as a company?A. Gave me a more positive view of the brand B. Gave me a less positive view of the brandC. Had no effectD. Not sure

8. Would you recommend this experience to a family member, friend or co-worker?

A. Definitely would recommend B. Probably would recommendC. Might or might not recommend D. Probably would not recommend E. Definitely would not recommendF. Don’t know

9. Based on this experience; would you recommend the brand to a family member, friend or co-worker?

A. Definitely would recommend B. Probably would recommendC. Might or might not recommend D. Probably would not recommend E. Definitely would not recommendF. Don’t know

10. How did this experience affect your likelihood to buy products/use services from the brand?

A. I am more likely to purchase B. I am less likely to purchase C. I am neither more nor less likely to purchase D. Not sure


PAGE 23 OF 24

11. What products, if any, did you purchase as a result of this experience? (Please select all that apply.)

A. Not applicable, I did not purchase a from the brand as a result of this experience B. Product A C. Product BD. Product C E. Product DF. Product EG. Product FH. Product G K. Other

12. What was the approximate total dollar amount of the product(s) you purchased, above?

A. Not applicable, I did not purchase a product as a result B. Less than $100 C. $100 to $249 D. $250 to $499 E. $500 to $999 F. $1,000 to $1,999 G. $2,000 or more

13. Where did you purchase the product(s)? A. Not applicable, I did not purchase a product as a result B. Online at brand’s web site C. Online elsewhere D. At a brand retail store E. At another retail store F. Through brand’s 1-800 number G. Over the phone via another 1-800 number H. Other

14. What is the main reason you did not purchase a product as a result of this experience?

A. Not applicable, I purchased a product B. I already had what I needed C. I don’t have the budget for any new product(s) at this time D. I did not see any product that I wanted to purchase E. I bought another brandF. I do not plan to buy anything now, but I plan to buy a product in the future G. Other H. Not sure

206 E. Ninth Street, 14th Floor, Austin, TX 78701512-682-3200 / Toll Free 866-682-3200

Business Development: [email protected] Info: [email protected]

Press Inquiries: [email protected]

www.powered.com

2008 Powered Roi Report Final

Business

Transcript of 2008 Powered Roi Report Final