Measurement series: The case for lower weekly frequencies

Welcome to our latest campaign measurement blog series. In the second of this three-part series, we will look at the impact of lower weekly frequencies on COVID-19 campaigns.

Summary of key takeaways: ​​

• Consider avg. weekly frequencies <1.0 to influence perceptions cost effectively.
• When considering 2.0+ avg. weekly frequencies, be mindful of reduced cost effectiveness.
• When running longer campaigns, it is recommended to ensure you maintain average weekly reach and frequency targets.

Governments and health NGOs worldwide adapted quickly to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, leveraging digital communications to help keep people safe and informed. Based on over 400 brand lift studies run globally between December 2020 and December 2021, we’ve developed a statistical and qualitative meta-analysis which identifies and reflects on best practices that have been used to communicate with audiences about COVID-19.

Frequencies are a nuanced topic, meaning they are dependent on a variety of factors. Also, for organizations using the auction, planning average weekly frequencies can be challenging.

Our campaign learnings have shown that average weekly frequencies below 1.0 seemed sufficient to influence perceptions, and did so cost-effectively. The machine learning analysis also showed that higher average weekly frequencies, above 2.0, were effective, but much less cost effective. In general, additional impressions from these higher weekly frequencies could be helpful, but doing so was less cost-efficient.

When considering average weekly frequency, be mindful of your campaign duration. Campaigns that ran for 4 weeks plus or minus a week, were most associated with perception change. It is recommended that campaigns are run for at least two weeks.

For more insights from this research, please download the full report here.

Source: "COVID-19 ad campaign learnings" by Meta, May 2022