The Battle for Stories Ad Supremacy
Testing different Stories ad placements for Napapijri
Objectives.
The Rainforest jacket is one of Napapijri’s best selling and iconic products in mainland Europe, and so the focus of this campaign was to push the product in the UK. We launched a brand awareness piece using the Stories ad placement in Facebook Business Manager to deliver as many impressions as possible, focusing on users aged between 16-34 in the UK who wear streetwear and had never been to the Napapijri website.
Strategy.
Initially, we tested Snapchat and Instagram placements. Utilising past learnings, we only ran video ads as they have a much stronger performance than static images. Instagram has a much more innovative platform, with a variety of different formats which aren’t available on any other platform. However, Snapchat is a powerful tool with a large youth audience which was incredibly lucrative: particularly for this campaign.
After this campaign kicked off, Facebook launched their own version of Stories and so in order to make the most of the Stories placement, we decided to run a second test between Facebook and Instagram. Due to limitations in functionality within Facebook’s platform, we could only use single static images to accurately compare the performance between the two platforms. Further, there was no option to manage the Facebook campaign on its own; it had to be included alongside Instagram targeting, giving us much less control over the budget.
Results.
Comparing the Snapchat and Instagram video campaigns, Snapchat’s CPM was 60% cheaper than Instagram’s. There was also a higher CTR, clocking in at 259% higher than Instagram. So, as well as delivering more impressions for the budget we had available, we were also reaching people who were more likely to go through to the Napapijri website.
In the static-image-test between Facebook and Instagram, the CPMs generated on Facebook were 18% more effective than on Instagram and there was a 14% higher CTR. However, there was a very limited inventory which meant we were unable to scale spend.
