marginally subversive

Reach- versus Rich-based Media and Communications Planning: That's the REAL Issue

If I were to summarize the most critical dilemma facing media and communications planners these days, it would be making the choice between "REACH- versus RICH-" media and communications planning planning philosophies.

 

REACH media/communications planning is perhaps the easier way out.  One comes up with numbers, measurements, and cost-per-thousand impressions to rationalize why certain combinations of media channels and programs are best.  Numbers don't lie - at least not in the media planners' presentation. 

REACH-based media planning is relatively easier to justify:  Just show that a lot of eyeballs get to see the ad, awareness picks up after a few weeks of airing, and voila - another successful campaign.

For clients, it is a less-risky move:  REACH-based planning will always churn out the same things over and over and over again.  TV and newspapers - top titles, mind you - will always be there, with a spattering of radio spots and the minimal investments in online banners ("Oh make that an expanding ad!").  To round it all up, clients would also want some outdoor - which some creative executives would probably lift out of their print and poster layouts ("Just blow it all up!")

 

RICH-focused media/communications planning, on the other hand, demands a lot from media and communications planners, their clients, and other stakeholders - including creative agencies, digital companies, content providers, and media space vendors.

Because its focus on generating RICH audience experiences, metrics such as GRPs, reach, frequency, and CPMs, suddenly become incomplete.  Planning theories such as "recency planning" versus "effective frequency planning" become insufficient in determining what constitutes an effective media and communications plan.

What used to be a simple decision for clients becomes more complicated:  "How do you measure - or worse, predict - consumers' experiences?  How sure are you that that is the desired effect?  How sure are you that it is rich-enough?"

 

REACH- versus RICH-based media planning - which one will you choose?

 

Technorati Tags: Digital Planning,Communications Planning,Engagement Planning,Brand Engagement,Media Engagement,Metrics,Media Planning,Agencies

Great Products, but No One Knows...

Back in the mid-1990s, before the tech-bubble burst, a friend of mine ventured into the digital world in the Philippines and created a portal which in all honesty, I cannot even remember what it is for now.  He had the entire plan in his head - and well, I suppose, in some form of a PowerPoint presentation somewhere in his apartment.

There was one thing missing, though:  His marketing plan.

So I asked him, "How would you let people know about your product?"

"Oh word of mouth.  Besides, if you build something great, people will come.  And then you'll have a blockbuster.  And then you'll sell out," was the response.

I guess - sad to say - it didn't pan out.

(He kept his day job - so right now, he's still ok.  Bruised ego, perhaps, but not entirely in ruins.)

If you build something great - relevant, useful, beautiful, etc. - people will come.

Is that still true?

Well, Google's saga and phenomenal growth did come without any marketing.  Crocs did the same in Singapore - and Havaianas are the same.

But is it a "principle"?  Is it a "law" that applies to pretty much everything?  Is it a "universal, overarching law" that cannot be wrong?

My view?  It's not

There are some great products out there that are not being marketed and disseminated to consumers properly.  Either the owners of these brands are not doing anything - or not doing anything at all - to get to their consumers - and rely too much on "well, people will discover me and they will tell others about it".

People are unpredictable (sometimes).  They may have had a great experience of your brand or service - but they will not always talk about you with their friends or family members.  And even if they became ambassadors - free and unpaid ambassadors of your brand - remember that communication is a two-way thing:  The receiver may not necessarily act on it.  She may believe it - and in fact, she may be cognitively and affectively be persuaded by it - but it just may not be somewhere near her top of to-do list.

You still need marketing - a structured marketing approach - even if it's just word-of-mouth or buzz generation of a simple "Hey, I have got something" or "Tell your friends and get rewarded!".

I don't think that just because you have great technologies and great services out there, people will come and people will adopt your service and your technology.  You need to push them, inform them, make them aware, entice them, seduce them, and impassion them with what you have and what you are willing to give them.

That's the whole point of marketing communications.

Entertainment Planning is on the rise...

From e-Marketer.Com:  US Internet Users are Glued to Video.

In this study by BURST Media on January 1, 2008, it shows that more and more people in the US are watching the internet online.  Leading the pack are the Males 18-24 year olds, who from memory are the most difficult groups to reach.  More than 1/3 of this demographic actually watch a video online at least once a day.

Women 18-24 are not too far behind:  At least 55% will have seen at watched one video online in one week.

What does this say about traditional media planning?

Traditional media planners still look up to TV (mostly in Southeast Asia) as the best way to reach consumers for "motherhood statements":  "Audio visual properties have been proven to be the most effective way of delivering messages to consumers; it has the highest reach and GRPs to be delivered in one week; it creates the best awareness levels and therefore return on investments."

But that is changing, isn't it?

I believe that the time has come to revamp how we think about media planning or even "touch-points" or channel planning.  We are no longer planning how brands are seen - or even interacted with - by consumers.  We should be planning how we are going to be entertaining audiences with our brand.

Their choices of media no longer are no longer the "critical dealbreaker or dealmaker" - it's how entertained they are and how - gasp - engaged they are with the media and the content that they are watching or consuming.

The challenge now is to create entertaining interaction points between brands and consumers.

That is easier said than done, but I am sure that in some small digital, creative shop in this side of the world, a strategic planner and a creative director are huddled and brainstorming how to create the best experience for consumers of a brand of detergent, soft-drinks, shampoos, and PCs.

And that sooner or later, we will be measuring not just GRPs and reach and frequency and CPMs - but how much we have entertained our consumers, and how much did that create sales for brands.

More on the EXPECTATION ECONOMY

Still more from the Trendwatching.Com briefing on the Expectation Economy.

One thing that struck me whilst I was reading the briefing report from the Trendwatching.Com's briefing on the Expectation Economy was the need - or the ideal scenario - of watching other industries that go beyond your own category.

How true.

I have had clients in the past who were just concerned about their own "direct competitors".  A client in the Philippines was so keen on watching what others are doing - and have even issued a blanket order to "match any and every ad placement that come up with".

That client is now struggling to keep its pole-position in the category.

Why?  Because they were so myopic about the needs of their target users.  They thought that their  competition was only those manufacturers that created almost the same product as they did.  What slipped their mind was "You're not just offering a product - you are offering an experience!"

And this was what one of its competitors - which I co-managed back then - did:  The Marketing Communications Team - which included us form the agency side - collaborated and brainstormed outside our category.  We looked at everything and anything that coincided with what we wanted to be:  Something that is more than a commodity, something that wants to build connections (not just loyalty - but real, deep connections - and this was way before "engagement" became a buzzword).  Something that will be looked at with respect by our target users.

We scouted for "competitors" in fashion, in music, in record labels, in singers, in DJs, in radio stations, in hangout places, in every industry that at first glance is not competitive to our brand.

And from there, we started to craft "experiences that delivered against benchmarks created against our expanded competitive sphere".

Where were we playing originally?  We were a non-alcoholic beverage.

Where did we end up positioning the brand and its campaigns?  A brand that is a catalyst for things that go beyond thirst-quenching.  We were music, sports, fashion, places, lounges, parks.

Our competition spent hundreds of millions of pesos in advertising how thirst-quenching they were.

We spent less than 1/3 of what they spent doing something else - something that our end-users wanted and expected to experience - not just from a beverage brand, but from a brand that seeks to deeply connect and be a strong component of their lives.

The Convergence of Technologies: Where is it happening?

I wrote in a previous entry (which got deleted) about an interesting conversation I had with one of our directors in my previous company.  The topic was "Where will technology converge?"  The common answer is "It's going to converge on the mobile phone".

And true enough, Nokia has launched phones that are mimicking the things that you would normally do on a mobile phone.  Samsung, HTC Touch, and other handset manufacturers are not too far behind.  Since I have a Nokia E90 - which by far surpasses any other phone I have had in the past in terms of usability and usefulness - I am more familiar with the things that it does for me.

I can check my web-based emails on it, update my Facebook status on it, upload photos through to my blogsite, create entries for this blog, look at news and latest updates from blogs that I follow, and search for information.  Never mind that I can't seem to make my GPS work - Singapore is too small a country to get lost in - but all the things I can do on this phone pretty much overshadows that.

And oh, the usual basic function: calendar and to-do-list management, syncing with the PC, taking down notes with T9, and sometimes, even listening to the occasional podcast that I feel like listening to.  (And I guess one can play MP3 files to, but I don't really see it as part of why I love my E90).

So, has technology converged on the mobile phone?

To a certain extent, it has.

But I think we have to think more deeply about that.

Indeed, there is convergence on the mobile phone - since it pretty much does what a computer can do.  It makes one empowered whilst on the road.  And it pretty much is "out of the office - but not out of touch" (as one of the big Nokia ads for the E90 and the E-series in the Raffles Quay underground).

But I think the convergence of technologies is not something that is "device-based" nor is it "software-based".  We've always thought of convergence as "on what device will convergence happen?" and a corollary question to that is "what software will catalyze that convergence?"

I think that convergence is happening - no doubt about that - but it's happening on the consumer level.  Convergence is not so much a technology-only trend:  it is a social trend.

The individual is at the center of the convergence.  The user is at the center of the convergence.

And for her, it doesn't matter whether it happens on the PC or the phone or the personal MP3 player - so long as she feels that she is at the center of that convergence - or rather, so long as she feels that her needs of being at the center of that convergence are met.

TrendWatching.Com calls it the Expectation Economy.

"The EXPECTATION ECONOMY is an economy inhabited by experienced, well-informed consumers from Canada to South Korea who have a long list of high expectations that they apply to each and every good, service and experience on offer.

Their expectations are based on years of self-training in hyperconsumption, and on the biblical flood of new-style, readily available information sources, curators and BS filters. Which all help them track down and expect not just basic standards of quality, but the 'best of the best'."

The consumer - the user - the individual is where convergence is happening - and where it will matter.  Meeting consumer needs - regardless of what software or hardware that is - is what it's all about, I believe.

What's the importance of this realization - or at least, a shift in thinking?

It shifts our thinking back to end-users, to consumers - rather than to technologies.  Technologies - both hardware and software - becomes means to an end:  to satisfy, to meet the demands of, to make happy and sate the needs of end-users who are at the heart of every business - and every technological innovation. 

It is the companies that deliver their expectations - and their expectations are comprised of long lists of wants- and wish-lists - that will survive.

And any innovation that does not meet these expectations - or any move towards "convergence and unification", regardless of its technological advancement and features - if they are not meeting and exceeding expectations, it won't matter.

Nokia does it well - because I believe that they listen to their consumers.  Microsoft's MSN does it well (although they don't announce it loud enough) - because they listen to their audiences. 

What we need are technologies that will respect this tenet:  that the convergence of technologies will not be one that will be driven by a gadget or a software or a specific technology.  The convergence of technologies will be one that will be driven by the end-user - and her demands and her expectations.  The convergence of technologies will happen because end-users want it.

More on Choosing (RED)

And I am indeed proud of DELL and of MICROSOFT.  They have collaborated to create a product that is specifically going to be aligned with the goals of (RED).  I think it's a great opportunity for people to make a difference.

Here is a photo that I picked up from Steve Clayton's blog.

Ain't she a beauty?

I would definitely buy one when they hit the shores of Singapore.

My iPhone dreams?  What are iPhones again?

Choosing (RED)

I bought a (RED) iPod Nano about a year ago.  And one of the reasons why I chose a (RED) iPod was because a portion of the sales would go to charity.  I am glad to know that it is making a difference - that in some indirect way, I am making a difference.

Anyway, here's something I picked up from MSN Video:

Video: Because You Chose (RED)

Passionate Workers of the World - Unite!

I have been as usual been reading through some of the blogs that I am subscribing to an Seth Godin's Blog entry on workaholics captured my attention.

I have been branded as a workaholic by my ex-colleagues.  And if I indeed look at the number of hours that I was putting in at that time, I was working 12-14 hour days - braving the early morning rush to get into the office by 9.00am and braving the absence of air-conditioning (and the recollection of stories of ghosts and spirits supposedly haunting the office) to finish some reports by 12mn.

And at first, I did agree with them. 

Until I realized that I really didn't mind what I was doing - I was doing something beyond merely churning reports, Excel(R) and PowerPoint(R) files, and analytics.  I was doing something that I was passionate about - and something that I believed to be of value to my clients' businesses.

And Seth Godin in his latest blog entry captured it:

A workaholic lives on fear. It's fear that drives him to show up all the time. The best defense, apparently, is a good attendance record.

A new class of jobs (and workers) is creating a different sort of worker, though. This is the person who works out of passion and curiosity, not fear.

The passionate worker doesn't show up because she's afraid of getting in trouble, she shows up because it's a hobby that pays. The passionate worker is busy blogging on vacation... because posting that thought and seeing the feedback it generates is actually more fun than sitting on the beach for another hour. The passionate worker tweaks a site design after dinner because, hey, it's a lot more fun than watching TV.

Passion and curiosity.  Not Fear.  I like that.

Showing up because it's something that one likes doing and it pays.

Going the extra 10% - the extra mile - the extra kilometer - the extra hour - knowing that the returns of these efforts are exponential.

 

The Devil Wears Prada and the Stock Market

My friends are probably going to sigh yet again because for some reason, I am writing about  The Devil Wears Prada yet again.  Well, I honestly think that there is some "wisdom" (OK, wisdom is too big a word) in the movie that could potentially be applied to the changing sentiments of Wall Street.

These are lines from the movie's 'devil' played by Meryl Streep:

You can see beyond what people want, and what they need and you can choose for yourself.

Guess what I think:  I think that those who are going to survive the downtrends in the global markets are those who will be able to see what people want, what they need, what their short-term and long-term fears are, what their aspirations are, what drives them and what disappoints them.

And choose.

The market is supposedly rational.  The movements of Wall Street and of other exchanges around the world are supposedly rational.  We are supposedly trading in a rational world.

But we're not trading in a rational world.

A rational world would be one that allowed everyone - every stakeholder - access to perfect and full information.

One could argue that the internet has allowed access to more information - and that is true.  As I type this, I can the ticker of the NYSE go up and down on my screen.  I also see a stream of news coming in.

Surely, there is more information available - timely information.

But perfect and 'full' information?  I don't think they are.

Now more than ever, corporate people - being people - are more wary about what they say and do because it could spread like wildfire thanks to the internet.

 

So who will profit from this mess?

Those who can see into the fears, dreams, aspirations, motivations, drivers, dampeners, souls, and hearts of investors - and choose and play.

Do I sleep with my phone? No.

Steve Clayton asks in his blog, Geek In Disguise, "Do you sleep with your phone?"

As a matter of fact, I do.

(OK.  Before you start thinking funny things about "sleeping with", I literally mean sleeping.  Not the figuratively "sleeping with".  Perv.  Haha.  Hey - new job!  Gotta make an impression.)

Beside my bed is a low table that has 2 mobile phones - a Samsung, fitted with a SIM card that allows me to communicate with my partner through SMS and phone calls cheaply, and a Nokia E90, which I use for work (it gets synced with my schedules and tasks from Outlook(R), as well as files when I don't feel like bringing home the laptop).

Both phones try - and that's the operative word - try to wake me up at 6am so I can go to the gym at 7am or at least swim.  That's in theory.  It doesn't work.

But they do sleep beside me.

In addition to these two phones, one more gadget sleeps with me, an iPod.  I am still waiting for Zune to reach Singapore's shores - or at least for someone amongst my team to go to Redmond so they can buy me one (hopefully, for free!).

I am still learning Espanol.  And I am still really bad at it.  I am still trying to get through the tenses - as well as beefing up my, well, slang vocabulary.  I can carry on a "formal conversation" - specifically about wine, countries, nationalities, and order perhaps a nice paella in the restaurante.  But not present.

The goal:  Be able to present a plan in Spanish at the end of the year 2008.

Anyway, I digress:  I use the iPod for my Spanish lessons.  I learned in college that the brain doesn't stop learning even when we sleep.  It still is open to stimulus - and I guess, it worked:  I aced my Chem, Physics, Psych, and History courses by listening to my recorded voice whilst I slept.  I am guessing that it should work again now.

The MacBookPro that I bought 6 months ago - and for clarity's sake, 4 months before my current company (guess which one?) agreed to take me on board - is also by my bedside.  I use Word for Mac 2004 - and I use it mainly as a journal.  Excel?  Checking stocks and balancing cheques.  So far, I have not used PowerPoint - it reminds me so much of work I can't seem to bear looking at a PowerPoint slide at 11pm!

So - nope, I just don't sleep with my phone - I sleep with 2 phones, an iPod (which I hope will be a Zune soon), and the MacBookPro and Word for Mac 2004. 

It's an orgy of technology before I sleep.

And just for the record:  I cannot live without my phones.  Take away everything else - but not the two phones.

Nokia And Facebook Working On Mobile Deal; Could Involve Investment | paidContent.org

Link: Nokia And Facebook Working On Mobile Deal; Could Involve Investment | paidContent.org.

Nokia And Facebook Working On Mobile Deal; Could Involve Investment

By David Kaplan - Sun 20 Jan 2008 02:46 PM PST

Nokia (NYSE: NOK) and Facebook are working on porting the social network on to Nokia handsets in a major way, we have learned. The Facebook placement could be as prominent as the YouTube button on the main screen of iPhone, our sources indicate. Also, the deal involves giving Facebook a major slot within Nokia retail products’ displays.

But another factor elevates this beyond just-another-social-net-on-a-phone deal: Our sources have indicated that the discussions have involved Nokia purchasing a stake in the company, but these are in very early stages. This makes sense in light of Facebook’s recent strategic funding by Sawmer Brothers, in an effort to expand in Europe. The Nokia-Facebook deal would give the social network instant big-time mobile distribution: Nokia is the world’s largest maker of mobile phones. More after the jump…

A senior Nokia executive, speaking on background, declined to go into details about the pact with Facebook: “There is talk of a partnership in the works… it’s safe to say we’re testing the waters and things still have to be worked out.” E-mails and phone calls seeking comment on the deal from Nokia and Facebook representatives were not returned.

Not a surprise as the online world (wait for it - a cliche) "converges" on the mobile phone.  And after Nokia struck deals with YouTube, Flickr, and MSN Windows Live, this doesn't come as a real surprise.

But I already am happy with me accessing FaceBook through their mobile interface on (http://m.facebook.com) using the inbuilt browser inside my Nokia.  The UI in m.facebook.com is not that bad - it's as streamlined as it can be - and doesn't need any more bells and whistles, I believe.

The only thing that would make me happy?  If Nokia actually can help reduce the cost of actually accessing 3G networks or Wi-Fi networks in Singapore - then yes, that would be great.

Otherwise, it's just another way of cluttering my already cluttered Nokia E90.

My take?  Facebook should just stick to improving the UI on their web and mobile interface.  Lately, these "fast forwards" and "apps that don't make sense and that don't run" are just simply annoying.

And honestly, I am beginning to think that Facebook is losing its clout - not entirely an abnormal thing - since it comes with maturity.  But there seems to be some slowing down happening in the Singapore and Malaysia markets with regard to Facebook new users acquisition.

Time to make Facebook a better brand - a much engaging brand.  (And no, you don't have to advertise or "market" in the traditional sense.  Just simply make the experience better.)

 

Another Seth Godin Snippet...

Seth Godin's blog title says it all:   The more people you reach the more likely it is that you're reaching the wrong people.  In this entry, there was only a one-liner paragraph (that defies the rules of grammar - but who cares?)

Who vs. how many.

Can someone please forward this to traditional marketeers and strategic/tactical planners whose lives evolve around "So how many people am I reaching with this campaign?  How much does it cost me to reach 1'000 of these people?  Can I make it cheaper?"

Seriously, I have had enough of these people: Quality of the audience is what matters - not how many of the audiences you reach.

And at the same time:  It's not the amount of information (about the product, about the brand, about the service) that matters - it's the relevancy of the information - time-, space-, and mindset-wise.

And at the same time: It's not about surrounding consumers and audiences with multiple contact points - from TV down to radio to print to online this and online that to mobile phones to everything else.  It's the holistic experience and how each contact builds on the other.

C'mon people.  Please.  Do someting about it.

Sure, they'll argue that "Well, if no one sees that ad then what's the point?"  C'mon.  If your ad, your message, your brand, your service is excellent and remarkable, people will seek you - people will get out of their way to find you, and engage you in a manner that you can only imagine.

TIME Magazine 5th October 1981

I just found out (by chance) that all the articles that TIME has ever written is now archived digitally and are now available for anyone to search.  Since I recently joined Microsoft, I figured it might be interesting when was the first time Microsoft was ever mentioned in a TIME article. 

And here it is:  TIME 5th October 1981.  In an article entitled Software for the Masses, which talks about the then emergence of software as a "mass product".  Here is the snippet on where Microsoft was mentioned:

Microsoft. Best known for its version of the program-writing language, BASIC which has sold more than 500,000 copies so far, Microsoft (projected 1981 sales: $14 million) was founded in 1975 by William Gates, then an 18-year-old Harvard student. Gates now oversees a staff of 96 at the firm's headquarters in Bellevue, Wash. Growth has come so fast that Gates has not yet found time to finish his degree at Harvard.

Things have surely changed.  Microsoft is no longer just known for its program-writing language (which I had to do a crash course in when I was a Computing Sciences student at the Ateneo de Manila University).  Its Windows OS, Office productivity software, XBOX360, MSN and Windows Live services online, and other services are now amongst the building blocks of our digital lives.

I also managed to find the first time that Bill Gates was featured in the cover.  This (I hope) will lead you to the first time that Bill Gates was on the cover of TIME magazine's 16th April 1984 issue.

Look at that - it's still a 5.25in disc.

I remember my travails with the 5.25in disc.  For some reason, I had a love-hate relationship with the 5.25in disc:  I loved them (and I stored in them my thesis, my reports, my overnight cases, my BASIC, Turbo Pascal, and Turbo C programs, and my readings) - but they hated me (these disks always malfunctioned - gets erased, gets scratched, become unreadable, get folded - in the most inopportune time).

Ahh... memories of years - well, two decades ago!

I am being nostalgic, I know.  But the move of TIME to put their library of articles online - and covers - is I think very helpful to researchers and students who are trying to trace how things have evolved across time.

I remember my Uni-days when I had to look at microfiche upon microfiche of newspaper and magazine articles to complete an assignment in Political Science or in History or even Psychology.  This move is really good and I think it's an amazing move.

(And thank God, they're not charging for it!)

I am easily excitable, I know.  Perhaps, even naive.  (Who knows, tomorrow I might get an email asking me to remove the cover down since it's a property of TIME... Please don't sue me... :))

But I think this is exactly what the digital world is supposed to be:  information accessibility that defies time and space.  Imagine our great grandchildren being able to access news about our lives now (and well, not that there's much good news to harp about) and compare it with theirs (ad perhaps, they'd feel better instantly).

Gosh.  The good old days.

If you want to look for more TIME covers, here is the link.

Strategic Planning, Insights and All That...: An Attempt to Define the Nebulous

I was asked a question by someone on "how to be a good strategic planner".  I am not certain why I was asked that question - because I have not been really a strategic planner in the traditional sense of the word (i.e., working with creative teams and brand-client teams to come up with positioning statements for brands).

Nevertheless, I ventured into providing some answers.

I think that being a good strategic planner requires first and foremost, curiosity about the humanity that is behind the term "consumer".  I believe that when we plan marketing campaigns and advertising projects, we immediately put on our 'marketeers' hats', which is a bit constricting.  With marketing hats, we start thinking of people as "consumers", "buyers", and "audiences", rather than "people who have needs".  I believe that the first thing we need to do is to understand - deeply - the human behind the terms "consumer", "buyer", "audience".

Understanding and unlocking this makes our jobs a lot easier - and our communications campaign a lot more aligned with what exactly people need.

Now that's easier said that done. 

A good friend of mine, who used to work with me in Vietnam and who has now moved to Bangkok, thinks that "insight is the most overused word in the marketing communications industry".  And it is true.  Information is often mistaken as insights.  Charts, advanced and basic stats, percentages, and competitive benchmarks are all considered as "insights".  In my worldview, insights do not come from a single chart or a single statistical test or a complex process - but rather from the agglomeration of all things that we know and have uncovered about the faces behind the labels "consumers", "audiences", and "buyers".

An insight, sometimes, is mistaken to be something that is supposed to be new - and differentiating.  I don't think that insights need to be always original or new - in fact, some of the best insights that I have come across in my dealings with research agencies and consultancies are a reiteration of what we already know:  that people drink certain brand of soft-drinks because everybody else drinks that brand.  That people want choices - even if those choices need not be exercised by them.

These are nothing new - and not groundbreaking.  But they are reiterations of the human condition.

And as long as it is rooted in the human condition - the humanity that lies behind the labels "consumers", "audiences", and "buyers" - I believe it is an insight.

And insight comes from asking questions.

The most important question I think is not "What's the observation?  What did you observe?  What are the measurements?  How high, how low?"  I believe that to arrive at an insight, the most important question is "So what?", which can be broken down into

• Given these N-number of things that we already know from different sources, what ties them all up together? 
• What is the common theme?  What is the underlying story?  What does it mean to the business?  What does it mean to the brand?
• What is the underlying human truth that can encompass all these observations?  How can we leverage this deep human truth to drive our business?  To drive connections with brands?
• What is different then?  Why is it different?  How can this difference be important/detrimental?

The other thing that agencies and clients are most wont to do is saying "But is it actionable?", which suggests that there are actionable insights and non-actionable (worthless) insight.  I believe that no such distinction between actionable (and therefore, "worthy") and non-actionable ("worthless") insight exists.

All insights - since they are based on human truths - have a potential to be actionable.

What makes an insight "non-actionable or worthless" is the lack of creativity and openness in either the client or the agency-side to act on it.  It takes will to create something out of insights.  In fact, it may take more than a department to make an insight truly actionable.  Some insights - if not most - demand that Marketeers go beyond their comfort-zones bound by the marketing department, and involve others - R&D, customer service, corporate communications, sales teams, the senior management team - in transforming insights into action-steps.

An insight - because it is based on human truth - have the potential to create a difference - but it will take guts to make it a reality.

Do insights change across time?  Tricky question.  Here are my thoughts:  Insights do not change immediately across time because they are based on human truths, the human condition.  What changes is how these human truths expressed by consumers.

Here's an example:  Because of advances in communications effects measurements, we are now able to say that "word of mouth and peer recommendations are amongst the most influential sources of information".  Is that an insight?  Yes.  Is it new?  No.  It's been there forever - we've always known that if Person A hears from her friend, Person B, that "Brand M sucks", chances are Person A will believe Person B and assimilate that "Brand M sucks" and consider it in her next purchase decision.

Has it changed across time?  The insight that peer recommendations are influential is as true now as it was back then - when neighbors talked to each other about their experiences on childcare, laundry bars, medicine, and a whole gamut of products.  It's always been a truth - a characteristic of our humanness (our humanity) - to believe our friends more than that celebrity with glowing skin on TV that a certain facial care product works.

What has changed however, is the medium through which these peer recommendations are made - and the definition of what a "peer" is.  These days, "peers and acquaintances" are no longer just people you know personally and people you've met in person.  They could be in your Facebook community or MySpace followeres or Friendster rolodex.  They could be email pals or part of a discussion forum.

The manifestation of what a "peer" is has changed - but not the power of the peer.  The insight remains - but the manifestation and its speed changed.

There is the danger of course, of being too reliant and too stubborn about an "insight" uncovered aeons ago.  Because humans change and evolve in response to the changes in their environment, it is necessary to continually check the insight.  Human truths also do change - in the same way that demographics change and evolve across time.

The challenge is to know when to update - or even discard - an insight and replace it with a new one.  It is not something easily done again because it entails a return to discarding our marketeers' hats and be a curious soul about our people - the people who are "consumers and buyers and audiences".

I know I kind of veered away from the original question:  "How to be a good strategic planner".  But the role of the strategist is in fact this:  to continuously look at the human truths that lie behind or beneath the terms "buyer, consumer, audience" (and therefore insights) and weave them into one coherent strategy that would make that human truth be expressed, communicated, and delivered to those with whom the brand will make highest probability of success.

A Break from Serious Blogs...

OK.  This one's not at all related to comms planning or things digital.  But I just gotta post this.  It's pride.  These - my friends - are how Filipino singers are in the Philippines.  The girl who sings first is 14 years old - and the second lady is one of the best in the music business. 

Ano, laban pa?

Walking away...

Back in 1995 - the year I left the university, one of the most important symbols for an Atenean to achieve immediately after leaving the university is be a part of a reputable company.  During the last semester, halls would be abuzz with who got accepted where and who didn't.

The list of 'reputable companies' was never published - but they were the usual suspects in the Philippines:  Colgate-Palmolive, Unilever, Procter & Gamble, IBM, and well, Andersen Consulting.

Andersen Consulting was quite well-known in the campus as "the place to start your career in".  It was said that if you started and survived Andersen Consulting, you could survive anything.  It stood alongside the others - Col-Pal, Unilever, P&G, IBM, San Miguel, Coca-Cola - as the best place for Ateneans post-Ateneo.

(OK, A/C has closed down - and it didn't survive the problems they themselves have created.  But that's another story.)

And they were known as very picky when it comes to the people they choose.

I was interviewed three times - the last being a panel of five, who asked me what my thoughts were about measuring employee satisfaction.  The panel also asked me about the "Filipino psychology" and what makes it different from other Asian countries, Freud, and Jung.  We also discussed my undergrad thesis - and I had to explain to them the Theory of Moral Development, on which my undergrad thesis was based.

I guess I must have impressed them - I got accepted.  They wanted me to be a part of the OD consulting department.  They would be willing to train me on the intricacies of organizational development and transform my 'theoretics' into 'actual practices'.

For a non-Management-degree graduate, it was seen as a coup:  They were known to get only graduates from the business management, management engineering, computing science, or math tracks.

Then I decided I didn't want it: I wanted something else.

A few months after that decision, I met up with another friend - one who graduated with a BSc Math degree and who also applied and got accepted into Andersen Consulting but turned it down to pursue his academic dreams - and we started talking about what we both have done.

That conversation's been more than 10 years ago - but still, what he said during that conversation remained with me:

It's not so much whether you got accepted or not that mattered.  It is whether you could walk away.  They said that the test of an Atenean's success post-Ateneo is to get into nice jobs after college - and Andersen Consulting tops that list. 

But you know what, I think it's not true. 

The true test of success is having that option to walk away after having been accepted. 

And perhaps, even exponentially more telling of success is actually walking away after having been accepted and offered a job.

 

Amen.

Nike's TV commercial: NO EXCUSES...

I liked this one.  Thanks to Shanx for the info:

Puts things in perspective.  I think I should watch this everyday when I don't feel like going to the gym - or doing more PowerPoint presentations.

Will sleep be soon a thing of the past?

From WIRED.COM, they report about the possibility of replacing sleep by snorting a chemical.

In what sounds like a dream for millions of tired coffee drinkers, Darpa-funded scientists might have found a drug that will eliminate sleepiness.

A nasal spray containing a naturally occurring brain hormone called orexin A reversed the effects of sleep deprivation in monkeys, allowing them to perform like well-rested monkeys on cognitive tests. The discovery's first application will probably be in treatment of the severe sleep disorder narcolepsy.

The treatment is "a totally new route for increasing arousal, and the new study shows it to be relatively benign," said Jerome Siegel, a professor of psychiatry at UCLA and a co-author of the paper. "It reduces sleepiness without causing edginess."

Orexin A is a promising candidate to become a "sleep replacement" drug. For decades, stimulants have been used to combat sleepiness, but they can be addictive and often have side effects, including raising blood pressure or causing mood swings. The military, for example, administers amphetamines to pilots flying long distances, and has funded research into new drugs like the stimulant modafinil and orexin A in an effort to help troops stay awake with the fewest side effects.

What do have to say about this?  Give me one of those, please!  Soon!

Well as long as there are no side-effects, I'm in.

Privacy - Is it changing?

The issues that Facebook faced the last few weeks of 2007 have seemed to resurrect - or perhaps, inflame is the better word - the issue of privacy.  But I don't think it's merely all about privacy:  it's about reading the fine print. 

I know, I know - Facebook should have had done something about it by clearly informing its users to do something about it.

But I think that the issue points to something bigger - our evolving concept of privacy and our personal bubble.

Our personal bubble in the physical space, I believe remains - we still maintain a certain distance in the urinals (for men) and in buses and trains.  We don't want anyone's skin touching our skin in the subway or in the bus.  Even if it were accidental, we are very protective of it.

As this is happening, we are also beginning to strengthen that bubble - adding layers and layers of protection to this 'physical' space around us:  through iPods and MP3 players, through ear-phones, through PSPs and mobile phone texting whilst inside the bus.

Not only are we now concerned about being touched by another stranger - we are also building walls around us though these gadgets.

That's how we establish our sense of privacy in the offline world.

However, in the online world, we seem to act differently:  We join a social network (e.g., Facebook) that updates all our friends and colleagues what we are doing.  We write a blog and post our photos online - sometimes restricted to a few of our network, but most of the time, open to the public.  We follow people on Twitter - and we personally update what we re doing on Twitter.  We allow people to create RSS feeds of our blogs - our lives.  We publish to the world our Amazon wishlists - and identify ourselves as part of a 'fan-group' of brands, politicans, services, and other things - again on social-networks.  We make recommendations about books that we loved - and hated.  We make recommendations about movies that we hated.  We converse - video to video - on YouTube.

All these in full view of the world.

Sure.  We don't give our social security numbers and other personal details.

But it seems that our concept of privacy online has evolved.

Seth Godin, in one of his blog entries, suggests that it is because we are anonymous online.

But the thing is, all these have made us less anonymous online.

We are raising our hands to be identified as fans of such and such personality or brand.  We are identifying ourselves to be interested in this or that service.  We are airing our views online more than ever.

We are less anonymous.

By our own choosing.

And with that choice came, I believe, a change in the concept of what is private in the digital world.

Sure, credit cards and social security and financial records will still remain private.  But employment history, dating history, so-called social timelines in Facebook, friends and cluster of friends... all these are no longer as private as they were before.  Because we choose it to be so.

Am I reading it incorrectly - or are we also changing our views of what private is private.

Withdrawal symptoms...

A challenge, I would say, is emerging. 

I am used to seeing lots of zeros in planning, learning, and project engagement briefs (unfortunately, those zeros don't get filtered down into my pocket.)

I am also used to being able to work independently and sign or initial invoices for endorsements.  Or give advice on pressing business issues about the strategic direction of the office.  Or be heard about what my thoughts are with regard to where the company should be headed in the next 3-5 years - and what the risks are.  Or be consulted by the staff. Or approve forms. ("Approve now, inform later..." was my mantra; "it's easier to rationalize and apologize than seek permission" was my other mantra.  Of course, within reasonable bounds.)

Or stay up late to finish one report or presentation needed by the client for a very crucial meeting that could make or break the business.  Or stare at the screen in search for stories amidst a plethora of numbers - and scratching my head every time a hypothesis bombs.

Suddenly, I have to scale down.

Significantly.

And my body - and my mind - is suddenly undergoing "withdrawing symptoms" with all the changes that are happening in my new environment.

I know - I should be thankful.  And be careful of what I ask for - as I just might get it.

Well, that gives me more time to do more of my academic and charity work, and more time to spend with my significant other [albeit electronically].

But I wonder how other agency-execs feel and cope when they move to the client side?  Did they feel the same as I do now?  Or is mine a spurious case - an outlier?