marginally subversive

Ramblings #1

I woke up on the wrong side of bed today - actually, I did wake up on the right side, it's just that my day was ruined by something that has been baffling me for the longest time:  In the age of connectivity - where everyone is connected through mobile phones, internet, and other means of connections - I still cannot believe that people let their batteries on their mobile phones run out.

I don't have the statistics - but I am pretty sure that the strides that cellphone companies have made when it comes to battery life have made significant strides in the last several decades or years.  If laptops have significant strides, then so must have these phone companies.

(In fact, the idea that one has to drain batteries completely before recharging is dubious.  Again, no statistics and I could be dead-wrong - but I have been plugging my phones every other night whether or not they are empty, and so far, my battery life has not decreased significantly.  So the practice of completely recharging phones before charging is not true in my experience.)

Even the GUIs of phones have improved significantly - one can actually see the number of bars representing the battery life of the phone left.  Once it hits one- or two-bars, time to charge - it's as simple as that.

So it is no longer an excuse to have empty batteries.

Why people let their batteries run out and be out of touch - specially when it is the only means of communications available - is simply beyond me.

The only thing is I can't impose myself on others.

***

Saying that "it cannot be helped" is a flimsy excuse at best. 

I am not a believer of "I am a victim of circumstances".  That I am a "victim" of late deliveries, of delayed stuff, of non-deliveries of other people.  Cliched as it may sound, but seriously, if there is a will, there is way. 

Things don't get done because one doesn't want to get it done.  Things don't get done because you - or I - don't want it to get done for whatever reason - valid or not, reaonable or not.

Not having the time is simply saying "No, it's not important to me" because if it were important to you, you'd find a way to get it done.  It's as simple as done.

Customer service sucks?  Get them to do it your way .  Do something about it.  Raise hell.  Grab the manager.  Grab the VP for customer service.  Get it done in whatever way possible.

Your colleagues suck?  Get your way done.  Bulldoze yourself.  Step on toes if you must.  If it needs to be done because it is important for the company, for the shareholders, for your relationship, for your partner, for your friends - get it done.  Whatever the cost.

Time is an illusion - and we all have 24hours.  The world is not going to change just because you don't have time.

It's all about priorities.  Not getting it done simply means it's not prioritized - and it's not important.

***

If an email is sent, read it.  There is something in there that needs to be read - that's why it was sent.  Get it out of the way - if it's not yours, then send a "thanks, but no thanks" note to the sender. 

Don't let it rot away in the inbox with the sender thinking that you're mulling over your response - when in fact, you don't have plans of responding at all or acting on it.

If it's a prank, then get the guts to say "I don't need these emails".

If it's something that doesn't involve you, then get yourself out of the email loop.

If it's something that involves you but can be postponed, then postponer.

Just respond.  It's as simple as that.

Emails have become a mode of conversation - for good or for worse.  Though we may want to use face-to-face communications or meetings to get things done - well, it can be done by email.  The onus is on the recipient - not the sender.  It is a conversation. 

Technology won't change just because you don't want to converse via email.  Technology won't adjust because you can't adjust. 

It's not a matter of "my way or the highway" - because you'll end up on the highway.

***

There is nothing worse than being a footnote - a "by-the-way" in somebody else's life.  I am tired.  You are tired.  Everyone is tired.  But everyone deserves some time specially when they need to spend time with you.

Footnotes are important - but rarely read.

Random Thoughts

TAMES + REDIX + AdIX = MKT PRIORITIES

And now... just for fun...!

Advice to Advertisers and Ad Agencies

Thanks to Seth Godin for the inspiration.

***

So you're in the ad business as an advertiser.  Or perhaps, as an award-winning creative director or artist or copywriter.  Or as a stellar media planner in the media planning department.  Or perhaps, you're in the content business - and sells adspace for a living.

Here's what you should be doing now:  Quit.

Yes.  Quit.

Now.  Quit now.

Quit being an advertiser.  Quit writing ads.  Quit planning how ads will be seen and how efficiently they are going to be exposed.  Quit selling "ad" spaces and inventory.  Quit managing your brands and your communications.  Quit mulling over details over your ad - on how big or how small the logo is.  Quit thinking about whether this copy is witty enough or not.  Quit thinking about how to make sale - and how to  make advertisers buy your inventory.

Quit.  Now.

Why?

Your audiences have changed.  They now hold the ball.  They now know the games you - we - have been playing.  They've realized they've got the power.  To diss us, to diss brands, to turn our media off, to make choices.  They have realized that they don't want to be spoonfed everything - from information to entertainment.  They have started to wield their power over the things that we create, that we do.

The truth is - they've always held the power.  They've always been "at source".  Technology has allowed them to realize their power - and they're using it now.

And we thought that we never thought this day would come.  But it has.

So we now have to quit.

We have to quit 'advertising'.  Let's stop talking about the wonderful things about our product - let's let the people who use it talk about it to others - in their own way - in their own time.  Let's let them talk to us.  And for once, let's listen.

Witty ads?  Unless it makes people love the brand even more - and unless it makes people think about us more, quit it.  Award-winning ads?  Unless it wins people's hearts and minds and pockets, quit it.  Bigger or smaller logo?  Unless it gets people diving into their pocketbooks - and talking about us in a nice way, quit it.  Cost-efficient media plans with optimized GRPs and impresions?  Unless the plan responds to the audiences - and resonates deeply with them, then stop.

The Opportunities in Social Media

Social media is here - and that's probably the understatement of the year (and it's only February 2008).  But in my discussions with customers and with partners, the talk - regardless of whether it's about digital marketing communications or search or media planning - always leads to the topic of social media.

The questions - expressed differently by different people - were all centered on one thing:  What do we do with it?

To be honest, I have no idea.

I have learned things about social media - about what works and what doesn't, what 'endears' and what 'pisses' audiences off.  I think that social media and the technologies that are powering these media are changing a lot of things in our lives - privacy, for example, seemed to have taken a backseat in the priorities of consumers - until Facebook falls flat on its face in the late-2007.

Anyway, so what do we do with it?

I still have no idea.

And the truth is, I don't think a lot of people do.

There is one blog though that I have been following - Jeremy Owyang's blog.  He has a lot of things to say - and he does make sense.

His latest entry tries to define what we can do with social media - and how social media goes beyond the metrics of search.  I think the statement that best sums up his position on this is:

The greatest opportunities lie where companies (become) a part of (the) communities where ads may not even be present.

And I couldn't agree more.

While some vendors and ad companies see social networks as another additional medium to air/advertise and deliver messages, I believe otherwise.

Social media are conversational media.  It is where audiences get to talk with one another directly.  Audiences are using social media in addition to - or in lieu of - email, instant messsaging, and other 'traditional' forms of communications.

Advertisers rudely interrupt the conversations.

(Think of it this way:  You're talking to your friend about your new shirt - and suddenly, out of the blue, an advertiser - say, GAP - butts its head in and starts advertising.  How do you feel?)

I think clients, marketeers, and agencies should start thinking about beyond "interrupting conversations" - and actually joining in the conversations that are already happening.  (Remember the ClueTrain Manifesto?)

Advertisers would be forgiven if they asked "... But how do I advertise?"  That's their 'essence' as advertisers - they advertise.  But the challenge is for advertisers to become more than just advertisers - they need to become real marketeers.  They need to become "Real Conversationalists".  They need to be "story-tellers", not just sellers.  They need to be listeners - not just talkers.

But hey, isn't that what Cluetrain was all about? 

Well.

Social media have always been around - it's only now that it has taken on the internet by storm powered by new technologies and digital connectivity.  But social media have always been around - rumors, blind items, neighbors talking "over the fence", people gathering in the town-center to discuss things...

And it is part of human nature.

What should advertisers do?

Nothing.

Human resources versus talent management department: What's the diff...?

Seth Godin's latest entry is all about talent.  It's something that I have been thinking about for the last couple of weeks as I go through the rigors of finding the right groove in my new job. 

The core question was: "As I move from managing my own business unit and managing my own revenue and strategic directions, from scenarios that saw me creating things from scratch and reinventing wheels, processes, and systems -  towards being a smaller part of a bigger machine that is well-oiled, well-established machine, how exactly am I going to do it?"

Seth Godin talks about talent - and how companies can retain, nurture, keep talent:

Talent is too smart to stay long at a company that wants it to be a cog in a machine. Great companies want and need talent, but they have to work for it.

Yes.  Agree.

Great companies have to work hard for it - to be really worthy of a talent's attention, time, and investment.

So talent management or human resources management?

I say, talent empowerment.

Get new talent, develop them, let them grow - and get out of their way.  They're old enough to know what to do when the right time comes to do the right things - trust them enough to do that.

An emerging favorite...

I am beginning to fall in love - yet again - with a new service on the internet.  After having fallen in love in Flickr.Com a few years ago, I have discovered something else.  Not as flashy as Flickr (if you consider Flickr flashy) - but useful, really.  And clean, easy to use.

This time, it's SkyDrive that's keeping me up all night.

The thing is, I have so many photos on my laptop that I want to share with only a few people.  I am sure that Flickr does that - you know, choose who sees your photos.  But seriously, not everyone seems to be interested in taking photos.  But what do they have?  Hotmail.Com accounts.

That's where SkyDrive comes in.

That's where I park all my photos nowadays.

The only thing that worries me:  It's still in beta.  And it's only got 1GB so far of available memory.

But seriously - I want this to be my 'cloud drive'.  I want this to be more than my storage space - I also want this to be my special place where I can share photos - and documents - with people whom I love and consider important.

Anyway...  try it out.  If you've got a Hotmail.Com or Live.Com account, it's good.

And the other thing to note:  A Hotmail.Com account gets you a blog on Spaces, Photo Gallery (which is integrated in your Spaces blog), SkyDrive, and a few other stuff that you can use.

 

What makes a social networking campaign effective...

Interesting starting thoughts on what makes a successful marketing campaign on social networks.  This is from Jeremiah Owyang of Forrester Research.

What's really interesting is how the conversation is going on after Jeremiah started it.  I found the original article interesting - and to my 'social-tech-newbie' mind, comprehensive.

Until I got to the comments and realized that there are more that needs to be considered.

Look at how the conversations between the author and the commenters are evolving - and clarifying the main theme.

I would call this a successful - hmm - campaign.

"Marketing as a Service"

A colleague of mine, Geert (whose name everybody seems to be mispronouncing), had a very interesting thought today about "sales" and "marketing".

He defined "marketing" as a service.  Marketing as he defined it is helping people decide - whilst sales is all about helping people buy.

Which I thought were neat ideas.

Imagine:  If we redefined marketing in all its forms as "helping people decide" rather than "making people buy things they don't need" or "positioning products to meet human needs that they never thought existed" or "creating demand", perhaps that is when we start to think about marketing differently.

We think of marketing and its affiliate disciplines as "in the service of the people" - rather than of the company's bottomline.

I am sure that there will be someone (and perhaps, a part of me would do the same thing) who would say that "marketing is all about creating dollars and driving shareholder value" - but come to think of it, that's not just marketing's goal: it's the entire firm's goal to create revenues and profits and drive shareholder value.

Marketing as a service.

Marketing as a way to help people decide.

What a neat idea.

Photo Source is from here - from Ze Eduardo

Of Ferraris and Speed Limits

 

Photo is from jakedevine's flickr
jakedevine's photostream can be found here

I learned a new "maxim" today.

(Note the quotes:  I am not entirely sure if this "maxim" is indeed one.  But it somehow struck me.)

It was in a corporate training session:

It's like bringing in a Ferrari into a country where the speed limit if 80kph in the freeway.  The Ferrari remains to be a Ferrari - it's just that the Ferrari can't be faster than the allowable speed limit.

Two questions -

1. Why bring in a Ferrari then?  What's the purpose of the Ferrari?  Why spend on a Ferrari if one has no desire for speed?  For showing-off?  But is that what the Ferrari really is for?
   
   Sure, it is expensive - but c'mon: a Ferrari is a Ferrari is a Ferrari - and its telos - its purpose, its raison d'etre - is to be a Ferrari - which means be the kind of the road!  Being owned by someone whose life evolves around speed is its telos - its destiny.  It cannot simply traipse and simply chug along at 40 or 60 or 80kph - it's not its destiny.
2. Won't the Ferrari be nothing but a car - similar to any other car?  The Ferrari is special because it is a Ferrari.  If it cannot run as fast as it could, then won't it lose its meaning, its raison d'etre?
    
   I am no autophile nor am I knowledgeable about cars - but when my dad would go on business trips, he would ask me to turn on the engine of his old Volkswagen every morning and rev up the engine without leaving actually driving it out into the streets (which really frustrated me... but that's another story).  His reasoning:  If you don't use it, it's going to be spoiled.

Now what exactly is my point?

If you can't handle a Ferrari, don't get one.  It's just going to be a waste.  Specially if you knew right from the start that you cannot drive it to its fullest potential - you're just wasting money and you're just wasting the Ferrari's potential - and soul.

(And no:  I must clarify this is not all about Ferraris at all.  I have nothing against Ferraris.  I love speed.  I would love to have one.  I actually am dreaming of getting myself a Ducati or a BMW bike - because I like going against the wind.)

Thoughts on Credit Cards: Beyond Function...

Students from Nanyang Tech University - Gow Yujie, Gwee Li Ping, and Ng Mei Shan - aided by their professor, Dr. Lee Hon Sing - conducted a study amongst 150 respondents.  The article was pubslished in the Business Times on 11th Feb 2008 online edition at this   link.

In conclusion, credit cards are no longer merely an alternative form of cash in a cashless society. They also reflect the cost perception, consumption and self-image culture of a society. As banks innovate and better customise credit cards for our society, perhaps one day the banks would invent the truly Singaporean card, which all Singaporeans would desire to have in their wallets. And when someone uses such a card overseas, the salesperson would ask with a smile: 'Aren't you a Singaporean?'

It is not very surprising that credit cards are now competing with cold cash as payment forms.  The number of EZLINK cards and CashCards are all leading towards a cashless  society.  I know of friends who use their credit cards because it's too "cumbersome to carry cash and loose change in my pockets".  (I would admit that  am one of them.)  Convenience still is key.

What is interesting, however, is the continued evolution of credit cards as more than just a payment solution.  Amongst the teens/young adults, having a credit card is similar to a rite-of-passage  - "I am an adult - I am responsible for my expenses, my finances!"  I still recall my first Visa card back in the Philippines - the credit limit was a pittance (because I had a pittance of a starting salary!)  I recall showing it to my Mom and telling her "Nay, this is a sign that I can be financially responsible!"  Of course, I was not - I would spend it on things that were not necessary - but hey, who cared - I had a card!

Then came Gold and Platinum Credit Cards.  I had my first Gold Card - an Amex Krisflyer a few years back - and I have not parted with it because it helps me earn miles with SQ - something that I thought was a great deal.

However, there came a point wherein everybody seemed to have a Platinum Card - or several Platinum Cards in their wallets.  Some banks even started to offer Platinum Cards to people who used to be unqualified to have a Platinum Card.  (That included me:  I now have two Platinum Cards - a Visa and a MasterCard - which I rarely use!)

So indeed - it has become a status symbol - or at least two 'rite of passage" symbols: a graduation towards financial independence and responsbility - and to 'being part of the Platinum crowd"

What is interesting though is if everyone - or almost everyone - has got a Plat card, won't Plat cards have lost their appeal?

The research findings as the authors reported actually show that special interest rates, "value-adds", discounts, and special "exclusive" events are amongst the most important things that consumers consider when getting and using a card - all of which cost card companies and issuing banks money.

These to me suggest that the plastic is on the verge of commoditization - "if you can offer me better discounts, better deals, better savings, then I will use you". 

All these cost money - and lost revenues to credit card companies.

The researchers mention something about affinity cards - a card that will identify one as part of something distinct, unique - but I wonder if there would be sufficient volume and transactions generated from these affinity cards to be truly become profitable?  Even a "Singaporean-only" credit card could be a good idea - but given the different needs and the dynamism that Singaporeans have in their culture, I don't think that there will be a one, single card that will capture everything.  (I would love to be proven wrong though!)

What do I think?

There was a campaign in Europe about "bringing back the love".  And I think credit card/payment solutions and issuing banks have to start bringing back the love.  I am not saying that they are not listening to what their customers want - but I think that they need to strengthen themselves even more in the minds of consumers - beyond mere payment-alternatives, beyond mere "discount givers", beyond mere "value-adders", and beyond mere "image-definers".

Visa, MasterCard, UOB, OCBC, HSBC, DBS and all the others involved in the credit card business should start thinking of themselves as more than just "credit/unsecured consumer loans businesses" and "payment solutions providers".  They have to start thinking of themselves as "brands that resonate with the said - and unsaid - needs of the Singaporean consumers".

Resonance.  Relevance.  Understanding.  Turning research information into creative and media expressions that go beyond "10% off your next purchase" or "10SGD off your bill for 2weeks".

Oh - and when you ask people about what they are looking for in a credit card to acquire or use directly, they will most likely say the most rational of things.  Try doing something else:  Do a conjoint analysis using different attributes with varying levels.  You just might find something nice - and worthy of further investigation. 

Promotions drive short-term transactions, but with promotions, companies also need to fork out some costs.  The trick is find something - a hook (rational or emotional or physical or a combination of all three) that transcends promotions, giveaways, and discounts.

Bring back the love affair between consumers and credit cards (and the banks that issued them).

 

Fear, Hope, Love - and the greatest of this is Love

(With apologies to the author of the famous 1 Corinthians 13 discourse on what love is)

Seth Godin writes about the three 'roots' of the people's motivations - fear, hope, and love.  Interestingly, when I was a student of Psychology and Philosophy in the university, these three themes also emerged - though in different contexts -

According to one of my professors, "fear" and "love" are the most basic of emotions.  We either act in fear or in love.  And sometimes, the two intersect - and when they intersect, that is when humans become more impassioned resulting to either 'good' results or 'bad' results.

A mother who fears for the life of her child will gladly offer her life to protect her child in times of dangers:  that's an amalgam of love and fear - strengthening the mother, powering her up (so to speak) to rise up to the occasion.

At the same time, a thief running away from the cops after having stolen diamonds is acting also in the same amalgam of love and fear:  running away because of fear - and of love for the wealth she has amassed.

Fear and love are the most basic of emotions - and when they combine, I think they're a strong motivation.  In medical ads - specially those anti-AIDS campaign or anti-VD campaigns - I think are all about playing on the idea of syncing love with fear - or vice versa to achieve a shift in behaviors.  The cigarette packs in Singapore and in Thailand - which now sport dessicated lungs, gangrenes, and photos of babies of supposed smokers - are also playing on fear and love.  At first glance, you would think that they were all about fear - but in instilling fear, there is a secondary message of "loving yourself by stopping yourself from getting lung cancer".

Whether it works or not, it's still anybody's guess.

Anyway, I also read about Hope in philosophy.  According to Gabriel Marcel, hope is what keeps us human and centered and connected with others.  In his expression - "I hope in Thee for us" - is at the same an acknowledgement of the presence of an "I" and "not-I", who are nonetheless connected by a hope towards something bigger - something beyond - something that is Love itself and Hope itself.

I've always thought of advertising as supposedly identifying human truths - and translating and expressing them into a creative expression that would make people sit up, think, and consider their thoughts and actions and behaviors.

And indeed, it is the marriage of the three that somehow makes people reconsider.

Fear is a strong emotion - but with fear comes love.  Fear hopes to bring about love.  And fear on its own could generate response.  (Recall the SARS days in Singapore when everybody went all-out to buy face masks or when there was the rush to buy Tamiflu because it apparently helps in stemming the epidemic.)  But underneath that fear is self-love - and perhaps love for those people around you.

Underneath that - and perhaps even deeper - is hope.  People bought gas masks because of the fear - driven by their self-love and love of others dear to them - and the hope that these will work against the spectre of doom called SARS.

Could fear, hope, and love build a brand?

I think so.  Fashion fads, digital tech gadget trends, and laundry detergents are all based on some form of fear or another.  And advertisers and creative agencies - consciously or unconsciously - create the fear amongst their consumers:  "If I don't buy an Abercrombie&Fitch shirt, I'd be out..."  "If I didn't have the latest iPhone or iTouch, I'd be seen as too outmoded..."  "If I didn't have the right detergent, my kids' white uniforms won't be as good as others'..."

So does fear work as a brandbuilding tool?

Hmmm.  I think it does.

Is it the right thing to do?  I don't know.  A part of me wants to say "yes" because it could be effective - and whether we like it or not, people are motivated by fear and the eradication of fear.  A part of me wants to say "no" because it's unethical playing on people's fears.

And still another question - can we offer hope and eventually graduate to love without first 'resonating' with the "fear" within consumers' minds?

Seth Godin - you got me thinking again - and that's good.

What is creativity?

Yet again a discussion with some friends on what creativity is - and what should the focus of ad awards be.

And yet again - no agreement on what a creative ad is and what it is not.  But I stood my ground on what I think creativity is:  Creativity is not about simply redefining borders or "thinking out of the box".  For the creative mind, there is a box - and hence ideas need to be grounded on realities.  Creativity is a means towards an end - the goal of driving businesses by building brands.  Ads that are witty, "lots of white-space", "first-time, originals", and "award-winning" are great - but in my definition, did they meet what they intended to deliver:  that is, did they drive sales?

Marketing Analytics...

 

Whilst I no longer am directly involved in the business of marketing analytics, I still hold this topic close to my heart.  I think that a lot of advertisers - and media and advertising companies - are still wasting their money on campaigns that are borne out of briefs that say "we want to create awareness of our new campaign" and "the boss wants me to put this on the front page of this newspaper title".

I also think that optimum is the operative word - not maximum.

Just because you can buy all the Thursday full-page, 4color ads every single week of the next five years on the leading newspaper at a significant discount level - and claiming that it is effective because "it's what we've been doing for the last 20 years and our sales have always been the same" - is simply not the right approach to advertising or communications planning.

What if you had the chance to save money?  Ad analytics would be able to do that - but I guess, it takes courage and gumption to even test it out for a week or a couple of weeks.

Anyway, here is a video that I found on PodTech.Net on the topic of advertising analytics.  It's an interesting introduction - but I think that there is too much reliance on data - 2 years' worth of (weekly, I am guessing) data in order to generate decisions is just simply too much.  I know, I know - but there must be another way  to really implement more accountability in the world of communications planning.

Of widgets and digital communications planning...

I stumbled upon the blog site of Jeremiah Owyang on How the Web Strategist should approach Widgets.  It is an interesting video on how web strategists should integrate widgets/desktop gadgets in the consumers' experience of the brand in the digital ecosystem.

This is an interview with Ro Cho of RockYou, one of the widget-app providers in platforms such as Facebook.

In this interview, there are apparently three levels of 'engagement' that a brand can do with its target audience: (1) branding as one would using a microsite, (2) brand-centric interaction, and (3) customized solutions - i.e., building your own brand application.

I think it is interesting take on social widgets.

However, I believe that there are no levels of 'engagement' - rather, there is only one and can only be one.  And that is based on consumer-/audience-relevance.  Branding an app is good - and developing interactions with consumers is good.  Even creating your own brand-specific, brand-centric app is good.  But it does not maximize the real opportunities that are hidden behind social widgets - and the whole digital social networking technology.

One can only unlock these opportunities if the brand - and how its message is expressed and is ultimately experienced - are relevant to consumers.

Relevancy is critical.

Cho also suggests that web development is different from say creating websites and other advertising campaigns.  To a certain extent, I would say, yes, it is indeed different.  From a craft-viewpoint, it is very different as it would entail a lot of considerations.

But the fundamentals remain the same:  it is about creating relevancy.  It is about enhancing users' experience of a brand in the digital sphere.  It is about (buzzword alert) "engaging" consumers and audiences more deeply to effect a shift in attitudes and in behaviors.

Ads I liked - The Coke Side of Life

I liked this ad.  Don't ask me why.  I guess, it's because (1) I like Coke and have been drinking Coke since I was young (though I have stopped drinking Coke now - my doc says it's "bad for my hyperacidic stomach" and my personal trainer says it's full of "empty calories"), and (2) I like Charlie Brown.  That Charlie finally got the better end of the deal makes me feel, uhm, warm and fuzzy.  There's hope for us good people!

Questions and Answers

I have a conversation with an ex colleague of mine about the future of the media planning and communications planning industry.  And here are some excerpts of what we talked about:

Him:  So do you think that advertising is going to decline this year and in the next few years?

Me:  Well, in terms of adspends that are being monitored, yes - it is very likely.  TV is already showing signs of slowing down at least in Singapore and in Thailand.  In the Philippines, FTA-TV is getting to be more and more challenged by alternative forms of entertainment.  And in Malaysia, the growing strength of Cable versus FTA is already something worth mentioning.

What should media agencies do?

They are in a very good position, in fact.  They hold all the data and information that can transform the media industry into something beyond the media planning of the old.

What kinds of data do they have?

Do you believe in the maxim "You are what you read or watch or listen to"?  That however you interact with different kinds of media channels define who you are - say, if you want to watch a lot of serials on TV - it says something about you.  And that if you are addicted to lifestyle magazines or say, the sports section of a newspaper - it says something about you?

Well, the data that media agencies have are all these.  And I just don't mean "data as percentages".  I think media agencies need to dive more deeply into these and uncover more stories.

But they've always worked - we've always worked - on the levels of ratings and percentages?

Which I believe is insufficient.  We should have dove a little deeper.  I know that some companies have tried getting elemental data for optimization purposes - "individual level data" apparently is good for optimization.

But it's more than that.  Imagine being able to cluster people based on the likely-TV behaviors.  Imagine being able to cluster people not just in terms of their psychographics - based on answers to surveys with a battery of attitudinal statements - but based on their actual behavior on TV: when they switch, how often do they switch channels, what kinds of programs make them switch, what kinds of ads make them switch, what programs make them  loyal, what artistes make them loyal to a program. 

All these are in the usual TAM data that Nielsen Media Research, TNS, and other research providers give out regularly.

It's just that we've never dove deeply.

Is it because we lack the intellectual capacity?

Of course not - and I take offense at that!  (A bit of a chuckle)  It's because we are content with percentages - with measurements of the old - GRPs, reach, frequency, CPMs, frequency distribtuions, demographic and affinity definitions.

We have just become complacent - we have just become contented with what we have.  We need more metrics.  We need more curious and disciplined people.  We need people who are willing to experiment with numbers - and with the combinations of numbers.  We need people who will say to their Western counterparts that "Look, guys, these are some ideas that we have because we think that our media landscape is far different from yours.  We need to measure this and that, beyond ratings and GRPs."

Is it then a matter of will?

And curiosity and the boldness to dream big.  The funny thing about being bold is that it lifts you up above the rest and you become more of a target.  But that's the price of being bold.

So what are you proposing?

The past several years have seen some strides in the maths and statistical theory world.  There's this thing called "Hierarchical Bayes" methodology, stemming from Bayesian theory.

There's also the field of computer simulations, and good old econometric modeling and similar regression techniques - but done on an individual, respondent level basis and on a cumulative basis.

All these are pointing to richer, far more powerful usage of already-available data.

What of content?

What did Marshall MacLuhan say?  "The medium is the message."  A lot of people think of that as a "goal" - some think that that is all about "integrating the medium and the message".

I think differently.

I think it is not the goal - "the medium is the message" is a declarative statement, a factual statement.  It is essentially suggestive of the reality that we cannot separate the medium from the message - nor the message from the medium.  The medium is the message - and vice versa.

What drives people to watch TV is not TV per se - it is the TV + the content that it contains - the messages that are contained within TV.  What drives people to go online is not just because online is online - but because within online, there is a content - a message - that if it were not available, people would look for elsewhere.

The medium is the message - and the message is the medium - are facts, not goals.  It is not something that we work towards.  It is a given.

So where does that leave the divide between creative and media planning?

Who has the data?  Media planning departments.  Who can best explain the needs of the consumers and uncover these needs?  Media planners.  Who can best describe the underlying thoughts, wants, needs and "motivations" of consumers?  Media planners.

But it is the creative - the messaging department - that puts flesh to these.

But isn't advertising all about selling?

True.  But like all seasoned sales people would know:  you cannot sell unless you have somehow made an argument - emotional or logical, rational or irrational - to consumers.  If you have not connected, you can't.

Where does information management, Bayesian theory, simulations, Hierarchical Bayes, and multiple-level regression analyses come into the picture?

Richness in understanding who the consumers/audiences are - based on what they actually do, not just on what they say or claim to say - and not just on demographics.  But real behavior.  Real-time, real observable individual-level behavior.

Will it be a panacea?

No such thing exists.  It is a first step - a significant step away from percentages (which treat all consumers as equals and as "mere statistics").  It is a first step towards real understanding of consumers and audiences.

Doesn't it already exist in the digital world?

To a certain extent it does.  But the digital world is also battling issues in privacy - it is so "close" to personally identifiable information that it is quite scary.  At least in TAMs, in PeopleMeters(R), there is still some sense of anonymity.

So what should media companies do?

Be brave.  That's the first step.  Be more than just order- and brief-takers.  Be more than just mere "OK, we'll book it by tomorrow" sayers.  Think through each and every media plan - and go beyond the percentages.

================================

 

The Stumbling Block in Digital Communications Planning in Southeast Asia

A friend of mine who still works in the advertising world mentioned was venting yesterday about the lack of standards in digital communications planning within her team.  She came from a 'traditional' media planning background and was raised amidst GRPs, reach and frequency, and cost per rating points and CPMs.  As digital planning exploded, she was amongst the first who took on the online medium in her recommendations.

What she is frustrated about is the lack of discipline and standards in digital communications planning as we all had in 'traditional' media planning.

In traditional media planning, we could - through the use of third-party research - come up with GRP/reach curves and efficiency curves.  We could somehow make projections on what levels of reach would a certain GRP level achieve - and put a dollar value to such achievements.  We could even put a dollar value to "creative executions" - buys that go beyond GRPs, 30s ads, and FP4C ads through valuation techniques.  In 'traditional' media planning, there was the discipline imposed on us by the numbers.

In digital communications planning, the numbers - at least it seems - are not enough.

We lack a standard currency on which we could trade.  We lack normative databases on how much delivering 1'000 audiences would be within a medium - and what the most optimum level is.

This may sound like a "return to the past" - and perhaps, sounding too traditional.  It may also sound like this is an attempt to put into old leatherskins - traditional media planning leatherskins - these new emergent media.

I would argue that it isn't.

We still need the discipline.

At the end of the day, we're still managing investments - and a certain form of discipline is necessary.

It doesn't have to be GRPs, reach and frequency, and CPMs.  These metrics in and of themselves are limited - and any seasoned marketeer and media planner would tell you that these metrics do not encapsulate the entirety of the media planning process.

But these are the basics - and in digital communications planning, we need to get back to the basics and build on them.

Sure, we've talked of the long-tail and pay-per-click planning method.  Long-tail makes it difficult to capture the number of people who see a certain, unknown website and therefore its impressions and its CPMs.  Pay-per-click makes it difficult to project what will work and what won't.  But these do not make measurements and predictive methods impossible.

A return to basics is necessary for the digital communications planning world to move forward and rise up to the occasion.  A return to basics - audience measurements, audience exposure optimization, cost-efficiency checks and benchmarking, GRP/reach projections - are necessary foundations to build on.  A return to basics does not mean that we simply get stuck there - we need to move forward.  A return to basics means a return to discipline, structure, and rigor in our approach to planning - an establishment of the foundations from which we can leap and grow.

With all the stock market talk...

With all the stock market talk that's now dominating the water-cooler banter in the office, I can't help but think: The stock market is all about expectations of humans.

We look at P/E - which shows what our expectations are of the stocks' future earnings and whether it is "undervalued" or "overvalued".  We look at PEG - which also points to an almost similar idea - though it extends it to the future growth prospects of the company.

But at it score, the stock market is where the best - and the worst - of human decision-making comes out.  It is based on fear - of the unknown, of failure, of losing money.

Remember the Citigroup downgrade by one analyst?  She was right about it, I guess, considering that Citigroup's stocks did suffer a beating.  BUT the beating was not just about a single person downgrading or airing her opinions about the stock.  It's the reaction of people towards that.

The stock market assumes that we are rational beings when we trade and invest - and that all we want is to get ahead and earn some cash.   The last part, they got right.  But that we are rational beings?  I don't think so.

Perhaps, the best way to play the market is to understand how the crowd reacts to the news that are given them.  When some news breaks - the assumption of rationality and completeness of information - seems to get out of the window.

And investors react violently - or vigorously - to those news.

I think psychology, sociology, and social networks have got more to do about stock market movements than the reports that we get from the business papers.

How do you teach someone to think strategically?

I have been asked by a friend from Vietnam to mentor someone who wants to be a strategic planner.  I am not mastered the art and science of strategic communications planning.  And sometimes, the strategic directions that I come up with are first glimpsed whilst showering or lounging by the pool or swimming (and drowning) with Excel-tables and PowerPoint reports.

When I got offered a job by a start-up company, I was first asked "How do you create strategies?"  My answer - which I felt was simple, but not simplistic (at least I felt it wasn't simplistic) - was "You don't create strategies; they reveal themselves to you as you tease stories out of the data and information that you have".

I remember talking about an "integrative mind" - a mind that freely moves from left- (the rational side) to the right-side of the brain (the creative side).  I also recall talking about how phenomenology (remember that from philosophy?) and metaphysics actually help - how you break things down to pieces and examine them in abstraction from the whole, and then bringing them all together again into one bigger, more holistic whole.

But all these are things that may be innate.

I have toyed around with strategic frameworks in the past - and boy, I love 2x2 matrices.  I loved the frameworks of Kenichi Ohmae and of Micheal Porter - as well as the book "Thinking Strategically" by Dixit and Avinash.  I enjoyed talking about Game Theory, the book "A Beautiful Mind" (which discussed in some detail the Nash Equilibrium), and a whole lot of other things.

Did they help in crafting strategic thinking?

Perhaps.  But Mintzberg (from Strategy Bites Back, another book) says that strategic thinking goes beyond all these frameworks.  Strategic thinking comes when you've considered all the things that you need and have to consider - and take a calculated risk and leap into the unknown.

I would be honest and say that some of the strategies that I have come up with were what I would call generic - because the questions and the issues were generic.  But there were solutions that demanded more than just a generic response - it required the amalgam of different models, different thought patterns, different truths.

So how do you teach someone to think strategically?

I think it is akin to teaching philosophy:  My Philosophy professor from University said that "Ang pilosopiya ay ginagawa" - which means "You do philosophy, you don't lean philosophy".  From him, I learned the value of questioning the questions and the assumptions that lie behind the questions.

And it has served me well.

Perhaps that's the starting point:  learn to question the questions and the human motivation behind such issues and questions.

After all, the questions posed by humans are tainted by our own humanity.

Does that answer the question - on how to teach strategic thinking?

I am, for once, at a loss.