marginally subversive

Wanted: Digital Planners who can think brand- and media-planning - and vice versa...

Having been re-immersed back into the world of communications planning and advisory, a realization - or a "re-realization" struck me.

Whilst we are in a world that is increasingly becoming more "digitized" and where certain media vehicles are becoming more and more a "concierge service" - i.e., a centralized service to stay in touch with all things - we are still lacking in real integrators.

Digital planners - who can think of the brand beyond the digital medium and its intricacies - I think, are still lacking.  Don't get me wrong: digital planners are a great bunch of people.  And by the innate nature of the web as being very measurable and accountable, digital planners hold a very critical role in any communications plan.

However, I have the belief that digital planners - who are specialists in their own right and could command great respect from the rest of the marketing planning community - needs to take into consideration that brands are not created overnight.

Just because click-through rates or CPCs or CPAs or keywords or widgets or RFIs are high relative to eyeballs doesn't necessarily mean a successful campaign.  These - IMHO - are measures of "efficiencies" rather than effectiveness:  How much dollars is a campaign generating versus the investments that are being poured into it.

There is still a need to look at brands - and these metrics that measure how consumers interact, experience, relate, and animate a brand cannot be captured by merely looking at CPCs and CPAs and other conversion measures.

True:  all businesses ought to be measured in terms of their revenue-generation capabilities.  And therefore all campaigns that support this businesses need to generate sales.  HOWEVER, a brand isn't built overnight - and the impact of so-called "branding campaigns" are not necessarily immediately felt or measurable.  Heck, if we can measure overnight the impact of a "branding campaign", I think that would be the ideal scenario.  However, sticking to our CPCs and CPAs and SEMs and SEOs and other measures an tactics as "mere campaign measures that matter because they are closer to the company's bottomline" could well be a myopic viewpoint.

Media planning as an industry has evolved - strategic planners from mainstream creative and agency-companies are now welcome in the world of "noughts and crosses" and are changing the way media planning is bein done.  These strategic planners do not necessarily use numbers - but they "adapt" their knowledge of how brands are created and how consumers encounter/experience brands not just through messaging strategies but also through the message's interaction/synergy with the medium that carries that message - regardless of what that medium is.

The same is true for digital specialists - they have to "adapt" their technical knowledge and expertise to include a deep understanding of how brands are created - online and offline.

This is not to say that the digital medium ought to be an after-thought, after all the traditional, offline media have been fulfilled and their budgets optimized.  What I am trying to say is digital specialists should also be able to talk about brands and brand-building - in the immediate and in the long-term - within their specialised field - and at the same time, outside the digital realm.

At the end of the day, we are aiming to provide better brand-consumer experiences that would transform target audiences into brand users (and revenue-sources) and into brand ambassadors.  Clicking an ad - in Google, in MSN Search, in Yahoo.Com, or in some other vertical - is one aspect of that experience.

But it is not the only aspect of brand-building.

Brands are created over time, across multiple experience-opportunities, with the end-user reinforcing her relationship with the brand at her own time, at her own choosing.  Revenues in the short-term are good and they are good for the bottomline of the company for this quarter or this month.  But businesses - the last time I checked - are in it for the long-haul.

Paid Search Ads Not the Holy Grail

This is a very interesting video from Yahoo! Tech Ticker, an interview with Jonathan Yarmis of AMR Research conducted by Sarah Lacy.  Yarmis believes that there are four pillars to disruptive technologies that will define the future - not in silos but in terms of how each pillar interact:

1. Social Networking Phenomenon, powered by the technology
2. Cloud computing
3. Mobile access to data
4. Monetization beyond the traditional search ads

Yarmis also suggests that "paid search ads in a social networking phenomenon" (and I will add, in other technologies - for example in mobile access to data on a phone or a wireless device) are not the only way to monetize all these.

(Think of it this way:  If you are talking/networking with your friends on your PC or on your mobile device, would you really click on a text ad that's irrelevant to what you and your friends are talking about?)

The internet, Yarmis says, will remain to be free - and I do agree.  Capex from tech companies that are funding these "free" internet services won't be able to maintain these levels of interest.  Monetization will be critical.  However, most companies are still very much stuck to the old "advertising mindset" of capitalizing on "inventory" rather than creating new ways of monetizing these.

Making Sense of Location-/People-Tracking Data

This is a piece of interesting news that I picked from the NYTimes:  a company in the US, called Sense Networks (in NY), has launch an analytics program that will help analyze data on people's movements, routines, and trips - and potentially encounters with other people (or crowds), ads, and the retail shop.  This comes after NATURE published a study on how people of an unnamed city roam around their city/locale using cell-phone signals.

From a research perspective, this is a lot of data - a treasure trove of data.

From a marketeer's POV, this is a something like a dream come true: knowing where your consumers are, what kinds of media/communications they encounter with on the street, how they behave alone versus in groups versus in crowds of people, and how they behave inside the store en route to buying your product.  A savvy marketeer can immediately see the value (I hope) of such information - and how it can be deployed to improve one's investments across different kinds of media and non-media channels.

I can imagine, for example, a marketeer or a media planning company in NY tagging all their outdoor sites, bus-/train-ads with GPS data - alongside shopping centers that carry their brands or their competitors. 

I can also imagine marketeers and data-miners having a grand time consolidating information in-store with those gathered from these troves of consumer- and ad-/media-locator data - and creating predictive models and algorithms that would make brand campaigns more effective. 

I can also imagine how these sort of data will move adspends away from TV and potentially other in-home media, including the internet because "the last golden mile" in retail marketing is still the most important part of the buying process...!

But I am also pretty sure that this will attract a lot of controversy: privacy and individual anonymity.

It's going to be - hmm - intrusive.  It could very well be the start of conspiracy theorists' and privacy advocates' nightmare:  Big Brother On The Loose.  I can't imagine what would stop governments using this kind of technology (if they don't already have it - now that sounds a little like a conspiracy theory...) to track down individuals of interest to the state/nation in order to "protect" and ensure the safety of the public.

So - given these imagined possibilities, what should we think of these developments?

Well, I think we need to carefully think through this one very carefully.  Whilst it is great technology - and it could benefit marketeers (and, marketeers would argue, it could also benefit consumers), I think that it furthers the questions on privacy, ethics in marketing research, and corporate social responsibility:

• While individual-level data is good for business (think CRM, think CLV analysis, think RFM, think HB Regression and Clustering), how "individual" should individual-level data be?  How much is enough?  And how much is too much?

• How do we ensure that the guidelines set by and through marketing research societies all over the world about consumer privacy and about ensuring respondent-anonymity are followed to the letter?  The commercial reasons sometimes may well override these guidelines - and who doesn't want to earn some money?

• What kinds of information are off-limits and what are not?  People going to and from a grocery store after having gone through the train, for example, would be pretty good data for media planners and outdoor specialists.  Marrying those tidbits of information with purchase data would provide very good information of how people buy things.  But where would data-gathering stop?

I think that there must be an answer somewhere - or at least, a set of guidelines - of how these kinds of information are used.  They are great sources of information - and with proper manipulation would be great sources of insight and knowledge that could prove to be valuable to businesses.

However, there are also repercussions that come with the availability of these kinds of data.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Tags: Data, Analytics, Research, Marketing Research, Media Planning

LinkedIn and other social networks...: Beyond Advertising

The news on LinkedIn.Com being valued at about 1Bln USD after having been infused with 53Mln USD of investments has made a lot of people asking:  "So how will LinkedIn.Com's business model be?"

A lot are speculating that their current revenue streams won't be enough.

Right now, LinkedIn.Com is all about delivering ads - with premium CPMs/CPCs considering the quality of the audiences that LinkedIn reaches - and premium subscriptions.  A lot of industry watchers are asking "will this be enough?", adding that "Nobody would pay for a subscription if social networks such as Facebook, Ning, MySpace, and Friendster would do" and "Nobody clicks on text ads anyway... so if they are to rely on advertising, it wouldn't be sustainable".

I beg to differ, though.

I think that so long as LinkedIn.Com sticks to its principles - to what got them here (i.e., their audiences and the trust that they have built amongst their members - paying or non-paying) - they should be OK on the batteground for subscriptions.  For one, I can stand and raise my hand that my LinkedIn subscription has paid for itself many times over.  And I am sure those folks who are also subscribers to LinkedIn are getting the same value out of it - more than the "free" spaces that they get on Facebook et al.

On the advertising front, I think LinkedIn has got something valuable - their audiences.  My impression is that the people who are in LinkedIn are the ones who are deciding the fates of major companies in major industries.  OK - perhaps, not the C-level people - but people who have the C-level executives' ears.

I also would like to argue that advertising is NOT the only way that LinkedIn can capitalize on their services.  Advertising - i.e., "forcing people to look at messages and forcing people to respond to them" (which is essentially what advertising traditionally is all about) - is not the only way for LinkedIn - or any social media - to realize their potentials.

I believe that the phenomenon of social media - the social web - needs to be approached differently from merely forcing people to consume ads.  It needs to be more intimate, more relevant, more personal - and more social.

I know that's a paradox - to be "personal" and yet "social".

How then?

That is the big question that I think LinkedIn - and anybody in the social media world - should try to answer:  How do we monetize the social networks that audiences voluntarily create without alienating and annoying the very audiences that created these social networks in the first place?

For now, I don't have an answer - and I also have the impression that anybody has the answer.

So... I guess the race is on...  Again.

LinkedIn versus Facebook: Shall they ever meet - and compete?

Will we ever see LinkedIn and Facebook meeting - and competing?

There is a view that most would have a Facebook account for 'fun' and LinkedIn for a more serious, professional image.  That's what I do, too.  I think - though - that there is more to LinkedIn that just that.

I have used LinkedIn to be heard - one of the major sources of traffic to my blog Marginally Subversive is my LinkedIn profile.  I have had projects - and job inquiries - on LinkedIn, and I have also established 'connections' (for lack of a better term) with other professionals in my field and with people who I would not have had a chance to connect with in the real, flesh-and-blood world.  I have, for example, academicians in my extended network - people who have accepted my request to connect for the purpose of perhaps, helping me out in the future when I hit a snag in my academic quests or projects.

LinkedIn's two-pronged strategy of generating revenues through subscriptions and through ads is interesting.  But I think there is more to that:  sure, LinkedIn's probably limited in terms of its inventory and its ability to deploy ads (i.e., it doesn't have Google's Ad-serving strength), but the quality of the people who are in LinkedIn is significantly higher than any other social network that I know of.

That's the beauty of social networks - the value of social networks do not rely on mere "quantity" and "breadth" or number of users.  The value of social networks is also based on the quality of its users.

Look at Facebook:  Its exclusivity to university students was what made it interesting and unique.  Now that anybody can have a Facebook account, its sexiness has gone - and it has gone the way of "portals" and "search ads".

LinkedIn's business model is by no means perfect.  But it is teeming with opportunities.  However, it should be careful with how it evolves.  Its users are what make LinkedIn precious - and I hope (as a user) they don't evolve into another "too-ad-driven" site.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Tags: LinkedIn, Social Networking, Social Web, Digital Web, Digital Advertising, Digital Models, Business Models, Strategic Planning

Media Planning and Social Responsibility

This is something that I have been thinking about since I left the agency world and started working as a one-man sales support team for Southeast Asia.

(I had a great deal of time on my hands... Well, something that somebody - and I cannot remember who - said is the birthplace of either inspiration or evil thoughts. Fortunately for me, it is more of the former than the latter.)

The thought was simple: We spend so much money (OK, invest, as strat planners are won't to say) in media plans to advertise products. We come up with a lot of concepts to sell - we dreamed up GRPs, reach, frequency, recency, engagement, attention-planning, disruption, affinity targeting, and other theoretical frameworks to get it right - and well, to get clients to spend.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world is evolving.

And I am not talking about things like digital media being more massive - and people are paying less attention and what-not... Those are given: people are just regressing to what is natural. (OK, that's for another post... later...)

The rest of the world is suffering: perhaps not in our immediate world, but in the bigger world. The gap between the top 10% households and the bottom 20% households in most countries is widening. The gap between the richest nations and the poorest nations is also widening.

And here we are, investing (or spending) money for client brands that perhaps consumers already know about - and may already care about.

Here's my point - after much digression: As media planners (and at heart, I am still one media planner - no matter what and how others think of media planners, I am still proud to have been and BE one), we actually have a lot of responsibilities.

And it's about time that we rise up to the occasion and take the risk.

I know this is about work. And work and Facebook don't seem to mix.

But most of my media planning and client-friends are in Facebook, I can't help but use this medium. My main point is simple:

If we can treat client investments in media planning/advertising to be more efficient, that in and of itself saves them enough - if not a lot of - money to use for the betterment of the world.

Think of the possibilities: Coke, for example (and I am thinking off the top of my head here - and I love Coke One!) - spends millions of dollars each year advertising their brand and their promotions.

If the media planners of Coke were able to make their investments in advertising more efficient - delivering the same amount sales at the a lower cost by maximizing opportunities and minimizing risks - wouldn't that be great? Let's say Coke in one country spends about 10Mln USD - and we are able to drive efficiencies (real efficiencies!) by 1% in addition to their demanded efficiencies, that's 10'000USD worth of savings. 10'000USD that they can either spend again - or 10'000USD that they can inject into their corporate social responsibility projects. Say to help the people in Burma or in China or in Darfur.

To get there, I think, there is a need for us to change mindsets. We have to think big. We have to be big. We have to be big in front of clients. We have to drive them to change their mindsets.

And if you're a client reading this - just think: Accountable media solutions + real savings that you can donate to an institution that would make the world a better place + "pogi-/gwapo-/brownie" points for you and your company.

Just think for a while.

(No, I have not become an Opus Dei - but I am certainly starting to believe that our work - whatever it is - is our way of doing God's Work - however you believe Her/Him to be.)

There's a lot to be done - but I think we can do something whilst doing our work.

Efficient media plans? Sure. Discounts? Sure. Additional value? Sure. But now, let's look for a purpose for all those. Perhaps, aiming to create efficient media plans, or tonnes of discounts or free spots - for the sake of changing the world is a lot better and bigger than simply getting that yearend "positive points" in the client evaluation sheet.

Risk in Media Planning

If you sit through a media planning meeting between a planner and a client, you'd probably hear terms such as GRPs, reach and frequency, CPRPs, effective frequency, and recency. If you sit in more sophisticated meetings, you'd probably hear of words such as "optimized media plan".

However, it is very rare for media planners to talk about risk management.

Which is quite surprising.

GRPs - ratings, TARPs, rating points - all cost money. And in these times of "very fickle-minded audiences", variability in ratings are more pronounced than ever before.

In spite of these phenomena, media planners are still preparing plans based on pre-set and predefined GRP goals and CPRP ceilings. They sometimes use sophisticated, individual-/respondent-level data to come up with "optimized" media plans.

However, such optimization techniques do not take into consideration "risks" - that is, the possibility of the media plan not delivering its goals.

I believe that the time has come for media planners to take into account the variability - and the risks - that come with their media plans.

I know that it is a tall order - but as audiences are being exposed to more and more options within a medium and within a timeblock, it is time for media planners to take into account risks and variability. It is only when we start thinking of risks and variability - and measure them and take them into account in a media plan - can we truly talk about ROI.

I have prepared a simple program that you could probably use as a starting point for thinking through a "risk management" approach in media plans. Of course, I will not claim to be an expert myself in risk-management; nor will I declare that the attached file is something that solves the problems of risk-management in media planning.

However, the attached could be a starting point - however simple it may be.

Here is a description of the file.

The challenge is simple: There are 10 programs that a media planner must consider buying. Each has a corresponding CPRP (cost per rating point). Here's the clincher, however: the average ratings of each of the programs are somewhere around 12.5. There is little difference across the 10 programs in terms of ratings - the media planner can only decide based on costs.

My proposition is simple: There is an opportunity to go beyond costs. In fact, there is a need to go beyond costs.

It is when things seem to be similar that we need to apply concepts of risk management into the media planning process.

To demonstrate, look at the attached file (after you've downloaded it and opened it in Excel 2000 or later). Enter any inputs that you'd like to test out in the blue cells. And then run SOLVER. It has been preset in the file.

The goal of SOLVER is to minimize what I call the "Risk Factor" whilst meeting the constraints that are defined by the media planner (e.g., the plan should be within budget; there is a minimum amount of GRPs that need to be achieved; there are minimum/maximum shares per program).

The Risk Factor is a simple measure - it is based on the concepts of variance, a common measure of risk and variability in the world of Finance.

This - I hope - will inspire others to take into account risk measures in the same way that they look at optimized GRPs, reach, and frequency. The time for risk management concepts to be incorporated in media planning, I strongly believe, has come.

And media planners should rise up to the occasion - specially now that clients are faced with challenges that they have never encountered before.

No more ads...

Well, the truth is there are still ads.  But I have been not noticing any ads.  If you asked me now what web ads have I seen in the last couple of days - or even the past week (apart from those which I had to "see" as part of my job), I wouldn't be able to name one.

Which leads me to the question: Are digital ads really declining in effectiveness?

If that is so, then why is everybody so hung up on ads (at least seemingly)?  Microsoft and Yahoo and Time and AOL and Google.

Everybody seems to be thinking that the reason why these companies have made the moves they made in the last couple of months is "advertising".

I would beg to differ.

Advertising could be a part of it.  But it's beyond that.  The fact that Yahoo seems to be so intent at avoiding the bid and Microsoft is so intent in pushing the deal - and everybody else from Google to Time to AOL - are all trying to get into the ruckus themselves suggest that there is something else beyond advertising.

Advertising is on a decline.  People don't want ads to be shoved down their throats anymore.  A new way to - all together now - "communicate" is necessary.  (And no, social networking ads?  C'mon.)

The days of "inventory-based advertising" - regardless of whether it is in display or search - are on entering the "wane" period.  Whatever you call the next phase - engagement planning, IMC, IPC, CCP, Comm Planning, Media Neutral Planning, Atomized Planning - it will not be solely 'inventory-based' anymore.

It's that time again...

To dust off that presentation that says "When in a recession, do not stop advertising".

When I was working in an ad-agency a few eons ago, somebody would always come up with reasons on why stopping advertising during a recession - or "challenging times" - would be detrimental to the brand.  The slew of charts that showed brands that did not stop advertising during a recession tended to be recalled more, bougt more, and bucked the trend would be flying (digitally) aboutin the office.  I was tasked - once - to "localize" the presentation and present it to a host of clients.

(I think I vaguely recall making the analogy that "the Chinese character for danger is the same as opportunity" - I am not sure now if that indeed is the case.  In spite of years of attempts, I cannot - for the life of me - read Chinese characters.)

I was amongst those usual suspects.

But I guess, this time around, I would do something else:  I wouls say, "if there is no reason for you to advertise and continue advertising, then don't - and don't let anybody tell you otherwise".

Why?

Simple:  There is no single rule that holds across all kinds of brands and categories.  Just because Brand A suvived the downtrend "because they advertised" doesn't mean another brand will fare similarly - even if they had the same message, even if they had the same media plan, even if they had the same marketing considerations.

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that it is the culture of tenacity that pervades throughout the organization - marketing, sales, operations, supply chain, procurement, talent management, etc. - that determines whether a brand or a company survives the economic slowdown. 

Not advertising - its presence or its absence.

My suggestion to those who are being lured and tempted to advertise because "the great big, brands - according to my agency - survived the last recession by advertising":  Take a look at you own history. 

How did your brand - and your company - survive the last slowdown?  Look at all the shallow - and the deep - metrics.  Don't stop at awareness or image - look at sales. 

Determine what the other departments did - what did the Sales team do?  How did the Sales Director feel and reacted to the gloom and doom?  What did the sales managers - the frontliners - notice amongst customers and how did they respond?  What were the results of their response?

If you can, quantify the impact of each of the actions done by each of the business stakeholders.  Sure, it will be hard work - but that's marketing - it is hard work making decisions.

Create scenarios.  In the same way that financial strategists have buy/sell limits, set your own by creating scenarios.  There is such a thing as "short-term advertising effects" which could guide you.  If you keep on advertising, and well, recall stays the same, but sales are not picking up - then decide:  is this a scenario that demands pulling out of advertising?  Or should you pump in more?

I believe that saying - and believing - that "advertising during a recession is the best way to keep your business growing" is irresponsible.

Businesses are systems - and marketing, and definitely advertising, are one part of that system.  And it is the entire system that will determine the probability of a company weathering a downturn.

Not advertising.

Persistence

Seth Godin's entry today is very timely - at least for me.  Mr. Godin never fails to amaze me in ensnaring things that are floating in my mind.  (No, I will not even equate myself with Mr. Godin - there's just a sense of "vibrational compatibility" - a resonance, I guess.)

In his latest entry

Remarkable visions and genuine insight are always met with resistance. And when you start to make progress, your efforts are met with even more resistance. Products, services, career paths... whatever it is, the forces for mediocrity will align to stop you, forgiving no errors and never backing down until it's over.

If it were any other way, it would be easy. And if it were any other way, everyone would do it and your work would ultimately be devalued. The yin and yang are clear: without people pushing against your quest to do something worth talking about, it's unlikely it would be worth the journey. Persist.

I like the last word he wrote.  Persist.

Against mediocrity.  Against "it's good enough".  Against "no one will know and notice".  Against "where's the shortcut".  Against the dark forces that cut squares.

My personal guiding principle - borrowed from my former university - is Arete.  Excellence. Virtue.

And that is what's driving me.

Mass x Acceleration x Distance = Potentials

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.

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

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.

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!