marginally subversive

It's all about the experience...

I stumbled upon this interesting slide show on content marketing - at least that's how it was labeled on SlideShow.Com.  However, I think that it does cover more than just content marketing as a discipline.  It covers a far bigger, far richer view of the consumers' experience-sphere - and how brands can make/unmake their positions within this circle.

It's all about enhancing consumers' experiences of brands - that's the raison d'etre of media, channel, and messaging experts.  It's not about buying a TV ad or a print ad or a banner ad in some number 1 portal somewhere.  It's not about buying search keywords and optimizing them to the hilt.

It's about enhancing consumers' experiences of brands.

And I honestly think that content marketing - what used to be called (or is it still called?) "branded content and sponsorships" (though I think it's far more than that) - is one pillar that is currently underutilized in the media planning industry.

A lot of clients that I have spoken to about this have just one reply: "We are not a publishing company".  To which I say, "... but the mere fact that you are creating ads, buying media to send those messages into the market, and getting PR people and CRM writers to create campaigns - contents, essentially - don't these make you a publishing company?"

 

Content Marketing = Brand New Marketing?

View SlideShare presentation or Upload your own. (tags: media interactive)

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.

Media and Ad Agencies, Technology Companies, Marketeers, and Audiences

In another life, I delivered a vision for a business division that I was working on and the bigger company that owned that division.  My vision was predicated on something: 

What we were offering now (it was 2005 then) will become commoditized.  It will remain
to be  significant part of our business - for business won't change overnight.  But it will be one that will see lower profits because it will demand a lot of human resources.

What we need is to look into the future.  And the future is in the realm of providing accountable advice - frameworks and solutions whose results can be measured against an  agreed-upon set of standards prior to us coming into the picture.

Such businesses will not merely be won by the discounts and savings - though these will remain to be a part of the criteria, perhaps - as old habits are hard to change.  But we can go beyond that.

One pillar is the integration of due diligence and rigor into our business - acting as objective consultants bordering on being academic and theoreticians, yet delivering real, measurable results.

The second pillar is the integration of technology into every aspect of our operations:  to streamline repetitive mundane tasks and reduce overhead costs, to reduce "communication costs" by capitalizing on new technologies, to automate processes and "thinking processes" into databases of expert systems and algorithms.

More importantly, the integration of technology in the analysis of audiences and markets, and in the delivery of message to audiences and markets - both in the back-end and in the store-front.

Essentially, Marketing departments have to embrace technologies - and we - as their partners, their vendors, their suppliers, their contracts, and whatever way they want to see us - need to embrace it too.  And we need to embrace it much earlier than they do.

Decision-making processes need to be aided by technology.  Predictive techniques need to be grounded on technology and theory.  Real-time data and accountability are needed - and these too will be driven by technology.  Simulations - pricing and demand and communications and worst-case scenario planning and most-likely scenario planning - all these will be driven by technology.

Should this be driven by "digital planners"?  No.  They should be driven by "traditional planners with a keen sense of business".  Should it be driven by one business unit?  For now - yes.  But it will need to cascade - the sooner the better - to the rest of the organization.

This is the only way we can avoid being a commodity - and being relegated into the background as mere vendors, as mere contractors, as mere suppliers.  This is the only way we can escape the never-ending discussion on "discounts-value-adds-freebies".

I guess I didn't do enough to make these thoughts clear (and I doubt if the above is any clearer!)

But think about it:  If technology is so pervasive in the lives of our audiences, then why shouldn't agencies and marketing companies embrace technology as part of their systems, processes, and well, communications with consumers and with other stakeholders?

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.

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.

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

 

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.

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

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.

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.

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.