marginally subversive

Of Post-Buys, Rigor in Planning, Coke Zeroes and Vodka Martinis (that were probably shaken... or stirred)

I was just speaking with someone who's been part of my 'batch' of media planners and strategists in the Philippines.  She was lamenting that "the young ones are too impatient to climb up the ladder - looking at promotions as rewards; if only they knew what a promotion entails and how much it takes away versus how much it gives".  To that, I said "Well, I am sure our bosses also felt the same of us when we came out of uni and were driven to prove our worth - and well, pay off those student loans".

She also lamented that media planners don't do proper post-buys anymore.  And she went on reminiscing:  "You know, those times of actually staying up late at night to 'marry' data from one data-source that tracks the exact time of airing of a 15s ad to another data-source that contains the exact ratings at that point in time?"

For those who don't understand the preceding:  In the mid-1990s in the Philippines, we had two monitoring systems - the Philippine Monitoring System - or PMS (and yes, even if I never had the 'luxury' of experiencing one, I am sure it was not purely coincidental that it had the same monicker) - which monitored the exact airing of a TV commercial.  Then there was the Nielsen Telescope, which monitored exact ratings to the minute. 
A fresh-grad and new planner would be tasked to do this - marry the two data-sets.  The process sounds simple - you run PMS, you print it out, then you reinput the data into the other software, then press "run".  But recall that this was the mid-1990s in the Philippines: colored monitors were a luxury - I had a green one in Basic Advertising.  Processing power was very limited - so one 4-week campaign will be run overnight on PMS so as early as 8am, you can start entering the data into the other system, which would take another 2-3 hours of runs.  Oh, and the dot-matrix printers - which always found a way to screw up.
For me, it was a test of patience - it was baptism by fire (apart from having been assigned to the McDonald's account during my first year of professional existence as a media planner!).

And to that question which she posed, I said, "Yes.  The new ones have got it all easy."

And to which she responded, "But do you also notice that the rigor has been gone?"

She went one:  "Back then, we had to conduct not just analyses of the programs - but we made projections on how programs and breaks are going to be like.  We had to create reach-curves across different scenarios and mixes of buys - and predict how certain mixes can result to some probable reach.  It wasn't just the last 13 weeks or last 20 weeks.  It was the last 26 weeks - and past-year's similar period!  And we would determine if they were statistically different - or not.  And if they were, why!  These days, we just see media plans with ratings in them."

I just laughed:  I knew where she was coming from.

"And don't get me started on post-buys!  These days, they celebrate when they get 33% or 50% more GRPs than they planned to achieve.  They celebrate if they achieved 10% reach points more than what they planned to achieve - highlighting it to clients as if they were great things to be proud of.  Hello!  Wastage!

"If you delivered 50% more GRPs than what you planned, then that means you wasted money - since you didn't need that extra 50%.  You could've used that elsewhere... perhaps in another medium, another week, another... I don't know... events?"

"These days, post-buys are simply a reportage of what happened.  There's nothing in there that makes it relevant to the business and the future campaigns.  It just - a piece of paper!  A report!  What a pity!"

I tried to calm her down:  "But you see, things are changing, too.  Post-buy tempates of TV are probably not applicable to post-buys on digital."

She stared at me: "Oh no, no, no, no, no.  These digital post-buys that are seemingly so enamored with the idea of clickstream here and clickstream there... hello!  So what does that mean to me?  That they clicked on this ad and landed on this site... Then what?  They said the web is the most measurable of the different media - and it could be true.  But informative?

"All I have seen so far are fancy charts with lines and curves and percentages and ratios...  I don't see the "so-what?"  and I don't see the "what's next?" I'd like to know more:  so if this is what's happening, so if these keywords aren't performing, so if these banners are not delivering as much as the others, so if these are the likely exit-pages, so if these are the likely entry-sourves... so what?  And what's next?

And with that, we chugged down our drinks - me with my no-sugar Coke Zero and her with her Vodka Martini - shaken or stirred, she doesn't really care.  ("I am not James Bond.  More like Miranda Priestley and Wilhelmina Slater combined.")

The Cloud: Interesting stuff...

Nothing new - to be honest.  But interesting nonetheless.

How the Cloud (with a capital "C") is going to change our lives?  Well, it has the potential of changing our views on privacy - as well as how we look at computing, sharing information, and other tech-lifestyle related activities.

Amazing how we have grown since the Net was introduced to the public.

Psychoanalysis, Metaphors, and Marketing: Going beyond the surface

I have always been interested in attitudes that people have about certain phenomena that they encounter everyday - and how these attitudes are formed, how these attitudes influence and shape their own behaviors - and those of others.

This is something that I picked up from the Harvard Business School's blogs - the use of psychoanalysis (and/or similar techniques) to get to the bottom of one's relationships with and perceptions of brands in general.  Unlike in ethnology where a researcher may be relegated as an observer and the 'subjects' and their interactions and their expressions observed from a distance, this technique developed by Jerry Zaltman, uses interviews that are founded on the psychoanalytic disciplines of psychology/psychiatry.  (Think Rorschach inkblots or word-associations or draw-a-tree/person test.)

 

Interesting approach.

Here's a link to the video.

"All or Nothing" or "At Least Something, Not Nothing"

An interesting thought woke me up this morning:  Which is a better situation - having half-baked data and having "something" than nothing, or having nothing at all?

At first glance, some would prefer the "half-baked data" - it is better than nothing.  Besides "something is always better than nothing".  Right?

My first reaction is - no.

"Something is always better than nothing" is too overvalued.  That "something" needs to be qualified first and foremost - specially, and most specially, if we need to make decisions based on that something.  There is nothing far worse than making a wrong decision because "our data is showing this trend" - when the quality of the data is not correct.

It is perhaps the perfectionist and the disciplined in me to say "It's all or nothing, dude".  But I know that it's economically not viable in all situations.  However, saying that at least "we have something - better than nothing" - and taking satisfaction in that specially when it comes to crucial, critical factors that may drive a business - is also not acceptable.

"Perfect enough."

Those are words that I learned from Carly Fiorina's book.  And I think that's applicable in this situation.  Never cut corners - always conduct due diligence - always seek for perfection - and if there is the need to drop the human need for perfection because of reality, then drop it.

But because you've aimed for perfection, if you stopped 20% or 30% or 40% short of 100% perfection - you still have the confidence to say "Yes, we've got something... It is not perfect, but we've been duly diligent and rigorous".

Indeed, a careful balance - one that marketeers, decision-makers, and business executives ought to think about in these data-rich, information-flooded, yet "analysis-paralyzing" situations.

Photo Source: www.rwongphoto.com 

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.

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.

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

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.

Digital M&A Trends for 2008 from AdAge: Are Ad Companies Listening?

Advertising Age comes up with a view on Digital M&A Trends for 2008 in 2008 and I wonder how many of the ad companies which AdAge caters to as its primary audiences are going to heed. 

Amongst the trends that they are seeing for the coming year concerns something that I have been trying to champion:  analytics.

In one of its predictions, AdAge says that "Analytics will be hot - and expensive".  It further says that "as more marketers laser in on return on investments, expect the value of firms such as Web Trends, CoreMetrics, and Omniture... to rise".

Which to me is interesting.

Is 2008 the year when clients are actually going to wake up to the reality and the importance of analytics in their marketing campaigns?

I do hope so.

AdAge is also saying that "tech companies, ad agencies, and ad networks are all coming together".  I think it is inevitable as I have mentioned in my earlier blog entries (and in a presentation I made to my former agency's leadership team).  I think that 2008 will indeed be that year - BUT I don't think that it will be something that ad agencies will initiate:  they are well too protective of their "creative departments" and "strategic planning" departments and disciplines.  I think that it will be tech companies who will lead this. 

The possible acquirers?  Microsoft, Google, Yahoo (if they finally get their act together.)  Their targets?  IPG, Havas, and a slew of other smaller ad companies with respectable global networks (or at least, significant presence in Asia).

What else is there in 2008?  Size will still matter - WPP is thought by AdAge to continue its dominance in terms of heft, market cap, and revenues.  It is also potentially going to be gobbling up more companies in the upcoming year.  Will other holding companies following suit?  I think Publicis will - and Omnicom.

What's missing in the predictions of AdAge though is the emergence of Southeast Asia and India.  I think that the attention that has been given China (which will continue well into 2008 because of the Olympics) is too much. I believe that Southeast Asia - with its growing economies, such as Vietnam's and Malaysia's, and stable business environment (as in Singapore) - will figure prominently in 2008.  The markets in Southeast Asia and that of India have been growing steadily - and are being overshadowed by the continued spotlight on China.

Randomness, Causation, and Analytics: Confusion...

This is from one of my favorite websites, Data Mining and Predictive Analytics: Random things...  The writer writes about randomness - and two of the books that I have read, Nassim Nicholas Taleb's "Fooled by Randomness" and "The Black Swan".  Here's a snippet:

I personally don't agree philosophically with the role of randomness. (I would prefer to say that many outcomes are unexplained then say randomness is the "reason" or "cause"--randomness does nothing itself, it is our way of saying "I don't know why" or "it is too hard to figure out why").

The writer also suggests some ways around it:

The solution? One great help in overcoming these problems is through sampling--the train/test/validate subset method, or by resampling methods (like bootstrapping). But having the mindset of skepticism about models helps tremendously in digging to ensure the models truly are predictive and not just a random matching of the patterns of interest.

To which I agree.

There must be some explanation for things that are happening around us.  There are "black swans" that are very unlikely to happen, but when they happen, result to catastrophic results.  But these, too, could be managed if one were to expand his/her horizons and be truly duly-diligent (and well, border on paranoia).

However, there is something that is confusing me a bit:  Is it really possible for us to predict with absolute certainty that we can predict the future?  Is it really possible for us to measure every single thing - and thereby explain every single thing that we encounter in the "real world"?

A part of me wants to say "yes".  Yet still, a part of me wants to say "no".

There are a lot of techniques out there that can minimize projections and come up with models that could even model these errors and the likelihood of these errors.  But are we ever really going to be certain?  Are we ever going to be absolutely certain?

An Integrated Digital Brand Experience

With all the things that are happening in the Southeast Asian landscape in terms of digital/online explosion, there is a need to start thinking differently about how digital campaigns are designed.  It is time to build integrated brand campaigns on the internet and other digital media.

We have come way beyond banners, text links, buttons, floating icons, e-DMs, Click-through's, and other "traditional" web-advertising tactics.  The time has come for us to start thinking - seriously - about creating integrated brand experiences for our target consumers across all digital media - not just the desktop but in every single digital medium that consumers are in contact with.

Integrated communications is not a new thing.  A lot of companies have pushed themselves hard to achieve 'integrated communications' propositions to their clients.  New processes and thinking, measurements and metrics, and roles and responsibilities have been established - and branded - by agencies.

Not everyone succeeded - there are a few who have, but some are yet to come to terms with the new demands of integrated communications planning and implementation.

Whilst the response to integrated communications planning is yet to be perfected, there is a new challenge coming in - and that is the challenge of integrating different vehicles within the same medium into one fulfilling, differentiating, and profitable experience for consumers.

Integration of communications channels should go beyond "making sure that the TVC is aligned with the radio commercial and the print ad and the events and the banners online".  The integration of communications should now start looking at in-medium activities.

Specifically for the digital medium.

The digital medium is more than just a medium  - it is a platform for audiences, for content-providers, for advertisers.  And it has be seen as a "medium-as-platform" as well.  Whilst there may have been limited opportunities in integrating the experiences of consumers across different vehicles within TV, for example, or radio stations (beyond the similarities in print ads and messages), the digital medium-as-platform allows advertisers to integrate more successfully across all things digital.

The challenge now is not so much to reach as many eyeballs as possible, as frequently as possible - but to ensure that whilst the consumer is online on whatever gadget she uses to access the digital world, she experiences your brand the way you want her to experience it:  unique, differentiating, empowering, inspiring - and ultimately, profitable for her and for your brand's business.

and they still don't get it, do they?

From Advertisers Befuddled By Internet, Prefer Cluelessness of TV of the Silicon Valley Insider

Disney's Steve Wadsworth, head of the Internet division, summarizes:

"This industry looks like it can't get out of its own way...We need measurement of the audience and their use of the system that's clear, simple and actionable for a marketer. You need comparability with other media."

So THAT's the problem. That's why Google grew its US ad revenue 46% in Q3 and the aggregate revenue of 18 traditional media companies grew 1%--because Internet media companies can't make it simple.

.., Internet advertising is blowing the doors off, and the reason is that Internet measurement systems are NOT simple and vapid like those in TV and print advertising. Thankfully, the Internet is NOT comparable to these finger-in-the-wind advertising media--and never will be.

Could Internet advertising be made simpler and even more precise? Of course. But it is traditional media that need to get "comparability" with the Internet, not the other way around.

I couldn't agree more.

I recall those days when we were trying very, very hard to measure the audiences of internet as a medium - using concepts such as GRPs, Reach and Frequency, and "effective frequency".  When I started working on such projects, there was a knot - inexplainable know - in my gut:  There seems to be something wrong with this.

I raised it to those who were "experts" in the company suggesting that there was something innately wrong in measuring exposures on the internet (if one can even call them just "mere exposures") as one would measure, say, TV or radio exposures.  At that point in time, we couldn't even agree how to measure outdoor ads in the same way that we were measuring TV ads.

Then the internet - with its far richer, far more complicated, far more complex interactions with the audiences?

My point back then - and still is now:  You can't retrofit the internet back to standards that we've used for other media - because it is entirely different.  It demands a new measure.  And if that measure - whatever that is that encompasses the dimensionality of the internet - is arrived at, then we work it back to TV.

I was told I was too academic - and "well, if it works in the US, it should work in Asia".

Besides, "we just need a number - and CPM should cut it".

Oh well.

The End of Amateur Videos on the Internet?

Amateur videos - which populate the likes of YouTube - are said to be dwindling in terms of its appeal amongst audiences.  In this article from the BusinessWeek, Web Video: Move Over, Amateurs, it highlights that more and more audiences are turning to professionally produced videos that entertain and inform.

Amateur filmmakers hoping to win fame for amusing moments captured on camcorder ought to stick to TV's long-running America's Funniest Home Videos. These days they're not getting much love on the Web.

One after another, online video sites that have long showcased such fare as skateboarding dogs and beer-drenched parties are scaling back their focus on user-generated clips, often in favor of professionally produced programming. "People would rather watch content that has production value than watch their neighbors in the garage," says Matt Sanchez, co-founder and chief executive of VideoEgg, a company that provides Web video tools, ads, and advertising features for online video providers and Web application developers.

This opens up a lot of opportunities for the content-producers - given that demand is already increasing for professionally-produced video content online, there must be a way to monetize this and allow these producers to make some money.

This also opens up a lot of opportunities for advertisers.  Some advertisers have started experimenting with advertiser-funded programming, branded content, and in-program exposures and script integration - at very high costs.

However, the emergence of this trend - this demand for better, higher-quality content on the PC screen is set to change that.

From my experience, the two key barriers (aside from brand marketing teams not getting "it") when it comes to branded content are (1) high production costs and (2) high-airtime costs (or at least, low returns on production costs).

With this new trend emerging, it would be interesting to see how advertisers - and their partner-agencies - will take on this new trend.

It would also be interesting to note how exactly the likes of YouTube will capitalize on this emerging trend.

What would it take for a company to break into this?

1. Great content.  There is a need to deeply understand what exactly the tastes are of consumers - and how these tastes are evolving across time.  Great content that consumers will want to check out again and again and again.
   (In fairness, YouTube has got some great content - I remember the God, Inc. series eons ago.)
2. Synergies with existing marketing properties.  Like branded content, script alignment/integration, and product placements, this 'new' channel needs to be integrated with the rest of the campaign.  It cannot - and will not - stand on its own unless it is fully supported or integrated into a bigger marketing communications campaign.
3. Synergies with the brand's message and core positioning.  This would have been a 'duh' - but as I have learned today, 'duh's' and obvious things are not necessarily that obvious that they really get the attention they well-deserved.
   Advertisers seem to be getting this as a follow-up article on BusinessWeek says.  Their biggest worry is "about being unwittingly associated with images that make their brands look bad".  Although I personally think it is more than that, to be honest.  I think the biggest worry really is all about misrepresenting the brand in an environment that is not conducive to the brand's message.
4. Measurements, measurements, measurements. I believe that the advent of advertiser-funded programming on digital video will also usher in new challenges in the area of measurements.  At the end of the day, brands are in the business of selling.  Sure, we want to change people's hearts and perceptions and beliefs about certain brands.  But ultimately, we want them to take action - and take it a little further.
   How do you measure the effectiveness of digital video?  Should it be measured as you would measure TV?  How about series of ads that build on a certain story-angle?
   Not only will measurement matter after the campaign. (I am pretty sure companies will find a way to measure that). 
   But forecasting which kinds of videos will make it big and which ones won't will be critical in the decision-making process and in the allocation of finite marketing resources.

All these need to be considered and answered as we face this new-ish challenge.  It's taken a bit of time to come - but it was inevitable.

Users will still want to see some videos generated by other users - but where marketeers and content-producers will make money on will be critical.

integrate to succeed in the marketing world? Yes... but...

I came across this entry entitle Only those who integrate will succeed from the site EditorsWeblog.Org:

Arianna Huffington, co-founder and editor in chief of The Huffington Post talks about the future of digital media, saying, “The only agency people who’ll succeed are those who fully integrate.”

[For so many years now, agencies have tried different models of integrating themselves into one big, synergistic communications solution company. McCann WorldGroup has tried to integrate the whole of its communications planning and specialists brands into one big offering to clients.  I am sure all other companies are doing the same thing.  But has anybody truly succeeded?  I think the statement is incomplete:  The only agency people who will succeed are those who fully integrate - not just the communications that consumers encounter and experience from the different brands that are trying to catch their fancy.  The only agency people who will succeed are tho who fully embrace integration - a true integration that affects not just the end-result (if it ever comes to that) as shown and delivered to the client and to the client's target consumers, but also the business model, the business processes, the communication lines amongst various stakeholders.]

She also expressed her thoughts on the "next big thing on the internet," which she said is disconnecting. This was more of a lifestyle comment, as she followed by saying our society is “overloaded” and sleep deprived, and lives are not being well nourished by the digital age.

[I don't think this is more than just a "lifestyle" comment but a significant observation.  The question that we should be asking ourselves now is "are we too hyperconnected?"  Broadband, 3G, Wi-Fi, WLANs and all other emergent technologies and services on the internet have resulted to significant changes in our lifestyles - and in consumers' lifestyles.  Are we too hyperconnected?  Are we too connected that we are forsaking our privacy, that we are ready to sacrifice a little bit - or a significant proportion - of our privacy to remain connected?]

[I think it's more than just being overloaded and being sleep deprived - and our lives not being well-nourished by the digital age.  It's more than just that - it's a totally different world out there!]

[Just look at Facebook and how it is changing the way we communicate - and the way we share information.  Just look at LinkedIn and how it is changing the way we establish our credentials online.  Just look at Squidoo.Com and how it is changing the way we create a name for ourselves and sell our expertise - for personal gain or otherwise.]

[Last point:  I think the agencies that will truly survive in the new age are those who do not pay mere lip-service to the idea of integration, passion, commitment, self-belief, collaboration, innovation, and interdependence.  The agencies that will truly survive in the new age are those who are not scared to listen to small voice from Asia - those who are at the frontlines of their wars - those who manage knowledge - those who are not scared to gather the geniuses that reside in their companies - those who are not scared to be challenged and nurture devil's advocates within their companies.  The agencies that will truly survive in the new age are those who are truly passionate about what they stand for - and not just are paying lip-service to catchphrases and not delivering anything beyond noughts and crosses on media plans and hackneyed, clicheic views of the digital world.]

Big ideas and ad agencies

When I was working in an ad agency as a media person, the Creative Director, the Strategic Planning Director, and the Business Director were the stewards of the big idea - we (the media people who get briefed at the last minute to come up with a media plan in 24hours with a budget of 1Mln USD to deliver 1'400GRPs on TV, 2'000GRPs in Radio, and the rest on some highfalutin print title that the Marketing Director reads every single month) were supposedly the 'dirty workers' who will bring this idea to life.

And we had to do it in 24 hours.

In Seth's Meatball Mondae 11 he writes how big ideas are changing and how big ideas are no longer just the remit of the advertising people.

Big ideas in advertising worked great when advertising was in charge. With a limited amount of spectrum and a lot of hungry consumers, the stage was set to put on a show. And the better the show, the bigger the punchline, the more profit could be made.

Today, the advertiser’s big idea doesn’t travel very well. Instead, the idea must be embedded into the experience of the product itself. Once again, what we used to think of as advertising or marketing is pushed deeper into the organization. Let the brilliant ad guys hang out with your R&D team and watch what happens.

Yes, there are big ideas. They’re just not advertising-based.

Totally agree.  Now if only we can get the advertising guys to believe in this and totally take this to heart.  I wrote about the views of the CEO of some big companies about how media agencies cannot - "in a lifetime" - connect with consumers.

I think they ought to read this - more than ever.

Engagement: It's not yet clear...

It is still unclear and debatable - what exactly is engagement?  We know it is supposed to be bigger than rating points and mere exposure or hits.  We know there is an added dimension to it - or more.  We know that it goes beyond mere attention - which audiences are surely lacking these days if we defined it as purely '100% watching tv or reading presses and doing nothing else'.  We know there is an element of 'lingering' in it.  But what is it really?

And if we had defined it - hopefully soon - what would we use it for?  Will it be a new metric?  A new currency?  A new standard?

Will media agencies use it more than creative agencies?  Will vendors use it as their benchmark?  Does it aid in content- and other programming-related decisions?  Will it be able to predict sales?  Will it drive loyalty?  Will it drive connections?  How do we define connections?  Will the brand need to engage or will the medium or the message need to engage?

Questions.

I love them.

Of clients and measurements

One thing that agencies and media vendors have to realize is tthat not all clients are created equal.  Some clients are far ahead of the crowd in terms of sophisticationg and in looking at their marketing departments as business-drivers and demand creators.  A lot still are stuck with traditional mode of thinking.

The question about ROI and accountability needs to be tailored to each client's needs.  True, we can take it upon ourselves - agency people and media space sellers - to educate the client.  But until the CEO buys into the philosophy that 'marketing is not a cost centre and not just a department but a mindset that should pervade throughout the company', nothing much can be done.

Agencies can spend all their money - and willpower - in shifting perceptions.  And adspace sellers can justify their product to the best of their ability.  But the fundamental issue remains: Clients are not changing as fast as we want them to.

I wonder what it will take for marketeers (or so-called 'marketeers') to shift and change their minds.

Are they finally seeing the light?

Picked this up whilst surfing for some news -

Universal McCann has been invited to join agency industry trade body the Marketing Communications Consultants Association (MCCA). It marks the first time a media planning and buying agency has been selected for membership.

The body, which promotes itself as representing "forward-thinking" agencies, has a remit which covers sales promotion, experiential and direct marketing.

Universal McCann says it is joining the association as part of its new integrated structure and "Next Thing Now" proposition. The agency has about 3,000 employees in over 200 countries around the world.

The best news I have read so far this week.  Finally, UM seems to be seeing the light.

The funny thing is, I am no longer a part of UM after having helped build the UM Consulting proposition in Singapore - and having been "suspended in mid-air" with regard to where Consulting is supposed to be headed in the near-, mid- and long-term.

Well.

I guess one cannot have it all.  I can only rest assured that perhaps - just perhaps - my voice was heard in the ruckus and the chaos.

To UM and to UM|C - all the best.

(Yes.  This is a self-centric blog entry.  I am only being honest.  And true.)

 

Technorati Tags: Universal McCann, UM, Next Thing Now, Consultancy, Marketing ROI, Returns on Investments, Analytics, Communications Planning, Strategic Planning