marginally subversive

Universal McCann's wave 3: Tech-empowered Connections...

Universal Mccann International Social Media Research Wave 3

View SlideShare presentation or Upload your own. (tags: socialmedia research)

Google + Digg = ???

I had a bit of a discussion with our digital lead in the office about Google and Digg.  As of early last week,  talks are probably making some headway.  TechCrunch had even had a stronger 'pronouncement' that the talks are in the final stages with Google paying 200Mln USD (only?) for the deal.  Of course, Digg had to respond to such talks.  Its CEO, Jay Adelson, denied that these talks are in place.

As of the latest news, there seems to have been a breakdown in the negotiations.  Google, apparently, walked away from the deal, according to TechCrunch.

What's driven Google to this?  Well, we can only speculate.  But this perhaps could give us a glimpse:  It seems that Google is experimenting with integrating user-votes into their algorithms to further refine the search results that the search engine churns for its users.

This entry from TechCrunch demonstrates how some early tests that Google has been conducted in the area of "social/user-votes-integration" into search results.

All these are of interest to me as a campaign planner - and for marketeers.

First, the idea of integrating a social-dimension to search results is probably a good idea from the end-user perspective.  Right now, Google's PageRank and other technologies (Microsoft's Browserank, which debuted on SEOBook.Com) are dependent on "referral links". 

(Microsoft's BrowseRank looks at user's behavior and the time spent per 'referring link' to ascertain the importance of the 'target link'; OK - that's putting it simplistically...)

Adding on a social component to search results is essentially "sourcing the wisdom of the crowds" - crowds, who I should add would be or are going to be very likely to be interested in the same things that any individual user is looking for.

The technologies of referring links (and other metrics gathered through sophisticated algorithms based on web-crawlers and others) will have an added, truly-interactive dimension - which means that with this, users get to have a say on what's relevant and what's not.

Will it lead to better results?  I am no algorithm expert - but I would think so.  If I were searching for "Ducati motorcycles" (which I have been doing for the past 2 weeks), I would want to have more relevant information on Ducati - way beyond what the corporate website of Ducati says (which always comes up tops on the list).  And right now, I will have to follow every single link that the Google search results page spews out.

With this added dimension of "vote-ups/downs" from other end-users who may have searched the same keywords as I have done, it might just make my life a little easier.  The ones that were voted up by people who did the same search earlier than I did would most likely be relevant to me, too.  It may not be perfect - but at least it is a starting point.

The end-user, I think, will benefit from this greatly.  She may lose out on a few interesting websites - but even then, she can vote-up/down on her own volition results which she may have found to be relevant to her search.

On the other hand, there are questions on "search results manipulation".  If we had incidents of "click-fraud" in the CPC model - then we'll have to live with (or at least get Google to put a lid on) fraudsters who will be exploiting the possibility of artificially bumping up/down ratings.

On a cost-basis (which in these troubled times are beginning - or are becoming a more frequent point of discussion in marketing meetings - traditional or digital), costs per click or costs per acquisition are probably going to increase.

The results no longer are just dependent on Google's algorithms - with the social dimension of the search results, the crowd contributes.  Essentially, people who have done similar searches as I am now doing, for exaple, will have already paved the way for me to the most relevant results - which could potentially be relevant to me, too!

Now, isn't that more valuable than pure, algorithm-derived search results?  If I were google, I would do the same thing.  I would put a premium to this - whilst controlling the possibility of fraudulent vote-ups/downs.

Bottom-line:  Google is living up to its vision - "to oganize the world's information".  And if and when this incorporation of the social dimension comes through, it would have been a step closer to realizing that vision.

For now, Google + Digg is probably not going to pull through.  But it seems, Google has got its head around the issue.  And it seems that they are on the right track.

Making Sense of Location-/People-Tracking Data

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blogged with the Flock Browser

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blogged with the Flock Browser

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

Does God play dice?

Einstein said that "God does not play dice".  But perhaps, Fate does?

I have been trying to understand the concept and the philosophy of probability - and whilst I am getting glimmers and glances into the it (and sometimes, I am getting some probable - hmmm - nuggets of wisdom from my readings), I still don't think I get it fully.

Some would probably say, isn't that a bit too odd to study?  Or perhaps, argue that "it's too academic - of what use will it be in your work?"

The truth is, I happen to believe that probability - and its related themes: randomization, the search for truth, measurements, errors, risks - are all interesting - and important - stuff that have wide applications.

When one goes to a doctor and presents his symptoms, the doctor actually makes educated guesses based on her experience - which we hope would be deep - and her knowledge - which we hope would be sufficient and inclusive of the latest technologies and advancements.  Her prescriptions are based on educated guesses - and that's why there's almost always that advice to "see me 7 days from now if it doesn't improve".

It gives the doctor - and the patient - the chance to "course-correct".

I think at any given time, we are presented with information.  Whether those information are perfect or imperfect, complete or incomplete, is immaterial: what we do with those data points and how we scrutinize them in search for nugget of deeper information, insight, knowledge, wisdom - or mere alternate views is what's more critical.

In due time, more information will come in.  And that is the time we take corrective action.

This is from _mpd_, from this site.  _mpd_ called this "Einstein was wrong".

** And now here comes my diatribe or my discourse on media planning...

One of the missing tools that we have on media planning is risk management - and the basic understanding of measurements.  We take Nielsen's or TNS' ratings figures at face value.  We assume that the last 13 weeks - and the average of those last 13 weeks - would be a good indicator of the future performance of any certain program.  Why 13?  Well, because it's always been the case.

We do not take into consideration the variation of the numbers.  And the probability of these averages and estimates happening again in the next week, in the week after next, 3 weeks from now, 4 weeks from now.  We don't create enough scenarios.  We don't apply strict- and rigorous-enough portfolio management principles to media plans.

And let's not get into the "validity" issues:  are we measuring program ratings or title ratings, or specific ad/timing- and pagination-rating?

All these need to be taken into account in media planning - and in the calculations of other metrics.

We also do not take enough corrective action.  In Singapore (as far as I know and I could be wrong), overnight ratings are not available - data are delivered 48hours/2days (I think - I have been too removed from the buying field).  I think overnights would have been ideal - but 2days are still enough to take corrective action against the benchmarks and goals that we have.

Once the plan has been signed and booked and logged into the system, it seems, there is little that one does on the media plan - to take corrective action.

(OK.  It just doesn't happen in media planning.  It also happens in promotions planning.  I have encountered clients who wanted to increase their media investments - "go for more GRPs!" - if the promo doesn't take off.  Sure - there is corrective action, but rather, it is a questionable corrective action.)

There just isn't enough thought put into media plans - and promo plans - and marketing plans.  There just isn't enough risk management, scenario planning, decision-making disciplines that get into marketing planning.

As the market for consumer goods and services soften in the US - and potentially in other regions - we need to be more aware of the investments - and the associated risks (and probabilities).  We owe it to those paying the bills - nope, not the brand managers - the shareholders.

Risk in Media Planning

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

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

Which is quite surprising.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a description of the file.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advice to Advertisers and Ad Agencies

Thanks to Seth Godin for the inspiration.

***

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

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

Yes.  Quit.

Now.  Quit now.

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

Quit.  Now.

Why?

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

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

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

So we now have to quit.

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

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

What makes a social networking campaign effective...

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

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

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

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

I would call this a successful - hmm - campaign.

"Marketing as a Service"

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

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

Which I thought were neat ideas.

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

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

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

Marketing as a service.

Marketing as a way to help people decide.

What a neat idea.

Photo Source is from here - from Ze Eduardo

Marketing Analytics...

 

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

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

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

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

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

Questions and Answers

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

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

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

What should media agencies do?

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

What kinds of data do they have?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is it because we lack the intellectual capacity?

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

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

Is it then a matter of will?

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

So what are you proposing?

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

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

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

What of content?

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

I think differently.

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

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

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

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

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

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

But isn't advertising all about selling?

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

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

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

Will it be a panacea?

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

Doesn't it already exist in the digital world?

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

So what should media companies do?

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

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

 

The Stumbling Block in Digital Communications Planning in Southeast Asia

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would argue that it isn't.

We still need the discipline.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Do I sleep with my phone? No.

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

As a matter of fact, I do.

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

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

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

But they do sleep beside me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's an orgy of technology before I sleep.

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

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.

Dumbing it down is making it boring...

I just wrote about boredom in a previous entry.  And right after I hit "publish" on my Windows Live Writer, my RSS reader told me that Seth Godin just wrote something about "dumbing it down".

He writes about pandering to the masses and dumbing things down - and argues that hey, give me smart customers anytime because they are far more profitable, far more energetic, far more engaged.

Why?

The thing is, when you dumb stuff down, you know what you get?

Dumb customers.

And (I'm generalizing here) dumb customers don't spend as much, don't talk as much, don't blog as much, don't vote as much and don't evangelize as much. In other words, they're the worst ones to end up with.

I honestly don't think there dumb customers (and I believe that Seth Godin is being sarcastic...)  Ogilvy said that "the consumer is not a moron; she is your wife".

I have sat down in so many client-agency meetings where clients go "That's too sophisticated for our customers; they wouldn't understand that" or "It's nice and witty - but won't it be too witty to our consumers" or "Just tell them the specifications of our products - that we have GB of storage that could store X thousands of songs and videos" or "just plaster the brand logo there - and we'd be fine".

In other words, "dumb it down because consumers don't understand it".

This runs counter to my belief that we are overly underestimating our customers and our target consumers.  If they were "dumb", then we wouldn't have all these things called FaceBook, Wikipedia, and other tech wonders that were dependent on these "dumb" customers.

Simplify it, yes.  But don't dumb it down.  That's what I would say.  Simplifying it is not necessarily dumbing it down.  Simplifying it is all about making things intuitive, for example, in a computer software. 

(And this is why I like XLSTAT and XLMINER - they're advanced stats software but they're not assuming I am dumb; they just made how I use their software easier and faster.)

Anyway, the same is true with people:  Don't dumb people down.  When you explain things to your subordinates or your peers, don't dumb it down.  Simplify it.  But don't dumb it down.

Here's Seth's Blog on Dumbing down.

Boredom

I have been trying to deal with boredom in the past couple of weeks.  I guess it's a remnant of the holidays, when things slowed down significantly.  If there is something more behind it, I am not sure.  Things are not what they seem to be these days.  (And I am always on my guard; it's tiring, believe me, but it comes with the territory.)

I guess I am blessed (or cursed?) with an active mind.  I can't count how many ideas and thoughts for work questions and problems whilst showering in the morning, whilst doing my laps on the pool or simply watching cartoons on TV.

Yesterday, I told my smoking cessation therapist (yeah, there is such a thing - and I am pretty successful so far) that I always hated it when I was bored that's why I can't seem to relax.

And his response struck me:  "It's understandable.  An idle mind is the devil's playground.  Boredom is the devil's best friend, you see."

I agreed.

The worst decisions I have made were made out of boredom - and the resulting impatience.

Well.

There is something about boredom marketeers should consider.  Ogilvy summed it all up elegantly (as always):  "You can't bore your consumers to buying your product". (Or something like that).

One can only excite them.

And if your message is boring, nothing new, not visionary enough, not relevant enough, then they won't move - they won't shift.

It is the same with employees and employers:  Look at the most productive people, the most innovative people, the most involved people in your company.  They are the ones who are not bored - they are excited about things that they are doing.  They are not just doing it for the sake of doing it.

The challenge is to get them excited and engaged and involved.

With regard to my boredom, I will not succumb to it.  I will always f