Measurements
27 August 2008
It's all about the experience...
I stumbled upon this interesting slide show on content marketing - at least that's how it was labeled on SlideShow.Com. However, I think that it does cover more than just content marketing as a discipline. It covers a far bigger, far richer view of the consumers' experience-sphere - and how brands can make/unmake their positions within this circle.
It's all about enhancing consumers' experiences of brands - that's the raison d'etre of media, channel, and messaging experts. It's not about buying a TV ad or a print ad or a banner ad in some number 1 portal somewhere. It's not about buying search keywords and optimizing them to the hilt.
It's about enhancing consumers' experiences of brands.
And I honestly think that content marketing - what used to be called (or is it still called?) "branded content and sponsorships" (though I think it's far more than that) - is one pillar that is currently underutilized in the media planning industry.
A lot of clients that I have spoken to about this have just one reply: "We are not a publishing company". To which I say, "... but the mere fact that you are creating ads, buying media to send those messages into the market, and getting PR people and CRM writers to create campaigns - contents, essentially - don't these make you a publishing company?"
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.")
22 June 2008
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?
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
13 June 2008
"S-Curves"
I cannot remember where I read this statement: "When looking out for trends, watch out for the big and the small S-curves". However, I have been studying S-curves for quite sometime now. I have used it in projecting how technologies could emerge.
When 3G mobile handsets were emerging in Singapore - and there were some data on the first six months of 3G handsets' penetration from the IDA - I tried my hand on modeling how the eventual penetration of 3G handsets were going to be. I was asked by a journalist from one of the leading newspapers when I thought it would hit critical mass - and I said "in the next 3-6 months".
She guffawed and didn't believe me.
(I checked back a few months after that conversation in 2005 [or was that 2006] - I was right. It's just that, ownership of a 3G-enabled handset didn't necessarily mean usage of 3G technologies. That's for another day.)
When I was also trying to look at the penetration of new technologies - such as social-networking sites in some of the countries in the Southeast - I managed to fit them in an S-curve.
During a conversation with a potential employer, I blurted out that "I loved S-curves!" Well, that's probably an exaggeration - but I find it to be very useful.
S-curves, I think, are very helpful. It describes social and tech phenomena quite nicely - for example, how rumors, epidemics, new technology, and new ideas spread have been modeled using S-curves. The proverbial "last straw that broke the camel's back", "tipping point", and "critical mass" can also be thought of as the inflection point of the S-curve.
There are a number of S-curves that I know of. Most are quite complicated. The logistic/sigmoid function is one of them - very powerful, very interesting, and very useful specially if one is working with individual level data.
One of the S-curves that I found really interesting is Frank Bass' Diffusion Curves. It uses 3 parameters:
- The maximum capacity, which in the case of "penetration" figures, would be 100.
- The Coefficient of Innovation
- The Coefficient of Imitation
I typically explain the Coefficient of Innovation as the innate power of a new technology (or product/service) to generate a following amongst the target population. It's the innate or initial momentum that the technology (for example, Google's search engines back in the early 2000s) to be used by others.
The Coefficient of Imitation is the impact of others using the same technology. It could be in the form of "perceived peer pressure" - a person's circle of friends upgrading to a 3G-enabled handset and therefore influencing that person to upgrade as well. It could be in the form of word-of-mouth or endorsements.
The diffusion curves of Bass, I think, explains a lot - and does so elegantly and simply. (Of course, there's more to the model than just mere projections and S-curves.)
Anyway, I have set up a spreadsheet called SCurves.Xls that would help in estimating S-curves given at least three data points (in percentage) using the diffusion curves of Frank Bass.
These data points may or may not be continuous or complete. For example, you may have data for Year-1, Year-5, and Year-10 - this simple spreadsheet should still work. Of course, the more data you have, the better.
(And if you have sufficient data, then reserve about 20% of these data as "counterchecks" or "validation data".)
You should have Excel's SOLVER Add-In enabled, though, for it to work. (If you want the unlocked file, let me know by leaving a comment and I'll send it through to you by email. You'd be surprised how simple it is.)
I cannot guarantee that the spreadsheet would work in all versions of Excel. I have only one version at home (Office 2000 for XP). I also cannot guarantee that there are no viruses. I have pretty much a good antivirus in my system - but I could be wrong - so if you don't trust me enough, don't download it.
Below is a screenshot of the outputs: It shows the Innovation and the Imitation Coefficients, the projected % at time, t, (which could be years, months, days, hours...), and a ghastly chart. The chart is 'unlocked' and therefore, you can change and beautify it.
You enter your data in the yellow region. In the file, there are 7 hypothetical data points entered. These were not "continuous data" points. But they seem to be working.
Try it out and let me know if it works. If it doesn't, let me know, too.
05 June 2008
marginally subversive thought of the day
People don't care about the technologies that they are using - they care about the brands that these technologies are powering.
The brand promises - and engenders hope; the technology delivers. If the technology does not deliver, the brand gets spanked. If the brand does not deliver, the technology - no matter how good it is or how superior it is against its competition - won't survive.
Think MSN's Live Search - or better yet, Yahoo Search versus Google Search. We can safely assume that all three are 'good' search engines - with the backing of great software engineers, academicians, algorithm designers, and specialists. But why does Google dominate? How did "Google it" become an intelligible sentence? How did "Google" become a verb?
Or Creative Technology's ZEN products versus Apple's iPod.
Or Dell versus Sony Vaio versus HP versus Gateway versus Asus?
The brand creates the promise - that the technology behidn the brand does and will deliver. The brand opens the door for technology to do its work. If the technology behind the brand sucks, the brand suffers.
But it is the brand that starts it all. And to paraphrase my former professor in Cognitive Psych would have said: No brand, never mind.
25 May 2008
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.
04 April 2008
"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
03 April 2008
It's that time again...
To dust off that presentation that says "When in a recession, do not stop advertising".
When I was working in an ad-agency a few eons ago, somebody would always come up with reasons on why stopping advertising during a recession - or "challenging times" - would be detrimental to the brand. The slew of charts that showed brands that did not stop advertising during a recession tended to be recalled more, bougt more, and bucked the trend would be flying (digitally) aboutin the office. I was tasked - once - to "localize" the presentation and present it to a host of clients.
(I think I vaguely recall making the analogy that "the Chinese character for danger is the same as opportunity" - I am not sure now if that indeed is the case. In spite of years of attempts, I cannot - for the life of me - read Chinese characters.)
I was amongst those usual suspects.
But I guess, this time around, I would do something else: I wouls say, "if there is no reason for you to advertise and continue advertising, then don't - and don't let anybody tell you otherwise".
Why?
Simple: There is no single rule that holds across all kinds of brands and categories. Just because Brand A suvived the downtrend "because they advertised" doesn't mean another brand will fare similarly - even if they had the same message, even if they had the same media plan, even if they had the same marketing considerations.
I am going to go out on a limb here and say that it is the culture of tenacity that pervades throughout the organization - marketing, sales, operations, supply chain, procurement, talent management, etc. - that determines whether a brand or a company survives the economic slowdown.
Not advertising - its presence or its absence.
My suggestion to those who are being lured and tempted to advertise because "the great big, brands - according to my agency - survived the last recession by advertising": Take a look at you own history.
How did your brand - and your company - survive the last slowdown? Look at all the shallow - and the deep - metrics. Don't stop at awareness or image - look at sales.
Determine what the other departments did - what did the Sales team do? How did the Sales Director feel and reacted to the gloom and doom? What did the sales managers - the frontliners - notice amongst customers and how did they respond? What were the results of their response?
If you can, quantify the impact of each of the actions done by each of the business stakeholders. Sure, it will be hard work - but that's marketing - it is hard work making decisions.
Create scenarios. In the same way that financial strategists have buy/sell limits, set your own by creating scenarios. There is such a thing as "short-term advertising effects" which could guide you. If you keep on advertising, and well, recall stays the same, but sales are not picking up - then decide: is this a scenario that demands pulling out of advertising? Or should you pump in more?
I believe that saying - and believing - that "advertising during a recession is the best way to keep your business growing" is irresponsible.
Businesses are systems - and marketing, and definitely advertising, are one part of that system. And it is the entire system that will determine the probability of a company weathering a downturn.
Not advertising.
10 February 2008
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.
05 February 2008
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.
29 January 2008
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?
28 January 2008
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.
23 December 2007
Web Metrics Demystified | Occam's Razor by Avinash Kaushik
One of the few blogs that I actually follow and read is this site, called Occam's Razor by Avinash Kaushik. In one of his latest posts, he talks about Web Analytics and Web Metrics, two things that I am very interested in.
I truly admire people who can make complex things easy to understand and this site wins my admiration.
17 December 2007
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.
10 December 2007
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?
- 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.) - 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.
- 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. - 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.
05 December 2007
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.
28 November 2007
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.
13 October 2007
From the Age of Information to the Age of Info- and Intelligence-Management and Deployment
Seth Godin in his blog says that:
For now, the data is far far ahead of the tools.
Which started to make me think: Is it the same for marketing communications companies? Is it the same for marketing departments and clients? Is it the same for businesses?
My stint in a consultancy role has given me a lot of access to different information sets - from primary research that I have personally designed or my team has steered, from robust secondary data sources, from information- and knowledge-banks, from clients' own research databases - in the quest for knowledge.
I am of the belief that within marketing companies there resides a lot of information.
And it won't go away.
We've long talked about this age to be all about the age of information. I would agree to that. But I would go even further: The age of information