marginally subversive

the beauty of statistics…

… lies in its ability to provide us with frameworks and structures with which to see the world as it may be.

I am constantly barraged by questions on ‘goodness-of-fit’ measures.  People question models based on their adjusted r-squared’s, their AIC, their-D-W indicators and everything else that you can think about.  There are discussions that sometimes lead to frustrations from either the analysts’ part, the clients’, or the strategists’.

Everyone wants to be sure that the model is accurate.

That when 100 dollars are invested, indeed, there will be a return of 50%.

That when 200 dollars are invested, indeed, there will be 65% returns.

The thing is, every single model – regardless of how they were derived – are based on part observations.

And as far as I know, no one has seen the future.

There’s only one thing in my mind whenever I approach modeling projects (not the kind which involve photographers, human models, etc. – although I wouldn’t mind that kind of modeling project, too):  interpretation.

Can I explain the model?

Can the variables explain the movements?

Does the explanation hold?

Could it be the same in the future?

How can the model be wrong?

Are there alternative interpretations?

 

Here’s a wonderful quote from Andreas Buja:

A lot of people think that analytics – done by statisticians and econometricians – are all about creating models with ‘accuracies approaching 100%’.

I think analytics is all about interpretation that empowers others (and me) to more deeply understand, appreciate, and explore an idea.

After all, analytics people are still humans – and they have not seen the future.

does ROI still matter?

I had an interesting conversation on Twitter earlier with a friend of mine, Jon (who I should say is one of the brainiest guys I have ever met... and quick to learn!).  His questions were centered on ROI and whether it should be the only thing that mattered when one designs a campaign.

Now, I really wouldn't venture into getting into a debate with him - since he's a PhD in Marketing.  But I thought his questions were interesting.

Photo from heytherespaceman on Flickr

If we didn't measure ROI, then what's the point of spending?

We've always believed that marketing - like any other corporate funds - are investments.  They are being 'spent' to create value for the shareholder.  If a certain line on the corporate expenditure accounts didn't serve any purpose, then it shouldn't be there, right?  We might as well save it for something else.

Returns of marketing investments should therefore be measured.

But should ROI, then dictate the plan and its executions?

That's a deeper question, really - which brings us back to my previous post on whether communications and media planning were an art or a science.  My answer is, yes... but.

And it's a big but.

We have to clarify exactly what we mean by returns.  Are we talking about returns on investments in the form of savings and additional value?  Are we talking about returns in the form of being talked about in digital communities and vox-pops and forums?  Are we talking about returns in awareness and genuine affinity and likeability towards the brand?  Are we talking about products being purchased off the shelves?  Are we talking about users of the competitive-brands moving to ours?  Or our competitors falling in love more deeply with our brand?

Because ROI is on the verge of becoming another 'buzz-word' - like "engagement".

Everybody wants ROI.  But everybody has got a different view of what ROI is and should be.  And therefore should be clarified. 

Brand managers have their own ROIs - salary increments and perhaps, that promotion to AGM position.  CMOs have their own KPIs - perhaps, that golden parachute and more stock options or discounted stocks, and eventual accession to become the CEO.  CEOs have their own ROIs - stock prices, analyst ratings, and well, a positive disposition from the board.

Because ROI is 'bandied' around - and is almost always mentioned in every and any meeting between client ang agencies - it is bound to lose its meaning.

(An aside: When I was working on a fast-moving consumer good which shall go unnamed, their KPI measurement for their planning agency was "savings generated" - the same KPI for their buying agency because "that is ROI for all media investments"!)

So ROI - or ROMI or ROAI or iROI or iROMI or iROAI or ROMA or iROMA - needs be clear.

And every one needs to be aligned on what it is.

Lest it becomes another buzzword - "important but meaningless".

But ROI is only a number; how many ideas and campaigns have been killed because its ROI cannot be ensured because pretest scores are bad?

It is indeed only a number - but it is a number that should inspire, encourage, and motivate - not restrain and constrain.

We have this habit of looking at numbers as if they were a manifestation of God (with all due respect to physicists and mathematicians - and well, gnostics).  But I see numbers as guideposts.

People don't like the ad during the pretest?  Rather than dwell on the score, ask why.  What is it about it that makes it so... wrong?  Why is it unlikeable to this particular person?  Why is it unlikeable to this particular group?

Most pretests are run on groups and/or on people.  And usually in the form on unfinished TVCs.  Surely, they cannot appreciate the beauty of the idea in a rough form.  And the fact that you have convened them into a room (however natural, comfortable, open that room is...) have put them in a different mode altogether.

The more important thing about pretest scores is "Why is this not working on this paticular person or this particular group?"  Any self-respecting pre-test moderator would want to explore that!

Turning the question around: How many ideas and campaigns have been killed because they have not been tested and their ROI potentials unmeasured?

Which - I believe - is also a valid question: Just how many ideas, campaigns, thoughts, executions have been killed because they have not been invested into properly because they were not measured, they were not subjected to some form of indicative pretest?

It is again back to "numbers versus gut" - "art versus science".

So what now? 

In statistics and econometrics, we have a concept called the "error".  Whilst statisticians and econometricians think of the "error term" differently, the term is there in models to remind us - constantly - that we cannot ensnare every single thing with numbers.

In econometrics, "error terms" are sometimes called "innovations".  (Let's not get into the technical details for now...)

And that could exactly be that: we can derive all the numbers and formulas that we want, create stringent benchmarks and tests and questionnaires and surveys... but we will never really capture reality - the audiences' reality.

It doesn't mean the stats and the formulas are wrong: it's just that, well, it's incomplete.  And it can never be complete.

Because that's the nature of numbers.

ROI?  Yes.  Testing?  Yes.  Measuring post-campaign effects?  Yes.

But they are your tools - you're not theirs.

the mighty also falls

"How the Mighty Fall" the BusinessWeek

Collins outlines five stages of decline: Hubris Born of Success, Undisciplined Pursuit of More, Denial of Risk and Peril, Grasping for Salvation, Capitulation to Irrelevance or Death. He makes the point that great companies can fall "even if engaged in energetic and ambitious activity"...  (Emphasis mine)

This is from Jim Collins who wrote Good to Great and Built to Last (together with Jerry Porras).

It is quite interesting how it captures - in very simple terms and 'stages' - the history of some companies.

If I look at the financial industry, this could very well be the same trends that occurred.  The same is true of "idols".

This could very well be the same of brands.

From BusinessWeek.Com

Remaking (and remarketing) marketing...

Seth Godin wrote a very strong blog-entry on marketeers, aptly titled "Poisoning the Well".  Here's what he has got to say about marketeers:

Marketers have spammed, lied, deceived, cluttered and ripped us off for so long, we're sick of it.

Which means that even if you have a really good reason, no, you can't call me on the phone. Which means that even if it's really important, no, I'm not going to read the instructions. Which means that god forbid you try to email me something I didn't ask for... you're trashed. It's so fashionable to be skeptical now that no one believes you if you attempt to do something for the right reasons.

Selfish short-sighted marketers ruined it for all of us. The only way out, I think, is for a few marketers to so overwhelm the market with long-term, generous marketing that we have no choice but to start paying attention again.

I would say amen to that.

This morning, I opened my mailbox - and sellers of condominium units and properties in Singapore have decided to rename me as "The Resident".  Sorry.  I didn't even bother opening those up.  If you really want me to consider your offering, at least address me properly.  I am not "The Resident" - I am not "Mr. Resident".

A couple of days ago, I had a phone call from a card company - asking me if I wanted to get a new card with them.  The problem was, I already had a card with them.  And in case they haven't noticed, I am quite OK with their services since I use their card several times in a month.  The funng thing? As soon as the telemarketer heard that I already had a card, she just went "Ah, OK.  Thanks.  Goodbye".

Hello?

And spam: The trend these days is "text/SMS spamming".  From my bank.  From my phone service provider.  From my cable TV provider.  From the bookstore.  From the skincare brand that I tried for the sake of trying.  From some company whose services I don't even know.

OK.

These are indeed tough times.

But these marketeers - and their brand managers - need to understand that in these tough times, it is also a lot easier to piss your current clients off.

Image From Feureau on Flickr.Com - Thanks!

"I will Derive!"

OK. 

I must admit this made me laugh.

I am laboring through reviewing some formulas - sigmoid curves, Gompertz', and all that.  (Somehow, it landed on my to-do list.)

And I stumbled upon this music video on derivatives (not the financial kind - but the calculus kind).

And so I have got to share it to the rest of the world.

So here it goes.

(To all those who have had to suffer derivatives - first, second, and a few more [although I am not sure what for and why would you go beyond two?] - and the concept of limits... this should bring a barrage of good memories.  Or bad.)

Watch I Will Derive on CollegeHumor

blithe insouciance

My eyes are dry, I cannot cry,
    I’ve got no heart for breakin’,
But where it was in days gone by,
    A dull and empty achin’.
My last boy ran away from me,
    I know my temper’s wearin’,
But now I only wish to be
    Beyond all signs of carin’.
            Past wearyin’ or carin’,
            Past feelin’ and despairin’;
            And now I only wish to be
            Beyond all signs of carin’.

-- Henry Lawson, Past Carin’

All of us have got to come to a point of blithe insouciance, bordering on apathy – and go beyond that.  It’s like when one is so tired that one cannot even fall asleep for falling asleep in and of itself requires energy – and there simply is no more to expend.  So one lies in bed – staring at the ceiling, enveloped by the darkness, hoping that sleep will come on its own and soothe one’s soul, perchance recharged the next morning.

It is all bollocks, I believe.

One cannot go past caring – because in spite of everything and of one’s wanting to not care and just be blithely unaware and uncommitted, one remains.  It’s as if by swearing not to care, one is ensnared – yet again – to care.

We cannot go beyond past-caring.

We cannot go blithely insouciant.

We cannot go blithely, quietly insouciant.

the problem with being efficient…

The problem with being efficient is that you tend to finish stuff quick and fast.  Your inbox gets cleaned up fairly fast – and your in-tray gets emptied by the end of the day.  However, it doesn’t mean that you’re going to ever see an empty tray or a complete-read/no-unread-mails inbox.  You’d have more.

Sometimes, I honestly wonder if being efficient and fast is worth the energy that I am expending.  If I finish something fast, new things get thrown my way – which I will get to finish quite fast – and…

It’s a virtuous – or shall I say, vicious? – cycle that never stops.

Darn.

 

(These are days when “TGIF” does not offer any consolation – but dread.)

creativity in media planning...

I have a confession to make - and it's probably going to make my bosses think twice about why they hired me:  I don't believe much in media planning awards.

Don't get me wrong - we've had our own share of awards.  I think in the past few years, we've had our share of golds, silvers, and bronzes - in local, regional, and global award-giving bodies.  Personally, I can claim to have contributed significantly to a campaign that won a gold a few years back.

Of course, it was great to be recognized for great work.

But there's more to it than just the results.

The creativity in media planning - I think - is not so much about the use of new media or a 'shout-out' that stands out in the morass of ads along Orchard Road or some unexpected, 'ambient' ad or a 'surprising element'.

The creativity in media planning comes when one is in the midst of planning.

It's when a planner sees beyond the numbers and sees them as just the proverbial tip of the iceberg.  It is when she starts to see her audiences as more than just audiences, her brand as more than just a brand on a supermarket shelf.  It is when she starts to look at the message as more than just a clamor or a shoutout to say "notice me, buy me, be aware of me" - and begins to look at the message as more than just a message.  It is when she labors through the presentation or prototyping or documentation to capture a seemingly unensnarable possibility - to the point of giving up.  It is when she trudges on to transform that possibility a reality by letting others - the client, the team, the creative director, the brand agency, the PR company, the consultants - see that same possibility and get aligned to make it a reality.  It is when that possibility-turned-reality delivers more than just "shock and awe" and "ooohs and aaahs" but real, measurable impact to the business' bottomline.

That's where creativity in media planning is. 

And that is what ought to be rewarded and recognized.

Sure, the award-giving bodies try to capture that in two sheets of paper that seeks to describe the award entry - but if the idea itself was difficult to capture in the first place, how can a 2pager, less-than-1'000-words criterion capture this creation process?

We just see the results - perhaps in photos, in prototypes, in charts...

But what we are looking at - and what is being judged - is a static representation of the creative process.  The act of creation is in itself the creativity that needs to be recognized.

It is easy to take the path of least resistance in media planning - but it is in resisting to take on this path is where the real creativity lies.

When the seemingly cold, numb, and hard facts - depicted by numbers and graphs and charts - and the almost-always incomplete brief becomes a possibility - and when that possibility is transformed into reality - and delivers real results that feed back to the numbers... and encourages the repeat of the cycle - and the realization of new possibilities, new realities, and new results...

I don't think awards have captured that just yet.

----

Seth Godin defines creativity as living on the edges even if the edges have moved.  And that's essentially is what needs to be seen, rewarded, and recognized in awards.

Long Tale defines it as  "if you’re putting together <insert rest of dandy definition> to solve a problem" and to not invent new problems.

I say creativity is seeing a well-defined box and seeing the possibility - and realizing that possibility - of putting a multi-colored dodecahedron in there encased with some moebius strips that deliver more than just awe and shock and ooohs and aahhhs - but real results - that restart and reignite the cycle of seeing even more possibilities.  And perhaps, even more questions.

Thanks to jef_safi for the photo.

Great tennis with Nadal and Federer...

Great tennis played between Rafa Nadal and Federer... what can I say?

AP Photo/Andrew Brownbill

Now can we please get Nadal to somehow rest for a bit? He's a great guy - and one of my new heroes - but he's not Superman... Take a break, man. Slow down a little bit because you've got more to show for in the years to come!

calvin&hobbes - "don't you go anywhere..."

I found this one on the internet - and I cannot help but be reminded of the more important things in life.  These Calvin & Hobbes' cartoons are probably one of the best in the series.  This particular storyline never failed to uplift my spirits - and remind me of our humanity, my humanity.

When Mr. Watterson announced he won't be making any more Calvin & Hobbes cartoons, I was distressed.  I amassed all his C&B books - because I knew then that I will miss them.

Thanks, Mr. Watterson.  (All these are copyrighted by Universal Press Syndicate.)

>





[This was probably the most beautiful one of the lot. It never stops to evoke the soft-side in me...]

Beautiful. Simply beautiful. Thanks, Mr. Watterson.