Research Thoughts
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.")
21 July 2008
More on Zaltman's Research Approach and Psychoanalysis, Marketing, and Brands
A few more interesting links about Zaltman's Metaphor Elicitation Approach can be seen here. I think what is intriguing here is the use of metaphors and psychoanalytic concepts and techniques to understand what really goes on in the minds of the consumers - it's going way beyond what consumers think they think and dives deep into their subconscious mind. Zaltman's website should contain more information.
How far will this technique go?
I think this could go far.
Alongside fMRI which is now being deployed in the field of marketing and consumer behavior/decision-making modeling, as well as physiological psychology or biopsychology being used ot help model behaviors and responses to different messages, brands, and situations, I think this could go very far.
Of course, one has to be conscious of the typical questions and reservations that biopsychologists/physiological psychologists had with Freudian, Jungian, and similar approaches.
Psychoanalysis, Metaphors, and Marketing: Going beyond the surface
I have always been interested in attitudes that people have about certain phenomena that they encounter everyday - and how these attitudes are formed, how these attitudes influence and shape their own behaviors - and those of others.
This is something that I picked up from the Harvard Business School's blogs - the use of psychoanalysis (and/or similar techniques) to get to the bottom of one's relationships with and perceptions of brands in general. Unlike in ethnology where a researcher may be relegated as an observer and the 'subjects' and their interactions and their expressions observed from a distance, this technique developed by Jerry Zaltman, uses interviews that are founded on the psychoanalytic disciplines of psychology/psychiatry. (Think Rorschach inkblots or word-associations or draw-a-tree/person test.)
Interesting approach.
Here's a link to the video.
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
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.
13 March 2008
Live Search is getting better...
OK, I am no search-guru. The farthest I have gone to implementing a search strategy is watching my colleague who is a search guru do a demo on how to do a search strategy. But I am an avid user of search. My search default right now is Google - primarily because I search a lot of research materials and their scientific/academic journals search seems to be good.
For other non-serious stuff though, I tend to not really stick to any one. I want my search to be everywhere I am at - which is mostly these days within the MSN Windows Live network. (Since I am a Live Mail fanatic and Windows Live Mail desktop app heavy user [it's always on and it aggregates all my email accounts - both for work- and non-work-related email]...)
I stumbled upon this site on the developments in Windows Live Search. Pretty impressive. I particularly liked the idea of the photo-search/image-search. My biggest problem with Google Image Search is that I have to click through to so many pages to look at all the images - and not only that, I have to get to the source file/site in order to see whether that image is indeed what I was looking for or not. Waste of time.
The one on video search is good, I thought. Google has integrated video results into their search - and have a dedicated search sites for Video. But I think this one from Live Search is good: You get to see lots of videos in one go - and preview them without actually leaving the search results site.
Hey, not bad.
Do people need this? I surely do since I tend to multitask and want things done in a jiff.
I wonder though when are they going to roll this one out.
And when will they make other people know more about these pretty powerful stuff?
C'mon, guys. Just because you got something good you can't relax and say "they'll come". Do some marketing - for once, be a marketing company. You've made the first step towards making great strides in improving the search experience - and you may have stumbled upon something that could be useful to people. Get them on the bandwagon if they are not yet.
It's time that we tell people how good and consumer-centric Microsoft is.
12 March 2008
Media and Ad Agencies, Technology Companies, Marketeers, and Audiences
In another life, I delivered a vision for a business division that I was working on and the bigger company that owned that division. My vision was predicated on something:
What we were offering now (it was 2005 then) will become commoditized. It will remain
to be significant part of our business - for business won't change overnight. But it will be one that will see lower profits because it will demand a lot of human resources.What we need is to look into the future. And the future is in the realm of providing accountable advice - frameworks and solutions whose results can be measured against an agreed-upon set of standards prior to us coming into the picture.
Such businesses will not merely be won by the discounts and savings - though these will remain to be a part of the criteria, perhaps - as old habits are hard to change. But we can go beyond that.
One pillar is the integration of due diligence and rigor into our business - acting as objective consultants bordering on being academic and theoreticians, yet delivering real, measurable results.
The second pillar is the integration of technology into every aspect of our operations: to streamline repetitive mundane tasks and reduce overhead costs, to reduce "communication costs" by capitalizing on new technologies, to automate processes and "thinking processes" into databases of expert systems and algorithms.
More importantly, the integration of technology in the analysis of audiences and markets, and in the delivery of message to audiences and markets - both in the back-end and in the store-front.
Essentially, Marketing departments have to embrace technologies - and we - as their partners, their vendors, their suppliers, their contracts, and whatever way they want to see us - need to embrace it too. And we need to embrace it much earlier than they do.
Decision-making processes need to be aided by technology. Predictive techniques need to be grounded on technology and theory. Real-time data and accountability are needed - and these too will be driven by technology. Simulations - pricing and demand and communications and worst-case scenario planning and most-likely scenario planning - all these will be driven by technology.
Should this be driven by "digital planners"? No. They should be driven by "traditional planners with a keen sense of business". Should it be driven by one business unit? For now - yes. But it will need to cascade - the sooner the better - to the rest of the organization.
This is the only way we can avoid being a commodity - and being relegated into the background as mere vendors, as mere contractors, as mere suppliers. This is the only way we can escape the never-ending discussion on "discounts-value-adds-freebies".
I guess I didn't do enough to make these thoughts clear (and I doubt if the above is any clearer!)
But think about it: If technology is so pervasive in the lives of our audiences, then why shouldn't agencies and marketing companies embrace technology as part of their systems, processes, and well, communications with consumers and with other stakeholders?
04 March 2008
Digital Media, Risks, and Balls
photo from Flickr from joey.ganoza
Jeremiah Owyang had an interesting post in his blog about Facebook marketing demanding a high tolerance for risks in order to achieve success. He summarized these into the following theme - which I thought captured the realities that marketeers and marketing planners now have to contend with:
Successful applications were experimental, embraced risk, and quickly iterated - everything (that) big brands will struggle with.
I think that hits the issue on the right spot.
And I also believe that at least in Southeast Asia, that encompasses not just Facebook marketing - but marketing in any new forms of advertising and communications, including online and digital marketing.
What struck me in Jeremiah's entry is this comment from one of the speakers in the event that he's attending (Graphing Social Networks), from Rodney Rumford:
“Most of the people (at big corporations) who are making the decisions for Facebook are 45 or older, and are not immersed in Facebook”
... to which I say is one of the many challenges that we are facing.
There are more challenges in Southeast Asia for digital communications planning to truly take off and be more than just a "by-the-way":
- Lack of Real Experts. We lack experts who can truly guide people. Now - one would argue that there are now a lot of digital shops out there. And with all due respect, these digital shops are churning out great creative stuff. However, I think that we're barely scraping the surface.
We cannot impose traditional media and advertising planning philosophies from before into the new paradigms that the web is now offering us. We can't merely measure reach and frequency and impressions anymore. We have to go deeper. And some experts are yet to come to grasp with this. - Data. Data is sorely lacking in the region. ComScore supposedly has data on most Southeast Asian countries - but so far,it has not moved into making their data to be a currency. I am certain that when data comes in, it will be a watershed - it will be a starting point in getting planners to start thinking about the digital world.
- Risk-aversion. I read in an article (which I cannot find now in my box) that the reason why media planners are not too keen about recommending digital media to clients is that because they are not sure how clients are going to react with a digital media campaign. Hence the reliance on what has happened in the past in the context of traditional media.
I also read in the same article that the reasons why clients are not too keen about digital media is because their agencies are not recommending them - and if they are, the "signal-to-noise" ratio is so high that they don't know what to believe in and how to decide. Besides, "TV has always worked for me".
This risk-aversion, which Rodney Rumford's quote above suggests, needs to be addressed. It's a case of waiting for the other to start. - Old Modes of Thinking Still Dominates. Seth Godin, in his book "Meatball Sundae", raises important questions and offers important thoughts. For one thing, most clients are asking their agencies "How can we make all these digital media work for us? How can we make Facebook, Friendster, and other social networking sites work for us?"
Seth Godin believes that that is not the right question to ask - the right question is "What can we do in our business to align ourselves with the new "normal" that are being symbolized by the increasing usage of social network sites?"
That's a total turnaround in terms of thinking. - Inventory-focused Vendors. Vendors are still thinking in terms of inventories rather than on creating differentiating and (buzzword alert) engaging audiences. It still is based on "how many impressions can I sell today?" - a remnant of the TV- and print-selling process. I believe that a shift needs to happen, too.
And the shift will need to be towards "depth of experience, engagement with the content (not a webpage, not a set of websites), affinity with the service and the technology, and personalization - without invading my privacy".
Inventory needs to be rethought. Vendors ought to be selling experiences to audiences - empowering experiences. Not another website, not another webpage. Depth of pages is not necessarily going to deliver depth of engagement. People get engaged with things that matter to them. Identify it. And then develop these services to meet their needs.
The idea that "if you build, they will come" no longer is a surefire way to get audiences and engage audiences. Check. Feel the pulse. And respond. - Banners are not the end-all/be-all panacea. Most of the people I have worked with in the past have the impression that "if you have a print campaign material, you can change that into a banner and into a micro-site". Not anymore.
- Raw, individual level data are ignored. Now, more than ever, audiences and tech-users are offering information. There needs to be a way to harness these information (without sacrificing privacy of the users). This is sorely lacking.
The days of percentages and aggregated data as the only solution to a quantitative question are almost over. We need to know movements, the dynamics of users - and more importantly, their mindsets whilst moving in the digital sphere.
There are more barriers, but these I think are the ones that need to be addressed soon for digital media planning and communications to take hold and accelerate even further.
Unless these are addressed, I don't think that we will make significant in-roads into the area of digital media communications.
12 February 2008
Thoughts on Credit Cards: Beyond Function...
Students from Nanyang Tech University - Gow Yujie, Gwee Li Ping, and Ng Mei Shan - aided by their professor, Dr. Lee Hon Sing - conducted a study amongst 150 respondents. The article was pubslished in the Business Times on 11th Feb 2008 online edition at this link.
In conclusion, credit cards are no longer merely an alternative form of cash in a cashless society. They also reflect the cost perception, consumption and self-image culture of a society. As banks innovate and better customise credit cards for our society, perhaps one day the banks would invent the truly Singaporean card, which all Singaporeans would desire to have in their wallets. And when someone uses such a card overseas, the salesperson would ask with a smile: 'Aren't you a Singaporean?'
It is not very surprising that credit cards are now competing with cold cash as payment forms. The number of EZLINK cards and CashCards are all leading towards a cashless society. I know of friends who use their credit cards because it's too "cumbersome to carry cash and loose change in my pockets". (I would admit that am one of them.) Convenience still is key.
What is interesting, however, is the continued evolution of credit cards as more than just a payment solution. Amongst the teens/young adults, having a credit card is similar to a rite-of-passage - "I am an adult - I am responsible for my expenses, my finances!" I still recall my first Visa card back in the Philippines - the credit limit was a pittance (because I had a pittance of a starting salary!) I recall showing it to my Mom and telling her "Nay, this is a sign that I can be financially responsible!" Of course, I was not - I would spend it on things that were not necessary - but hey, who cared - I had a card!
Then came Gold and Platinum Credit Cards. I had my first Gold Card - an Amex Krisflyer a few years back - and I have not parted with it because it helps me earn miles with SQ - something that I thought was a great deal.
However, there came a point wherein everybody seemed to have a Platinum Card - or several Platinum Cards in their wallets. Some banks even started to offer Platinum Cards to people who used to be unqualified to have a Platinum Card. (That included me: I now have two Platinum Cards - a Visa and a MasterCard - which I rarely use!)
So indeed - it has become a status symbol - or at least two 'rite of passage" symbols: a graduation towards financial independence and responsbility - and to 'being part of the Platinum crowd"
What is interesting though is if everyone - or almost everyone - has got a Plat card, won't Plat cards have lost their appeal?
The research findings as the authors reported actually show that special interest rates, "value-adds", discounts, and special "exclusive" events are amongst the most important things that consumers consider when getting and using a card - all of which cost card companies and issuing banks money.
These to me suggest that the plastic is on the verge of commoditization - "if you can offer me better discounts, better deals, better savings, then I will use you".
All these cost money - and lost revenues to credit card companies.
The researchers mention something about affinity cards - a card that will identify one as part of something distinct, unique - but I wonder if there would be sufficient volume and transactions generated from these affinity cards to be truly become profitable? Even a "Singaporean-only" credit card could be a good idea - but given the different needs and the dynamism that Singaporeans have in their culture, I don't think that there will be a one, single card that will capture everything. (I would love to be proven wrong though!)
What do I think?
There was a campaign in Europe about "bringing back the love". And I think credit card/payment solutions and issuing banks have to start bringing back the love. I am not saying that they are not listening to what their customers want - but I think that they need to strengthen themselves even more in the minds of consumers - beyond mere payment-alternatives, beyond mere "discount givers", beyond mere "value-adders", and beyond mere "image-definers".
Visa, MasterCard, UOB, OCBC, HSBC, DBS and all the others involved in the credit card business should start thinking of themselves as more than just "credit/unsecured consumer loans businesses" and "payment solutions providers". They have to start thinking of themselves as "brands that resonate with the said - and unsaid - needs of the Singaporean consumers".
Resonance. Relevance. Understanding. Turning research information into creative and media expressions that go beyond "10% off your next purchase" or "10SGD off your bill for 2weeks".
Oh - and when you ask people about what they are looking for in a credit card to acquire or use directly, they will most likely say the most rational of things. Try doing something else: Do a conjoint analysis using different attributes with varying levels. You just might find something nice - and worthy of further investigation.
Promotions drive short-term transactions, but with promotions, companies also need to fork out some costs. The trick is find something - a hook (rational or emotional or physical or a combination of all three) that transcends promotions, giveaways, and discounts.
Bring back the love affair between consumers and credit cards (and the banks that issued them).
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.
08 February 2008
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.
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.
01 February 2008
With all the stock market talk...
With all the stock market talk that's now dominating the water-cooler banter in the office, I can't help but think: The stock market is all about expectations of humans.
We look at P/E - which shows what our expectations are of the stocks' future earnings and whether it is "undervalued" or "overvalued". We look at PEG - which also points to an almost similar idea - though it extends it to the future growth prospects of the company.
But at it score, the stock market is where the best - and the worst - of human decision-making comes out. It is based on fear - of the unknown, of failure, of losing money.
Remember the Citigroup downgrade by one analyst? She was right about it, I guess, considering that Citigroup's stocks did suffer a beating. BUT the beating was not just about a single person downgrading or airing her opinions about the stock. It's the reaction of people towards that.
The stock market assumes that we are rational beings when we trade and invest - and that all we want is to get ahead and earn some cash. The last part, they got right. But that we are rational beings? I don't think so.
Perhaps, the best way to play the market is to understand how the crowd reacts to the news that are given them. When some news breaks - the assumption of rationality and completeness of information - seems to get out of the window.
And investors react violently - or vigorously - to those news.
I think psychology, sociology, and social networks have got more to do about stock market movements than the reports that we get from the business papers.
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.