marginally subversive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Making Sense of Location-/People-Tracking Data

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blogged with the Flock Browser

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

Media Planning and Social Responsibility

This is something that I have been thinking about since I left the agency world and started working as a one-man sales support team for Southeast Asia.

(I had a great deal of time on my hands... Well, something that somebody - and I cannot remember who - said is the birthplace of either inspiration or evil thoughts. Fortunately for me, it is more of the former than the latter.)

The thought was simple: We spend so much money (OK, invest, as strat planners are won't to say) in media plans to advertise products. We come up with a lot of concepts to sell - we dreamed up GRPs, reach, frequency, recency, engagement, attention-planning, disruption, affinity targeting, and other theoretical frameworks to get it right - and well, to get clients to spend.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world is evolving.

And I am not talking about things like digital media being more massive - and people are paying less attention and what-not... Those are given: people are just regressing to what is natural. (OK, that's for another post... later...)

The rest of the world is suffering: perhaps not in our immediate world, but in the bigger world. The gap between the top 10% households and the bottom 20% households in most countries is widening. The gap between the richest nations and the poorest nations is also widening.

And here we are, investing (or spending) money for client brands that perhaps consumers already know about - and may already care about.

Here's my point - after much digression: As media planners (and at heart, I am still one media planner - no matter what and how others think of media planners, I am still proud to have been and BE one), we actually have a lot of responsibilities.

And it's about time that we rise up to the occasion and take the risk.

I know this is about work. And work and Facebook don't seem to mix.

But most of my media planning and client-friends are in Facebook, I can't help but use this medium. My main point is simple:

If we can treat client investments in media planning/advertising to be more efficient, that in and of itself saves them enough - if not a lot of - money to use for the betterment of the world.

Think of the possibilities: Coke, for example (and I am thinking off the top of my head here - and I love Coke One!) - spends millions of dollars each year advertising their brand and their promotions.

If the media planners of Coke were able to make their investments in advertising more efficient - delivering the same amount sales at the a lower cost by maximizing opportunities and minimizing risks - wouldn't that be great? Let's say Coke in one country spends about 10Mln USD - and we are able to drive efficiencies (real efficiencies!) by 1% in addition to their demanded efficiencies, that's 10'000USD worth of savings. 10'000USD that they can either spend again - or 10'000USD that they can inject into their corporate social responsibility projects. Say to help the people in Burma or in China or in Darfur.

To get there, I think, there is a need for us to change mindsets. We have to think big. We have to be big. We have to be big in front of clients. We have to drive them to change their mindsets.

And if you're a client reading this - just think: Accountable media solutions + real savings that you can donate to an institution that would make the world a better place + "pogi-/gwapo-/brownie" points for you and your company.

Just think for a while.

(No, I have not become an Opus Dei - but I am certainly starting to believe that our work - whatever it is - is our way of doing God's Work - however you believe Her/Him to be.)

There's a lot to be done - but I think we can do something whilst doing our work.

Efficient media plans? Sure. Discounts? Sure. Additional value? Sure. But now, let's look for a purpose for all those. Perhaps, aiming to create efficient media plans, or tonnes of discounts or free spots - for the sake of changing the world is a lot better and bigger than simply getting that yearend "positive points" in the client evaluation sheet.

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.

"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 

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.

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?

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":

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
   
5. 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.
6. 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.
   
7. 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.

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.

The Stumbling Block in Digital Communications Planning in Southeast Asia

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would argue that it isn't.

We still need the discipline.

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

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

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

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

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

How do you teach someone to think strategically?

I have been asked by a friend from Vietnam to mentor someone who wants to be a strategic planner.  I am not mastered the art and science of strategic communications planning.  And sometimes, the strategic directions that I come up with are first glimpsed whilst showering or lounging by the pool or swimming (and drowning) with Excel-tables and PowerPoint reports.

When I got offered a job by a start-up company, I was first asked "How do you create strategies?"  My answer - which I felt was simple, but not simplistic (at least I felt it wasn't simplistic) - was "You don't create strategies; they reveal themselves to you as you tease stories out of the data and information that you have".

I remember talking about an "integrative mind" - a mind that freely moves from left- (the rational side) to the right-side of the brain (the creative side).  I also recall talking about how phenomenology (remember that from philosophy?) and metaphysics actually help - how you break things down to pieces and examine them in abstraction from the whole, and then bringing them all together again into one bigger, more holistic whole.

But all these are things that may be innate.

I have toyed around with strategic frameworks in the past - and boy, I love 2x2 matrices.  I loved the frameworks of Kenichi Ohmae and of Micheal Porter - as well as the book "Thinking Strategically" by Dixit and Avinash.  I enjoyed talking about Game Theory, the book "A Beautiful Mind" (which discussed in some detail the Nash Equilibrium), and a whole lot of other things.

Did they help in crafting strategic thinking?

Perhaps.  But Mintzberg (from Strategy Bites Back, another book) says that strategic thinking goes beyond all these frameworks.  Strategic thinking comes when you've considered all the things that you need and have to consider - and take a calculated risk and leap into the unknown.

I would be honest and say that some of the strategies that I have come up with were what I would call generic - because the questions and the issues were generic.  But there were solutions that demanded more than just a generic response - it required the amalgam of different models, different thought patterns, different truths.

So how do you teach someone to think strategically?

I think it is akin to teaching philosophy:  My Philosophy professor from University said that "Ang pilosopiya ay ginagawa" - which means "You do philosophy, you don't lean philosophy".  From him, I learned the value of questioning the questions and the assumptions that lie behind the questions.

And it has served me well.

Perhaps that's the starting point:  learn to question the questions and the human motivation behind such issues and questions.

After all, the questions posed by humans are tainted by our own humanity.

Does that answer the question - on how to teach strategic thinking?

I am, for once, at a loss.

Reach- versus Rich-based Media and Communications Planning: That's the REAL Issue

If I were to summarize the most critical dilemma facing media and communications planners these days, it would be making the choice between "REACH- versus RICH-" media and communications planning planning philosophies.

 

REACH media/communications planning is perhaps the easier way out.  One comes up with numbers, measurements, and cost-per-thousand impressions to rationalize why certain combinations of media channels and programs are best.  Numbers don't lie - at least not in the media planners' presentation. 

REACH-based media planning is relatively easier to justify:  Just show that a lot of eyeballs get to see the ad, awareness picks up after a few weeks of airing, and voila - another successful campaign.

For clients, it is a less-risky move:  REACH-based planning will always churn out the same things over and over and over again.  TV and newspapers - top titles, mind you - will always be there, with a spattering of radio spots and the minimal investments in online banners ("Oh make that an expanding ad!").  To round it all up, clients would also want some outdoor - which some creative executives would probably lift out of their print and poster layouts ("Just blow it all up!")

 

RICH-focused media/communications planning, on the other hand, demands a lot from media and communications planners, their clients, and other stakeholders - including creative agencies, digital companies, content providers, and media space vendors.

Because its focus on generating RICH audience experiences, metrics such as GRPs, reach, frequency, and CPMs, suddenly become incomplete.  Planning theories such as "recency planning" versus "effective frequency planning" become insufficient in determining what constitutes an effective media and communications plan.

What used to be a simple decision for clients becomes more complicated:  "How do you measure - or worse, predict - consumers' experiences?  How sure are you that that is the desired effect?  How sure are you that it is rich-enough?"

 

REACH- versus RICH-based media planning - which one will you choose?

 

Technorati Tags: Digital Planning,Communications Planning,Engagement Planning,Brand Engagement,Media Engagement,Metrics,Media Planning,Agencies

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

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

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

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

Which to me is interesting.

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

I do hope so.

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

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

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

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

Ready, Set, Go for 2008: BusinessWeek's Innovation Predictions for 2008

BusinessWeek came up with their innovation predictions for 2008 here. 

Their first prediction is "Innovation Consolidation", which will see the big consultancy firms acquiring companies that are known to be in the "innovation business" (such as Ideo and Jump) to "to bolster [their] innovation practice".  Is it likely?  I think so.  Considering that McKinsey, BCG, and Bain are all moving into areas that are traditionally beyond their expertise (e.g., marketing communications and marketing ROI), it is very probable that they would also look at developing expertise in these areas.

Related to this is the trend that sees the transformation of B-schools into D-schools, as well as the real emergence of the "experience-focused" customer. 

"Identity" replaces "experience" as the next big concept in design and media thinking. People create their own identities interacting with products and services. The notion of a consumer experience is a more passive way of thinking. It's so 20th century. Identity gets the buzz in '08.

One prediction that I thought was very interesting was the idea of "unfriend me". 

Who you're friends with becomes more important than how many friends you have. Exclusivity and privacy replace open community in social media. People move to gated networks from Facebook and MySpace (NWS), fleeing the commercialization of their personal information and relationships.

... which personally is true for me.  I have started "faceslamming" (to use a term that I got from reading Wired's December issue) and "unfriending" people.  I think we're far too connected these days - and such is the power of technology now that I can be found by classmates from high school and from university.  I don't really want all my friends to know what I have been up to, really.  I think this is going to be our alternative to privacy - or perhaps a new definition of what privacy online is going to be: a selective announcement of who we are, what we have been doing, and what we are planning to do.

BusinessWeek also thinks that Kindle of Amazon is going to catch fire.  As an avid book-reader, I am not sure about this.  As far as I am concerned, I still like the idea of having books in my library - although the thought of having too many books does cross my mind.  (I am a nomad.)

For the most part, I would say it's going to be an exciting 2008 for all tech companies and marketing companies (which pretty much is every company).

One thing's for sure:  it's not business as usual next year.

Randomness, Causation, and Analytics: Confusion...

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

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

The writer also suggests some ways around it:

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

To which I agree.

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

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

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

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

Microsoft quietly combines TV efforts | Beyond Binary - A blog by Ina Fried - CNET News.com

Some interesting news about  Microsoft from CNET News.com.

Microsoft has quietly folded its Internet Protocol television, Media Center, and HD DVD efforts into a single organization, known as the Connected TV business group.

The unit, which is part of Robbie Bach's Entertainment and Devices division, is headed by Enrique Rodriguez, the VP (and former WebTV developer) who has been heading the IPTV effort. Peter Barrett, who was CTO of the IPTV unit, takes on that role for the unit.

The move, which took place in October, paves the way for the different technologies, all centered around the television, to work more closely together.

I find this news interesting.  In an earlier entry, I talked about the fusion of advertising, marketing communications, and technology across different areas (targeting, measurements, academics-cum-suits, computing scientists as part of the marketing planning team). 

Methinks this piece of news which I just picked up corroborates that entry - and it is only the first of things to come.

If I were the leaders of ad holding companies, I would start feeling a little bit conscious of these acquisitions and moves, not only of Microsoft, Google and other biggies in the world of technology, but of other companies.

It is also time for ad holding companies to start thinking of themselves as more than just "specialist-content" (i.e., ads) creators.  They have to start thinking of themselves as real drivers of measurable value, built around technologies that not only streamline reaching audiences but also the message-creation and delivery processes.

(I know that sounds vague, but heck.  It's Christmas eve - and I am writing about work.  What do you expect? Haha!)

An Integrated Digital Brand Experience

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specifically for the digital medium.

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

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

The Silvers: A New Opportunity...

At least two of my favorite bloggers - Seth Godin and Steve Clayton - talked about this - the usage of  Facebook by Silvers.  Some of the comments were focused on the fact that it is hilarious - I think (like Steve) this is a great opportunity for marketeers and a significant challenge and burden to economies in Asia.

A demographic shift is set to happen in Asia - if it has not already happened. 

In this article, some countries are on the verge of actually dealing with the critical issues that a demographic shift will result to.  In Singapore, the population shifts are already being felt.

Dr. Yuwa Hendrick-Wong, an economist who works with MasterCard International, has written a book (available on Amazon.Com and is highly recommended as an additional serious read for the holidays)  about this phenomenon - citing the possibilities and challenges this shifting demographic trend are creating.,

I believe this is an opportunity - and a challenge.

And whilst at first glance, hilarious and funny - I think the issue deserves a second look.

Should digital companies start looking into these services?  Well, not right now perhaps - but 20somethings become 30somethings and 40somethings become 50somethings.  Those who are now populating Facebook will eventually be seniors.

So the question is, "What are we doing about it?"

Technorati Tags: Facebook,Demographics,Asia,Communications Planning,Communications Strategy,Strategic Planning,Aging,Ageing,Business Planning,Long-term Planning