marginally subversive

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

Universal Mccann International Social Media Research Wave 3

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

"Problem at the Office?"

Every now and then, I'd get this question:  "Problem at the office?"  Largely, it is 'evoked' by the dark circles under my eyes.  (For the record: It is genetic.  Nothing I do can remove the bags nor the dark circle.  Believe me, I have tried.)

Image from BusinessWeek; illustration by Ray Vella.

BusinessWeek came up with this interesting article in their latest issue about problems at the office - and in addition, they looked at 'generational tensions'.  However, what really interested me was the similarities of themes underneath the different problems that we all encounter.

We strive for work-life balance.  And we try our best to maintain it by getting in touch with the Tech God or Tech Goddess in us (otherwise known as the nerd).  In doing so, we get dependent on technologies - and then suddenly, the very gadget that was supposed to empower us to achieve work-life balance is now a source of stress.  So we go to "new age seminars" and "zen seminars" - and tune out.  At first, there is the usual "I cannot live without emails and laptops and the internet and my BlackBerry..."  We get through that rather easily (at least in my case and a few friends') - what really is 'stressful' is the night before the return to work - and the first few weeks after work.  It's as if the world stopped - or accelerated? - when we were away.  One thousand emails unread - most of the were needed yesterday - or worse, the week before.

You get the picture.

Anyway, I think this piece was a good read.  It made me smile - and think.

As far as I am concerned, all these shall pass.  These are all ephemeral - and transient.  What is essential, as the Little Prince said, is invisible to the eye.

Or not.

Seth Godin asks "Is it worth it...?"

Seth Godin always has a way of writing that makes it seem he's writing based on the past events of my own life.  Of course, that's preposterous and as my friends would say, "very assuming".  But one of his latest posts did just that.  In his blog, Is It Worth It?, he writes (after asking a lot of questions):

The object isn’t to be perfect. The goal isn’t to hold back until you’ve created something beyond reproach. I believe the opposite is true. Our birthright is to fail and to fail often, but to fail in search of something bigger than we can imagine. To do anything else is to waste it all.

The past few weeks (when I was on holiday - and I am still on holiday!), I have been thinking about the same question - "Will these new adventures and ventures be worth it?" 

I left a pretty good (read: 9to6, 8hours-a-day, no-stress, no-working-on-weekends) job and took on a 1month break (and counting) with nothing but my savings in the bank to search for new adventures and ventures that I could be part of.

For four weeks, the thought - and yes, the fear - of having nothing to come back to after my holidays was there.  And the thought of "will these things that I am thinking about be worth it?", I would admit, keeps on coming to me - whilst lying by the pool, whilst swimming, whilst doing the rounds in my apartment, whilst running errands, whilst playing with my best friend's kids...

And then suddenly, I realized: I wouldn't know if any of these will be worth it unless I get myself into doing any of these.

The object is no longer to find the perfect situation to grow in - or the perfect company or venture or partnership or business to get myself involved in. 

And as Seth wrote on the 17th of June: The object isn't to be perfect. 

And in the same manner, my object isn't to be in a perfect situation - whatever and however that situation may be.

My object is to find a system - or systems -  to which I can be committed to, whose vision is aligned with my personal vision, and whose values are interlinked with my values.

And I believe I have found it

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Tags: SethGodin, Excellence, Arete, Remarkability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blogged with the Flock Browser

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

The whining of Gen-X'ers...

This from BusinessWeek is so far the only compilations of why Gen-X'ers are unhappy and are considered to be a whiny bunch.  The truth is, there is far more to us being whiny. 

As one of "us" commented: "When we had new ideas at work, nobody cared to listen; now that we're 'old' and mature enough, everybody's looking at the Gen-Y as if they held the panacea to all our worries."  And oh, we do make a distinction between shareholders and stakeholders. 

Oh well.

"I told you so!"

I am going to cut and paste this blog in its entirety - because I couldn't have written it any better.  All I can say is "This explains a lot!".

A New Power Principle?

Posted by: Jena McGregor on May 20

You may think it’s your boss who’s always the one messing things up. But according to new research in the journal Pyschological Science, people with lower-ranking titles are more likely to make errors than those with higher-ranking roles. That’s because, says Adam Galinsky, a study co-author and professor at Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management, the “executive functions” of the brain, or the gray-matter processes that override automatic responses, can be impaired when people are put in jobs with little power. In Galinsky’s study, which was co-authored by Pamela K. Smith, Nils B. Jostmann, and Wilco W. van Dijk, subjects who were randomly assigned to be subordinates had a harder time staying focused on goals than those who, by chance, were named to be managers.

The research isn’t the first Galinsky has done on the effects of power on performance. In another study, he had students sit down very close to electric fans blowing in their faces. Sixty-nine percent of those randomly assigned to be managers moved the fans, while just 42% of those named subordinates did. Galinsky believes such research helps confirm why employee “empowerment”—especially in health care, or high-risk factory jobs—should be much more than just lip service. Says Galinksy: “Lacking power impairs those parts of the brain that allow people to stay focused.”

I wouldn't really call it "power" though - it's "control" or the perception of the ability to make a difference and to control one's environment.  Once that is lost - all is gone.

"Fooled by Randomness"

With all the ruckus that's happening in the US economy and the repercussions that are being felt across the globe, I thought it would be timely to revisit the things that Fooled by Randomness,written by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, are talking about.

Every single day, I see explanations of why certain things are happening - and grim prognostications of financial analysts and economists.  Just today, I was amused by the news on how Bear Stearns was acquired by JP Morgan - and how Bear Stearns, an institution in the finance industry, was bought at a very, very, very low price.

As the market opens, I am sure that traders and investors are all rushing to "unload" and sell, sell, sell.  (I can imagine one of my colleagues now tracking his investments online... I expect that he's going to be up all night tracking the movement of Wall Street.  And that tomorrow may not be a good time to catch up with him.  Maybe, next week.  Post Easter.)

Now how does this tie back to Taleb's book?

Significantly.

If you have not read it, read it.

Well... let me take that back:  If you're used to romance novels and fiction and other light reading, be prepared.  Taleb discusses interesting - but deep - stuff in his book.  You need to exercise those neurons a little bit. 

If you were asleep during your basic stats and probability class, you'd probably have a hard time catching his drift.  But a little patience will do you good.

Fooled By Randomness is a good read.  And a good reminder.

That this - all these ruckus about the economy in the US and its effects on the stock market of different countries - will happen again.  We never learn.  We are not conditioned to learn from our mistakes.  Unfortunately.

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.

Advice to Advertisers and Ad Agencies

Thanks to Seth Godin for the inspiration.

***

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

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

Yes.  Quit.

Now.  Quit now.

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

Quit.  Now.

Why?

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

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

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

So we now have to quit.

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

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

The Opportunities in Social Media

Social media is here - and that's probably the understatement of the year (and it's only February 2008).  But in my discussions with customers and with partners, the talk - regardless of whether it's about digital marketing communications or search or media planning - always leads to the topic of social media.

The questions - expressed differently by different people - were all centered on one thing:  What do we do with it?

To be honest, I have no idea.

I have learned things about social media - about what works and what doesn't, what 'endears' and what 'pisses' audiences off.  I think that social media and the technologies that are powering these media are changing a lot of things in our lives - privacy, for example, seemed to have taken a backseat in the priorities of consumers - until Facebook falls flat on its face in the late-2007.

Anyway, so what do we do with it?

I still have no idea.

And the truth is, I don't think a lot of people do.

There is one blog though that I have been following - Jeremy Owyang's blog.  He has a lot of things to say - and he does make sense.

His latest entry tries to define what we can do with social media - and how social media goes beyond the metrics of search.  I think the statement that best sums up his position on this is:

The greatest opportunities lie where companies (become) a part of (the) communities where ads may not even be present.

And I couldn't agree more.

While some vendors and ad companies see social networks as another additional medium to air/advertise and deliver messages, I believe otherwise.

Social media are conversational media.  It is where audiences get to talk with one another directly.  Audiences are using social media in addition to - or in lieu of - email, instant messsaging, and other 'traditional' forms of communications.

Advertisers rudely interrupt the conversations.

(Think of it this way:  You're talking to your friend about your new shirt - and suddenly, out of the blue, an advertiser - say, GAP - butts its head in and starts advertising.  How do you feel?)

I think clients, marketeers, and agencies should start thinking about beyond "interrupting conversations" - and actually joining in the conversations that are already happening.  (Remember the ClueTrain Manifesto?)

Advertisers would be forgiven if they asked "... But how do I advertise?"  That's their 'essence' as advertisers - they advertise.  But the challenge is for advertisers to become more than just advertisers - they need to become real marketeers.  They need to become "Real Conversationalists".  They need to be "story-tellers", not just sellers.  They need to be listeners - not just talkers.

But hey, isn't that what Cluetrain was all about? 

Well.

Social media have always been around - it's only now that it has taken on the internet by storm powered by new technologies and digital connectivity.  But social media have always been around - rumors, blind items, neighbors talking "over the fence", people gathering in the town-center to discuss things...

And it is part of human nature.

What should advertisers do?

Nothing.

An emerging favorite...

I am beginning to fall in love - yet again - with a new service on the internet.  After having fallen in love in Flickr.Com a few years ago, I have discovered something else.  Not as flashy as Flickr (if you consider Flickr flashy) - but useful, really.  And clean, easy to use.

This time, it's SkyDrive that's keeping me up all night.

The thing is, I have so many photos on my laptop that I want to share with only a few people.  I am sure that Flickr does that - you know, choose who sees your photos.  But seriously, not everyone seems to be interested in taking photos.  But what do they have?  Hotmail.Com accounts.

That's where SkyDrive comes in.

That's where I park all my photos nowadays.

The only thing that worries me:  It's still in beta.  And it's only got 1GB so far of available memory.

But seriously - I want this to be my 'cloud drive'.  I want this to be more than my storage space - I also want this to be my special place where I can share photos - and documents - with people whom I love and consider important.

Anyway...  try it out.  If you've got a Hotmail.Com or Live.Com account, it's good.

And the other thing to note:  A Hotmail.Com account gets you a blog on Spaces, Photo Gallery (which is integrated in your Spaces blog), SkyDrive, and a few other stuff that you can use.

 

What makes a social networking campaign effective...

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

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

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

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

I would call this a successful - hmm - campaign.

"Marketing as a Service"

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

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

Which I thought were neat ideas.

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

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

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

Marketing as a service.

Marketing as a way to help people decide.

What a neat idea.

Photo Source is from here - from Ze Eduardo

Fear, Hope, Love - and the greatest of this is Love

(With apologies to the author of the famous 1 Corinthians 13 discourse on what love is)

Seth Godin writes about the three 'roots' of the people's motivations - fear, hope, and love.  Interestingly, when I was a student of Psychology and Philosophy in the university, these three themes also emerged - though in different contexts -

According to one of my professors, "fear" and "love" are the most basic of emotions.  We either act in fear or in love.  And sometimes, the two intersect - and when they intersect, that is when humans become more impassioned resulting to either 'good' results or 'bad' results.

A mother who fears for the life of her child will gladly offer her life to protect her child in times of dangers:  that's an amalgam of love and fear - strengthening the mother, powering her up (so to speak) to rise up to the occasion.

At the same time, a thief running away from the cops after having stolen diamonds is acting also in the same amalgam of love and fear:  running away because of fear - and of love for the wealth she has amassed.

Fear and love are the most basic of emotions - and when they combine, I think they're a strong motivation.  In medical ads - specially those anti-AIDS campaign or anti-VD campaigns - I think are all about playing on the idea of syncing love with fear - or vice versa to achieve a shift in behaviors.  The cigarette packs in Singapore and in Thailand - which now sport dessicated lungs, gangrenes, and photos of babies of supposed smokers - are also playing on fear and love.  At first glance, you would think that they were all about fear - but in instilling fear, there is a secondary message of "loving yourself by stopping yourself from getting lung cancer".

Whether it works or not, it's still anybody's guess.

Anyway, I also read about Hope in philosophy.  According to Gabriel Marcel, hope is what keeps us human and centered and connected with others.  In his expression - "I hope in Thee for us" - is at the same an acknowledgement of the presence of an "I" and "not-I", who are nonetheless connected by a hope towards something bigger - something beyond - something that is Love itself and Hope itself.

I've always thought of advertising as supposedly identifying human truths - and translating and expressing them into a creative expression that would make people sit up, think, and consider their thoughts and actions and behaviors.

And indeed, it is the marriage of the three that somehow makes people reconsider.

Fear is a strong emotion - but with fear comes love.  Fear hopes to bring about love.  And fear on its own could generate response.  (Recall the SARS days in Singapore when everybody went all-out to buy face masks or when there was the rush to buy Tamiflu because it apparently helps in stemming the epidemic.)  But underneath that fear is self-love - and perhaps love for those people around you.

Underneath that - and perhaps even deeper - is hope.  People bought gas masks because of the fear - driven by their self-love and love of others dear to them - and the hope that these will work against the spectre of doom called SARS.

Could fear, hope, and love build a brand?

I think so.  Fashion fads, digital tech gadget trends, and laundry detergents are all based on some form of fear or another.  And advertisers and creative agencies - consciously or unconsciously - create the fear amongst their consumers:  "If I don't buy an Abercrombie&Fitch shirt, I'd be out..."  "If I didn't have the latest iPhone or iTouch, I'd be seen as too outmoded..."  "If I didn't have the right detergent, my kids' white uniforms won't be as good as others'..."

So does fear work as a brandbuilding tool?

Hmmm.  I think it does.

Is it the right thing to do?  I don't know.  A part of me wants to say "yes" because it could be effective - and whether we like it or not, people are motivated by fear and the eradication of fear.  A part of me wants to say "no" because it's unethical playing on people's fears.

And still another question - can we offer hope and eventually graduate to love without first 'resonating' with the "fear" within consumers' minds?

Seth Godin - you got me thinking again - and that's good.

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

More on the EXPECTATION ECONOMY

Still more from the Trendwatching.Com briefing on the Expectation Economy.

One thing that struck me whilst I was reading the briefing report from the Trendwatching.Com's briefing on the Expectation Economy was the need - or the ideal scenario - of watching other industries that go beyond your own category.

How true.

I have had clients in the past who were just concerned about their own "direct competitors".  A client in the Philippines was so keen on watching what others are doing - and have even issued a blanket order to "match any and every ad placement that come up with".

That client is now struggling to keep its pole-position in the category.

Why?  Because they were so myopic about the needs of their target users.  They thought that their  competition was only those manufacturers that created almost the same product as they did.  What slipped their mind was "You're not just offering a product - you are offering an experience!"

And this was what one of its competitors - which I co-managed back then - did:  The Marketing Communications Team - which included us form the agency side - collaborated and brainstormed outside our category.  We looked at everything and anything that coincided with what we wanted to be:  Something that is more than a commodity, something that wants to build connections (not just loyalty - but real, deep connections - and this was way before "engagement" became a buzzword).  Something that will be looked at with respect by our target users.

We scouted for "competitors" in fashion, in music, in record labels, in singers, in DJs, in radio stations, in hangout places, in every industry that at first glance is not competitive to our brand.

And from there, we started to craft "experiences that delivered against benchmarks created against our expanded competitive sphere".

Where were we playing originally?  We were a non-alcoholic beverage.

Where did we end up positioning the brand and its campaigns?  A brand that is a catalyst for things that go beyond thirst-quenching.  We were music, sports, fashion, places, lounges, parks.

Our competition spent hundreds of millions of pesos in advertising how thirst-quenching they were.

We spent less than 1/3 of what they spent doing something else - something that our end-users wanted and expected to experience - not just from a beverage brand, but from a brand that seeks to deeply connect and be a strong component of their lives.