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)

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.

The Convergence of Technologies: Where is it happening?

I wrote in a previous entry (which got deleted) about an interesting conversation I had with one of our directors in my previous company.  The topic was "Where will technology converge?"  The common answer is "It's going to converge on the mobile phone".

And true enough, Nokia has launched phones that are mimicking the things that you would normally do on a mobile phone.  Samsung, HTC Touch, and other handset manufacturers are not too far behind.  Since I have a Nokia E90 - which by far surpasses any other phone I have had in the past in terms of usability and usefulness - I am more familiar with the things that it does for me.

I can check my web-based emails on it, update my Facebook status on it, upload photos through to my blogsite, create entries for this blog, look at news and latest updates from blogs that I follow, and search for information.  Never mind that I can't seem to make my GPS work - Singapore is too small a country to get lost in - but all the things I can do on this phone pretty much overshadows that.

And oh, the usual basic function: calendar and to-do-list management, syncing with the PC, taking down notes with T9, and sometimes, even listening to the occasional podcast that I feel like listening to.  (And I guess one can play MP3 files to, but I don't really see it as part of why I love my E90).

So, has technology converged on the mobile phone?

To a certain extent, it has.

But I think we have to think more deeply about that.

Indeed, there is convergence on the mobile phone - since it pretty much does what a computer can do.  It makes one empowered whilst on the road.  And it pretty much is "out of the office - but not out of touch" (as one of the big Nokia ads for the E90 and the E-series in the Raffles Quay underground).

But I think the convergence of technologies is not something that is "device-based" nor is it "software-based".  We've always thought of convergence as "on what device will convergence happen?" and a corollary question to that is "what software will catalyze that convergence?"

I think that convergence is happening - no doubt about that - but it's happening on the consumer level.  Convergence is not so much a technology-only trend:  it is a social trend.

The individual is at the center of the convergence.  The user is at the center of the convergence.

And for her, it doesn't matter whether it happens on the PC or the phone or the personal MP3 player - so long as she feels that she is at the center of that convergence - or rather, so long as she feels that her needs of being at the center of that convergence are met.

TrendWatching.Com calls it the Expectation Economy.

"The EXPECTATION ECONOMY is an economy inhabited by experienced, well-informed consumers from Canada to South Korea who have a long list of high expectations that they apply to each and every good, service and experience on offer.

Their expectations are based on years of self-training in hyperconsumption, and on the biblical flood of new-style, readily available information sources, curators and BS filters. Which all help them track down and expect not just basic standards of quality, but the 'best of the best'."

The consumer - the user - the individual is where convergence is happening - and where it will matter.  Meeting consumer needs - regardless of what software or hardware that is - is what it's all about, I believe.

What's the importance of this realization - or at least, a shift in thinking?

It shifts our thinking back to end-users, to consumers - rather than to technologies.  Technologies - both hardware and software - becomes means to an end:  to satisfy, to meet the demands of, to make happy and sate the needs of end-users who are at the heart of every business - and every technological innovation. 

It is the companies that deliver their expectations - and their expectations are comprised of long lists of wants- and wish-lists - that will survive.

And any innovation that does not meet these expectations - or any move towards "convergence and unification", regardless of its technological advancement and features - if they are not meeting and exceeding expectations, it won't matter.

Nokia does it well - because I believe that they listen to their consumers.  Microsoft's MSN does it well (although they don't announce it loud enough) - because they listen to their audiences. 

What we need are technologies that will respect this tenet:  that the convergence of technologies will not be one that will be driven by a gadget or a software or a specific technology.  The convergence of technologies will be one that will be driven by the end-user - and her demands and her expectations.  The convergence of technologies will happen because end-users want it.

Strategic Planning, Insights and All That...: An Attempt to Define the Nebulous

I was asked a question by someone on "how to be a good strategic planner".  I am not certain why I was asked that question - because I have not been really a strategic planner in the traditional sense of the word (i.e., working with creative teams and brand-client teams to come up with positioning statements for brands).

Nevertheless, I ventured into providing some answers.

I think that being a good strategic planner requires first and foremost, curiosity about the humanity that is behind the term "consumer".  I believe that when we plan marketing campaigns and advertising projects, we immediately put on our 'marketeers' hats', which is a bit constricting.  With marketing hats, we start thinking of people as "consumers", "buyers", and "audiences", rather than "people who have needs".  I believe that the first thing we need to do is to understand - deeply - the human behind the terms "consumer", "buyer", "audience".

Understanding and unlocking this makes our jobs a lot easier - and our communications campaign a lot more aligned with what exactly people need.

Now that's easier said that done. 

A good friend of mine, who used to work with me in Vietnam and who has now moved to Bangkok, thinks that "insight is the most overused word in the marketing communications industry".  And it is true.  Information is often mistaken as insights.  Charts, advanced and basic stats, percentages, and competitive benchmarks are all considered as "insights".  In my worldview, insights do not come from a single chart or a single statistical test or a complex process - but rather from the agglomeration of all things that we know and have uncovered about the faces behind the labels "consumers", "audiences", and "buyers".

An insight, sometimes, is mistaken to be something that is supposed to be new - and differentiating.  I don't think that insights need to be always original or new - in fact, some of the best insights that I have come across in my dealings with research agencies and consultancies are a reiteration of what we already know:  that people drink certain brand of soft-drinks because everybody else drinks that brand.  That people want choices - even if those choices need not be exercised by them.

These are nothing new - and not groundbreaking.  But they are reiterations of the human condition.

And as long as it is rooted in the human condition - the humanity that lies behind the labels "consumers", "audiences", and "buyers" - I believe it is an insight.

And insight comes from asking questions.

The most important question I think is not "What's the observation?  What did you observe?  What are the measurements?  How high, how low?"  I believe that to arrive at an insight, the most important question is "So what?", which can be broken down into

• Given these N-number of things that we already know from different sources, what ties them all up together? 
• What is the common theme?  What is the underlying story?  What does it mean to the business?  What does it mean to the brand?
• What is the underlying human truth that can encompass all these observations?  How can we leverage this deep human truth to drive our business?  To drive connections with brands?
• What is different then?  Why is it different?  How can this difference be important/detrimental?

The other thing that agencies and clients are most wont to do is saying "But is it actionable?", which suggests that there are actionable insights and non-actionable (worthless) insight.  I believe that no such distinction between actionable (and therefore, "worthy") and non-actionable ("worthless") insight exists.

All insights - since they are based on human truths - have a potential to be actionable.

What makes an insight "non-actionable or worthless" is the lack of creativity and openness in either the client or the agency-side to act on it.  It takes will to create something out of insights.  In fact, it may take more than a department to make an insight truly actionable.  Some insights - if not most - demand that Marketeers go beyond their comfort-zones bound by the marketing department, and involve others - R&D, customer service, corporate communications, sales teams, the senior management team - in transforming insights into action-steps.

An insight - because it is based on human truth - have the potential to create a difference - but it will take guts to make it a reality.

Do insights change across time?  Tricky question.  Here are my thoughts:  Insights do not change immediately across time because they are based on human truths, the human condition.  What changes is how these human truths expressed by consumers.

Here's an example:  Because of advances in communications effects measurements, we are now able to say that "word of mouth and peer recommendations are amongst the most influential sources of information".  Is that an insight?  Yes.  Is it new?  No.  It's been there forever - we've always known that if Person A hears from her friend, Person B, that "Brand M sucks", chances are Person A will believe Person B and assimilate that "Brand M sucks" and consider it in her next purchase decision.

Has it changed across time?  The insight that peer recommendations are influential is as true now as it was back then - when neighbors talked to each other about their experiences on childcare, laundry bars, medicine, and a whole gamut of products.  It's always been a truth - a characteristic of our humanness (our humanity) - to believe our friends more than that celebrity with glowing skin on TV that a certain facial care product works.

What has changed however, is the medium through which these peer recommendations are made - and the definition of what a "peer" is.  These days, "peers and acquaintances" are no longer just people you know personally and people you've met in person.  They could be in your Facebook community or MySpace followeres or Friendster rolodex.  They could be email pals or part of a discussion forum.

The manifestation of what a "peer" is has changed - but not the power of the peer.  The insight remains - but the manifestation and its speed changed.

There is the danger of course, of being too reliant and too stubborn about an "insight" uncovered aeons ago.  Because humans change and evolve in response to the changes in their environment, it is necessary to continually check the insight.  Human truths also do change - in the same way that demographics change and evolve across time.

The challenge is to know when to update - or even discard - an insight and replace it with a new one.  It is not something easily done again because it entails a return to discarding our marketeers' hats and be a curious soul about our people - the people who are "consumers and buyers and audiences".

I know I kind of veered away from the original question:  "How to be a good strategic planner".  But the role of the strategist is in fact this:  to continuously look at the human truths that lie behind or beneath the terms "buyer, consumer, audience" (and therefore insights) and weave them into one coherent strategy that would make that human truth be expressed, communicated, and delivered to those with whom the brand will make highest probability of success.