marginally subversive

Google + Digg = ???

I had a bit of a discussion with our digital lead in the office about Google and Digg.  As of early last week,  talks are probably making some headway.  TechCrunch had even had a stronger 'pronouncement' that the talks are in the final stages with Google paying 200Mln USD (only?) for the deal.  Of course, Digg had to respond to such talks.  Its CEO, Jay Adelson, denied that these talks are in place.

As of the latest news, there seems to have been a breakdown in the negotiations.  Google, apparently, walked away from the deal, according to TechCrunch.

What's driven Google to this?  Well, we can only speculate.  But this perhaps could give us a glimpse:  It seems that Google is experimenting with integrating user-votes into their algorithms to further refine the search results that the search engine churns for its users.

This entry from TechCrunch demonstrates how some early tests that Google has been conducted in the area of "social/user-votes-integration" into search results.

All these are of interest to me as a campaign planner - and for marketeers.

First, the idea of integrating a social-dimension to search results is probably a good idea from the end-user perspective.  Right now, Google's PageRank and other technologies (Microsoft's Browserank, which debuted on SEOBook.Com) are dependent on "referral links". 

(Microsoft's BrowseRank looks at user's behavior and the time spent per 'referring link' to ascertain the importance of the 'target link'; OK - that's putting it simplistically...)

Adding on a social component to search results is essentially "sourcing the wisdom of the crowds" - crowds, who I should add would be or are going to be very likely to be interested in the same things that any individual user is looking for.

The technologies of referring links (and other metrics gathered through sophisticated algorithms based on web-crawlers and others) will have an added, truly-interactive dimension - which means that with this, users get to have a say on what's relevant and what's not.

Will it lead to better results?  I am no algorithm expert - but I would think so.  If I were searching for "Ducati motorcycles" (which I have been doing for the past 2 weeks), I would want to have more relevant information on Ducati - way beyond what the corporate website of Ducati says (which always comes up tops on the list).  And right now, I will have to follow every single link that the Google search results page spews out.

With this added dimension of "vote-ups/downs" from other end-users who may have searched the same keywords as I have done, it might just make my life a little easier.  The ones that were voted up by people who did the same search earlier than I did would most likely be relevant to me, too.  It may not be perfect - but at least it is a starting point.

The end-user, I think, will benefit from this greatly.  She may lose out on a few interesting websites - but even then, she can vote-up/down on her own volition results which she may have found to be relevant to her search.

On the other hand, there are questions on "search results manipulation".  If we had incidents of "click-fraud" in the CPC model - then we'll have to live with (or at least get Google to put a lid on) fraudsters who will be exploiting the possibility of artificially bumping up/down ratings.

On a cost-basis (which in these troubled times are beginning - or are becoming a more frequent point of discussion in marketing meetings - traditional or digital), costs per click or costs per acquisition are probably going to increase.

The results no longer are just dependent on Google's algorithms - with the social dimension of the search results, the crowd contributes.  Essentially, people who have done similar searches as I am now doing, for exaple, will have already paved the way for me to the most relevant results - which could potentially be relevant to me, too!

Now, isn't that more valuable than pure, algorithm-derived search results?  If I were google, I would do the same thing.  I would put a premium to this - whilst controlling the possibility of fraudulent vote-ups/downs.

Bottom-line:  Google is living up to its vision - "to oganize the world's information".  And if and when this incorporation of the social dimension comes through, it would have been a step closer to realizing that vision.

For now, Google + Digg is probably not going to pull through.  But it seems, Google has got its head around the issue.  And it seems that they are on the right track.

Paid Search Ads Not the Holy Grail

This is a very interesting video from Yahoo! Tech Ticker, an interview with Jonathan Yarmis of AMR Research conducted by Sarah Lacy.  Yarmis believes that there are four pillars to disruptive technologies that will define the future - not in silos but in terms of how each pillar interact:

1. Social Networking Phenomenon, powered by the technology
2. Cloud computing
3. Mobile access to data
4. Monetization beyond the traditional search ads

Yarmis also suggests that "paid search ads in a social networking phenomenon" (and I will add, in other technologies - for example in mobile access to data on a phone or a wireless device) are not the only way to monetize all these.

(Think of it this way:  If you are talking/networking with your friends on your PC or on your mobile device, would you really click on a text ad that's irrelevant to what you and your friends are talking about?)

The internet, Yarmis says, will remain to be free - and I do agree.  Capex from tech companies that are funding these "free" internet services won't be able to maintain these levels of interest.  Monetization will be critical.  However, most companies are still very much stuck to the old "advertising mindset" of capitalizing on "inventory" rather than creating new ways of monetizing these.

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.

No more ads...

Well, the truth is there are still ads.  But I have been not noticing any ads.  If you asked me now what web ads have I seen in the last couple of days - or even the past week (apart from those which I had to "see" as part of my job), I wouldn't be able to name one.

Which leads me to the question: Are digital ads really declining in effectiveness?

If that is so, then why is everybody so hung up on ads (at least seemingly)?  Microsoft and Yahoo and Time and AOL and Google.

Everybody seems to be thinking that the reason why these companies have made the moves they made in the last couple of months is "advertising".

I would beg to differ.

Advertising could be a part of it.  But it's beyond that.  The fact that Yahoo seems to be so intent at avoiding the bid and Microsoft is so intent in pushing the deal - and everybody else from Google to Time to AOL - are all trying to get into the ruckus themselves suggest that there is something else beyond advertising.

Advertising is on a decline.  People don't want ads to be shoved down their throats anymore.  A new way to - all together now - "communicate" is necessary.  (And no, social networking ads?  C'mon.)

The days of "inventory-based advertising" - regardless of whether it is in display or search - are on entering the "wane" period.  Whatever you call the next phase - engagement planning, IMC, IPC, CCP, Comm Planning, Media Neutral Planning, Atomized Planning - it will not be solely 'inventory-based' anymore.

I Am - therefore I Blog...

Back in college, I had to take a course, "History of Psychology" as part of my academic requirements (and in order to be considered for graduation).  I thought "Oh no.  It's going to be one long boring semester or memorizing dates and names and everything else".

The professor - and God bless her but I cannot remember her name - I am sure was perceptive enough to have realized this preconception and bias amongst her students and tried very hard to make it interesting.  She wasn't very successful - but oh well.  That's another story.

I did find it interesting however.  And one of the things that I really did like was the discussion about Descartes' "Cogito Ergo Sum" and an opposing view (whose was it, I cannot remember now).  It was a discussion about "which came first - being or doing?"

"Cogito Ergo Sum" says "I think therefore I am".  Others say "I am therefore I think".  I am sure there are more dimensions to the story.  But these are the two that stuck in my mind.

And I will take that position and apply that into something I like doing - which is writing, and well, blogging.

I am - therefore I blog. 

And that pretty much sums up everything that I believe in about writing.

Seth Godin has this to say about blogging:  Show up. Not writing is not a useful way of expressing your ideas. Waiting for perfect is a lousy strategy.

How apt, I felt.  I blog because I want to show up.  I write because I want to show up.  And there may be grammatical errors and spelling errors and reasoning errors - but heck, I am not aiming for perfection, I am aiming to simply write.

And I write because, well, I am.

How about you?

Live Search is getting better...

OK, I am no search-guru.  The farthest I have gone to implementing a search strategy is watching my colleague who is a search guru do a demo on how to do a search strategy.  But I am an avid user of search.  My search default right now is Google - primarily because I search a lot of research materials and their scientific/academic journals search seems to be good.

For other non-serious stuff though, I tend to not really stick to any one.  I want my search to be everywhere I am at - which is mostly these days within the MSN Windows Live network.  (Since I am a Live Mail fanatic and Windows Live Mail desktop app heavy user [it's always on and it aggregates all my email accounts - both for work- and non-work-related email]...)

I stumbled upon this site on the developments in Windows Live Search.  Pretty impressive.  I particularly liked the idea of the photo-search/image-search.  My biggest problem with Google Image Search is that I have to click through to so many pages to look at all the images - and not only that, I have to get to the source file/site in order to see whether that image is indeed what I was looking for or not.  Waste of time.

The one on video search is good, I thought.  Google has integrated video results into their search - and have a dedicated search sites for Video.  But I think this one from Live Search is good:  You get to see lots of videos in one go - and preview them without actually leaving the search results site.

Hey, not bad.

Do people need this?  I surely do since I tend to multitask and want things done in a jiff.

I wonder though when are they going to roll this one out.

And when will they make other people know more about these pretty powerful stuff?

C'mon, guys.  Just because you got something good you can't relax and say "they'll come".  Do some marketing - for once, be a marketing company.  You've made the first step towards making great strides in improving the search experience - and you may have stumbled upon something that could be useful to people.  Get them on the bandwagon if they are not yet.

It's time that we tell people how good and consumer-centric Microsoft is.

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.

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.

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.

Questions and Answers

I have a conversation with an ex colleague of mine about the future of the media planning and communications planning industry.  And here are some excerpts of what we talked about:

Him:  So do you think that advertising is going to decline this year and in the next few years?

Me:  Well, in terms of adspends that are being monitored, yes - it is very likely.  TV is already showing signs of slowing down at least in Singapore and in Thailand.  In the Philippines, FTA-TV is getting to be more and more challenged by alternative forms of entertainment.  And in Malaysia, the growing strength of Cable versus FTA is already something worth mentioning.

What should media agencies do?

They are in a very good position, in fact.  They hold all the data and information that can transform the media industry into something beyond the media planning of the old.

What kinds of data do they have?

Do you believe in the maxim "You are what you read or watch or listen to"?  That however you interact with different kinds of media channels define who you are - say, if you want to watch a lot of serials on TV - it says something about you.  And that if you are addicted to lifestyle magazines or say, the sports section of a newspaper - it says something about you?

Well, the data that media agencies have are all these.  And I just don't mean "data as percentages".  I think media agencies need to dive more deeply into these and uncover more stories.

But they've always worked - we've always worked - on the levels of ratings and percentages?

Which I believe is insufficient.  We should have dove a little deeper.  I know that some companies have tried getting elemental data for optimization purposes - "individual level data" apparently is good for optimization.

But it's more than that.  Imagine being able to cluster people based on the likely-TV behaviors.  Imagine being able to cluster people not just in terms of their psychographics - based on answers to surveys with a battery of attitudinal statements - but based on their actual behavior on TV: when they switch, how often do they switch channels, what kinds of programs make them switch, what kinds of ads make them switch, what programs make them  loyal, what artistes make them loyal to a program. 

All these are in the usual TAM data that Nielsen Media Research, TNS, and other research providers give out regularly.

It's just that we've never dove deeply.

Is it because we lack the intellectual capacity?

Of course not - and I take offense at that!  (A bit of a chuckle)  It's because we are content with percentages - with measurements of the old - GRPs, reach, frequency, CPMs, frequency distribtuions, demographic and affinity definitions.

We have just become complacent - we have just become contented with what we have.  We need more metrics.  We need more curious and disciplined people.  We need people who are willing to experiment with numbers - and with the combinations of numbers.  We need people who will say to their Western counterparts that "Look, guys, these are some ideas that we have because we think that our media landscape is far different from yours.  We need to measure this and that, beyond ratings and GRPs."

Is it then a matter of will?

And curiosity and the boldness to dream big.  The funny thing about being bold is that it lifts you up above the rest and you become more of a target.  But that's the price of being bold.

So what are you proposing?

The past several years have seen some strides in the maths and statistical theory world.  There's this thing called "Hierarchical Bayes" methodology, stemming from Bayesian theory.

There's also the field of computer simulations, and good old econometric modeling and similar regression techniques - but done on an individual, respondent level basis and on a cumulative basis.

All these are pointing to richer, far more powerful usage of already-available data.

What of content?

What did Marshall MacLuhan say?  "The medium is the message."  A lot of people think of that as a "goal" - some think that that is all about "integrating the medium and the message".

I think differently.

I think it is not the goal - "the medium is the message" is a declarative statement, a factual statement.  It is essentially suggestive of the reality that we cannot separate the medium from the message - nor the message from the medium.  The medium is the message - and vice versa.

What drives people to watch TV is not TV per se - it is the TV + the content that it contains - the messages that are contained within TV.  What drives people to go online is not just because online is online - but because within online, there is a content - a message - that if it were not available, people would look for elsewhere.

The medium is the message - and the message is the medium - are facts, not goals.  It is not something that we work towards.  It is a given.

So where does that leave the divide between creative and media planning?

Who has the data?  Media planning departments.  Who can best explain the needs of the consumers and uncover these needs?  Media planners.  Who can best describe the underlying thoughts, wants, needs and "motivations" of consumers?  Media planners.

But it is the creative - the messaging department - that puts flesh to these.

But isn't advertising all about selling?

True.  But like all seasoned sales people would know:  you cannot sell unless you have somehow made an argument - emotional or logical, rational or irrational - to consumers.  If you have not connected, you can't.

Where does information management, Bayesian theory, simulations, Hierarchical Bayes, and multiple-level regression analyses come into the picture?

Richness in understanding who the consumers/audiences are - based on what they actually do, not just on what they say or claim to say - and not just on demographics.  But real behavior.  Real-time, real observable individual-level behavior.

Will it be a panacea?

No such thing exists.  It is a first step - a significant step away from percentages (which treat all consumers as equals and as "mere statistics").  It is a first step towards real understanding of consumers and audiences.

Doesn't it already exist in the digital world?

To a certain extent it does.  But the digital world is also battling issues in privacy - it is so "close" to personally identifiable information that it is quite scary.  At least in TAMs, in PeopleMeters(R), there is still some sense of anonymity.

So what should media companies do?

Be brave.  That's the first step.  Be more than just order- and brief-takers.  Be more than just mere "OK, we'll book it by tomorrow" sayers.  Think through each and every media plan - and go beyond the percentages.

================================

 

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

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.

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.

More on Choosing (RED)

And I am indeed proud of DELL and of MICROSOFT.  They have collaborated to create a product that is specifically going to be aligned with the goals of (RED).  I think it's a great opportunity for people to make a difference.

Here is a photo that I picked up from Steve Clayton's blog.

Ain't she a beauty?

I would definitely buy one when they hit the shores of Singapore.

My iPhone dreams?  What are iPhones again?

The Devil Wears Prada and the Stock Market

My friends are probably going to sigh yet again because for some reason, I am writing about  The Devil Wears Prada yet again.  Well, I honestly think that there is some "wisdom" (OK, wisdom is too big a word) in the movie that could potentially be applied to the changing sentiments of Wall Street.

These are lines from the movie's 'devil' played by Meryl Streep:

You can see beyond what people want, and what they need and you can choose for yourself.

Guess what I think:  I think that those who are going to survive the downtrends in the global markets are those who will be able to see what people want, what they need, what their short-term and long-term fears are, what their aspirations are, what drives them and what disappoints them.

And choose.

The market is supposedly rational.  The movements of Wall Street and of other exchanges around the world are supposedly rational.  We are supposedly trading in a rational world.

But we're not trading in a rational world.

A rational world would be one that allowed everyone - every stakeholder - access to perfect and full information.

One could argue that the internet has allowed access to more information - and that is true.  As I type this, I can the ticker of the NYSE go up and down on my screen.  I also see a stream of news coming in.

Surely, there is more information available - timely information.

But perfect and 'full' information?  I don't think they are.

Now more than ever, corporate people - being people - are more wary about what they say and do because it could spread like wildfire thanks to the internet.

 

So who will profit from this mess?

Those who can see into the fears, dreams, aspirations, motivations, drivers, dampeners, souls, and hearts of investors - and choose and play.

Do I sleep with my phone? No.

Steve Clayton asks in his blog, Geek In Disguise, "Do you sleep with your phone?"

As a matter of fact, I do.

(OK.  Before you start thinking funny things about "sleeping with", I literally mean sleeping.  Not the figuratively "sleeping with".  Perv.  Haha.  Hey - new job!  Gotta make an impression.)

Beside my bed is a low table that has 2 mobile phones - a Samsung, fitted with a SIM card that allows me to communicate with my partner through SMS and phone calls cheaply, and a Nokia E90, which I use for work (it gets synced with my schedules and tasks from Outlook(R), as well as files when I don't feel like bringing home the laptop).

Both phones try - and that's the operative word - try to wake me up at 6am so I can go to the gym at 7am or at least swim.  That's in theory.  It doesn't work.

But they do sleep beside me.

In addition to these two phones, one more gadget sleeps with me, an iPod.  I am still waiting for Zune to reach Singapore's shores - or at least for someone amongst my team to go to Redmond so they can buy me one (hopefully, for free!).

I am still learning Espanol.  And I am still really bad at it.  I am still trying to get through the tenses - as well as beefing up my, well, slang vocabulary.  I can carry on a "formal conversation" - specifically about wine, countries, nationalities, and order perhaps a nice paella in the restaurante.  But not present.

The goal:  Be able to present a plan in Spanish at the end of the year 2008.

Anyway, I digress:  I use the iPod for my Spanish lessons.  I learned in college that the brain doesn't stop learning even when we sleep.  It still is open to stimulus - and I guess, it worked:  I aced my Chem, Physics, Psych, and History courses by listening to my recorded voice whilst I slept.  I am guessing that it should work again now.

The MacBookPro that I bought 6 months ago - and for clarity's sake, 4 months before my current company (guess which one?) agreed to take me on board - is also by my bedside.  I use Word for Mac 2004 - and I use it mainly as a journal.  Excel?  Checking stocks and balancing cheques.  So far, I have not used PowerPoint - it reminds me so much of work I can't seem to bear looking at a PowerPoint slide at 11pm!

So - nope, I just don't sleep with my phone - I sleep with 2 phones, an iPod (which I hope will be a Zune soon), and the MacBookPro and Word for Mac 2004. 

It's an orgy of technology before I sleep.

And just for the record:  I cannot live without my phones.  Take away everything else - but not the two phones.

TIME Magazine 5th October 1981

I just found out (by chance) that all the articles that TIME has ever written is now archived digitally and are now available for anyone to search.  Since I recently joined Microsoft, I figured it might be interesting when was the first time Microsoft was ever mentioned in a TIME article. 

And here it is:  TIME 5th October 1981.  In an article entitled Software for the Masses, which talks about the then emergence of software as a "mass product".  Here is the snippet on where Microsoft was mentioned:

Microsoft. Best known for its version of the program-writing language, BASIC which has sold more than 500,000 copies so far, Microsoft (projected 1981 sales: $14 million) was founded in 1975 by William Gates, then an 18-year-old Harvard student. Gates now oversees a staff of 96 at the firm's headquarters in Bellevue, Wash. Growth has come so fast that Gates has not yet found time to finish his degree at Harvard.

Things have surely changed.  Microsoft is no longer just known for its program-writing language (which I had to do a crash course in when I was a Computing Sciences student at the Ateneo de Manila University).  Its Windows OS, Office productivity software, XBOX360, MSN and Windows Live services online, and other services are now amongst the building blocks of our digital lives.

I also managed to find the first time that Bill Gates was featured in the cover.  This (I hope) will lead you to the first time that Bill Gates was on the cover of TIME magazine's 16th April 1984 issue.

Look at that - it's still a 5.25in disc.

I remember my travails with the 5.25in disc.  For some reason, I had a love-hate relationship with the 5.25in disc:  I loved them (and I stored in them my thesis, my reports, my overnight cases, my BASIC, Turbo Pascal, and Turbo C programs, and my readings) - but they hated me (these disks always malfunctioned - gets erased, gets scratched, become unreadable, get folded - in the most inopportune time).

Ahh... memories of years - well, two decades ago!

I am being nostalgic, I know.  But the move of TIME to put their library of articles online - and covers - is I think very helpful to researchers and students who are trying to trace how things have evolved across time.

I remember my Uni-days when I had to look at microfiche upon microfiche of newspaper and magazine articles to complete an assignment in Political Science or in History or even Psychology.  This move is really good and I think it's an amazing move.

(And thank God, they're not charging for it!)

I am easily excitable, I know.  Perhaps, even naive.  (Who knows, tomorrow I might get an email asking me to remove the cover down since it's a property of TIME... Please don't sue me... :))

But I think this is exactly what the digital world is supposed to be:  information accessibility that defies time and space.  Imagine our great grandchildren being able to access news about our lives now (and well, not that there's much good news to harp about) and compare it with theirs (ad perhaps, they'd feel better instantly).

Gosh.  The good old days.

If you want to look for more TIME covers, here is the link.

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?"