Nothing new - to be honest. But interesting nonetheless.
How the Cloud (with a capital "C") is going to change our lives? Well, it has the potential of changing our views on privacy - as well as how we look at computing, sharing information, and other tech-lifestyle related activities.
Amazing how we have grown since the Net was introduced to the public.
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.
Picked this up from the Yahoo! news RSS - and as a user of Yahoo finance, I will have to agree that yes - it is indeed a great resource. Significantly better than Google's Finance Pages, Yahoo Finance's pages (US-based, I think, but accessible to SG-users) are a great way to learn about investing - and well, invest. The real-time prices and the technical graphing capabilities are awesome.
I have been trying to put a "dollar value" to my day. This is part of my personal goal of setting up my own shop - an advisory shop for small to mid-sized entrepreneurs in Singapore and in other countries in Southeast Asia on how to break-through their respective markets and create compelling stories for investors.
For the past several days, I have been looking at different ways of doing this. I first looked at the idea of "direct salary costs" + "overhead/capitalization" + "preset profit margins". But quickly, I saw the weakness in such an attempt. My salary - or at least, my former company's salary - could not be a benchmark, because that is not necessarily the value that I can bring to the table.
I tried a different approach - benchmarking. I started calling friends who have been in the business of consultancies (the closest I could get to "advisory") - and started to rack my brains in search of memories that could lead me to a number. I then compared my credentials with their own credentials, their clients with my target clients... But then again, I realized,well, mine is an entirely niche target altogether. My credentials - or anybody else's credentials - are not a sure-fire way to measure value. And besides, how does one quantify the value of one's credentials - and those non-dollarizable values?
Then I recalled I had this book called "The Business of Consulting". I started to look at the advice the author gave - and devised my own way of looking at how I should be charging - or perhaps, 'dollarize' my time.
1. Start treating yourself as a company. So list down all your possible expenses - knowing full well that you now are a company, not just an employee.
2. Determine how many days in a year will you be working to create noticeable value. This may or may not be 8hour days. There is no "number of hours" involved - the ultimate goal is "noticeable value-creation" for clients.
3. I had to be realistic - this would be a stressful endeavor. So I figured there should be days wherein I will do nothing BUT nothing. There will also be days when I will need to catch up on readings and learn new things. And there will be days when I will have to market the company - well, that's also creating value, but not to the clients that I will be serving.
4. Only then did I arrive at a number. It seemed high - at first.
5. I immediately tried it out with a trusted business partner - and told him what my rates are going to look like for the projects that I will be doing for his team. Of course, I had to show him the value of the projects that I will be working with him on - and how these could potentially lead to better processes, better returns, better people. He said yes.
So - value proposition versus pricing proposition? I think looking at 'dollarization' from both angles is perhaps necessary. "Pricing" however, tends to undervalue the "real value" - because "we have to be competitive, we have to get more sales volume, we have to get more pick-ups and empty the shelves, we have to have more sales units sold!"
So I am going to say, it's all about dolarization should never be driven by what's cheap, what's in the market, what the rest are doing, and what we think would make people buy ("People love cheap prices!" - to which I say, "Not really...")
And funnily enough, Seth Godin in his latest blog talks of this thing. He says -
Your sales force and your customers may scream that you need to lower your price.
It's not true.
You need to increase your value. If people don't want to pay, it's because you're not delivering enough value for the money you're charging.
You're not selling a commodity unless you want to.
Coincidences. How I love them.
(I would like to say "great minds think alike..." but then again, I don't think I can compare with THE Seth Godin...! Haha!)
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.
Tags: LinkedIn, Social Networking, Social Web, Digital Web, Digital Advertising, Digital Models, Business Models, Strategic Planning
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.
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.
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":
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
From e-Marketer.Com: US Internet Users are Glued to Video.
In this study by BURST Media on January 1, 2008, it shows that more and more people in the US are watching the internet online. Leading the pack are the Males 18-24 year olds, who from memory are the most difficult groups to reach. More than 1/3 of this demographic actually watch a video online at least once a day.
Women 18-24 are not too far behind: At least 55% will have seen at watched one video online in one week.
What does this say about traditional media planning?
Traditional media planners still look up to TV (mostly in Southeast Asia) as the best way to reach consumers for "motherhood statements": "Audio visual properties have been proven to be the most effective way of delivering messages to consumers; it has the highest reach and GRPs to be delivered in one week; it creates the best awareness levels and therefore return on investments."
But that is changing, isn't it?
I believe that the time has come to revamp how we think about media planning or even "touch-points" or channel planning. We are no longer planning how brands are seen - or even interacted with - by consumers. We should be planning how we are going to be entertaining audiences with our brand.
Their choices of media no longer are no longer the "critical dealbreaker or dealmaker" - it's how entertained they are and how - gasp - engaged they are with the media and the content that they are watching or consuming.
The challenge now is to create entertaining interaction points between brands and consumers.
That is easier said than done, but I am sure that in some small digital, creative shop in this side of the world, a strategic planner and a creative director are huddled and brainstorming how to create the best experience for consumers of a brand of detergent, soft-drinks, shampoos, and PCs.
And that sooner or later, we will be measuring not just GRPs and reach and frequency and CPMs - but how much we have entertained our consumers, and how much did that create sales for brands.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
