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.
