marginally subversive

when you choose to play the clutter game…

… you end up feeding the same cycle that you intend to escape from.

By playing “who shouts louder”, you end up with a sore throat and a hoarse voice – and annoyed, disengaged audiences who tune out because they see you 5, 10, 20 times in one day.

The logic seems sound: if your competition shouts loud, you should be louder – because if you don’t, you get drowned by your competition.

And your audiences don’t hear you.

But is that true?

You don’t want your audiences to just “hear” you – you want them to listen to you.

And sometimes, to get them to listen, you don’t have to shout: sometimes, a whisper will do.

A whisper – perhaps one that is romantic enough to get them to think how a night would not be without you.

A soft lullaby – perhaps one that is beautiful enough that they would want to listen to you again and again and again.

A personal conversation – perhaps one that is interesting enough for them to actually stay and listen to your story.

Shouting only increases the din of noise that there already was before you started shouting.

My advice: get closer to them.  Be by their side.  Be on their side.

And engage them.

Truly, deeply engage them.

In a story.

In a conversation.

In something that is relevant to their lives.

No amount of noise can make or break a deal – it’s only when you get closer to them that they will trust, like, and love you.

the marketing mix versus the marketing blend

I always trust one of my former colleagues to come up with great insights. 

And he has come up with something great yet again:  Marketing blend.

His inspiration: "blending music" as opposed to "mixing music".  (He loves DJ'ing - and he does great mixes... er, blends.)

He writes in his blog entry:

[ Rather than merely integrating communications across channels, brands could integrate everything they do – the full marketing mix – into a single, holistic approach. ]

He suggests that consumers - and audiences - should have a seamless experience right from the start of their journey towards buying and experiencing the product - a seamlessness that will require the breaking down of silos across different functional teams within the organization.

... that even R&D and product development teams ought to be a part of the creation of the marketing blend.  (Which - to me - makes perfect sense; the best marketing tool of a great product is a great product.)

... that sales teams and retail-push executives ought to be selling not just the product to retailers but the potential of the brand being a significant contributor to a more meaningful, more differentiating, more beautiful experience in-store.

... that social media, customer service, and PR people ought to be enhancing the experience of the consumers - and not be thought of as "by the way..." 

... that the entire organization be focused on delivering this seamless experience for the consumer

I wholly agree with his thoughts.

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

In my experience with working with fmcg brands, I have gleaned a quiet war (or at least, an incongruence) between marketing and sales.

Sales people believe that they are the ones making the money since they are the ones making the rounds; marketing people are just there to make sure they have ads, posters, and other materials to help them sell it to the retailers.

Marketers, on the other hand, believe that they are the ones making the money since they are the ones who are creating demand amongst consumers through their ads, communications programs, and others.

I think the quiet war may be even more pervasive throughout the organization - R&D people think that they are the moneymakers because they are the ones who came up with the product in the first place; customer services and corporate communications believe they are the ones who are the cash-cows because they make sure customers are always happy - and customers are kings and queens.

I think my former colleague's point really is be a marketing-orientated organization that is dedicated to creating remarkable, unique, and surprising consumer experiences.

And for that to happen, we have to step out of the 5P-thinking of marketing mixes into blended consumer experiences.

As a former boss said to me, "consumers don't delineate media experiences as marketeers do - they see the brand on TV, on press, on magazines, on billboards - but they don't see the "brand on TV", "brand on press"... they just see the brand".

And that is what really matters.

being a great client...

... doesn't take much effort, really.

Seth Godin sums it all up in the first paragraph in his blog entry:  

As a [marketing] client, your job isn’t to be innovative. Your job is to foster innovation.

The goal of marketing clients should be to inspire its marketing teams to create innovative solutions, to be catalysts of innovative thinking, to be midwives to the birthing of an idea - and ultimately to reward the innovators.

I have worked with a number of clients and I can say now that I have encountered clients that have been great at inspiring their partners to create innovative, creative solutions to business problems.  I have also encountered clients that somehow missed the mark.

Based on my experience, what differentiated those who were great marketing clients from those who missed the market completely was this: 

Those who were great marketing clients were inspiring.

And it was not only in the 'briefing documents' that this "inspiringness" was communicated:

From the way they talk about the issues the brand faces and the opportunities it has
From the way they deal with their marketing "suppliers" in meetings
From the way they speak on the phone
From the way they ask clarifying questions
From the way they remunerate their agencies
From the way they create ecosystems of collaborations
From the way they empower their partners with information
From the way they share data and updated information
From the way they talk on the phone
From the way they reward both the company and the team that worked

Those who missed the mark were more concerned about their "missing spots", "paginations" on today's newspaper, the "missing" row in their media plans containing the discounts and bonuses and freebies negotiated by the company, their "PR write-up with photo please" on this week's society pages, their CPCs and CPAs and CPMs...

what is marketing analytics? - a first stab...

I have been asked so many times "what is marketing analytics?"  (My mom would typically ask me the same question albeit in a different form: "So what exactly do you do?  What do I tell my friends when they ask me what you do in Singapore?")

Here is my stab at trying to define what exactly (the keyword) I do.

If you have any thoughts, opinions, suggestions, objections - feel free to leave a comment. I will try my best to respond.

What is marketing analytics?

Marketing communications analytics - simply put - is all about knowing "which half of your advertising investments are working" and making this "working half" work even harder.

Marketing analytics is aimed at understanding how each aspect of the marketing mix - from communications (including advertising, digital, and media planning), pricing, distribution, branding and brand heritage, target audiences - works in order to deliver sales, revenues, and profits. 

Using advanced statistical techniques - such as econometric and statistical modeling; marketing investment risk analysis, simulation, and mitigation; behavior- and financial-value-based segmentation of audiences - marketing communications analytics aims to answer questions that marketing directors, CMOs, and even CFOs may have about the effectiveness of their investments in advertising, promotions, pricing tactics, distribution and retailer drives, and customer relations.

It is quickly emerging to be on the top of the Chief Marketing Officer's to-do list as marketing costs are being (rightly) categorized (and recognized) as "financial investments" that therefore require to generate returns.

The demand for analytics is also emerging primarily because marketing discussions are beginning to be linked with strategic corporate and finance objectives of creating short- and long-term wealth for shareholders. 

Simply put, CMOs are now being demanded to quantify their team's contributions to the company's bottom-line.

So what does marketing analytics encompass?  

A rather good question - because I think this is where a lot of divergence happens, specially amongst companies that are seeking to establish their analytics practice internally.  Here are my thoughts:

1. Investment effectiveness analysis -

How much of the current sales/profits of the brand can be attributed to the investments made by the brand in marketing, including advertising and non-advertising efforts?  How much sales/profits are generated per dollar-spent on marketing?  What is the best way to invest across different kinds of marketing activities - TV advertising, press, promotions/discounts, price-cuts?  How do competitive investments affect levels of investments?  How do other external variables - socio-demographic changes, consumer moods, seasonality, temperature and rainfall, financial liquidity - affect the effectiveness of investments?

2. Investment optimization -

Given the historical performance of the brand's investments, what are the best ways to deploy marketing moneys in future campaigns?  What are the optimum levels of investments in each of the different aspects of marketing - TV, press, price-discounting, PR-buzz generation, digital, distribution-drive, retailer-push - to deliver an objective?  How can competitive pressure be managed

3. Investment simulation and scenario planning -

If marketing budgets were cut by 10%, what would the impact be?  If marketing budgets were increased by 10%, what would the impact be - and how should that additional 10% be used to further the brand's goals?  If competitive pressure increases by a commensurate 10% increase, what would the impact be?  If consumers' preferences changed due to changing economic environments, how can a company prepare?

4. Consumer Segmentation and Engagement -

Prior to preparing the budgets, which socio-demographic groups are most likely to be the "valuable" targets of the brand?  What kinds of brand communications best work with these segments?  How do we manage segments that are valuable but vulnerable to poaching by other brands/switching?  How can we attract other brands' high-value/highly-vulnerable target segments to our own brand?

Is marketing analytics new? 

Marketing Communications Analytics is not new.  Some have called it "marketing mix modeling" - since it deals with the 4/5/6 P's or marketing.  Some have called it marketing sciences.  Some call it evidence-based marketing planning.

It is however re-emerging as a practice because the demand amongst CMOs to measure and get their department's contribution to shareholder wealth and value creation measured is real. 

Given the economic crunch, it is quickly becoming an area of urgency.  Because companies are pressured to account for their investments more effectively to their boards and their shareholders, the demand for analytics is even going to increase more in the months to come.

Ad and media agencies believe that this is something that will propel their services to a higher level.  Some companies have succeeded in doing so.  However, one thing is certain:  the traditional way of doing business - from hiring and training talent to actual operations - is not going to be sufficient and will not guarantee success.

Agility is critical - and "financial- and political-will" are necessary to effect changes in how agencies think.

What is the future of marketing analytics? 

Marketing Communications Analytics will pave the way for new remuneration models for communications specialists - from brand consultancies, media companies, creative agencies, and digital agencies to CRM. 

We have seen in the last several years the inclusion of procurement companies in the agency pitch processes.  This is only the first step.

The next step - where marketing analytics will play a significant role - will be when finance executives start getting involved in the marketing business.

Finance executives have a different language - they will talk about NPVs, discounted cash-flows, IRRs, ROIs, risk-management, and value-at-risk.  It will probably take them some time to deeply understand the value of brands and brand strategies - but they will get there.

This is where marketing analytics comes in - because marketing analysts will be able to speak these same language (or at least, approximate the language of finance executives) through their use of hybrid techniques - techniques from statistics, econometrics, and finance.

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

What do you think?  Any opinions or thoughts on these?

holistic enterprise-wide measurements and business performance

Measuring and improving employee retention is an increasingly vital challenge which is essential to the smooth function of “multi-location” operations that involve far flung managers and staff personnel. The power of key-driver analyses not only identifies what is important to improving employee performance; it provides a measurable basis for each business unit to target the specific areas that needed to improve. Not all management teams are equally good at communication, training, etc. The employee survey system that was developed lets managers know their real effectiveness on the important issues that impact employee performance, and how to improve the company-employee relationship.

via marketresearchbulletin.com

From www.marketresearchbulletin.com

The last couple of weeks, I have reading up on Enterprise Risk Management - ERM - in prep for my attempt at getting a certification in risk management from GARP and PRMIA next year. The goal of ERM is simple: to create a culture that acknowledges the fact that everyone in the company is a risk-manager.

This entry from MarketResearchBulettin.Com made me think: in addition to ERM - and perhaps, even prior to establishing an ERM - there must be an integrated, enterprise-wide measurement system that (well) integrates performance metrics, socialization metrics, "shared culture and values" metrics, financial metrics, project management and efficiency metrics, and others.

True: this will make life for CFOs and CROs harder.

But that may be the key to a sustainably profitable, positive-cashflow company.

of risks and rewards in marketing and advertising

The more you risk, the higher the reward:
Realistic or not?

We've heard that adage so many times.  I myself have used that in trying to convince clients to take on a new idea that I deem to be groundbreaking, creative, and would be a "first of its kind" execution.

But my viewpoint has changed.

After having learned more about risks and its management and mitigation (albeit from a financial perspective), I changed my mind.

It is not true that the more you risk, the higher the reward.

I am not sure who coined this - but I am guessing finance people. 

What is interesting is that it's also being used by creative executives (and media planners, like myself) to sell concepts that are rather risque and controversial - all under the guise that "you can't bore your consumers into buying your product - you can only excite them".  (I believe that's a paraphrase the great David Ogilvy.)

But the model - as depicted above - has some problems: 

1. It assumes that for every unit of risk that a client takes, it generates a commensurate amount of return to the client.

It may not be a one-to-one relationship - but it is linear nonetheless:  for every 1 unit of risk you take, you get some unit of reward.

I don't think that's realistic.

There must be a point beyond which taking on more risks won't generate as much returns or potentials for rewards.

2. It also assumes that the more risks you take, the expected the returns ought to keep on coming - so one should keep on taking risks. 

So if the amounnt of risks that a client takes approaches infinity, the rewards also should approach infinity.

Again, I don't think that's realistic. 

There's only so much "reward" that one can get - unless one believes in The Secret, which states that "there is an infinity of abundance out there".

A more realistic proposition:
Risk and Potential Rewards are 'hyperbolic'

OK.  Before you tune out, let me visually show you what I mean:

 

I believe that the above more accurately represents the relationship between taking risks and the possibility of a reward or returns on investments.

Let's break down the possibilities in this visual representation:

1. If you don't risk, you don't get anything.

The curve starts at zero - which means, if you don't take a risk, you won't get anything.  I think we can all agree with that one.

2. The relationship between risks and rewards/returns is not linear but is a curve that is similar to the "diminishing returns curve".

Focus on the top half of the figure: There must be a point beyond which taking on more risks won't generate any additional potential for return.  There is a 'decreasing efficiency' or 'decreasing risk-to-reward conversion'.

Let me illustrate:

If I took on some "b" risks ("b" being a number), the returns I get would be much higher than if I had taken some "a" risks.  However, if I took on "d" risks, the returns would not that different had I taken only "b" risks.

That's the law of diminishing returns - nothing lasts and goes on forever, basically

3. For every risk one takes - regardless of the amount - there is an equivalent possibility of failure.

The first, linear model assumes that if you take risks - there is no possibility of loss, no possibility of a backlash.  It's all good - and it lasts forever!

This model, however, acknowledges the real meaning of risk:  to take risks - any amount of risk - means being open to both possibilities of failure and of success.

If I took on "a" risks, the possibility of success is there - but so is the possibility of failure.  If I took on "d" risks, the possibility of success is also there - but so is the possibility of failure. 

The possibilities between success and failure may be imbalanced - but that is not the point:  The point is, for every risk, there is a possibility of success and the possibility of failure - simultaneously.  Otherwise, it is not risk.

(In this visual diagram, I have made the possibility of success a mirror image of the possibility of failure.  But it may not necessarily be so.)

So what do these have got to do
with marketing and advertising?

Let's stop the idea that "the more risks you take, the more rewards you get so let's get creative..."  I think it is irresponsible of ad and marketing professionals to recommend this approach: There are no guarantees that if you risked a lot, you'll get as much as what you risked.

Let's also start thinking in terms of risks in advertising and marketing:  If we are to elevate marketing discussions to be more than just "advertising and promotions", we need to accept, take on, and include in our thinking and philosophies the concepts of risks.

When we talk of "ROI" or "accountability" or "ROMI", we need to talk about not just "thresholds, creativity, optimal budgets" - but also risks.

So what's next?

The concept of risk may have originated from finance.  In fact, the charts above are from finance's portfolio management theories.

It's time that we treated marketing investments as investments.

It's time for clients to start asking their agencies and 'media brokers' to think like real brokers and financial analysts and consultants.  It's time that agencies to start thinking in terms of investments - in the real sense of the word invesment.

the mighty also falls

"How the Mighty Fall" the BusinessWeek

Collins outlines five stages of decline: Hubris Born of Success, Undisciplined Pursuit of More, Denial of Risk and Peril, Grasping for Salvation, Capitulation to Irrelevance or Death. He makes the point that great companies can fall "even if engaged in energetic and ambitious activity"...  (Emphasis mine)

This is from Jim Collins who wrote Good to Great and Built to Last (together with Jerry Porras).

It is quite interesting how it captures - in very simple terms and 'stages' - the history of some companies.

If I look at the financial industry, this could very well be the same trends that occurred.  The same is true of "idols".

This could very well be the same of brands.

From BusinessWeek.Com

When every little thing matters…

These are times when every little thing matters:

• When you remove all the drinks from what used to be an open pantry because you can save 200 dollars a  month, you are sending a signal that your people don’t matter.  So why should they consider you as if you mattered?
  
• When you lock the cabinets for office supplies to save on costs, you are sending a signal that you don’t trust your people.  Why would then your people trust you?
  
• When you question every single hour a person is late, you are sending a signal that your people are factory-workers who need a time-punch card – in spite of them having worked late last night till 11pm for no pay or for tapping into their electricity to finish a presentation to a client.
  
• When you question every single person’s leave application as if they were looking for ways to skive off work, you are sending them a signal that all you need are bodies of people and pairs of hands – but not necessarily their heart and their commitment.  Why should they trust you – when you don’t trust them?
  
• When you give signals of that your staff are nothing BUT mere bodies, mere pairs of hands, mere costs, mere overheads…
  

True.

The job market is bad.

You know that.  Your people know that.

The market is bad.

You know that.  And surprise: Your people know that too. 

Your people?  They are not just lines in your expense column.  They are not just drawers of salaries.

When you look hard enough, there is a gem inside them that you can nurture.

 

I have always believed that the best and the worst of times bring out the best and the worst of people.  And of companies.

These are not the best of times, obviously.

And I am beginning to see this truism rear its ugly head.

And those that believe – truly, f***ing believe – that their people is best way out of this mess, in spite of their inadequacies and their imperfections – will be the ones that will live on to be legends.

Thanks to Darwin Bell from Flickr for the photo

Remaking (and remarketing) marketing...

Seth Godin wrote a very strong blog-entry on marketeers, aptly titled "Poisoning the Well".  Here's what he has got to say about marketeers:

Marketers have spammed, lied, deceived, cluttered and ripped us off for so long, we're sick of it.

Which means that even if you have a really good reason, no, you can't call me on the phone. Which means that even if it's really important, no, I'm not going to read the instructions. Which means that god forbid you try to email me something I didn't ask for... you're trashed. It's so fashionable to be skeptical now that no one believes you if you attempt to do something for the right reasons.

Selfish short-sighted marketers ruined it for all of us. The only way out, I think, is for a few marketers to so overwhelm the market with long-term, generous marketing that we have no choice but to start paying attention again.

I would say amen to that.

This morning, I opened my mailbox - and sellers of condominium units and properties in Singapore have decided to rename me as "The Resident".  Sorry.  I didn't even bother opening those up.  If you really want me to consider your offering, at least address me properly.  I am not "The Resident" - I am not "Mr. Resident".

A couple of days ago, I had a phone call from a card company - asking me if I wanted to get a new card with them.  The problem was, I already had a card with them.  And in case they haven't noticed, I am quite OK with their services since I use their card several times in a month.  The funng thing? As soon as the telemarketer heard that I already had a card, she just went "Ah, OK.  Thanks.  Goodbye".

Hello?

And spam: The trend these days is "text/SMS spamming".  From my bank.  From my phone service provider.  From my cable TV provider.  From the bookstore.  From the skincare brand that I tried for the sake of trying.  From some company whose services I don't even know.

OK.

These are indeed tough times.

But these marketeers - and their brand managers - need to understand that in these tough times, it is also a lot easier to piss your current clients off.

Image From Feureau on Flickr.Com - Thanks!

Measuring ROI with Google – A Simple View

An interesting video from Google on YouTube on calculating ROI, using profit margins.

What thing that’s missing though is “So how do I move into the future?”

Profit margins (and cost of goods sold and revenues) are not static measurements for businesses.  There is seasonality involved – and there is randomness involved.  While measuring ROI from past campaigns is good, measuring and predicting ROIs for future campaigns is far much better and far more useful.

Just because one product does generate more profits now doesn’t necessarily mean it will continue to generate profits in the future.

Similarly: ROI from the past are not necessarily good predictors of ROI in the future.