marginally subversive

consumers, brands, and the social marketing landscape

I was going through my RSS reading list and something caught my eye from Adrian Chan and Andreas Weigend at Gravity 7.  His latest entry was informative, inspiring, and thought-provoking - and is definitely worth a read and a discussion.

Of all the things that he said - and he said a lot of good things - these are just some of the few that really struck with as they are things that I have always believed in:

(Oh - and I will quote without shame because I believe Adrian Chan of Gravity7 has ensnared these thoughts so beautifully.)

1. Conversations are at the core of marketing

Conversation is the new marketing. Markets are no longer made by the brand, around brand image, and by means of brand messaging. Markets are made by consumers, through their connections, and interests as related in conversation. Distribution through conversation is the new mode of production.

2. Advertising, marketing communications, promotions, PR, digital, newspapers, magazines, TV spots, internet ads, digital ads, social ads - all these are not about eyeballs, reach, frequency, 'engagement'... It's about the brand and how it connects with consumers - and how consumers connect back.

This is not just a matter of the eyeballs having turned from one screen, the TV, to another. It’s not just a matter of changing medium – it’s about talking now instead of looking. And this is new, even still, to many brands. Of course brands like to see themselves mentioned and reflected in consumer opinion. But then so, too, do consumers. Consumers are the new brands, and they do their branding in person. Conversation is the highest form of shared value, individually produced, and mutually engaging. ... Conversation is the new marketing because it is the right way to engage with the medium.

 3. Brand management, brand creation, brand strengthening - heck, BRANDING is all about the relationships that consumers have with a named-product that happened to have elicited a significant relationship with the consumer.  A brand is a result of consumer's response.

It is the brand that now wants to be seen in the proximity of the consumer, not the consumer who desires to identify with the brand. The social self is now so self-constructed and socially connected that consumers expect to see themselves reflected in the brands they relate to. Consumers make brands in their own image, revealing this in their own words and interests.

 

 

[ Consumers own the brands they want.
Consumer loves the brands they choose to love.
Consumers can unlove a brand they choose to unlove.
And consumers don't just fall in love because it is the best in the world relative to others - consumers fall in love with brands because for them, it is worth loving. ]

 

when you let consumers and audiences decide...

... be ready to take them on fullblast!

 One of the mistakes of marketeers when it comes to social media planning is that they are not ready to take things on when the program takes a life of its own because of the interest of its audiences.

Social media planning for most media planners and marketeers is still about having a brandpage on Facebook and creating a Twitter account, with metrics such as "get X thousands of fans and followers, get Y thousands of comments, and get Z thousands of retweets".

I believe that social media planning is all about creating brand-catalyzed movements - or as Seth Godin calls them, "tribes".

Once you get consumers and audiences into your brand's program, it is no longer yours - it is theirs.

And that ownership is the ultimate sign of success.

The problem is marketeers are not ready to let go of control.  They don't trust their consumers enough.  They don't empower them enough.  They don't act as facilitators.

The thing is, once you start a movement, you just can't leave it - you have to create something far bigger than your brand and far bigger than your goals.

Will it generate revenues? 

Oh yes!  In more ways than one since it is the members who become your "conduits of information and recommendations".

It will be difficult to measure - but it is not impossible and it will certainly create returns far better than traditional, broadcast-based advertising. 

here we go again…

Media planners have always wanted to measure the “optimum level of reach and frequency of different combinations of media channels”.

The question is – to a certain extent – valid: What is the best way to manage finite financial resources across TV, radio, press, and other forms of communications to achieve the best impact?

It is not entirely a bad thing:  Once we know the answers – or the principles related  – to this question, we can then move towards optimization.

Given the fragmented media landscape and increasingly declining budgets, all the more that we should be answering this question and deciding based on those answers.

But should the internet and social media be included in these process?

 

 

TV, radio, presses and outdoor are still measured in terms of the ‘number of people who have seen (or who claim to have seen) the medium’.  That’s what GRPs – even PeopleMeter measures – are based on.

But the web – in all its myriad forms from banner ads, rich ads, search, action-seeking ads (either recommend, forward, click, save or download) – is an entirely different thing.

Whilst PeopleMeter and diary ratings are operationally defined as “people who click on a button in front of the TV to identify themselves” or “people who record their media exposures on a predefined diary”, the web is entirely different. 

 

Let’s not even talk about mobile phones – which encompass SMS, location-based and on-demand apps, bluecasting, mobile search, location-based push-SMS/messages…

 

The point is: Reach and frequency – and other OTS (opportunity-to-see/hear) metrics – on these “new” media.  It is not actionable nor relevant to say that “TV generates 70% of unduplicated reach, whilst the internet delivers an additional 15% reach”.

 

Nor can we say: “Site A delivers 35% reach, and with the additional Site B buys, we will have an additional 12% reach – resulting to 47% unduplicated reach of the internet campaign".

 

 

I understand the need for a single currency – because how can we optimize if we don’t have a single currency that would define goals and constraints?

But the call for a single currency shouldn’t disrespect the medium and its innate characteristics, strength, and roles in the lives of consumers.

 

There must be another way of creating a single, standard currency that applies to all.

In my opinion, that’s consumer response to the ads carried in different media.

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.

digital marketing is not a cure-all: a POV

the most innovative things that have happened in the past decade in marketing were all made possible by innovations in the digital world.

the rise of Google and Google Search changed the economics of media buying.  though they may have failed (?) in their attempts to replicate the same business model beyond search into TV and print spaces, their innovations in search have shifted the way we look at media economics, auctions, and bids radically.

the emergence of mobile apps and ads has started. and with the onslaught of iPhones in Asia Pacific and the avalanche of responses it has generated from Google, Nokia, Microsoft and Blackberry in the OS front, from Samsung, Motorola, Nokia, Blackberry, HTC and LG in the design/handset front, we can expect 2010 to be the start of an even bigger shift in delivering messages to audiences.

the developments in digital outdoor and the continued expansion of "TV on the streets" in major Asian economies will also change the landscape dramatically - and increase efficiencies in delivering time- and geo-targeted messages, and hopefully, effectiveness and measurability of the outdoor medium.

the battle of the consoles - XBOX360, Nintendo Wii, and PS3 - is not just about selling games in disc-formats anymore.  it has begun to evolve into the "battle for domination of the living/game room".  the integration of traditional on-PC services (e.g., twitter, facebook, emails, instant messaging, radio streaming) is just the beginning.

and expect that ads will also follow as the technologies that allow on-demand delivery of games are applied to ad-serving.

(aside: whilst i was playing Topspin3 on my XBOX against Roddick, I saw ads of McD's local delivery service - 67773777 - in Singapore.)

with all these developments in the world of digital marketing, one can be tempted to say that "wow, digital media can solve all our problems!"

and that's where i take a stand:

[ digital media are not a panacea to all marketing problems ]

i acknowledge that digital media - and digital marketing - do have a role in the communications mix.  and it could very well be a role that is important and one that could lead to revenues and profits for the clients.

but not all marketing problems can be solved by digital "marketing".

in the same way that advertising cannot solve all marketing problems, digital "marketing" cannot solve all marketing problems or communication problems.

to say that digital marketing can solve everything is to fall into the trap of equating digital "marketing" planning with the search for marketing solutions.

marketing is far too complex than just a mere mix of search keywords, digital ads, social networks, fanpages and number of followers/fans... 

marketing - in spite of what most marketing managers and juniors (and even seniors) would want to believe - is complex. 

marketing involves making multi-dimension decisions that span pricing, product development and creation/extensions, branding and brand extensions, geographic prioritization and go-to-market strategies, competitive response anticipation, risk assessment and mitigation, said/unsaid consumer need satiation, opportunity-scoping, -assessment, and -realization...

i don't think digital marketing and the technologies that support digital marketing - and our understanding of these technologies - have reached that level just yet.

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?

The principles of Behavioural Economics can make communications work harder says Janet Hull, consultant head of marketing at the IPA..

via mediatel.co.uk

I am quite surprised that it is only now that marketing practitioners are actually asking the question whether behavioral economics, communications, and marketing are linked.

Hmmm. Isn't that obvious?

OK. Let's say for the sake of argument that a marketing practitioner is not familiar with "behavioral economics" and what it is.

But surely, one has studied in university basic economics - and what is economics? The study of the allocation of finite resources to optimize utility - however "utility" is measured (e.g., returns, production, revenues, production, happiness... ok, perhaps not the last one...)

Isn't it obvious then that economics has a place in marketing and in communications since everyday, we deal with decisions on how to optimize finite budgets to get the best returns on marketing moneys?

Now put in behavioral: That suggests... people. Individuals. Consumers.

Put the two together: study of people and individuals as consumers or audiences who are faced with options and are motivated to maximize their finite resources - money, time, attention, emotions - to generate the best returns.

I thought discrete choice theory, conjoint analysis, and similar techniques - and Bayesian statistics that allow for hierarchical and individual level analytics - are beginning to be a part of the world of marketing and communications.

Red herring or red hot? C'mon.

================================
What is behavioral economics?

From Wikipedia:

Behavioral economics is that branch of one,which deals with the study and application of analysis with scientific approach on social,emotional factors for understanding the consumers,investors and the market,and the resources.

The field is primarily concerned with the bounds of rationality (selfishness, self-control) of economic agents. Behavioral models typically integrate insights from psychology with neo-classical economic theory. Behavioral Finance has become the theoretical basis for technical analysis.

"Is media planning art or science?"

When I started working in advertising, one of the questions that my boss - Hermie - used to ask the team was "Is media planning an art or a science?"

The question is - in spite of its simplicity - profound because it affected the way we think and the way we approach media planning:

If it were pure science, then anything and everything that the computer, the surveys, the algorithms spewed out - whether they were ratings, optimizers, or indices - were to be followed.  All arguments would be centered on which one was cheaper and more effective - and which was delivered the better measurable value.

Even when it came to targeting, it was all about identifying the profitable target demographics - those who were most likely to buy the product - based on research that was conducted by specialists in the field of data-gathering.

But where does that leave creativity?

That "umph" that makes a media plan for a certain brand its own unique property.  (After all, media plans - and communication plans - are desigend to address a specific brand problem.)

Where does that come in?

On the other hand...

If it were pure art, then what's the point of subscribing to countless research and validating/cross-validating research on viewing and reading habits of audiences?  What was the point of identifying the "zapping" threshold (a big issue back then - otherwise known as "channel surfing") for consumers?  What was the point of quantifying "involvement" and putting it as a criterion for selection of TV programs?

If it were pure art, then what is the point of understanding the response of consumers to advertising - either in the form of recalling the ad the day after it was first aired and a few weeks after or of actually trekking down to the stores and picking one up off the shelves?

If it were art, then everything becomes subjective...

That's when I started thinking that media planning and communications planning were not pure art - neither was planning pure science.

It was a careful balance between art and science.

Science provides the structure and the discipline - the starting point.  Art provides the weaving of a story out of the numbers.

Science provides the "rules" - that once understood can be bent and broken as and when necessary through the principles of art.

Art provides the inspiration and the hypotheses - science provides the currency to measure whether a certain hypothesis holds water or not.

I used to say in trainings that I conduct with teams that a media planner is an amalgam of so many professions and disciplines:  They are psychologists, sociologists, social observers, experimentalists, group therapists, psychoanalysts, storytellers, and design-/experience-creators.  At the same time, they ought to be economists, auditors, accountants, statisticians, researchers, and eyeball- and transaction-counters.

The golden mean.

The yin and the yang.

The balance.

That's where great campaigns - I think - come from.

Thanks to Woooody on Flickr for the photo

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

simply beautiful

I have heard the buzz about this commercial from the MCYS of Singapore.  But I never had the chance to catch it on TV - until a friend forwarded the link to me.

And beautiful.

I get rarely moved by TV commercials.  This one is amongst the few.

Update:

I am not sure if the recent PR releases on press about "beautifully imperfect" couples (e.g., a tall guy marrying a short lady, a cross-ethnic marriage) were related to this.  But if they were, I think that was too much of a stretch: this ad in and of itself was beautiful.  The message was - for me - very clear.  It didn't need to be made "cheesy" by contests and promos, and the search of the beautifully imperfect couples.  I am sure there are lots - but this ad was in itself the message - and the medium.

In communications planning, we also need to know when to stop 'milking' an idea.  There are some ideas that just simply need to be communicated - and reflected upon on one's own time.  There are some messages that just simply are strong enough to be in themselves ENOUGH.

This is one of them, I believe.

And I believe that any other attempt - "share your beautifully imperfect photos, or stories, or experiences..." - just dilutes the beauty of the message.

It extended the 'reach' of the campaign - surely - but it diluted the message and its beauty.