marginally subversive

The Age of New Banking Is Upon Us...

I came across this video just today (a year old, really, so quite old by internet standards).  It is about banking and how consumesr are changing the face of banking.

What I really liked about what Brett King, an author, said in the opening of the video: 

Just because you are a bank and you have a banking licence doesn't mean you have an exclusive on banking.

And another one: 

If customers don't want to come to the branch..., we just serve them where they are.

 

Making Sense of Location-/People-Tracking Data

This is a piece of interesting news that I picked from the NYTimes:  a company in the US, called Sense Networks (in NY), has launch an analytics program that will help analyze data on people's movements, routines, and trips - and potentially encounters with other people (or crowds), ads, and the retail shop.  This comes after NATURE published a study on how people of an unnamed city roam around their city/locale using cell-phone signals.

From a research perspective, this is a lot of data - a treasure trove of data.

From a marketeer's POV, this is a something like a dream come true: knowing where your consumers are, what kinds of media/communications they encounter with on the street, how they behave alone versus in groups versus in crowds of people, and how they behave inside the store en route to buying your product.  A savvy marketeer can immediately see the value (I hope) of such information - and how it can be deployed to improve one's investments across different kinds of media and non-media channels.

I can imagine, for example, a marketeer or a media planning company in NY tagging all their outdoor sites, bus-/train-ads with GPS data - alongside shopping centers that carry their brands or their competitors. 

I can also imagine marketeers and data-miners having a grand time consolidating information in-store with those gathered from these troves of consumer- and ad-/media-locator data - and creating predictive models and algorithms that would make brand campaigns more effective. 

I can also imagine how these sort of data will move adspends away from TV and potentially other in-home media, including the internet because "the last golden mile" in retail marketing is still the most important part of the buying process...!

But I am also pretty sure that this will attract a lot of controversy: privacy and individual anonymity.

It's going to be - hmm - intrusive.  It could very well be the start of conspiracy theorists' and privacy advocates' nightmare:  Big Brother On The Loose.  I can't imagine what would stop governments using this kind of technology (if they don't already have it - now that sounds a little like a conspiracy theory...) to track down individuals of interest to the state/nation in order to "protect" and ensure the safety of the public.

So - given these imagined possibilities, what should we think of these developments?

Well, I think we need to carefully think through this one very carefully.  Whilst it is great technology - and it could benefit marketeers (and, marketeers would argue, it could also benefit consumers), I think that it furthers the questions on privacy, ethics in marketing research, and corporate social responsibility:

• While individual-level data is good for business (think CRM, think CLV analysis, think RFM, think HB Regression and Clustering), how "individual" should individual-level data be?  How much is enough?  And how much is too much?

• How do we ensure that the guidelines set by and through marketing research societies all over the world about consumer privacy and about ensuring respondent-anonymity are followed to the letter?  The commercial reasons sometimes may well override these guidelines - and who doesn't want to earn some money?

• What kinds of information are off-limits and what are not?  People going to and from a grocery store after having gone through the train, for example, would be pretty good data for media planners and outdoor specialists.  Marrying those tidbits of information with purchase data would provide very good information of how people buy things.  But where would data-gathering stop?

I think that there must be an answer somewhere - or at least, a set of guidelines - of how these kinds of information are used.  They are great sources of information - and with proper manipulation would be great sources of insight and knowledge that could prove to be valuable to businesses.

However, there are also repercussions that come with the availability of these kinds of data.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Tags: Data, Analytics, Research, Marketing Research, Media Planning

Big ideas and ad agencies

When I was working in an ad agency as a media person, the Creative Director, the Strategic Planning Director, and the Business Director were the stewards of the big idea - we (the media people who get briefed at the last minute to come up with a media plan in 24hours with a budget of 1Mln USD to deliver 1'400GRPs on TV, 2'000GRPs in Radio, and the rest on some highfalutin print title that the Marketing Director reads every single month) were supposedly the 'dirty workers' who will bring this idea to life.

And we had to do it in 24 hours.

In Seth's Meatball Mondae 11 he writes how big ideas are changing and how big ideas are no longer just the remit of the advertising people.

Big ideas in advertising worked great when advertising was in charge. With a limited amount of spectrum and a lot of hungry consumers, the stage was set to put on a show. And the better the show, the bigger the punchline, the more profit could be made.

Today, the advertiser’s big idea doesn’t travel very well. Instead, the idea must be embedded into the experience of the product itself. Once again, what we used to think of as advertising or marketing is pushed deeper into the organization. Let the brilliant ad guys hang out with your R&D team and watch what happens.

Yes, there are big ideas. They’re just not advertising-based.

Totally agree.  Now if only we can get the advertising guys to believe in this and totally take this to heart.  I wrote about the views of the CEO of some big companies about how media agencies cannot - "in a lifetime" - connect with consumers.

I think they ought to read this - more than ever.

Firing Clients From Hell? Thank God, I am lucky...

When I was younger and starting in the business of advertising and advising clients of what to do with their media investments, I was taught that "clients are God" - in the same way that for them "consumers were kings and queens" and "customers are always right". 

I didn't have any objections then.  I was 19.  I was on my first account.  And the first major account I handled was McDonald's in Manila - who I would say were one of the best clients in the world. 

It was baptism by fire - and I stayed (willingly, I should add) at the office till midnight or 2am to finish presentations and reports in an office that was yet to link their ad monitoring service with their ratings services.  I had to develop 5 media plan options for them.

And I did gladly do so - because I loved McDonald's - as a client, as a brand.

In my senior year, whilst I was doing my thesis and my overnight cases for Abnormal Psychology, they would allow us to buy only one cup of coffee, have refills, and stay for hours in their store right across the university and a few blocks away from my apartment. 

I loved them.

Then my agency resigned McDonald's - in my viewpoint, it was "wrongful termination", if there was such a thing.

I would admit I cried when we resigned McDonald's and even considered moving to the company that took over the business then.

I had another client that I loved so much because of their honesty - PepsiCo Philippines.  The client was fierce, demanding, and demanded nothing but perfection - from spellings to grammars to the strategic approach.  But the lead client - the Country Marketing Director, MSNarciso - knew how to appreciate people.  She would treat us out for dinners, drinks, and impromptu parties.  It made it all worth it.  They didn't have delusions of grandeur that they were better than Coke - they knew they were number 2 and they were struggling.  Yet they yearned to be the best - to be the number one - to be profitable - to be seen not as the underdog, but as the fighter that they truly were and that they truly lived.

When I moved to Vietnam, I worked with Nestle's Portfolio - and again, I met a set of clients who were really demanding.  But again, I was willing to take over the most menial of tasks (e.g., photocopying reports, typing broadcast orders in Vietnamese - ensuring I got them letters right in spite of not knowing what they meant, faxing broadcast orders and memos) just to get things right and on time.  Why?  Because they acknowledged my team's efforts - that we were undermanned and lean yet in their eyes, we were one mean team that was ready to protect their interests.  Again, appreciation notes, emails, and impromptu parties - and even training programs to teach us what they believed in as a company and expand my team and my own knowledge of marketing and supply chain management.

MasterCard Southeast Asia was again another client that I really loved working with.  Again, very demanding, perfectionist, with tight deadlines and with briefs that are not perfect.  But again, they share their successes - and failures - with us.  Drinks post-campaign, nice short emails acknowledging what we have done, recommendations to their partner-banks, "positive word of mouth".  I just love them to bits.

And MSN - 24hour reverts on requests?  No problem.  Within the same day data-mining and chart collation?  No worries.  I have mastered Excel(R) and PowerPoint(R) enough to deliver the fastest time possible.  And the short notes saying "Thanks; you're an angel!" makes all the difference.  Again, I believe in their brands and their vision of their future.  In fact, I share their vision of the future - of Software as a Service - and their realistic view that "search is a problem area; help us fix it".

I have been blessed to be honest.  Working with clients that have pushed me to the limits (and to the verge of tears, sometimes) has been a blessing.  Of course, it's not always rosy - like when I get grilled for not doing my due-diligence and for looking for escapes and quickies and cut-corners.  And I take responsibility for that.

I have only fired one client in my entire career:  And it was a decision that I got an earful from my boss - but an action for which I took a stand for.

There was this client that refused to believe any research that was conducted by third party research, that continually challenged the recommendations we've made after having gone through 15 revisions of a measly 500'000USD budget (which don't mean anything in the market).  And they even demanded that both Client Services Director and me, the Media Head, to be present in the meetings.

In the final meeting, we had a cordial argument (if there's such a thing) on revision number 16 of the media flowchart (yes, not the strategy - the frigging flowchart!).  Whilst she - the client was babbling - I was calculating the revenues that we were going to lose if I walked away from this client now.  We were on a 1% commission for some strange reason - a compensation scheme that I inherited from my predecessor's predecessor.  The revenues:  5'000USD - for one whole year

After double-checking this figure with the Finance Director who was just in the adjacent room, I told the client that "we can't seem to find any solution for you; I suggest that you look for another agency who can meet your needs.  Obviously, we are not getting what you really want to achieve for the brand - and that we cannot deliver.  My best professional advice for you is to just call for a pitch now - and rest assured, we will help you craft the pitch brief.  It's just that, we won't participate in the pitch anymore."

The client was taken aback. 

The Client Services Director was surprised - but I slipped her a note that said "lost revenues: 5'00USD - not even enough to cover your and my time".  So she also changed her tone.

She tried explaining what she wanted again - which didn't really help because she really couldn't pinpoint why this media plan is wrong and why the creative executions which were merely adaptations from a global material was wrong.

But we stood firm.

We ended the meeting cordially.  I started briefing my team to prepare the handover and do it in 2weeks' time.  I started working on a pitch brief - a full brief that she never knew how to prepare, as well as a list of agencies who could take on her business.  I called all my contacts - my competitors - and advised them to expect a call from her and to please treat her business well; she's just confused.  Finance started to close her accounts and chase for unpaid bills that we had to foot in her behalf.

We sent her our resignation letter together with the brief, the handover plan and the timelines, and her decision-points, together with the invoices for more the payments to media vendors.

We never heard from her again.

I got the beating from my Managing Director and the Regional Managing Director - on why resign a client when we were in the red?  Well, honesty"  If by revision 10 we can't deliver what she wants and she can't tell us why it is still wrong, we will never get it right.  I would rather that I used my time and my team's time on something else - perhaps, focusing on my bigger clients and be a better team for them.

I offered to pay half of the lost revenues of 5'000USD if they feel I was in the wrong.  Honestly, I was going to make not just a principled stand on my decision - but also stake my money on my decision.

I have always believed that agency people or suppliers - whoever they may be, whatever service they may be providing to the company or to any firm - should be treated as partners.  Even cleaning companies should be treated as partners.  Even construction firms and construction workers should be treated as partners.

With respect.  As humans.  With civility.  With honesty.

Money, profitability, revenues are important and all good.  But once they start treating me or my team or my other partners in the firm as crap and less than human, they don't deserve us.

I wonder - how many agencies and companies feel the same way?

This post was inspired by this entry from INSIDECRM.Com:  Here's the link for those of you who have the guts and the balls to stand up for the human in you and your team, to stand up for people who cannot stand up for themselves, to make a stand for decisions that may be controversial and could cost the firm some money.  If indeed people and talent come first, then yes: Firing clients from hell should be an option - it should always be an option.

Here's the link: Top 10 Ways to Fire the Client From Hell - Inside CRM.

Of insurance agents and brands

A friend commented the other day that "insurance agents are perhaps amongst the most motivated bunch of people - but they are also the most likely to show their "true colors" after they have closed the deal.  You never what you've gotten yourself until you need it - and by the time you needed it, whatever it is that will fulfill your need won't be there."

I can't say much about her comments - but I think there might be some grain of truth in them.

I have two insurance agents - one of them belongs to the elite class of insurance agents who maintain relationships, calls up just to check on stuff, and reviews my portfolio every year.  Always on the ball, I would say - and always ready to be of service and not just to sell.

The other one belongs to something else - he refuses to converse via email (in spite of the fact that email is the only way that can truly reach me these days), he refuses to call, and ultimately, when he does call, it is to cross-sell a new insurance plan.

The latter is apparently one of the top-sellers in their company; the former is more quiet and more reserved.

Guess who I will jettison from my portfolio when I get the chance to review and consolidate my insurnaces?

The answer is pretty obvious: the latter.

I don't need a salesperson to serve my needs - I need someone who will provide solutions.  His position in the whole scheme of things inside the company does not serve me - it serves him.  I don't care if my agent doesn't sell as much - what's more important is essentially how he meets my insurance needs.

Pretty much the same with brands:  Just because it is a big brand doesn't mean it will fulfill my needs or all of the consumers' needs.  Just because Coke is the number 1 soft-drink doesn't necessarily mean I will drink a Coke.  Just because Nike or Adidas are the number 1 trainers doesn't mean I will opt for one.  It depends on what my needs are - on a superficial and on a deep level.

Size, as they say, is not a strategy.  But sadly, I have encountered (and continue to encounter) brands which seem to believe that "being big is in itself good - so let's remain big".