marginally subversive

communicating meaning

I came across this slideshow on reception theory on SlideShare on Reception Theory.  And it was a very interesting, clear read.

 

Reception theory

View more presentations from Rob McMinn

 

As a media planner, I have been exposed to a number of 'frameworks' that tried to explain how audiences access, process, and relate with information that they encounter about brands.  The one that I found most interesting was this chart (which I think is overused but still relevant though in need of further improvements to take into account how audiences have evolved).

In essence, the above suggests that the communication effectiveness is at the middle - where the message is delivered by the right medium to the its intended target audiences whilst they are in the right mindset.

Imagine seen an ad about romantic getaways during the upcoming Valentine's Day on late-night TV whislt nurturing a broken heart.  Or seeing a news program with violent scenes from a road accident whilst enjoying dinner.

The idea behind this 'framework' - if you can call it that - is that the most effective communications happen when the three are in alignment.

Strategically, it makes sense.  Implementation-wise, it is difficult:  How exactly would you know when the audiences are in the "right" or "congruent" mindset that would facilitate the reception of the message? 

Some companies have resorted to "emotional/mood diaries".  But as the slideshow above suggests - and as anyone who's married or "partnered" would attest to - moods change.  And they change quite drastically.

The challenge therefore is continually 'checking' the 'mood' or the sentiment of the market - and responding to that sentiment in a relevant (or 'sentiment-changing') manner.

 

The bottom-line is:

Comunicating meaning - the intended meaning, which I believe to be at the core of effective communications - is a function of the message that we send our intended audience and the context - physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual - that in turn defines her mood.  

on #analytics: data availability is no longer the problem

Data availability is no longer the problem.  Accessibility is no longer the issue.  The cost of acquiring data has gone down dramatically.

Neither is the technology behind data collation the problem.  There are a myriad of options that one can collect, store, discover, collate, systematize, analyze, and use data.

The real problem is people's apathy and/or antipathy to data and data analyses.

It's all about changing the mindsets of business managers - specifically of marketing managers who think that their jobs encompass merely looking after advertising and media technologies.

David Campbell, as interviewed by Alex Howard (at Oreilly Radar) has this advice to clients about using their data:

From the data side, we've lived in what we'd call a world of scarcity. We thought that data was expensive to store, so we had to get rid of it as soon as possible. You don't want it unless you have a good use for it. Now we think about data from a perspective of abundance.

Part of the challenge, 10 or 15 years years ago, was where do I go get the data? Where do I tap in? But in today's world, everything is so interconnected. It's just a matter of teeing into it. The phrase I've used instead of big data is "ambient data." It's just out there and available.

The recommendation would be to stop and think about the latent value in all that data that's there to be collected and that's fairly easy to store now. That's the challenge and the opportunity for all of us.

(Emphases mine; from http://radar.oreilly.com/2011/12/david-campbell.html)

Here's the video of the interview:

 

 

on #analytics: knowing the question

If you don't know the question, any answer will be good enough.

on #analytics: "anybody can fit a curve..."

Give a numbers-orientated person two sets of numbers - and she will be able to fit a curve to the two sets of numbers without really knowing what those numbers mean and stand for.

Have a look at the latest NASDAQ indices - and run them through some curve-fitting exercise, or if you're feeling a little too sophisticated, use a neural network and have it "learn" the ups and downs of the curves - and project the future.

Ask anybody to conduct a survey and with the plethora of free (or cheap) surveying tools and panels online, you'll have 300 respondents in a matter of days (if not hours).

Anybody can do these things - but not everyone can make sense of these numbers and ground them on real business issues.  

It takes a real analytically-minded person to find stories behind numbers.  Stories behind numbers are not just uncovered by equations or cross-tabs or statistical significance tests.

It all starts with an understanding of the business.

 

"the social" has always been there

It is quite amazing how marketeers are now so enamored by "the social".

But as early as the 1990s, I have seen studies that showed that "recommendations from friends, family, and other people" are as effective or more effective than any form of advertising.  A former colleague was not convinced by it - to the point that she junked the research and called it "irrelevant and potentially, not valid".

I guess the problem was, when you say "recommendations are far better than any form of bought advertising", you're essentially saying that "you don't have so much control over your brand messages as you have earlier thought".  that "your brand is essentially at the mercy of consumers".

the truth is, "it" - The Social - has always existed.

we're the ones waking up to its power.

the conversations are louder, the demand to be heard is more pressing, and the clamor to "own" (or "disown") the brands that we thought we had control over is not about to end.

 

how do you build business?

I had an interesting conversation with a former client.  We were talking about building businesses for his clients.  And one thing he told me stuck with me: "You don't have to change behaviors in order to build business.  Besides, advertising cannot change behaviors."

I went "What?"

But since he was not paying me for strategic advice but merely to create and design his much-loved slides and translate his English into something his clients would understand, I didn't argue. 

However, above is my free advice to him.

And if advertising is not supposed to change behaviors, then why are we here for?  Awards?  Kudos?  Pats on the back?

B******s.

Weekend Inspirations: Steve Jobs' 2005 Stanford University Speech

It's 6years old - but it still never ceases to amaze and inspire me.

Steve Jobs' commencement speech at the Stanford U is something worth listening to.

The transcript is here.

dispassionately passionate

A former boss and I were talking about his requirements for hiring.  One of the things that he said struck me: "I never hire people who are too passionate for their job.  They tend to mix emotions and work - and let emotions overcome them when the work needs to be done."

At first, I disagreed with him.

My reasoning was simple: "We need passionate people who are willing to go beyond the call of duty to deliver - specially in a very competitive world such as the media and ad industry.  We need passionate people who will go the extra mile in order to deliver."

Then I realized - perhaps a little too late - that passion is not what drives one to go beyond the printed roles and responsibilities and job description.  It is the willingness - that desire - to deliver a great job. It is that belief that "nothing unremarkable should leave my desk", balanced carefully with "I am not superwoman/superman" that makes people remarkable.

Whatever is served in front of them, they deliver - to the best of their ability.  They do the work - and they do it well.  And if doing it well requires doing that "extra bit", that "extra mile", that "extra mile", then so be it.

All these are done with the thought at the back of their heads that "I cannot save the world all by myself - because I am only human". 

When the limit is reached - and we all have physical, mental, and psychological limits - it has to be respected.  And accepted.

Dispassionately-passionate is what we are looking for.

***

This post was inspired by Seth Godin, who writes:

Here's the thing: it's never personal. It's never about you. How could it be? That person doesn't truly know you, understand what you want or hear the voices in your head. All they know is themselves.

When someone moves on, when she walks away or even badmouths you or your work, it's not personal about you. It's personal about her. Her agenda, her decisions, her story.

Do your work, the best way you know how. Is there any other option?

 

Thought for the Day

"In war a dull success is always better than a brilliant one."

- Paul Hoffman, "The Left Hand of God"

*****

These days, marketing and brand wars are no longer won through strategies learned from the past. The battleground has shifted - it has changed. The rules of engagement of eras gone no longer hold. And they continue to be redefined each day by forces that are interrelated and are multiplicative - social, technological, environmental, economic, political, the power of the individual.

What is a medium?

A good friend offered me this advice on what a medium is:

"A medium is that perfume-laced, beautifully-crafted sheet of stationery where words that speak of love and life and truths are carefully chosen and written, and which is then encased and sealed with a soft, gentle kiss, and sent with the hope that it will be opened, read, cherished, and responded to."

--- --- ---

With that definition, how then do you define "media planning"?

For that, I have no ready answer.