marginally subversive

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:

 

 

how digital is shifting the world of media buying

The world of media buying has shifted dramatically due to changes in the consumer landscape as digital media became a significant part of the lives of consumers.

Through a friend on Facebook, I saw this video from PSFK.Com on the 'Secrets of a Killer Media Buyer: Future Success'.

There are three things that I got from the video:

1. Media buying is still about value-creation.  At the end of the day, it is about creating value for clients and generating the best deal.

2. However, the definition of value has changed: Value is no longer merely dollars-saved or the "best deal that you could negotiate and seal with all the bells and whistles for the clients for the lowest price possible".  Value is now about

(a) utility to clients - what's in it for them, they who are investing the money
(b) utility to consumers and audiences - what's in it for consumers

3. To achieve the best deal and realize the ultimate value for clients, you need data.  Because technology has paved the way for consumers to be entertained in terms of quantity and quality, we need data.

(a) The usual lines between 'traditional media' and 'non-traditional media' have been blurred by technology. 
"Video" no longer is just about TV - it now encompasses online videos (and the ad platforms supported by it), mobile videos, game consoles, handhelds, and even outdoor/in-store. 
"Radio" is no longer just what one hears on a radio set or on the car - but also in-mobile, on-the-web, on-demand, on-the-palm...  And press and magazines.

(b) To navigate through these choices, you will need data - how do consumers shift from one medium to another and why? 
[The "why" bit is almost-always missing - and is always a point of contention between me and most of the media planners-buyers that I work with.  But that's another story.]

(c) The kind of data that we need no longer will center on "how many people are exposed" - the usual impression-based metrics and currencies.  The kind of data that we need will need to encompass audience motivations, mindsets, and response. 

Here's the video:

 

 

Secrets Of A Killer Media Buyer: Future Success from Piers Fawkes on Vimeo.

'cause we are living in an "algorithmic" world...

 

What is an ALGORITHM?  From Wikipedia: 

In mathematics and computer science, an algorithm (ⁱ/ˈælɡərɪðəm/) is an effective method expressed as a finite list^[1] of well-defined instructions^[2] for calculating a function.^[3] Algorithms are used for calculation, data processing, and automated reasoning. In simple words an algorithm is a step-by-step procedure for calculations.

 When will marketing planning and decision-making be replaced by algorithms?

With the explosion of data and the continued emergence of analytics as part of marketing planning, algorithms are not too far off in the future of marketing.

Will people be replaced by algorithms?  I don't believe so.

Algorithms and any decision-making process (which is what algorithms are geared towards) will not be accountable for results - people are the only entities who can be accountable for choices that they make for themselves and for others.

 

so you're on Facebook - now what?

John Bell has a very interesting blog entry on what should come next after being present in Facebook.

He talks about the fast growth - and then slowdown - of Facebook adoption in the US, a trend that most people (including techwatchers and stock/financial market analysts interested in the Facebook IPO) thought was the beginning of the end of Facebook (and its billion-dollar valuation).

Bell differs - and I agree with him: something cannot keep on growing forever, specially if there is a 'built-in braking system' in its growth trajectory.  Sooner or later, everyone is going to have one Facebook account - until we reach that point where there's no one else to recruit into the Facebook population.  

Instead of questioning whether this is the end of Facebook, the question marketeers and communication strategists need to answer is "now what?"

Bell offers several thoughts:

1. Integrating Facebook as part of an overall customer/fan relationship management solution
2. Figuring out how to make social commerce work for the brand
3. More data about the brands' followers and fans (as soon as Facebook unlocks the data-vaults)
4. Creating new ways to engage and entertain and delight audiences and brand fans and loyalists through Facebook's unique platform (and other social media's)
5. Integration of Facebook into CRM legacy systems

I will add a few more to Mr. Bell's thoughts:

1. Having a clear role for Facebook and other social-media platforms, both digital and non-digital, in the marketing communications mix and in the customer engagement strategy of a firm

2. Identifying the real returns in financial value of activities in Facebook, other digital social-media platforms, and other "traditional, non-digital" social-media platforms, using metrics and currencies that are comparable to how we measure returns for TV, press, magazines, outdoor, and radio

3. Going beyond using Facebook and other digital social media platforms as "crisis portenders" or "PR-nightmare forerunners" - but using these and other non-digital platforms as "sources of brand/product and communication innovations".  

 

What do you think?  How else can Facebook be used in building your brands and your brands' businesses?  How can it be a part of a profit improvement program for a company? 

LinkedIn as part of a social media campaign?

via www.emarketer.com

... I believe that LinkedIn is a totally different animal from Facebook and from other SNS.

I also believe that SNS in general are very different from other traditional digital and non-digital forms of advertising media.

I think for LinkedIn to be successfully used in a social media campaign, it needs to do more and be more.

One thing that it does NOT have to be:  A Facebook for the pros.  

It does not need to compete for ad dollars by proving that it delivers "more traffic, more awareness, more engagement" - more than Facebook, MySpace, Friendster, or any other SNS. 

In and of itself, LinkedIn is a totally different medium - and social media strategists ought to take note of this significant difference of LinkedIn from the traditional SNS.  

[Anyone who uses LinkedIn (or any SNS for that matter) to drive brand awareness and who measures its success trough "awareness changes" is misguided.]

 

gmail priority inbox - and yet another way to deal with tonnes of emails...

i just activated my GMail Priority Inbox feature - it seems like a pretty neat idea.

I know, I know - there are privacy repercussions and all that.  And Google is not entirely the same old company that wanted to  "not be evil". 

I do acknowledge all that.

(I am in marketing and in business after all...)

What really got me interested and made me smile was how they communicated - so simply (perhaps, not elegantly) - what a GMail Priority Inbox is.

See for yourself the video they prepared below:

 

As far as I am concerned, this will  be a great help since I get pretty much important emails on my GMail. 

Privacy?  Well, I don't keep that much secrets.

And if there were any, I am making sure that Google don't get them.

(Or at least, I try...)

 

Finally got Facebook Places ...

... But not yet available in the Philippines.

Java 4Ever - the (un)Movie - coming soon!

I don't have a stand on the Java versus .Net wars.  As long as it runs perfectly on my PC, I am good.  I don't have a deep knowledge of Java - and for my simple, simplistic needs I write codes in C++ and C# - and when I am truly lazy, Visual Basic, all on Visual Studio. 

But this captured my attention.

I don't know what it is for - but surely, it was entertaining.  Brilliant even, in its very own way!

Enjoy!.

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.

entertainment planning vs. advertising/media planning

After tinkering with media planning, technologies, research, and analytics, I am beginning to form a belief that what really matters is whether or not we have made audience interested in our brands through the touchpoints and the messages that we have deployed.

It's all about entertaining the audience.  Broadcast and print media - and now the web - exist mainly to entertain.

Now one can potentially argue that "newspapers don't entertain - they provide news - and how could news be entertainment?" 

One could also potentially argue that "emails, IMs, display ads, and search are not about entertainment - they are informative!"

But think for a moment: 

[ Is entertainment totally different from information?  Are entertainment and information mutually exclusive concepts - that if I plan to entertain, I cannot inform simultaneously?  And that if I aim to inform, I cannot entertain at the same time? ]

The question I guess is this:

[ Could audience entertainment - entertaining audiences, making sure that they are invited into our messages delivered through touchpoints and channels - be the holy grail of all marketing communications? ]

David Ogilvy said it succinctly.

[ You cannot bore people into buying a product.  You can only interest them. ]

And which leads me to a thought:

[ As media planners (or communications channel strategists), as digital media planners and strategists, as ad strategists, as marketing communications strategists - are we always planning towards getting our targets excited and interested in our brands? ]

In this age of an (almost) infinite number of media touchpoints - from the traditional (TV, radio, PR, press, outdoor, 'detailing', experiential) to the relatively-new (online display ads, search, mobile push ads) to the emergent (location- and context-based mobile, blucasting, community-building - are our decisions guided by this simple, yet profoundly relevant, Ogilvyism?

Are we ready to move beyond "technology-led", "media-led", or "creativity-led" planning to "entertainment-based, audience-first communications planning"?

[See an earlier entry of mine - two years ago - on entertainment planning.  Here's another entry on "internet/web everywhere" - but look at the applications that Cisco and Microsoft are envisioning: it's technology enabling access to entertainment [and information] sources everywhere.  Here's another entry on "experience planning" from March 2008.]

From disrupsean at Flickr.Com