marginally subversive

Rereading Socrates: Pretensions, Slander, and Insecurities

I have been rereading Socrates' Apologia - a required reading back when I was in the university.  The Apologia (or the Apology) is written by Plato in behalf of Socrates.  It covers Socrates' defense of himself before he was sentenced to death by drinking hemlock, a kind of poison.

From Wikipedia:

The Apology of Socrates is Plato's version of the speech given by Socrates as he defends himself against the charges of "corrupting the young, and by not believing in the gods in whom the city believes, but in other daimonia that are novel" (24b). "Apology" here has its earlier meaning (now usually expressed by the word "apologia") of speaking in defense of a cause or of one's beliefs or actions (from the Greek απολογία).

Rereading it with new perspectives - older, perhaps a little (just a wee bit) wiser from that 17year-old me - has given me new thoughts:  The reason why Socrates was sentenced to death is because others around him could not accept the fact that they are not as wise as they thought themselves to be.

They were a pretentious lot who have stopped asking questions.  They believe that they have all the answers - and that everything that needed to be learned, they knew.

This belief - call it self-confidence, "kabibohan", self-belief - was the ultimate in their lives: it is the pillar on which their whole concept of their own self is built. 

And Socrates came and debunked the very pillar of their lives.

And he came with proof: through questions and answers, he uncovered the very weakness of the people's assumptions about themselves on how wise, good, intelligent they are.

He didn't necessarily show them they were useless - he just showed them that what they have is not everything there is to have.

But I guess, that too simply was too deep and profound for his accusers.

=========

Once in a while, someone comes into our lives to tell us that the things we know are not enough.  That there is more to learn.  And that there is more to consider than just the formulaic, textbook considerations of the past.

It is disruptive.  It truly is.

But it also opens up opportunities to improve.

That is, if one accepts it and does not rebel against the realization that there is more.

But sometimes, that person is seen too much of a distraction, a divisive factor, a gadfly, a subversive, a hard-headed arse who needs to be eliminated by all costs...

All because that person simply showed - and proved - that what one knows now is not enough and that there is more to learn if only one would listen.

How we react to that person who shows us our inadequacies is a measure of our own openness to learning more, of wanting to be more.

=========

What I found in my 15 years of working is that the people who are most unwilling to admit their inadequacies and be open to new things are the ones who are most insecure.

They are the ones who would slander other people and defame them to get what they want, create an "aura" and "facade" of supposed kindness, and feign innocence. 

They sow seeds of distrust within a team, create a "reputation" that they are the glue that holds the team together, and name others as "divisive" and "unprofessional".

One could only pity them.

In the same way that Socrates may have felt pity towards his accusers.

=========

The jury will vote. 
Someone will drink the hemlock.
Someone will take the blame.
Someone will walk away with the labels "divisive", "subversive", "hardheaded", "inconsiderate", and "ineffective" attached to his name. 
All because the jury had been fooled by facades and pretensions of one accuser who believes herself to be "enough", "mature enough", "wise enough", and "good enough".

What a pitiful state for a human being.
Not for the accused - but for the accuser.

One could only hope that she be given a long, interesting life.

=========

new wine in old wineskins – or measuring new media with old media measurements

• You can’t measure new media with old media frameworks and currencies.  Opportunities-to-see [OTS-] based measurements work best with mass media – because they are mass.  All they offer a brand are opportunities to be seen.  In the case of new media – search, forwards, downloads, RFI – we are not just looking for opportunities to be seen – we are dealing with opportunities to be experienced and our messages acted upon.
  
• Because you can’t measure new media with OTS-based measurements as you would TV, radio, presses, or magazines, it’s going to be hard to compare these.  Either we stick to OTS-based measures and apply them to new media – or we upgrade our measurement techniques that we are using for old media.
  
• I think the second option is a better route: we need to upgrade our measurement techniques to take into consideration action and response to traditional, old media, and not just exposures and opportunities to be seen.
  
• Descriptive measures are good – it tells me how many people have seen the ad or at least, how many people have potentially seen the ad (in cases where we don’t have minute-by-minute ratings for TV or radio). 
  
  It’s also good to know how many people clicked on the ad after having entered a specific keyword – and eventually purchased.
  
  But wouldn’t it be nice if your measures are PREDICTIVE rather than purely DESCRIPTIVE?
  
  Telling me that my current campaign delivered 103.3 GRPs or 0.05% click-through or even 0.01% click-to-action conversion doesn’t help me plan the future – which I am concerned about.
  

"el mas famoso" - or simply writing...

(The entry otherwise known as "Why I blog")

Blogging has been an interesting journey for me.  It somehow clears my thinking - and sometimes, whilst writing, I catch some illogicalities in my thinking.  (Although most of the time, I catch these illogicalities when I re-read and review my blog.)

At first, I thought blogging would be a way to become famous - to be "el mas famoso!" is not an entirely bad objective specially in a crowded marketplace such as my field.  But I realized that I was not really writing for anyone else but me.

It's for me to express my thoughts - to get them out of my system - and perhaps, instigate a conversation with someone who may or may not disagree.  A self-serving purpose, still - which I believe is neither good nor bad.  It is still a personal call - a personal goal - a personal blog.

And no, I probabyl won't hit my "el mas famoso" goal, but it is not so important as the power to express myself in ways that only I can do.

Seth Godin wrote about it today on his blog:

Who cares that you're not writing a mass market newspaper? The point is not to show up on a list, the point is to start a conversation that spreads, to share ideas and to chronicle your thinking. That's the work of an author, and I think rather than kissing author blogs goodbye, someone should just start a new list.

(Emphases mine)

And it just doesn't work on Sarah Palin videos - it works on this, too!

Hulu, SNL and Sarah Palin - Finally!

I have been trying out HULU for the past several days - and I couldn't get it to run because - well, I am not based in the US.  But today seemed to be different: I was able to watch these two videos of SNL's featuring VP candidate, Sarah Palin.

To be honest, more interested in the access granted by HULU (and SNL) more than the content of the video.  But oh well.  It was fun watching it - and I would say, a great PR move for Sarah Palin after all the criticisms that I have read of her.  (OK - I am in no position to comment because I don't really follow US politics that much... though I know it would impact all the markets I am following.  Oh well.)

Here're the videos - watch them before HULU - and NBC - change their minds and get it off-air:

What's next, I wonder, from Hulu?  Are they finally going to go global?  Dudes, you should!  There's gotta be a way for Hulu to make money out of this.

Here's a discussion of the implications from Silicon Alley Insider.

Pro-tech Diatribe...

A lot of people are complaining to me that they are receiving thousands of text messages and phone calls everyday, and not to mention, a lot of emails that "ping" them on their desktop PCs whilst working or on their BlackBerry.  Then there are those officemates who sign in to instant messaging software - only to get upset when someone sends them a message, saying "I am busy - don't disturb me right now".

These are people who believe - at their core - that they are victims of technology.  Who nonetheless crave the technologies and the gadgets that surround them.

I have been there.

I came to a point where I couldn't live without my email.  I would spend lots of download time on my 3G mobile phone plan just to check my Hotmail and Gmail accounts.  I would also spend lots of money downloading the latest news from CNN, Yahoo Finance, Reuters, and BusinessWeek (as if I would make a decision on my investments that easily).

I also came to a point where I couldn't live without my phone - that if I left the house without a phone, it would've been akin to leaving the house without my pants on.

Then I realized that, heck, it's only technology.  And how I use it is my business - I dictate how technology contributes to my life.  Technology cannot dictate the way I live my life.

I turn off my mobile once in a while - or leave it on my desk whilst going for lunch with office colleagues.  I have gotten off the habit of checking my Hotmail/Gmail (and OK, ebay...) accounts every hour or so.  And am getting out of the "Facebook" addiction.

I am retaking my life back from technology.

But here's the funny thing: Those who actually say that "I don't want technology to rule my life", those who say "human connections are still better than technology, emails, or IMs"... They are the ones who are struggling in keeping up. 

 

Here's my suggestion:  Don't resist the technology urge.  Ride through it.  Immerse yourself in it.  Even if it means emptying your 2'800 unread emails, with gazillion megabytes of attachments - go for it.  Face them.  It's only emails and instant messages. 

If you really don't want to get disturbed, don't sign in to IM at all.  Or turn off the crackberry.  If you really don't want to be disturbed by email, turn off Outlook or Lotus Notes - and turn on your out-of-office assistant saying that you're checking emails only at 5pm or 12nn - and follow your routine.

Will you miss something?  Perhaps an urgent message?  Sure.  You will.  But hey - something's gotta give.  And you'll have to know what to prioritize.

The more you resist technology, the more it will persist and thrust itself unto you/

Just ride it.  It's only technology.

You still make the call.

Google + Digg = ???

I had a bit of a discussion with our digital lead in the office about Google and Digg.  As of early last week,  talks are probably making some headway.  TechCrunch had even had a stronger 'pronouncement' that the talks are in the final stages with Google paying 200Mln USD (only?) for the deal.  Of course, Digg had to respond to such talks.  Its CEO, Jay Adelson, denied that these talks are in place.

As of the latest news, there seems to have been a breakdown in the negotiations.  Google, apparently, walked away from the deal, according to TechCrunch.

What's driven Google to this?  Well, we can only speculate.  But this perhaps could give us a glimpse:  It seems that Google is experimenting with integrating user-votes into their algorithms to further refine the search results that the search engine churns for its users.

This entry from TechCrunch demonstrates how some early tests that Google has been conducted in the area of "social/user-votes-integration" into search results.

All these are of interest to me as a campaign planner - and for marketeers.

First, the idea of integrating a social-dimension to search results is probably a good idea from the end-user perspective.  Right now, Google's PageRank and other technologies (Microsoft's Browserank, which debuted on SEOBook.Com) are dependent on "referral links". 

(Microsoft's BrowseRank looks at user's behavior and the time spent per 'referring link' to ascertain the importance of the 'target link'; OK - that's putting it simplistically...)

Adding on a social component to search results is essentially "sourcing the wisdom of the crowds" - crowds, who I should add would be or are going to be very likely to be interested in the same things that any individual user is looking for.

The technologies of referring links (and other metrics gathered through sophisticated algorithms based on web-crawlers and others) will have an added, truly-interactive dimension - which means that with this, users get to have a say on what's relevant and what's not.

Will it lead to better results?  I am no algorithm expert - but I would think so.  If I were searching for "Ducati motorcycles" (which I have been doing for the past 2 weeks), I would want to have more relevant information on Ducati - way beyond what the corporate website of Ducati says (which always comes up tops on the list).  And right now, I will have to follow every single link that the Google search results page spews out.

With this added dimension of "vote-ups/downs" from other end-users who may have searched the same keywords as I have done, it might just make my life a little easier.  The ones that were voted up by people who did the same search earlier than I did would most likely be relevant to me, too.  It may not be perfect - but at least it is a starting point.

The end-user, I think, will benefit from this greatly.  She may lose out on a few interesting websites - but even then, she can vote-up/down on her own volition results which she may have found to be relevant to her search.

On the other hand, there are questions on "search results manipulation".  If we had incidents of "click-fraud" in the CPC model - then we'll have to live with (or at least get Google to put a lid on) fraudsters who will be exploiting the possibility of artificially bumping up/down ratings.

On a cost-basis (which in these troubled times are beginning - or are becoming a more frequent point of discussion in marketing meetings - traditional or digital), costs per click or costs per acquisition are probably going to increase.

The results no longer are just dependent on Google's algorithms - with the social dimension of the search results, the crowd contributes.  Essentially, people who have done similar searches as I am now doing, for exaple, will have already paved the way for me to the most relevant results - which could potentially be relevant to me, too!

Now, isn't that more valuable than pure, algorithm-derived search results?  If I were google, I would do the same thing.  I would put a premium to this - whilst controlling the possibility of fraudulent vote-ups/downs.

Bottom-line:  Google is living up to its vision - "to oganize the world's information".  And if and when this incorporation of the social dimension comes through, it would have been a step closer to realizing that vision.

For now, Google + Digg is probably not going to pull through.  But it seems, Google has got its head around the issue.  And it seems that they are on the right track.

Paid Search Ads Not the Holy Grail

This is a very interesting video from Yahoo! Tech Ticker, an interview with Jonathan Yarmis of AMR Research conducted by Sarah Lacy.  Yarmis believes that there are four pillars to disruptive technologies that will define the future - not in silos but in terms of how each pillar interact:

1. Social Networking Phenomenon, powered by the technology
2. Cloud computing
3. Mobile access to data
4. Monetization beyond the traditional search ads

Yarmis also suggests that "paid search ads in a social networking phenomenon" (and I will add, in other technologies - for example in mobile access to data on a phone or a wireless device) are not the only way to monetize all these.

(Think of it this way:  If you are talking/networking with your friends on your PC or on your mobile device, would you really click on a text ad that's irrelevant to what you and your friends are talking about?)

The internet, Yarmis says, will remain to be free - and I do agree.  Capex from tech companies that are funding these "free" internet services won't be able to maintain these levels of interest.  Monetization will be critical.  However, most companies are still very much stuck to the old "advertising mindset" of capitalizing on "inventory" rather than creating new ways of monetizing these.

Media Planning and Social Responsibility

This is something that I have been thinking about since I left the agency world and started working as a one-man sales support team for Southeast Asia.

(I had a great deal of time on my hands... Well, something that somebody - and I cannot remember who - said is the birthplace of either inspiration or evil thoughts. Fortunately for me, it is more of the former than the latter.)

The thought was simple: We spend so much money (OK, invest, as strat planners are won't to say) in media plans to advertise products. We come up with a lot of concepts to sell - we dreamed up GRPs, reach, frequency, recency, engagement, attention-planning, disruption, affinity targeting, and other theoretical frameworks to get it right - and well, to get clients to spend.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world is evolving.

And I am not talking about things like digital media being more massive - and people are paying less attention and what-not... Those are given: people are just regressing to what is natural. (OK, that's for another post... later...)

The rest of the world is suffering: perhaps not in our immediate world, but in the bigger world. The gap between the top 10% households and the bottom 20% households in most countries is widening. The gap between the richest nations and the poorest nations is also widening.

And here we are, investing (or spending) money for client brands that perhaps consumers already know about - and may already care about.

Here's my point - after much digression: As media planners (and at heart, I am still one media planner - no matter what and how others think of media planners, I am still proud to have been and BE one), we actually have a lot of responsibilities.

And it's about time that we rise up to the occasion and take the risk.

I know this is about work. And work and Facebook don't seem to mix.

But most of my media planning and client-friends are in Facebook, I can't help but use this medium. My main point is simple:

If we can treat client investments in media planning/advertising to be more efficient, that in and of itself saves them enough - if not a lot of - money to use for the betterment of the world.

Think of the possibilities: Coke, for example (and I am thinking off the top of my head here - and I love Coke One!) - spends millions of dollars each year advertising their brand and their promotions.

If the media planners of Coke were able to make their investments in advertising more efficient - delivering the same amount sales at the a lower cost by maximizing opportunities and minimizing risks - wouldn't that be great? Let's say Coke in one country spends about 10Mln USD - and we are able to drive efficiencies (real efficiencies!) by 1% in addition to their demanded efficiencies, that's 10'000USD worth of savings. 10'000USD that they can either spend again - or 10'000USD that they can inject into their corporate social responsibility projects. Say to help the people in Burma or in China or in Darfur.

To get there, I think, there is a need for us to change mindsets. We have to think big. We have to be big. We have to be big in front of clients. We have to drive them to change their mindsets.

And if you're a client reading this - just think: Accountable media solutions + real savings that you can donate to an institution that would make the world a better place + "pogi-/gwapo-/brownie" points for you and your company.

Just think for a while.

(No, I have not become an Opus Dei - but I am certainly starting to believe that our work - whatever it is - is our way of doing God's Work - however you believe Her/Him to be.)

There's a lot to be done - but I think we can do something whilst doing our work.

Efficient media plans? Sure. Discounts? Sure. Additional value? Sure. But now, let's look for a purpose for all those. Perhaps, aiming to create efficient media plans, or tonnes of discounts or free spots - for the sake of changing the world is a lot better and bigger than simply getting that yearend "positive points" in the client evaluation sheet.

No more ads...

Well, the truth is there are still ads.  But I have been not noticing any ads.  If you asked me now what web ads have I seen in the last couple of days - or even the past week (apart from those which I had to "see" as part of my job), I wouldn't be able to name one.

Which leads me to the question: Are digital ads really declining in effectiveness?

If that is so, then why is everybody so hung up on ads (at least seemingly)?  Microsoft and Yahoo and Time and AOL and Google.

Everybody seems to be thinking that the reason why these companies have made the moves they made in the last couple of months is "advertising".

I would beg to differ.

Advertising could be a part of it.  But it's beyond that.  The fact that Yahoo seems to be so intent at avoiding the bid and Microsoft is so intent in pushing the deal - and everybody else from Google to Time to AOL - are all trying to get into the ruckus themselves suggest that there is something else beyond advertising.

Advertising is on a decline.  People don't want ads to be shoved down their throats anymore.  A new way to - all together now - "communicate" is necessary.  (And no, social networking ads?  C'mon.)

The days of "inventory-based advertising" - regardless of whether it is in display or search - are on entering the "wane" period.  Whatever you call the next phase - engagement planning, IMC, IPC, CCP, Comm Planning, Media Neutral Planning, Atomized Planning - it will not be solely 'inventory-based' anymore.