Media as an Ingredient

There was a time when the usage of media was optional. Media was an add-on which if a brand so desired or if needed would use to spur sales.

When, I look at this from the cooking perspective (since, I love cooking a lot) I would say that media was used just as a garnish. Yes, it did make the dish seem more desirable and added some flavours but one could certainly do without it.

Media was never appreciated. When the sales were healthy - there was no need for media and when the brand was in dire straits and there was strain on profitability - media was the first to be curtailed.

But, those were the times of the seller; the consumer then was a deprived citizen and had no say or choice in what was being served to him. The seller prepared the product and used media just to 'inform' the consumer either of its existence, its merits or its price. Media was never embedded in the value creation that the product or service promised; it was so far only communicating the value. Hence, the use of media was need based.

The world has changed. Consumer is King.

It is not about the seller asking the consumer about what they want and then manufacturing the product or service accordingly. The matters have progressed far beyond that. The sellers are no longer in control. They have morphed from brand owners to brand custodians to just being brand moderators. Despite all the theory that existed - the brand in the yester years was still in the mind of the brand owner (with due feedback and research of the consumer). But, now the consumer is in control of the brand. 

Here, when I say consumer  it is again different from the consumer of yester years. Earlier you would imagine the consumer as an individual (or a number of individuals - not connected to one another) but today the the consumer is a group - a group of connected and communicating people. Earlier, the consumer was a multitude of individuals but now is a Collective.

More and more products and services are being designed so that their consumption also happens or heightens when consumed as a Collective. And, these are not being designed by just the companies. The companies are a participant in this collective along with the consumers. Media runs as blood in the veins of this collective binding the consumers to each other and hence media is intrinsic to the construction of the brand.

Media is no longer an add-on; no longer a garnish; no longer need-based.

Media is critical and essential to the construction of the brand and the consumption of the brand.

Media has become an ingredient for the brand.

Brands that still treat media as an add-on have a lot of thinking to do. And, the day brands change this perspective - I am sure they will start looking differently at how they select and integrate media into their value promise. This will change the value they attribute to media in their P&L and will also impact the remuneration they pay for those who advise them on media. 

Media is no longer a garnish, but is a critical ingredient in the brand.

Future of TV in India

The Campaign A-List has collated the responses of over 300 Senior Professional from the Media Industry. In a recent, blog post "A-List of Changes"  I discussed what are the changes that these professional seek from media and advertising. Here, I am presenting a review of what all do they specifically expect to change in Television.

Here, of course I am ignoring ideas that are too extreme (like - ban TV) or too difficult to digest (such as - add smells to TV). Of course! TV was one of the mediums that had the most variety of comments for its future. I have classified these comments in 5 broad categories, each concerned about the following:

• The TV Technology
• The Advertising on TV
• TV Content
• Pricing of TV Commercial Time
• Research & Measurement for TV

The slide here illustrates the different comments received and hence gives a glimpse of the changes once can hope for in the future.

The A-List is most worried about the overdose of advertising. Hence, in the future of TV wants ad-free channels, limit commercial time, limit ad-durations, limit frequency of ads, zap commercials, stop TV tickers and logos on screen, and so on.  

Overall, in TV Technology the Media Seniors want to have 2-way communication on TV thus making it Interactive. Other wants are - digitization of Cable, making TV HD, Addressability for DTH. Yes, they also want to have a like/dislike button on TV for giving feedback on content and advertising.

In Content, the primary concern is for News Channels about paid news, anchors getting hysterical and dramatization of news.

The Creative people still have not had enough of indulgence in Television and are dreaming of having cheaper ad-rates so that they can make longer duration ads - since 30s is just not enough to tell a story.

TV Measurement as always is wanting - larger sample and better coverage but this time there is more concern about what we are measuring. Instead of TVRs, the A-List seeks to have TV Respect Points and TV Watchability Ratings. Advertisers want to go beyond CPRPs to Ad-effectiveness measures and Impact measures.

Interesting thoughts, which if materialized will certainly change TV for the better in the future. So, I sincerely hope that the A-List is able to bring in the changes that they seek - for if they cant then who else can !!!

A-List of Changes

All of us have our own view of the future of media and advertising and each one of us is working towards the changes one wants to make on the media canvass. But, have you ever wondered what is the collective view of such individual wishes and actions?

Well, here is a perspective.

I looked at the recently released A-List - courtesy Campaign India and Dainik Bhaskar Group. About 300 media professional shared their view on what they would want to change in media. I must say, it was very interesting reading - at times entertaining, some views shocking, some thought-provking and insightful; but overall - a read full of learning.

It was so exciting to read what all different people envision for the future of different media. There are different personalities that emerge from a simple analysis of this document:

the extremists - who want to totally ban some media;

the romantics - who still want the old era charm to be retained even in the new media;

the dreamers - who want no limits to creative expression;

the technologists - who want to infuse better technology across media;

the liberals - who are either not concerned or believe that change is anyways happening;

the accountants - who want more measures to do better evaluations;

the believers - who believe that all is well and no change is required;

.... and so on.. cant think of any more categories..

But, what is the big-picture that this A-list reveals for the media industry. What are their primary issues and concerns? And, these are best captured in this word map below on the basis of the changes that are sought in this media industry.

The primary themes that I read from this for the future of media here in India can be listed below:

• Reduce, Stop, Ban, Remove, Spam, Clutter, Less: Less advertising clutter
• Interactive: Every media to seek 2-way communication
• Measurement, Effectiveness: Better measurement and evaluation
• Digital, Bandwidth, Internet: Digital has arrived
• Accountability, Transparency, Truth: Responsible business dealings
• Better, Aesthetics, Cheaper: Deliver More in Less

The changes wanted most badly - by the number of people suggesting these are the following (not in any order):

• Stop Half-Jackets on newspapers
• Spare the Newspaper Front Page
• Reduce TV advertising Clutter
• Stop SPAM on Mobiles
• Remove Ugly Outdoor
• Remove 'intrusions' in content on TV
• Reduce Celebrities in Ads
• Better Measurement for OOH
• Better Measurement for Digital
• Reduce regulation for Radio

I would love to discuss each media in detail separately, as the expectations of different people from each media are so different. While, some want to ban a media; some are looking to regulate it; some want to indulge in it for their creative delight; some want to re-orient it for the future; some are worried about measurement and some about its rate....

But, I will decide to write on that basis feedback on this write-up. Hope you found this interesting.

Breaking News - Who's First?

In the era of limited media - News used to wait its turn.

Breaking News on newspapers could only happen every morning, irrespective of when the news happened. In fact, if the news was of late the previous night, then the breaking news on newspapers could only happen the day after.

But, then - there was radio - samachar or kabarein or the news bulletin on Aakashwani/ Vividh Bharti used to lead in breaking news. Of course! all would still anxiously await the next morning newspaper (or catch the evening TV news) to read and understand the details.

Soon, this breaking news moved to Television. But, still it needed to wait for the news slot at specific times for Salma Sultana to finally break the news. It was a little over a decade ago (1998) when we got our first 24 hour news channel and "live - breaking news" became a reality.

Television, has ruled the "breaking news" for over a decade and this has built many a fortunes - but, the question is how long will this dominance of TV last?

Life has bee very eventful in the recent past in terms of the amount of breaking news on television - at times though one wonders if 'breaking news' is driving television or is it the other way round.

Anyways, I want you all to think over some of the significant 'happenings' in India. Can you think of some events - Pl try.. Anna Hazare, Delhi Bomb Blast, Delhi Earth Quake,  Release of Singham, India's dismal performance at London.. can you think of more..

Now, can you just go back to these events one by one and think back where from did you first come to know of these events ?

• Newspaper - oh no! you really need to get up and smell the coffee :-)
• Television - really? maybe?
• Social Networking Sites - Of course!!

Breaking News has moved to the internet and especially to social media sites.

A news braodcaster has a big team and news agencies that feed them the news and enable them to respond to news-worthy happenings within minutes. However, imagine an army of lakhs of "Citizen Journalists" in different parts of India, inhabitants of the social networking sites, connected 24x7 to the internet - they pick up events and break the news within seconds!!.

• Not only are they fast - they are more relevant to you - as in your network they are 'your type of people' and what is news for them is most likely news for you.  
• There is no more the TV anchor with a big ugly looking mike asking people at the venue about their experience; instead - the experience is streamed live via tweets and posts bythe  multitudes who are a witness to the event.
• It is not a qualified/ sorted/ filtered perpective of the braodcaster - but a candid view of the manner in which probably you would have interpreted yourself.
• The Social Reporter is interactive and responsive - and the Social Networking space allows one to merge a number of views simultaneously from varying sources - direct or indirect.

Social Media is creating an eco-system that is up and awake 24x7 and is abuzz with breaking news - continuously.

Overall, this is 'breaking news' for the TV Channels that the days of breaking news on TV are limited and with the movement will also move the fortunes of many a channel whose focus has primarily been on 'breaking news'.

Yes, the reach of Social Netwokring Sites and Internet and Mobile is limited - so "TV will still rule for many years to come... "; This surely is one of the most short sighted statements I have made in this post :-) so pleaas ignore it and get ready for the shift very fast.

Even, within Social Media it has moved from FB to Twitter, flirted with some other networks too - the latest being Google + but in India currently Facebook is still the biggest "news breaker".

The Future: Inevitably Digital

I remember the days when I was a young entrant into the world of media (actually, media research to be specific) as I joined MRUC (Media Research Users Council). Somewhere around that time internet was included as a medium to be measured, into the Indian Readership Survey.

Internet used to be measured at two levels - aware about internet and frequency of usage of internet. While, usage of internet appeared to be a mere blip, there was a fair amount of awareness.

Actually, a funny incident had the researchers very perplexed. In a few small markets, the internet awareness showed levels 3 - 4 times those in any other market. Thanks to the robust back-check system followed by the IRS  - it was soon discovered that the high level of awareness was not of the interNET but of MosquitoNET - a simple mix-up about the NET.

India has certainly come along way since then. Its been about little over a decade since then.

We have all seen the rise in adoption of the internet which started getting adopted as a business application for emails, then soon evolved. Surfing to Search to Webmail to Games to Creating Websites to Blogs to Shopping to Banking to Ticketing to Networking to Socializing..... It now touches almost every part of our lives. In fact, now it is not confined to the computer screen but stays with us through our mobiles all day long.

However, the sceptics are still very adamant that in India internet is still a niche phenomenon and it will not affect the mass of India for many more years to come.  

Yes, the penetration levels of internet are not as high compared to those of television or newspapers today but with the rate at which the penetration of mobiles is increasing, it is just a matter of time..  a matter of very little time that it will surpass the reach of every other media. Just as we 24x7 access to electricity, so we shall have for internet. As products, services and governance starts utilizing the internet its advent as a mass application is inevitable.  

The sooner we believe this future and evolve our structure, methods and practices to address this fundamental change - the easier our future success shall be.

"If you dont give Digital a chance today; Digital wont give you a chance in the future"

The "Creative" is killing "Creativity"

In a quote that I gave for a certain magazine recently, I mentioned that "The Creative" in advertising is overrated and that needs to change. I thought to qualify this statement a bit more elaborately here.

In the domain of brand communication today - the "creative" is considered the most important element. Everything revolves around the creative. And why shouldn't it be so? So many, brands have become household names just because of the creative.

Who can forget the ministrations of Lalitaji of Surf or the Rekha, Jaya Sushma of Nirma. The hummable Hamara Bajaj or the wonderful BPL Washing Machines. Har Ek Friend Zaroori Hota Hai, Zoo Zoos, and the list can go on. OK Sabun, Tandoorusti Ki Raksha, Vimal, Hari Sadu....and many more..

All these creatives are darlings of India and have made the future of their brands, brand managers and of the creative directors too. Here, I am being very generous and actually giving credit of the brand success only to the creative so no one reading this can accuse me of being anti-creative.

But, lets look beyond these successes. For every creative that delighted India there are a thousand that made it to the hate list. Thousands of ads that went into anonymity; thousands of ads that wasted crores of advertising rupees again and again every year. 

Today, Television and Print advertising has almost become a tradition. No one questions why a brand needs TV or Print advertising - the question only is when, what and How Much. Going beyond the traditional is rare.

Dont mistake that I am saying dont advertise.. Do advertise.. but we need to appreciate that the word "Advertisement" has changed since we last reviewed it.

In the days of limited media (thats my fav way of referring to the traditional advertising days) the creative canvas was a "single media". Yes, there was advertising on multiple media but creative in each media was crafted alone. And, each such piece crafted was called the "Creative". We have been so enchanted by the creative as professionals that we didnt even realize when the audience for whom we were making the creative  - lost interest in it.

And, despite repeated studies showing alarming levels of ad-avoidance we still continue to be mesmerized by our own creatives. At times, I feel some brand custodians (this includes brand managers, account & media planners and creatives) are too obsessed and end up creating Innovations (costing multiples of  what a simple creative would have cost) that are surely clutter breaking but also totally meaning less for the consumer. These are what I call "Brand Managers Delights".

So "Advertisement" was about the Brand telling the audiences "I (Brand) will give you entertainment by showing you a creative in this boring media space, but there will be my message in the creative too" and it worked THEN. But, that is what the brand custodians continue to attempt even today when the audience is not dependent upon the Creative for entertainment - the media content by itself is entertaining and absorbing enough. In fact, the same creative is becoming a disruption in entertainment.

Now "Advertisement" is about active engagement of the audience and not just passive viewing/ reading. And, for this active engagement  today we have at our disposal very powerful  media that is targeted, addressable, pull, portable, interactive, measurable, reviewable, expandable, refer-able, mashable, fuse-able, etc besides the fact that advertising messages need not be restrained within the bounds of "ad-break".

The audience too is far more 'available' and hence is open to participation and activation more than ever before.

With such potential media and options available to us to share the brand with the consumers, if we still do not venture beyond the "creative" and dont indulge our creativity in utilizing this multi-dimensional canvass to actively engage the consumers - I think we are limiting our creativity,

The needless, un-investigated, traditional focus on the "creative" is killing "Creativity".

Share-of-Voice to Share-of-Voices

Traditional brand advertising has often taken recourse to strengthening the Share of Voice (SOV) of the brand in the category. Let us delve deeper into this concept here, in the context of TV advertising as an example.

So, if there are 10 brands in a category and if a certain brand advertising is seen the most then that brand is said to have the highest share of voice. Of course! there are very clear formulae based on the extensive TAM data (in case of TV) that allows one to estimate the share of voice of each brand. An estimation of GRP is essential to arrive at the SOV estimate.

Various research studies over the past have clearly established a relationship between the share of voice and Market Share and the SOV:SOM method of advertising planning is extensively adopted. In the absence of Share of Voice data; the Share of Expenditure (SOE) data too is often used for similar purpose.

Let us understand "Share of Voice" and its context a bit more.

• Traditional advertising mainly had only the brands talking about themselves and hence the sources of "voice" were limited. So, in this case we may say that since there were 10 brands - there were 10  primary sources of  Voice.
• The voice is alien or distant for every consumer. so, there was no effort to measure the "influencing power" of the voice.
• So "Share of Voice" is a "volume measure" ie it just measures the amount of advertising. So, in a volume measure the nature or the strength of the voice is not reflected.
• However, it is not a "supply measure" as "secondage of advertising" but is a "consumer side measure" since, it depicts the "amount of advertising seen". Note, that purposely I have not called it a "demand side measure" since there really is no demand for advertising - it is often thrust upon consumers. Anyways, here let us not get into whether the advertising is really wanted or seen, given the high extent of ad-avoidance behaviour which is rampant.  
• The metric of voice in each media is different and hence complex statistical techniques are required to aggregate share of voice across different media. For those who know GRP would be aware how mysterious GRPs are and how erroneous can it be to aggregate GRPs across media. 

But, the media landscape has evolved so much since the time the science of SOV:SOM based planning was scripted. The emergence of social media has started diluting the control of the brands over their advertising. The changes that have been seen are certainly here to stay and will only get more acute with the accelerated growth of digital media in the country. In such a scenario, we need to look at the principles of Share of Voice - afresh.

• If there are 10 brands in the category today, are their only 10 sources of brand messages. NO. The number of sources of brand messages today are innumerable. Hence,. there are a multitude of voices.
• Each consumer has a unique relationship with at least one of these innumerable voices and hence each voice has a definitive "influencing power" over another consumer.
• Hence, it is not the volume of voice but the number of voices which is more important.
• With the transfer of power moving from the transmitter of messages to the reciever - an exposure to a message is subject to desire and demand by the consumer. Hence, the measure of number of voices seen/ heard can be termed as a "demand side measure"
• Number of voices is a count measure and is additive across media formats - though yes, given the unique influencing power of each voice we would still need recourse to complex statistical methods to arrive at a relationship between these different voices and brand success.

Yes, I admit my thoughts are still evolving on this subject and many arguments are possible on what will happen next. However, one thing is certain that "Share of Voice' based planning as it exists today has to re-invent itself and maybe change itself to "Share of Voices" based planning.

In effect, the media plans should not be targeted to generate the highest "Share of Voice" but rather structured to activate more and more consumers to raise their voice for the brand to maximize the "Share of Voices" for the brand.

Shouting by yourself is easy but getting others to canvass for you requires winning their love and respect. That is the real challenge that the brands have to confront. If a brand wins my heart - I will always raise my voice for it.