Do not divide - and rule!!

Yes, that seems to be the philosophy of media research providers in India. In a market that is otherwise offering choice to consumers like never before, media research providers have a very contrary view on providing choice. Let me explain.
 

If one has to buy any syndicated research what one gets is the total solution. This total solution includes the database along with the software that rides on that database. IRS data come with the IRS Analyser; the radio database (ILT) comes with the EARS software; NRS data come with Sesame; the TAM database comes with its own softwares Xpress, Xpert and Viewergraphics; and, finally, AMAP TV data also can be analysed through their own software.

Largely, the choice the consumer of media research gets is whether one wants to buy the product or not. There is not much scope for breaking up the total solution and buying components from across vendors. No choice in that area.

So, the mantra is that ‘if you want to use my data, you need to buy my software’. This approach sounded fantastic when providing the software was a sure value addition where people were tired of reading voluminous printed reports. However, now these softwares are hygiene and at times a limitation to the kind of analysis one wants to do.

Well! Each of the software providers may say that ‘you can always buy the raw data separately from us’ and do your own analysis. Yes, we can buy the raw data but will it be available at a reasonable cost -- after having paid for the data and software already? Yes, we can buy the raw data but are there any companies that provide the data online – at the same time as their normal data are released? Mostly, the raw data are provided long after. Yes, we can buy the raw data but is there any guarantee that the research provider will adhere to the defined data formats and codes and not change these according to their justified requirements? Yes, we can buy the raw data but is there any standardization in the measures, definitions, data formats and codes that will enable us to seamlessly build applications that cut across databases?

The answer to all these is a NO. All research providers do not provide access to raw data. The raw data if on sale are very expensive to buy. They are usually available after an appreciable lag beyond the release of the regular data. The database formats and codes change frequently. There are no standards of data exchange.

This problem we are facing is a lack of open systems. We have all seen the growth of industries that have open systems – computer hardware and software, telecom, Internet, etc. This is the era of plug-and-play but our media research providers are not ready to divide their systems.

The systems need to be divided into data as one unit and application software as the other unit. One should be able to buy data in specified standard formats from any research provider and the application software from another, if one so desires. On the one hand, this will reduce the barriers to entry in the media measurement space as companies with strength in either of the functions can create a niche and provide specialized service. On the other hand, it will drive investments into data analysis applications by media organizations, each trying to analyze the data in their own way. In the long run, it will bring value to media research users.

The task of bringing these open systems into existence lies with the user bodies that regulate the media research in the country. It should be on the agenda of the MRUC, NRSC, JIB, etc., to insist upon open systems so that it encourages specialization, competition and innovation and brings in true choice for the media research users.

(Published earlier in Viewpoint, Exchange4media)

10 biases to avoid in making media plans!!

When I was coached in the process of market research a lot of literature talked of the biases in respondent response to the questionnaire and how one could plan to avoid such biases. As, I entered the field of media planing, I often heard people joking about the 'CEO bias' which is said to exist in the manner of selection of hoardings for a campaign.. such that the key hoardings on the route that the CEO often takes were ensured to be part of the campaign.

I realize that the field of outdoor media has evolved much more since then and is as professionally managed now as the regular mass media agencies. However, we must realize that there are some biases that may still creep in if we are not too careful in following the structured process of media planning. Here, I will talk of the possible biases in making mass media plans:

(The biases mentioned below are not in any order of importance)

1. Prestige Bias: A man is known by the media properties he buys and more so in the small community of brand and media professionals. Though, well-meaning the media buyers often stray towards this bias pushed by sheer peer pressure.
2. Lifestyle Bias: In the process of evaluating media in terms of what is suitable for the target consumers, often the media professionals overlay their media experiences (or of their close family and friends) even though  their lifestyle may not be representative of the lifestyle of the supposed target consumer. These experiences and the derived leanings are at best anecdotal and do not have any statistical significance.
3. Offer Bias: At times, a media vehicle or property becomes a part of a media plan just because of the deal or the offer that is available on the buy. The attractiveness of the buy is just too strong and overrides any other logic that may indicate against buying the media vehicle or property.
4. Influencer Bias: This is very akin to the CEO bias that was talked of for hoarding buys earlier. As a result of this, one often ends up skewing buys to media vehicles that are more likely to be viewed by the influencers. The influencers often are the executives at the client side and the bias may often be just due to 'percieved expectations' and hence often unnecessary.
5. Visibility Bias: A majority of the plans are made only for visibility as the primary deliverable and hence most syndicated media research available is also structured to provide a measure of just visibility. However, often when a plan deliverable is not just visibility even then the planners include media vehicles in the plan from the perspective of visibility thus resulting in a visibility bias.
6. Format Bias: Just as in cricket a batsman sometimes commits himself to a stroke very early and plays that stroke irrespective of the nature of the delivery - the same happens in media if the planning team commits themselves to a specific exposure format too early without adequate investigation of the format options available across media. 
7. Competitor Bias: In an attempt to do outdo the advertising of its competitor a team may stray towards this bias and indulge in media interventions that are purely reactive and are not aligned to the media priorities otherwise defined for the brand or campaign.
8. Role Bias: Traditionally, there were some roles that were defined for each media which have been used as thumb rules for media mix decisions over the years. However, the nature of media have changed so much now that most of the classical theories of the role of each media can be challenged. Blindly following the traditional rules of media selection therefore may cause this Role Bias.
9. Success Bias: Some campaigns perform wonderfully and the success rightly or wrongly get attributed to some specific elements of the campaign. Teams may have the tendency to then replicate the same elements of the campaign for subsequent campaigns hoping for the same magic again ignoring looking at the facts relevant to the current campaign.
10. Novelty Bias: In an effort to be in with the latest happenings in media brands often align with anything that is new or is a novelty. Such investments may not always be the most optimal means of brand association though there may be other benefits of being such an adventurous brand.

The simplest way to avoid these biases is to just look afresh at every campaign and follow the structured process of media analysis and plan development. Do share with me if you feel there are any other biases or how you ensure that you avoid any of the above biases.

Happy planning, 

Media Strategists - To Be Hired

Media is evolving...changing.. adapting.. we all know that.. there is enough said and written about it and continues to be written.... That is not what I intend to talk about in this writeup. What is more interesting is what the 'stakeholders' are doing about these changes.. or maybe rather what they are not doing about it.

The Media Ecosystem is comprised of the Media Owners, Media Agencies, Creative Agencies and Media Researchers and some other emerging and secondary businessess too. For all of them these changes that are happening in media are affecting their business at the core and each is responding to the challenges in their own way. But what is affecting the lives of all of the above the most is the way in which the 'Advertisers' are responding to the changes in media.

The increasing number of brands catering to similar need sets with ever decreasing differentiation in the functional deliverables has consistently increased the imporance of creating brand value for the advertisers. Communication and Media have palyed a pivotal role in aiding the brands in strengthening brand value. Media is increasingly becoming an even more important ingredient for the brands. In terms of the spends on various elements for a brand in its marketing efforts - the percentage allocated to media has been gradually increasing.

As the leverage that media therefore has in transforming brands has increased what has also increased is the absolute amount of money being spent by the advertisers on media. And, it is the latter that has triggered off more reactions amongst the advertiseres as it is a more tangible effect. 'Increassed levarage on the brand' is a very debateable claim but 'increased media spends' is recorded in every balance sheet. Now, this increased media spending has kicked off a series of changes at the advertisers end.

1. With the increasing time and media knowledge required to manage the media purchase the advertisers created the position of a 'media coordinator'.

2. The 'finance/ procurement' departments of companies started taking an active interest in the buying of media

3. There is an increased involvement of the brand managers in the actual buy of media

While, I do have a perspective on how each of the above are dealing with the challenge of buying media and how they can do better, I will leave that for another day.

What is important to understand is that all of the above are genereally speaking intersted in the act of 'media buying'. However, there is an important aspect that needs more focus from the advertisers and that is the aspect of 'media strategy'.

I define media strategy as the role of structuring the right media solution to address the brand challenges. At present, this task of media  design is falling somewhere between the 'brand manager' and the 'media coordinator' and is in no way being aided by the transgression of the procurement department into the buying of media.

Media startegist as a role requires to take inputs from the brand managers, media coordinator, media agency, OOH agency, digital agency, creative agency, analytics team and other components of the marketing mix to deliver integrated communication solutions for the portfolio of brands. At present, this function which is inherent to a media agency is not getting its due because, there is no one on the advertisers side to resonate with this approach to media solution design. The current point of daily interaction for a media agency is the media coordinator who has a totally different KRA while the Brand Manager just does not have enough bandwidth to address this requirement.

So, while the advertisers continue to spend more and more on media, they are yet not reliazing the full potential of media. I look forward to advertisers addressing this and creating this role of 'Media Strategists' in their ranks.

In my subsequent posts, I will talk more of the current baises in making media plans and how the nature of media solutions can change with the intervention of media strategists.

Print has to evolve!!

The custodians of media got together many years ago and set up a research system called the readership research in India. It borrowed a lot from what was being done in the area in other countries. This research became the backbone of media plannig in India and subsequent rounds of this research were used by media as a barometer of their growth.

However, recently (for about past 5 years) this barometer has been indicating clearly (for those who want to see the truth) that the print media is not growing. The average issue readership has been going down for most publications; an increase in circulation is not resulting in a corresponding in readership; the average timespent on the media has been reducing marginally but surely; sole readership of major publications has been dropping; and so on.

The overt reaction of most leaders has been to deny, discredit, doubt and debate the same barometer. But, that is not helping and the metrics continue to go down.

Please, do not conclude that I am saying that there is no future for print media. All I am saying is that the print readership is not lying. By the metrics that have been in use over the past decade or more - yes the publications are in trouble. But, then should we continue to measure print media by the same metrics. Now, when I say different I am not referring to the recent naive attempt by some influential people to replace 'average issue readership' by 'total readerhip'. I mean a fundamental change in the measurement metrics.

The informationn provided by the current design of readership research should be used for whatever it is worth instead of discrediting and debating it. However, it is also time to realize that just the size of the publication in terms of the number of readers is not the only metric that defines success for a publication. The manner in which consumers read publications has changed and the important thing is the relationship that the publication (and different segments of the publication) has with its readers. The value of the readers and the nature of the realationship will define worth of a publication for brand communication.

Print media custodians have to rethink what they are delivering to consumer and brands and hence what they need to measure. With this understanding they need to evolve to deliver and market the new measures and success will be theirs.

Hope to see some changes in their perspectove soon!!

The Myth of Digital Media!!

All Digital Media seller are going all over town claiming how accountable digital media is and hence it deserves advertising as against the irresponsible traditional media of print and tv. The claim of being accountable arises from their ability to sell clicks and leads and the low cost at which they can deliver these.

In search for these clicks and leads there is an utter disregard for any 'brand building' in the media. There are a few points that the custodians of digital media must consider as they grow into their future which I do not doubt at all. Digital is certainly the future.

1. When a consumer clicks on a digital advertisiement (brought to it via search or whatever) - the consumer decision to click on the said brand ad is a result of a history of ad-stock or brand-image being built in the mind of the consumer. The digital ad is just the point at which this brand-imagei n the mind converts into an action of a click. Converting the ad-stock to the click is certainly to the credit of the digital media but then the digital sellers shoudl realize that there was possibly a lot of traditional media that made it possible for them. And, brand custodians should also understand this when they do the cost-benefit analysis and not give the benefit of generating the click just to the digital media and for the future dilute the use of other media.

2. In the early phase of the digital media when there are not enough brands seeking those clicks; today it is fairly easy and cheap for the digital media to deliver the clicks and leads to brands. But, as the traffic of brands and hence the demand for clicks increases the digital medium will hv to send much more to obtain those clicks and then it wont be so cheap and effective an alternative to the other media options.

3. When the said demand for clicks builds up, the digital media providers will have to work towards building engagement with brands and will be confronted with the same issues of building brand connect and brand imagery that are issues for todays traditional media. The sooner digital media providers realize this and start building these capabilities the sooner will the media mature as a brand communication platform.

4. The media has its strengths of providing interactivity and actionability and should build capabilities around that.

5. Just because certain actions of the media are measureable that should not be confused with accountability. The quality and veracity of the clicks and leads have always been under doubt and it will only become tougher for the media. There is a lot of work that the media can do in developing systems that track accountability and those who develop these first wll be the leaders for the future.

There is a great future for digital media but its their responsibiilty to safeguard its future. And, disparaging the achievemnents of other media is not gong to help too much. Concentrate on their own strenthgs and ave a great future.

Cheers!

Syndicated Research is not enough

At any media symposium - bashing of media research (and subtly the media research agencies) is always a planned session. While media representatives enjoy detailing without any understanding of the science of media research, how erronours and unrepresentative the research is; the media research users (primarily agenices) reiterate how important it is to consolidate the different researches into one single entity so that they have to buy only one research. The media research agencies on their part just play the victims saying that they could do better if they had more money.

And, it is the same story that I have been seeing for the past 8 - 9 years that I have been around in the media industy. .. but nothing has changed as yet excepting the continuous reduction in the value realization of their product for all.. media research, media agency and media itself.

The media research design that we are currently (very unhappily) using was not forced upon us. At one time it was very relevant and was a game changer and the media agencies based all their methods and practices on the provided metrics. Media developed content to deliver on the metrics so that they could have a high profitability. Media research agencies flourished. But, now 10 years or so have passed and all are unhappy with the state of affairs.

'Access to media' was the variable that was of most importance and all media research delivered that metric. There was no need for any other parameter as media was scarce and differentiation amongst media was not of great consequence. The consumers consumed what media they could get. Today, consumers have immense choice and are consuming multiple media - each in a different manner and for a differenet purpose and 'access to media' information is not enough. For communication planners to reach their desired consumers they need to differentiate between media based on the same variables that are in use for differentiating between brands.

The whole media ecosystem consists of the media, media agencies, media research exists to enable brands to seek consumer and to cater to them. And, an understanding of how media connects with consumers is the vital knolwledge that will enable media professionals build brand communication plans that do justice to the brands that they serve.

Hence, for this ecosystem to prosper the critical question is not if we need one research agency or two (that is best left to the research agencies and market forces to decide). But, the critical question is what data do we need for making relevant and impactful communication plans. The answer to this question will differ across products and brands and so it would be naive to expect some piece of syndicated research to cater to the need of every brand's communication planning.

The brand has the most at stake. If the media research available is not good, ultimately the brands money gets wasted based on media strategies based on sub-optimal media plans. It is therefore for each brand to start looking at ways in conjunction with their media agency and media partners to setup information systems that deliver 'media knowledge' to build their communication plans.

Syndicated research will not be enough for communication planning. The era of syndicated research (or even conventional market research) is over. It is time for brand-dedicated consumer behaviour capture systems to be deployed that will enable the next generation of communication planning.

Think!!

Convenience Planning

I remember a very silly story that we all must have read in the past... of a man looking for his lost ring under the streetlight while he had lost it elsewhere where it was dark. He was looking under the streetlight since thats where the light was. It was convenient to look for the ring under the street light and very inconvenient by the roadside where it was dark. We all must have laughed wisely and said what a foolish man!!

Lets see what is happening in the media & communication world.

Ideally, all communication (and all brand effort) is targetted towards communicating the value that the brand brings to the consumers. This communication is supposed then to result in a increasing market share for the brand. It can be argued that all brands are not looking for increasing market share but for a stronger bond with the consumer, etc but for argument sake right now stick to the former understanding of brand efforts.

However, when any media campaign in now executed the thing that is measured the most is 'exposure' to the consumer. What relationship this exposure has to increasing market share is rarely understood. And if there is an effort to understand this relationship, it is only at the quantitative level with usually no weightage given to the nature of the exposure (creative and environment variables). Okay, for a moment let us belive that some brands do understand the relationship but then the question is what is a true measure of exposure?

'Eyeballs' is such a overused term and it has different connotations in every media. While in TV an 'impression' is counted if there has been atleast a minute of continuous viewing of a particular channel; in print the Average Issue Readership is the norm. In radio, Outdoor, Internet, Cinema, etc the metrics are all different.

I do not want to bring up the topic of smapling error here at all since it has already seen a lot of coverage in editorial space. So, assumimg that the media surveys that are available are truly representative of the population the question still bothering us is what are they measuring?

TAM (or AMAP) in TV measures the mere presence in the room. It does not measure actually seen and they do not measure anything about the nature of the exposure.

IRS (and NRS) measure if the person recognizes and or recalls the masthead of the publication shown and claims that he/ she read it on a regular basis. There is nothing to say of the advertisement that we placed really got an expousre or not and under what environment, etc. And, that the data is averaged over the past 12 months of behaviour is seen as a strength!! Are not brands much more dynamic.

The Internet companies gloat over the measurability of their medium but they too have the same problems in defining an exposure and the nature of the exposure. Further they can do little to tell the 'profile' of the exposure and hence only talk number of exposures.

Lets not even talk of the other smaller media (radio & cinema) as they do not have enough data to serve the purpose of an argument. And, all the other non-conventoinal media do not have any data at all.

So, to summarize a significant focus of mesurement of a campaign is on measuring the number of exposures (very little in terms of nature of exposure). A clear definition of exposure does not exist. Most media surveys do not measure true exposure. Most media do not have a exposure measurment data. There is no clear relationship between exposure and market share.

So, then what should we do. Should we all close our respective businesses and sit at home. No. We derive measures that are convenient (can be measured) and hope that these measures have someting to do with market share. But, for a large part these measures give us the ability to be able to transact and build businesses. So, a media house sells exposures, a media agency plans exposures, an advertiser buys exposures and so on. And like all things often result in something good these exposure too are supposed to result in sales and increased market share. Of course! there is the whole sales effort also that is driving market share.

So, we all do business in the 'convenient' domain but are still the wise men!!

Okay, I agree that this is the best that can be done with the resources available and etc etc.. okay fine.. but at least lets realize that we are in the domain of human behaviour and not physics and so lets develop measures that capture human elements of these exposures and not just a mere number that is convenient to measure. Only, then can we have relationships between the input and output variables.

It is also very convenient to have a common currency but why do we need a common currency? A car manufacturer sells cars and a scooter manufcaturer sells scooters. They do not arrive at a common currency such as 'wheels per meter' or 'litres per kilometer' and then transact with the world. If one media is delivering a human value then there is absolutely no reason other than convenience to convert that into a GRP and then transact on it comparing it with all other media vehicles.

Each one of us is doing business in the convenience zone and while in the long run the one who breaks out of this zone will be the winner; but the short term perils of not operating on convenience are huge. Do we have the guts!!