Your Brand lives in the Middle-of-the-Funnel

Building a brand is an eclectic process. A label is launched and it takes a lot of curation in the minds of consumers for that label to become a brand. Brand Custodians have always played this game of moulding  brands and getting consumers to rally around them. Because, ultimately it's the brand that is wanted and it is the brand that consumers pay (premium) for.

But, as the 'concept of time' has changed - the time that a business allows for a brand to be built or the time that a consumer gives to a brand to stay in his or her life - both have reduced considerably. This has certainly made the life of CMOs and Brand Managers so much more complicated and has had a huge impact on what we see brands doing in Media.

If, I were to simplistically breakup the typical brand Funnel into Top, Middle and Bottom: 

• at the Top, we see a lot of broad advertising in Mass Media aimed at creating awareness for the brand; 
• in the middle is where we typically measure brand metrics such as 'consideration', 'preference', 'affinity', etc;
• at the Bottom, we see hard-core sales efforts which, in the digital world today take the form of Performance Advertising measured on Conversions to "Sales Metrics"

Each stage of the brand funnel is important, its never abut one over the other - but, it is about the balance between all stages of the consumer journey. 

While. the "Heritage" brands (those than have been there for long) are often accused of too much "Top Funnel" focus often referred to as 'spray & pray' - but, its to do with their distribution structure and the "distance" between the advertising stimulus and the opportunity to purchase or the point of purchase.  Of Course! we see a shift happening towards a more 'performance' mindset.  

On the other hand, the new age D2C Brands start with a huge "bottom-funnel" focus and as they grow, they steer towards sporadic but, high intensity & bold out-bursts on the top-funnel. Cant say, if it is right or wrong as the actions are defined basis the 'end-game' that the promoters have in mind. 

In both the scenarios, the Brand lives in the Middle-of-the-Funnel. Its what the brand does in the middle that defines sustainable success. The Top & Bottom are often the easiest to deploy as they are very tangible. 

The Top-Funnel is easily measured on the basis of media deliverables - reach/ grps, impressions, contacts, etc and also costed for the media deliverables. However, it is very distant from "end-sales'  and its effectiveness is often a mystery - best measured basis awareness measures or using complicated and long-term market-mix models to derive the actual ROI of such investments. Not to say that these investments are futile but, while media delivery measures are easy; effectiveness measures are difficult.

At the bottom of the funnel, usually sales or conversions is the last mile metric and is easy to measure. The measures are usually the amount of media deployed and the sales, transactions, conversions generated, The measures though easy, are often "mis-leading" as conversion measures just tell you 'the percentage of the consumers that crossed a stage' and not, the causality of the media investments or the effectiveness of the media investments. These measures have a lot of misattribution and unless brands managers are prudent - money gets spent on media that has a low ROI.

So, Top Funnel & Bottom Funnel measures and KPIs apparently are very tangible and hence, its an easy (not best) decision to spend on these. But, the Brand building happens in the Middle of the Funnel and that is the toughest space to manage. Brand Love/ Brand Preference/ Brand Image/ etc are intangibles and its also very difficult to assess what media placements will affect what aspects of the brand.

Irrespective of the 'Time-frame' Brand Building is essential. If there is a clear Brand Value which is what the consumers buy the brand for - then, the Top Funnel only Amplifies this Brand Identity to attract larger audiences to the Brand; and the Bottom-Funnel only monetises this Brand Asset by generating transactions for the Brand. Without a strong middle - both, Top Funnel as well as Bottom Funnel become unsustainable and fail to spur growth for the brand.

There is a continued debate in the market about the balance between "Performance" and "Brand" investments and rightly so - Feed the middle of the funnel else, the "Label" will never turn into a strong "Brand".  

Strategic Pathway to the Metaverse Future

We have all heard so much of the Metaverse in the past 6 months and many "firsts" are being executed by various brands everyday to announce their presence in the Metaverse. its time now for brands to start defining a strategic approach to building business for a metaverse-immersed consumer.

"Metaverse" gained popularity following the change of Facebook to Meta in October 2021. While, search volumes for "metaverse" spiked then; there has been almost a 70% drop in the search volumes over the past 3 months. While, some feel it was a passing fad, I believe it is here to stay and transform our lives. The initial euphoria is fading but, brands need to prepare for it as it scales up.

Gartner estimates that in just 4 years (by 2026), 25% of the population will spend an average of an hour daily in the metaverse. I will not be surprised if, this is an under-estimate as the metaverse is far beyond social media and will drive a convergence of many activities that we do offline & online. 

While, estimates will vary, the point is that consumers are moving to the metaverse. The metaverse will evolve and will manifest itself in our lives in multiple forms. Are Brands ready for this behaviour transformation that the consumer is going through. Its time for Brands to define a strategic pathway to the metaverse.

Lets get away from the tech-layer of the metaverse which, is a necessity for deployment but a distraction for strategy. Lets focus on the Business and the Consumer. Once we have identified the strategic pathway, we will come to the tech that will enable us to progress on that pathway.

From the Consumers perspective, the metaverse is about how they virtually engage with the external world and hence, for Brands, it is about how they interact with brands and consume products and services. At the risk of simplification, the metaverse can be mapped on two dimensions:

• The Mode of Consumption of Products & Services by the Consumers 
• The Mode of Delivery of Products & Services that is provided by the Brands

Every category has a transaction element (Access) an element of Tangible Consumption (Usage) & an Intangible feeling associated with it (Experience). These three dimensions "ATX" total up to an overall consumption of the Brand. 

A brand can use different modes of delivery for these elements of consumption to the consumer - Physical (P), Access Online (O) or Platform Immersed (I). While, Most brands are currently in the Physical world and many are now also accessible/ bought online - the Platform Immersed options are nascent. The spread of brands across this P-O-I delivery framework defines how ready they are for the metaverse. 

Using this ATX-POI Model, a Meta-Evolution Grid (MEG) is defined. The footprint of the elements of  Brand Delivery and Consumption defines the state of the Brand on the MEG. The metaverse is where the Brand is available as an immersion (I) and the Consumer is able to atleast do a transaction that is Platform Immersed. If the Consumer is also able to consume and experience the Brand in an immersive state then, that is the ultimate metaverse presence for a Brand.

Each Brand needs to define their current and proposed future footprint to start developing the strategic pathway to the metaverse. While, gaming is already highly evolved and leading the evolution fo the metaverse - there are categories which are still entirely resident in the Physical world. Nor will it be possible for some of them to move all elements of consumption into the metaverse. 

While, some categories will continue to be consumed in the physical state - the "transaction" can be moved to the metaverse. Also, while the actual product experience may be in the physical world, the brand needs to plan what are the "experiences" that can represent the brand in the metaverse. If the brand does not have a blueprint for any such experiences today, then the brands need to start building these experiences and the association of these experiences with the Brand - before venturing into the metaverse on the experience dimension.

Depending, on the current footprint of the brand on the Meta-Evolution-Grid (MEG) the Strategic Pathway to the Metaverse will be laid out for each brand. 

I have defined 3 stages of this Universe:

• Yesterverse - Not that this stage of brands is not relevant today but, it was defined in the past and is continuing as a legacy - hence, Yesterverse. Most brands lie fully in this stage today.
• Omniverse - Omniverse is the stage of the brand evolution where it has stepped out of the brick and mortar world and has enabled online access and different part of brand consumption are available either online or offline - but not yet reached the immersive stage. A large number of brands are in this space today and more coming in every day. However, excepting a few categories, they still have only a small percentage of their business from this Omniverse.
• Metaverse - As I stated earlier, this is where one or more elements of the Brand Consumption  are available to the consumer in a platform immersive manner. Brands have started exploring the space and we will see a lot of action building here.

Building a "transaction" is the easy part; advertising presence for the Brand in the metaverse is also quite doable (thought the tenets of advertising will change for the metaverse) - most Brands today, howsoever, eager to get into the metaverse - are still wanting in a clarity of definition of the experience that they need to create in the metaverse. 

So, while it is great to "dip your toes" in the water and have a thrill of being the first in the metaverse - the Brands that will win are the ones which create a vision for themselves in the metaverse and define the Strategic Pathway to create value for the consumers in their new world. 

Welcome to the metaverse!! Lets Build the Strategic Pathway for your Brand!

Random Duplication gives Random Results

“Random Duplication” is a very often heard term in media agency corridors and even more so these days in the Zoom / Teams meetings online. Those better-read, also sprinkle conversations related to ‘random duplication’ with “stochastic’  or more popular ‘Sainsbury Formula’ and with “Normally Distributed”.

Whats the Context?

The context in which we see these words being used in media agencies is when discussing “multi-media planning”. So, if there is a TV Campaign that reaches 60% of an audience and there is a Digital Campaign which reaches say, 40% of the same audience – then, how does one estimate the net reach of the TV+Digital campaign for the audience.  It is in this context that all the above terms are oft heard. 

Of Course! Multi-media reach is one of the most important element in this increasing multi-media universe that we are getting deeper and deeper into.

While, I don’t claim to be pure-blooded statistician – nor am I going to try to explain these statistical terms to you but, this article will help put the issue in perspective from a media planning point-of-view. Later, I will come back with a more technical answer to the issues with - and alternatives to random duplication along with the help of more statistics-inclined colleagues 😃.  

Why is multi-media reach a challenge? 

Those of you who are in the media domain are aware of the limitations of the measurements systems available. 

• Syndicated research and reports such as IRS, TGI, GWI, i-Cube and some others provide a survey-based estimate of all media but, are often challenged due to lack of vehicle level granularity/ accuracy and dated reporting in a fast-moving digital age. These systems however, only provide “Max-Reach” estimates for various media/ platforms.
• For Campaign Measurement of the non-digital media – none other than BARC (TV Viewership Measurement System) provide any kind of campaign measurement capability. The IRS does offer campaign planning in the IRS Software, but no one in the industry uses it.
• Then there is a huge plethora of Digital Platforms that have their own dashboards/ server reports to map the Max-Reach of the platforms or MAUs which is the more widely used term in digital conversations. These platforms, provide estimates of MAUs as well as of Campaign Reach. There are limitations as some platforms only share impressions and not unique impressions; some don’t provide frequency-based estimates of impressions; the reporting parameters are different across platforms, across formats within a platform, and so on.
• Then there are also the panel based digital measurement syndicated sources such as Comscore, Similarweb, etc. And, there are many other app-download measurement and various other measurement platforms. While, recency of data is not an issue of data on these platforms; the numbers are so different across platforms and there is mush to be done in decoding them yet. 

Of course! there are those who just don’t understand the concept of scientific survey research and discard the syndicated reports due to low sample (but, continue to spend millions on their hunches and beliefs). I find these reports extremely powerful, a good reference and best used layered with assumptions of the changes in the ever-changing real-world. 

And, don’t be so naïve to even try to corroborate the digital universe estimates across any of the digital platforms. Even the most reputed platform claims/ estimates have continued to confound me. Have often seen claims of more females in a certain geo-demographic than estimated to be present in that geography. And, this applies to different demographics across – not only females. Wonder where the world is hiding these people as the Census also could not find them 😄. 

Now again, there are those would say that the estimates that I have are wrong; the Census is too old - as they don’t understand the concept of statistical forecasting. Happy to have a discussion on the universe estimation and forecasting that is in use for the syndicated databases in the industry, 

So , what could be the problems in measurement?

When one executes a multimedia campaign say, across TV, Youtube Trueview, Facebook Video, Disney Hotstar pre-roll & in-stream options – one would have to look at multiple sources of data each with their own idiosyncrasies. 

While ,TV is a broadcast media with certain rules of reach build-up and OTS applicable; on the other hand the patterns of reach and frequency build-up as seen on these digital platforms unique to each:  

• each having their own universe estimate

• own definition of an impression

• own definition of a view

• in fact, even the targeting parameters will be different

• different levels of reporting by period 

• different parameters reported 

• and so on

Don’t expect an easy answer

So, when Clients ask the question – “what is the net reach of the multi-media campaign?” do you think the answer would be simple?

Let me clarify that, I am not advising that reach is the right measure for every campaign or that in every campaign every medium/platform should have reach as a primary metric. There are various reasons for a medium or platform to be included into a campaign and the metric for measurement of that medium/ platform should be based on the campaign/ platform role. 

However, in case it is so decided that Reach is the campaign measure, then all the complexities stated above in the note need to be managed by the multi-media reach estimation methodology. And, it is not going to be an easy answer. And, I haven’t even added the problem of reach @3+ yet 😝 or yet not added in performance media which is a different ball-game all-together.

Lets also discuss the elephant in the room - NCCS. Most client briefs even today have NCCS as an important audience descriptor but, most digital platforms have no direct design to deliver NCCS-based audiences. I dont even want to discuss what gets delivered using 'surrogates of NCCS'. Again, am not saying that NCCS is crucial and the right way to define audiences. Personally, I believe we should be able to define audiences with far more direct descriptors than identifiers such as NCCS. Am sure things will change but, today most campaigns have NCCS since, TV research too is built around NCCS, 

Things are going to get even more complicated if we now, want to optimize the campaign and define budget allocations across platforms at the pre-planning stage and to also report similarly during and after the campaign.

Maximize from Wavemaker

And, here is a commercial break with a plug-in for my company 😇. Jokes apart, the tool Maximize at Wavemaker is the best that I have come across in the media industry ever. It is conceptually light-years ahead of the competitive tools in other agencies. Statistically so robust that even I don’t try to understand the finer details of the agent-based-modeling techniques that it uses. And, it is never about only having a tool – what matters is the people who pilot the tool and Wavemaker has a very ‘qualified’ team on Maximize. I can connect any one of you to the “Maximize_Desk@Wavemaker” for a deeper interaction. 

In Conclusion

So, if anyone gives an answer to the above question about multi-media campaigns - using just Random Duplication or Sainsbury Formula that are stochastic approaches said to be applicable to Normally Distributed variables – do look at the inferences with a hand-full of salt.

As I say “Random Duplication gives Random Results”. When you invest Millions you deserve better than a random result. 

Investment in Media Strategy is a waste ?

I am a media strategist, and this article is not in jest, but a serious view of the utility of media strategy to drive brands. I will demonstrate this with the use of some media metrics that are often used in the media investment domain.

We often look at the A:S Ratios of Brands within and across categories to arrive at an A:S benchmark which we can use to recommend a starting media budget. Of course! budgeting is a much more complicated subject and far more needs to be done to recommend a media budget; but, this method gives a good reference point. 

Typically, stable FMCG categories with multiple competitive brands have a A:S ratio around 10, ie 10% of the sales revenue for the brand is invested in working media.

Categories with smaller number of competitive brands or categories with dominant brands or categories that are very low involvement are known to have A:S ratios even below 5%. Practically, the brands barely need advertising to survive (Survive is the key-word here).

On the other hand, for brands are in the early stage of life or brands in high involvement categories or in nascent categories - the A:S ratios can be as high as 50% or even higher than 100%. These are not rules, and we need to calculate the A:S value for the specific brand and competitive brands under discussion.

So, we use A:S as a metric that guides budgeting – but, clearly, A:S indicates the importance of  media for the category/ brand. 

Now, lets look at another indicator that we often get out of attribution analytics or more popularly known as Market-Mix-Modelling. As an output of this model, we get the percentage attribution of sales to media. Which means that we estimate - of the total sales what would be the loss in sales if we had not spent on media. Typically, this figure across categories hovers around 10%. Base, Distribution, Pricing, Consumer/ Trade Promotions usually, total up to over 80% or more of the impact on sales. Again, the key takeout is that the % media attribution indicates the importance of media for the category/ brand and is typically around 10% but, needs to be estimated for each brand specifically. 

Though, A:S and % media attribution both vary across brands - to simplify, lets say that media constitutes about 10% of the sales revenue and media contributes to about 10% of the sales. The important part here for the discussion is that the ratio of % media attribution and A:S is 1.0. Lets call this ratio as the Media Utility Ratio (MUR).

                                 MUR = (% sales attribution to media investments)/(A:S %)

So, if we do not deploy media we will lose 10% of sales revenue. But, since media cost is also 10% of the sales, we save 10% of the sales revenue. Hence, we don’t really lose anything if we do not deploy media.

Please note, here we are talking about the short-term impact of the media investments. Also, this above argument will change as per the actual values of A:S and % media attribution for any brand in discussion. 

If the A:S is lower than % media attribution – then, the Media Utility Ratio is greater than 1.0 and the money saved by deploying media causes a far greater loss in sales revenue; hence, MUR > 1 makes a case in favour of the utility of media investments. 

On the other hand, if A:S is greater than % media attribution, then the MUR is less than 1.0 and one needs to question why we should spend in media at all or investigate the nature of media investments. 

As a marketer we need to know the above metrics so that the investment in media is a considered decision and not a ritual. Also, these metrics should be estimated using robust analytics as simple volumetrics, correlations, conversion percentages, etc can give very misleading results.

Now, lets assume that with or without specific knowledge of the above, the marketer does decide to invest in media. Again, for the sake of simplicity lets say, that the current MUR is 1.0. Now, if we invest wisely in media – we may increase the ROI of media and hence the MUR will increase from say, 1 to 1.2 and the inverse will happen if we do not spend wisely.

The below illustrations, show the implications of the values of A:S, % media attribution and MUR.

To improve the Media Utility Ratio, we have multiple avenues:

• Modulate Investment Levels: Check if we are investing at the right levels using the sales response curves. Maybe, if we just increased or decreased the investment levels we may find a point where the MUR is better. We can derive the sales response curve though market-mix modelling. 
• Improve Pricing: Continue to invest in the same manner but reduce the cost of media (the denominator) thus improving the MUR. Here, we improve the pricing or improve on implementation so that we get the best inventory for maximum viewership/ impressions/ etc. This is a very popular approach as it is immediate, direct and tangible. The impact of this is certain but, it will bring in only a small incremental change to the MUR. Do not expect miracles with this approach.
• Strengthen Strategy: Improve the effectiveness of media so that the % media contribution for the same spend improves. This requires one to look at targeting, choice of media/ platforms, manner of usage of each platform, optimization of budget across platforms, monitoring last-mile or intermediate business metrics and optimization campaign to improve effectiveness. If one is able to do this well, the increase in MUR can be exponential. This sounds good but, is not easy nor is very evident and hence, needs bold decisions.

But, coming back to the point we started with, here is the argument against investing in media strategy:

• Media only contribute 10% to the sales or as discussed may be less or more for different brands. You need to think what if the media contribution is higher? 
• One may not be implementing media in the best possible way, but, how wrong could one be. After all, the decision on media investments are joint decision by the best minds in the company even though not taken with formal objectivity. So, if we don’t do media well say the 10% will come down to say, a 7% ? Is that too much to worry about. Especially, when it is not even easily deduced.
• And, whatever one is doing today in media today – if one just improves the pricing, that will anyways impact profitability positively. Will this not be enough to make-up for whatever one may be losing by not doing media in the optimal way.
• So, why bother about media strategy. And, not that one does not do strategy. – lets just not bother about formal media strategy such as investing in as much research, analytics or media strategy people/ tools, etc all of which are expenditure items. 

I am not proposing that one should not invest in advertising. It helps build awareness, brand credentials and imagery. Media is often used to address specific barriers that impact brand choice at different stages of the consumer journey. Media contributes to both the short-term and the long-term effect on sales. The investment in advertising has many considerations beyond just the A:S and % sales attribution to media. 

So, invest in media but, it may not be worth the while to invest too much in media strategy – it’s a gamble anyways 😁. 

Some caveats:

• If the above argument is too simplistic for some media pundits, please pardon the leap taken. The idea is to trigger readers to re-think the importance of media strategy and not enumerate the detailed aspects. 
• If anyone wants to evaluate their current media investments basis the above metrics, I will be glad to assist.
• Despite the above argument, if you still feel that you would want to invest in media strategy – I will be delighted to participate as that’s what puts bread on my table 🙏. 
• If anyone agrees with the title statement entirely - I have nothing to say 😑.
• Special note to my employers – the above is fiction. Media strategy is very important. Pl continue to invest in the strategy resources (including me 👍 ). 
• This article is my personal point-of-view and does not represent the views of my organization.

Are you doing Digital Media in the Traditional Media Way?

We all, have seen digital grow in this world. Some of us (the grey-haired or no-hair ones) saw its initiation and the emergence of the whole ecosystem of industries growing around it.. like email, mobile phones and many more. While the younger-gen, though born into the digital world have seen it evolving too. In an India industry forum in the terminal part of the 20th Century - the advertising media spend on digital was estimated as INR 30 Crs - today, the estimate is around INR 30,000 Cr and moving up faster than any other media. But, this article is not about the growth of digital- it is about the way digital is used today in the area of brand communications.

We encounter digital in numerous avenues and manners for advertising - Search, Performance, Banner/ Display Ads and their varied manifestations in every platform, Video Ads, Native Ads, In-App Ads, Rich-Media Banners, EComm Search/ Display, Programmatic, Lock-Screen Ads, OTT In-Stream, Email Marketing, Social.. and many many more. And, there is a huge body of knowledge proliferated by each platform on what this type of advertising means and the best practices of advertising for each of these and more. But, this article is not about the different advertising options in digital media - it is about the way digital is used today in the area of brand communications.

Digital media in brand communication was supposed to bring in a change. There are many other changes but, these are the relevant ones to discuss here. 

- Addressability v/s No-Idea who is seeing the TV Ad

- 2-Way Communication/ Conversation v/s No-Idea what consumer feels/ says after seeing the TV Ad

- Direct Track-ability of Consumer Action v/s No-Idea what consumer does after seeing the TV Ad

- Link-ability of exposure on different media v/s No-Idea what other exposure the consumer gets after seeing the TV Ad 

- Conclusive Attribution v/s No-Idea what consumer buys after seeing the TV Ad

No wonder, the broadcast approach has been termed as the Spray & Pray approach and a huge amount of measurement & analytics was required to arrive at some attributed ROI of the traditional media investments.  

So, if we are not using any or some of the attributes of digital advertising - we would just be using digital media in the traditional way - just another screen to drive exposures without getting all the benefit of shifting to digital. And, if so then should that digital advertising approach not be called Traditional? Its not the media that is Traditional but, the manner of its usage is Traditional.

Lets look at where we are on each of the elements - and the POV below is about what is generally seen does and not talk of those who are doing better. And, this is not a judgement on anyone - but, a call to all to evaluate where each one is on the above parameters.

Addressability: Technically, the manner of deployment is addressable as the servers deliver the ads to a specified "machine ID" - now we know our ad was delivered; measure of viewability are helping understand views better; we are using data on delivery/ viewability to re-market; we know whether anyone clicked on the ad.  But, how much do we really know about who we are addressing. Some advertisers are just interested in reach (traditional model) and are not bothered about the addressability (its just a by-product) or viewabilty. While, there is a lot of talk of shoppable-advertising, with the sub-1% level of CTRs that we feel proud about - one must really question the approach.

- 2-Way Communication/ Conversation: Yes, Digital has given a voice to the consumer. Publishing is no longer the privilege of only a few (this blog is a testament to that). Social media has become the greatest connector and influencer. Social posts and chat-bots and a lot is being created for consumer conversations. But, how much of the ad-money do we really spend on 'conversations' while brand-speak is still the norm.

- Direct Track-ability of Consumer Action: Like we discussed above, the CTRs for any communication are typically sub-1% and the actions if any, thereafter for this small group are also usually un-trackable. Of Course! GDPR is there but the idea is to understand the consumer response - and again other than complicated analytics there is no way to understand what, the consumer does. 

- Link-ability of exposure on different media: Walled-Gardens, supposedly driven by concerns of privacy are keeping all (recordable) info to themselves and the advertisers have rarely sufficient insight into how the dots connect across media or platforms. The best understanding is at the level of aggregates which has been the traditional way. Technically, lot can be done and at a platform level, each platform is creating capabilities to allow a better understanding but, connecting the dots is still quite an adventure. First-Party Data at advertisers end has started but, still far from adequate and even that does not solve for the issues opacity of the walled-gardens.   

- Conclusive Attribution: Sales Attribution is the holy grail and this is where it is still very muddy. There are constant debates on what did digital achieve. Decade of last-mile attribution has worked well for the digital platforms as mass-ignorance and nudges from platforms moved monies to digital. Digital spends at times have been vanity-spends. I am not at all taking away from the advantage that digital brings to the party but, we need to be congnizant of what "business" did it really drive. We still dont know. 

While, digital is evolving everyday and so, is the science on how to use digital - but, there is still a lot to be done here. While, Short-term and platform-level measures that digital provides are good to have/ critical to manage deployment but, we need to understand their relationships to brand-measures with more clarity and conclusivity. Just being on digital is not enough, as you can see from the discussion above, there is a lot of investment required beyond placing the ads to enable the advantages of digital. There is a change required in what we expect from digital - whether, we are are looking for the listed digital benefits or are we happy with just the traditional deliverable of exposure. 

Digital media is extremely powerful. We need to use digital for the ability to provide many of the above advantages - else we can always use the digital screen as another "TV screen" and keep doing Spray & Pray. We would be using Digital Media in the Traditional Media Way.

Recipe for a Media Plan

Of the things that I am passionate about - "media" is what I do professionally and "cooking" is another which I dabble in occasionally at home. There are a few more vocations that excite me but, today I am limiting the discussion to drawing some parallels between media and cooking :-).Lets talk a bit about the art of cooking first!!

The art of cooking is traditionally classified into different Cuisines which have evolved over generations. Each cuisine has its characteristic methods, cooking utensils/ tools, there are some characteristic ingredients and also a distinctive serving style. Then, there are different Chefs, each having their own signature style inspired from various cuisines; some play on dishes within a genre while some experiment across genres. The ingredients are universal and barring some limitations are available across borders to anyone who would want any ingredient. 

The success of a dish rests in the hands of the Chefs who have acute Knowledge of the cuisines, tools, ingredients and the cooking process or the recipe. They have trained over years and acquired Skills to craft the imagined dish using the tools/ ingredients. The dish to be cooked can only be imagined well if the Chef has a full appreciation of the wants and desires of the "Customers" to whom the dish is to be served. And finally, its the "Setting & Service" that makes the Experience worthwhile for the Customers.

The dish served is just not a "collection" of ingredients but ingredients - each treated in a specific manner; each ingredient fused into the dish at a different stage of the cooking process in a specific way that does best for the dish. A dish is only as good as the process of making the dish has been. Its the recipe that makes all the difference. It is the recipe that is guarded by chefs as that is proprietary.

It is the same for media planning too.

The ingredients for media planing - the creatives and the touch-points across media, are available for all to buy; but, what one does with these ingredients is the difference that makes a campaign successful or not. It is the process of making a plan that determines how good a plan is; it is the recipe of the plan that is the most important part of media planning.

Each Media agency has an underlying  philosophy that drives their thinking  and  that differentiates one agency from another. This philosophy gives a distinctive style to each agency just as each Cuisine has a distinctive style.

Each Agency has inherent knowledge and tools that are shared across the network and all planners are trained to adopt skills so that they can use this knowledge and tools proficiently in doing their daily business.

And, for using the knowledge and tools in the best way, the planners need to have a very sharp understanding of the ingredients (media touchpoints) and the customers taste (target group). 

So, a planner will be a Master-Planner only if, working on specific categories/ customers/ markets each planner develops ones own style of media planing within the recommended philosophy/ process of the media agency. 

Needless to say, a Master-Planner will always dish out media that makes a difference to the business of the clients.

Clients need to stop evaluating the ingredients of a media plan and start appreciating the recipe, knowledge, tools and skill set of the team that eventually make a plan successful. Yes, we do have to have an eye on the right side of the Menu, in view of our wallet but, the order has to be on the basis of which dish is the best.

Planning for the Multi-Screen Consumer

I joined the media industry in 2002, at a time when the TV screen was the mightiest. Cinema in India was at the early stages of evolution from low quality single-screens to the experience-rich multiplex phenomena targeting the affluent cinema-goers. Internet bandwidth was limited and multi-media experiences were a challenge on desktops and laptops. Mobile phones were in their infancy, as far as video was concerned. Tablets were non-existent. The Television was the king of screens and it was the medium of choice for the brand video message more popularly known as the TVC.

More than a decade has passed and the world has now changed. While, Television still continues to be the most wide-spread video screen but, in certain consumer segments its dominance is challenged by the other screens in the life of the consumers.

Cinema, Laptops, Tablets, Smartphones - all are pervasive enough with a certain skew towards the affluent, male, young, metro consumers. For these consumers their screen time is well spread between all these screens.

There is a continuing debate on the penetration and the time-spent of the consumers on these screens as viewed from different data sources but, their proliferation and the increasing share of time is undeniable.

The Cinema screen is a public screen; the Television is still a family screen though multiple TV sets at homes and digitization is tending it towards a more personal screen; Laptops/ Tablets/ Smartphones are clearly in the individual zone.The different nature of the screens makes them suitable for different content and experiences and hence, different levels of engagements with the consumers from the advertising perspective.

Advertising is fast adapting to this change in the media consumption behaviour of consumers. The primary use of digital media in advertising is around search and banner/ display advertising exploiting the power of digital to enable context. Though, not much share of wallet but, enough is also being done in engagement of the consumers using various digital and social platforms. However, Television and the TVC still rule.

It is understandable for brands seeking mass audiences beyond the digital skewed demographics indicated above but, brands seeking the multi-screen consumers surely need to re-evaluate their approach to disseminating the TVC.

Its not about giving up the use of Television as a medium - it still has a high share of time-spent among all screens but, an optimized mix of the screens is likely to give much better cost per reach that just using Television.

There are a few arguments prevalent in the industry on this matter - the issue of the measurability of the digital screens and the veracity of the numbers available; the issue of the quality of exposure of the TVC on screens other than Television; and the final issue of the relative cost of exposure across different screens. All these arguments have reasonable answers for any serious investigator though many advertisers are still living in denial and continue to spend the advertising dollars on television without much deliberation.

The quality of exposure on Television itself is a mystery. However, advertisers have continued to spends millions despite the ambiguity. For those who really want an answer, the quality debate can easily be settled by some structured experiments. There are enough cases of success of internet video  and there is enough research availiable on the ROI of digital advertising. 

The question of  measurability is a more pertinent question as campaigns have to be continuously monitored and evaluated on deliveries and performance. We do have an issue of lack of comparable metrics across screens and the recently raging issue of false impressions on digital. But, for brands whose consumers spend most of the day on the computers and smartphones, these obstacles to arriving at a measure are surmountable. Media Agencies have invested in proprietary research and tools which allow overlaying the viewership data obtained from digital publishers with statistically derived models to enable a fair comparison with television exposures. An advertiser with an agency without such research and tools should be looking for a new one at the earliest.

Finally, the matter of pricing which, often dominates most media investment decisions. Hearsay, is that TV is the cheapest medium and digital is very expensive. I guess, that is what all media pricing reports indicate as most of such industry reports calculate numbers at the overall market/ audience level. At the least, each advertiser must do an evaluation on pricing for their specific brand target groups for their core markets and maybe, there is a surprise waiting for some. Pricing should not be looked at in the absolute as the cost per GRP or cost per exposure but, as the cost required to deliver the operating levels planned for a campaign. Advertisers will realize that often a mix of screens delivers a better overall cost of a plan than when using only a single media.

Its a new world and we need to keep re-evaluating best practices as consumers evolve. Needless to say, as we extend the TVC to multiple screens, there is also a re-learning required in creating TVCs that are suited for different screens. While, the above comparison advocated is just on the exposure-metrics - digital screens enable a lot more that just the exposure of the TVC and the advertisers would be benefited most if they exploit the strengths of each medium - beyond exposure.

The challenges in delivering the TVC to the desired audiences on digital will remain as deployment models are either not discriminating between audiences or are structured more for behavioural/ contextual targeting rather than demographic targeting as in Television. It remains to be seen which way the tide flows - whether Digital will evolve to enable demographic targeting or TV will get advanced enough soon to enable behavioural mapping of consumers. 

Overall, for advertising there are challenging years ahead as the consumers relationship with screens will be dynamic but, multi-screen advertising is certainly here to stay. Whether, advertising placement will remain an involved operation or will programmatic placements rule the future - the role of multiple screens will only increase.

The sooner advertisers re-evaluate their options and develop dynamic investment models - the better for the efficiency of their media investments.