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.

The Power of Context of TV GRPs

Advertising on Television comes naturally to every advertiser. It must be a rare advertiser who has the money to do a TVC but doesn't. In this note though, I am not debating the merits or de-merits of TV advertising. I want to focus on those who do decide to advertise on TV - and how do they thereafter use the Television medium.

Now, there are various ways of interacting with target consumers on television, But, I am not going to discuss the possibilities and the pros and cons of the options. We will  just talk about the most widely used method  - of airing the Brand TVC in the commercial break. I believe that over 95% of the monies spent on TV advertising are on the TVC so, that is what we should try to unravel.

It starts with a client brief for airing the TVC and all sorts of action start at the media agency end to propose the operating levels, edits to be used, phasing of the edits, weeks on air, genre structure, etc etc. While, all of the above decisions have a rationale and a process - all science here is based on the aggregation of thousands of TVC exposures. 

The TV Spot
Each insertion of the TVC is termed as a "spot". Each spot has views, termed as "impressions". The number of impressions depend on the number of people watching that channel at that point of time. These impressions expressed as a percentage of the total size of the target group are termed as the "rating or TVR" of the spot (simplistic view). So, there are multiple spots in a campaign, each resulting into impressions and delivering some TVRs and the sum total of these TVRs are what we call the GRPs (Gross Rating Points). As these GRPs accumulate over the campaign period, depending on the unique number of people who have seen the TVC and how many times each has seen the TVC, we derive the reach and frequency of the campaign. The rate at which a campaign reaches new people gives us what we call the reach build-up curve for the campaign.   

You see that in all of the measures above, there is no qualitative value attached to an exposure. Each exposure is like a grain of sand - each one same as the other. And, that is what I think needs to be fundamentally understood and realized before we start debating on the operating levels of any campaign.

The Right GRP
And, this is where the dilemma lies as there are different schools of thought about this. On the one hand, is the belief that each exposure is the same while, on the other hand the difference of each exposure is appreciated. 

For those who believe in the former, life is easy and it is all simple arithmetic to build a campaign - the objective often being to get the maximum GRPs or Reach@Frequency in the minimum cost. They are ignore to the nature of the GRPs as long as the aggregate of the GRPs delivers to them their campaign operating levels. In achieving the cheapest - their is a conscious disregard to an extent to spillovers, extent of over/under exposures, market intricacies, etc.

If we look at the school of thought that recognizes the difference in the GRPs - their life is certainly more complex.  The value delivered by each exposure depends on various dimensions of the exposure, such as the nature of programming, time of day, day of week, etc. These dimensions provide what we call "Context" for the exposure.

Understanding Context
The deliverable that we want from a TVC exposure is that it should be seen by the desired people and that these people should understand the messaging. So, the selection of the context should be based on whether it targets the right kind of people required for the brand in the right state of mind. The premise being that if the viewers are engaged in the context, they will also be engaged in the advertising and hence the probability for them to notice the TVC and to understand the TVC will be higher as against an exposure in a context which is not of high interest to them. Just like "a picture is worth a thousand words" - the right context is worth a whole lot of non-contextual GRPs.

Of course! there is always the pricing argument as most often than not, getting the right context is a compromise between cost, reach and quality.

The Measurement Challenge
But, all such discussions are limited by the nature of the syndicated TV measurement study which only provides data on the demographic audience so, one really does not know the equation between cost, reach and quality for the right brand audience. So, for an advertiser to have the right media plan one has to resort to planning metrics beyond what are provided by the syndicated TV measurement system.

The current TV system never advocated absolute reliance on its metrics for constructing the TV plan. All it provides are measures that are an aid to creating and measuring the TV plan deliveries, and on limited dimensions. These dimensions are adequate for trading of TV GRPs as the currency. However, it would be an injustice to media planing to rely just on this data for arriving at the construct of the plan.

Thus, the plan is only as good as the logic for its construct. And, once we have the construct one needs to translate this construct into a plan based on the limited dimensions available in the TV planning system. While, many attempt to do this but, in an effort to optimize investments in the TV planning system they often loose the construct of the media plan.

To illustrate - do we optimize on reach for the demographic audience as available in the measurement system or do we build in a factor of the reach among the real brand audience? Do we evaluate the efficiency of the plan on the cost per rating in the demographic audience or the cost per rating in the desired audience?  

Optimizing the Construct
The plan optimization needs to go beyond the TV measurement system to draw a balance between - total plan GRPs, total cost of the plan, cost per desired audience (not just the demographic audience) of the plan, reach and reach build-up in the desired audience, the engagement score of the plan, spillover in terms of audience & over-exposure, etc.

Unless, we build beyond the demographic measurement, we may be very happy with the plan deliveries but, what the campaign delivers for business is quite another matter - often not measured, if measured not calibrated and if calibrated, often based on the same belief of sameness of GRPs. Those who have been able to unravel the power of the context of TV GRPs are the ones who will get the most out of TV advertising.

The rest will keep rolling the drum without achieving the real objectives of the brand.. at least not in the most efficient way.

Are Clients really serious about Media ROI?

I have spent more than a decade now in the media industry and as a media agency representative, I have had the opportunity to work with scores of clients who invest crores of rupees on advertising. And, during this journey "Media ROI" has always been an item that has been discussed again and again.

Media ROI management is an exact science and there is a huge bank of knowledge that exists in academia on the subject. Globally, extensive work has been done by leading brands and agencies on establishing the ROI of media. However, there is very limited applied work that is available with any advertiser or agency in India to showcase Media ROI in action.

"Accountability" is the buzzword and the whole industry keeps talking of the need for media agencies to become accountable for the media investments being recommended for the clients. And, yes that is the right direction for the industry to move in. But, driving accountability requires an ecosystem that encourages this change. Unfortunately, I do not think any of the stakeholders in media are taking any significant or concrete steps to move in this direction.

Media ROI Management first of all requires establishing a relationship between the media investments and tangible business results; and, at the second level there is a need for attribution of the business results to various elements of the media mix thus deriving the ROI of each element of a campaign. However, these apparently simple steps are extremely challenging to execute in reality today and all the constituents of the media ecosystem (Clients, Agencies & Media Owners) are responsible for this situation. However, I am limiting this note only to the role that the Agencies and Clients have to play and shall deliberate on the Media Owners part at another time.

No, I am not shying away from the responsibility that the agencies have. Of course! the ultimate onus of establishing the Media ROI is on the media agencies as it is their business which is at stake but, they cant do it on their own. Over the years the media agencies have invested considerably in developing methods and tools and built statistical capabilities to be ROI-Ready.

But, there are certain responsibilities that have to be taken up by the advertisers to quantify Media ROI and there are three primary requirements that the advertisers need to provide towards this mission.  

First, is having a clarity on what is the measure that a particular campaign needs to drive. Of Course! revenue, profit margin, increased sales and market share are the final goals but, these are the financial goals which are generic to every business. A deeper investigation into the brand challenge is required to identify the specific objective that the campaign must deliver on. These specific objectives could be increasing the consumer base or driving higher per capita consumption, etc. Going a step further, advertisers need to have a diagnosis of what are the barriers to these objectives being achieved. 

The second requirement from the advertisers is to setup a system to measure and record the state of the brand on the measures referred to above, on a continuous basis. Yes, there are some advertisers who are quite evolved in this but, most others have still a long way to go.  There are clients that very generously invest in measuring market sales (for self and competitors) using syndicated retail audits and/ or setting up consumer panels. Also, some advertisers invest in Usage & Attitude Studies and Awareness Tracking studies which deliver a lot of the mind measures required to understand the brand challenges. 

The third and the last requirement is for the advertisers to record all the market interventions and changes in the marketing mix in a systemic manner (for self, and if possible for competition) as this data is very vital input to drawing inferences related to the attribution of cause of the movements in the state of the brand in the market. 

The media agencies have data and information that is limited to the media research available in the industry and all data beyond this has to be provided by the advertiser. With the growth of digital new data sources such as web-traffic, search volume data, volume of brand mentions, etc are becoming available which can also be accessed by the media agencies, but as of now that data has its limitations. It is also very critical that there be an integrated approach to develop this data ecosystem such that all these data are aligned to each other and can be used seamlessly for any further analysis. 

While crores get spent on advertising, there is an apparent resistance to make investments to setup the above mentioned systems even though these investments would be a very minute percentage of the advertising budgets. There is often an expectation from some clients that these investments should be borne by the agencies. But, looking at the media agency business model it is very unlikely that the agencies would ever be able to make these client specific investments. 

So, if Media ROI really matters to clients and they are serious that it should be an integral part of the evaluation of the performance of media, then that expectation has to be backed by these investments and this data should be seamlessly and continuously shared with the agencies. Of Course! there will never be perfect information and ultimately the agencies will work with what is finally available. Even today, work on establishing a relationship between media investments and business results continues across clients; but, with adequate data systems such work can become an integral part of the planning process.

And, lastly Clients need to realize that Media ROI management is a resource-intensive occupation and cannot come as part of the current client-agency remuneration arrangements.

I hope that all constituents will make due efforts to evolve and in the near future continuous measurement of Media ROI will be a feasible reality leading to higher investment efficiency and higher profitability for the Clients.

TAM to BARC - Evolution in Progress!!

As I sat through the BARC presentation today when the new TV measurement system was revealed to the industry; it was a very happy feeling. It was a proud moment to be witness to such a significant step forward in the evolution of the media industry in India. The media industry has evolved extensively over the past decade to respond to the changes happening in the media consumption behaviour of the Indian consumer. 

Over the years, technological development in products has given us so many new and improved media formats which we can see in print, radio, television and most visibly in digital media. The advent of HD TV, DTH, IPTV, Hi-tech Print Technology, FM Radio, Mobiles, Smartphones, Tablets, Broadband, Interactive Outdoor and many many more has then led to a revolution in Content for these new formats. The media houses brought in new content, expanded across formats and improvised business models thus challenging the existing norms of advertising and media planning. 

Since then, Communication Planning too has been totally revamped in agencies and is far more elaborate encompassing the characteristics of the consumer, the brand and the intricacies of media with accountability at its core.

At the final frontier of this evolution is where the media measurement systems need to change to respond to all the changes above and that is what we are seeing happen now. The IRS has been renewed and now the TV measurement system is also taking on a new avatar. This will lead to further development of the craft  of media strategy, planing and trading and build increasing value in the media ecosystem.

The curtain-raiser that we witnessed today is not just about one research over another but, has to be seen in a far more broader sense. TAM was the messiah at one point of time and it has served the industry well but, as we discussed above, the media landscape has changed and TAM has probably not responded well enough to these changes and so has had to make way for BARC.

Of Course! there are going to be many schools of thought on the ratings that BARC delivers. TAM had its limitations and while BARC TV ratings are set to improve on these limitations; BARC ratings will have its own set of challenges and limitations too. Some will swear by the ratings while, some will contest them; some will revel in the new software while, some will want for the comfort of the old system; some will derive new learning from the fresh data while, some will get caught in its apparent flaws... but, with time all will find their own method to embed this new system into their business practices and move on. 

I will not evaluate the impact BARC will have on the industry on the basis of the TV ratings that it will deliver now or in the near future but on the design of BARC and on the future potential of BARC that its design empowers.

The construct of the BARC research is revolutionary. The distributed ownership; the federal approach to control of the system; the conjunction of multiple superlative services and technologies; the scope for scalability required for India and most importantly the potential to grow into a multi-media multi-platform system are the dimensions of BARC that ensure its long-term success.

The fact that BARC is based on the new NCCS system is great but, that is just a matter of its panel design. What makes BARC exemplary is its future-readiness which is a crucial need-gap in the media industry. I will dwell a little more on this aspect that will allow BARC to be far more responsive to the changing media landscape in the future.

The water-marking technology though a simple technique (theoretically) is inherent to the algorithm that the BARC system uses. I am not aware of the exact scope of the code embedded in the current water-mark but, it has the potential of building in  not only the Channel ID but far more information related to each element of the content being telecast such as the program ID, the ID of the TVC and much more. Water-Marking content with such ID codes can enable a totally automated measurement system for every element being telecast. 

Once this ID is embedded in the content then irrespective of when or on what media or format the content is played this code can be identified and hence can make BARC agnostic to the media and the format. This gives BARC the potential to provide measurement of the content on any kind of TV input signal and any digital device too -  such as Laptops, Tablets, Phones, etc. 

Of course! the challenge will be of setting up systems and regulations to ensure water-marking of content beyond TV Channels and of setting up a panel of (so called) meters for media formats other than Television. These two challenges are political as well as that of research design. Difficult but do-able. As this happens, we will realize that BARC should not be called only as a TV Measurement System but, a Universal Measurement System for audio-visual content. 

But, yes.. while, it was a good feeling seeing the BARC TV Research and realizing the new era in media measurement that it is heralding; I do realize that the next few months are going to be a period of intense work to redefine the TV Planning process and benchmarks. We will have to burn a lot of midnight oil as we transition from one system to another making decisions on crores of investments for our brands.

The key learning that is reiterated as we look at the TV research changing hands is that "Evolution is not a Choice" and if we dont evolve fast enough.....!!

To know more about BARC and its implications on media planning go on to the BARC website http://www.barcindia.co.in or send in your queries to me at premjeetsodhi@gmail.com.

My TVC is ready. Now give me the Media Strategy!!

Yes, this is the classic approach that almost every advertiser is guilty of.

No, this is not a personal crib by a media agency guy because the client gives precedence to the TVC over the media strategy. I feel sad for the advertisers who behave in this manner, I feel sorry for the shareholders of the company whose money is not being spent prudently.

I am in no way suggesting that a TVC is not an important part of the media assets that build value for a brand; only that a TVC is not always the way to furthering the brand. In the current media landscape, there are scores of opportunities for brands to interact with consumers and to tell them about the strength of their brands. Before a decision is made about the manner of interaction that a brand chooses, a lot of investigation is required to understand the challenge for the brand in the market and the suitability of the various touchpoints available. It is only after such an elaborate investigation that a Brand should decide if a TVC is the best way forward.

Am I suggesting that advertisers do not investigate well enough before they decide to spend crores of Rupees on airing their TVCs. Yes, I am. 

Of course! there are some who are very elaborate in their analysis; but, for most advertisers, a TVC is the default way to express the brand idea. 

Every Brand has its unique situation in the market and according to the ambition of the brand in the market it has its specific challenges that it needs to overcome for the consumers to prefer it over competing brands. This challenge is a result of the nature of the category that the brand operates in; the mindset of the consumers that the brand is targeting and the type of competition that the brand faces in the category. While, for some it could be the lack of awareness about the brand; for others it could be the "perceived price-value" equation that a brand offers. The adverse "price-value" equation itself can have multiple dimensions and hence, multiple avenues which the brand can resort to for redress. It is imperative for the brands to arrive at the specific challenges that are a hurdle to their progress. The nature of interaction that a brand must have with the consumers is totally dependent on this challenge that a brand identifies. 

At the next level, there needs to be a comprehensive analysis of the options available to the brand to discuss this challenge with their prospective consumers and to arrive at the best way to interact with the consumers. I have great respect for the "creative" and I am sure that a good creative can solve any challenge even with the TVC approach. However, brands have the choice of a multitude of touchpoints; each having its own strength for different kinds of brand challenges. So, unless, there is some strong reason not to utilize touchpoints other than the TVC; brand need to go beyond the default TVC approach.

Media Strategy by definition, does all of the investigation stated above and proposes a structure for the communication campaign that the brand needs to execute for achieving the brand goals. This Communication Campaign is an enumeration of a set of activities, each of a specified intensity and duration that need to be triggered at specific times across different touchpoints to achieve the desired effect on the mindset or behaviour of the targeted set of consumers. A TVC may well be one of the activities in this set that the Media Strategy recommends.

It would do good to the brands to get their media agency to work with them to craft a comprehensive media strategy (also, in partnership with the creative agency and other stakeholders). And, if the recommended Communication Campaign calls for a TVC, so be it.

A TVC is a very powerful tool and if used effectively in the communication plan, it can change the fate of brands. Let us use it prudently. While, this article talks of a TVC, the same applies to many other media options that so often intrude in our daily life without affecting us in any meaningful way.

Mobile - the new kid on the block is taking over the media megaliths!!

Of Course! TV and Print have a long life ahead. but, Mobile as a media is rapidly making a place for itself.

 

One could have an unending debate on the above statement, as opinion today is very divided on the issue. Print in India has been around for over a century and is still growing. The advent of TV about 30 years ago started a debate on similar lines but even today both coexist and both are still growing. When Internet began its journey, again the market was abuzz with its omnipotent nature and how it would end the dominance of TV and Print. Its been about 20 years since but the balance of power has still not changed. Mobiles too, set foot in India about a decade ago and while their numbers have surpassed every other media, their role as a media has been marginal.

 

Yes, the above is true if one looks at the matter at a macro level ie at the All India level. However, if one were to look at specifc markets and segments the story is very different.  

 

Affluent Youth in Metros are a very attractive segment for media and marketers. This is a very small segment which constitutes not more than 5% of the population but is a very significant segment since consumers in this segment are very high on consumption of paid products and services, have voracious media consumption and are early adopters, influencers and change agents in society. This is an aspirational segment and a vast majority in India looks up to emulate their lifestyle. Their current media behaviour is a very good view of what the vast majority would be like in the near future.

 

Without delving too much into the numbers, lets just paint a picture of their relationship with various  media. A Smartphone or a Tablet is the primary media device in their life. They are connected 24x7 to the internet through this universal media device (UMD).

 

Yes, they read newspapers but, not the print editions. They access their favourite news brands either through their websites or news-apps installed on their smartphones. Of course! this is only when they have not already been updated through their social networks. They have special apps dedicated to each of their key interests that mash information from multiple sources and provide it in an easy snacking format that this segment is preferential to. Holding a newspaper every morning to start their day is really not a behaviour that they are habituated to and getting to read a paper edition is just incidental and not at all necessary.

 

Televsion still forms a significant part of their daily life. but, they are not unaccostomed to reaching out on their phone for their favourite content via youtube and various other mobile tv applications that are getting created everyday. Regulation of TV content and the limiting quality of display on a mobile (small size) are a barrier to them taking on to TV in a big way. However, it is just a matter of time before most of their TV viewing too shall be through their smartphones which are fast evolving into high quality multi-media devices.

 

Movies, music, socializing, information gathering, window shopping, actual shopping.. all are done via their smartphones. They value the content of the media houses across Radio, Cinema, TV & Print but interact with all the content only through their mobile phone or tablet.

 

Media companies have also seen all this but are at different stages of acceptance of this imminent reality. Their responses vary from a state of absolute denial to some who are very rapidly evolving their content and formats to suit mobile consumption.

 

Of course! the traditiional TV and Print are still the  mainstay for them from todays revenue perspective but, the situation will be very different in the near future. Mobile phones will constitue a dominant portion of their content consumption. Media brands that do not evolve will be relegated to the stone age.

 

Amongst all cell phone owners in India, smartphone ownership is less than 5% today. Imagine the situation when this ownership moves to double digit figures...

 

Mobile, is the most recent media. It is the new kid on the block. But, it is the medium which is growing at the fastest rate. And, with its growth it is phasing out other physical formats of media driving a convergence of all other media into its small screen.

 

If this scenario is too optimmistic for mobiles, let us look at a diametrically opposite segment such as the rural consumers.

 

Rural India still has a large population which is described as 'media dark' as they have extrmely low access to mass media. However, mobiles are reaching them at a faster rate everyday. In the absence of other media and various other infrastructure, this mobile is taking on a very central role in their lives. It is fast becoming their only mode of communication, information gathering and transacting. It is not long before cell phones in rural India too become their primary media devices.

 

No matter which way you take a peek at the future, the mobile is taking centrestage. Acceptance of the change is the first step for survival in the future. Media Houses, need to prepare for this future. Advertising and Communication have to upgrade their tools, techniques and philosophy to address a mobile-empowered consumer.

 

For the non-believers, I want to share this video which I saw in 2006. To many, at that time, it seemed a fantasy that would never become reality. See the video now and ponder on how much of that has already come true in the past 7 years.

 

 

The evolution and the impact of mobile on our lives and on the media business is going to be even more rapid and even more intense.

 

Yes, the mobile is taking over the media monoliths.

Client Delight to Consumer Delight

The purpose of a brand is to add value to the life of a consumer. Anything and everything that a brand does should work towards this purpose. And, in return for this value addition to one’s life in a manner better than what other brands do; consumers patronize the brand resulting in increased market share and hence higher value for the stakeholders in the brand/ company.

But then, this is the ideal cycle of value exchange between the consumers and the stakeholders. The connection between these two ends – consumer on one end and stakeholder on the other, is not direct and simplistic. The various players between these two have their own agenda, priorities and compulsions which often vitiate this value exchange.

Nor is the consumer very discerning in the short term to really choose the brand that is the best in value addition. Most of the times, there is not much differentiation in the brand alternatives and hence the choice between brands is based on some very superficial parameters. In such a scenario, either the brand custodians work on re-engineering the brand to build better value than competitors or at least in the short term resort to tactics to enhance their brand choice over the others. It is these latter methods that brands use which often become insensitive to the brand code of “adding value” and drive brand preference even at the risk of irritating, annoying or alienating the consumers. The tragedy is that many a times, in the short term these tactics at the aggregate level do result in value addition for the stakeholders thus encouraging this behavior more and more.

Here, in this note we shall have a closer look at the manifestation of these short term tactics in the realm of advertising and communication.

In the Indian context, the structure of trade favours brands that are "more visible" than their competitors. To a large extent, the consumers also attribute a higher value to brands that are more conspicuous in their advertising. Advertising on certain media or properties does undeniably add more credibility to brands otherwise lesser known. In short, driving brand awareness in itself at times is enough to drive brand preference.

There is no harm in a brand trying to drive awareness; it is the manner of doing so which needs to be reviewed.

Not many of us have been spared of the discomfort caused by brand advertising across media. A newspaper ‘Jacket’ which is a delight for the Clients is the most irritating thing that a reader encounters early in the morning. The ‘half-jacket’ is even more irritating. Yes, these “innovations” are impossible to miss but are also often just taken off and kept away from the main newspaper. The increasing clutter in newspapers has often made us flip pages just because there are too many advertisements on the page. Of course! It is now customary behavior to shake off and drop out all loose inserts from newspapers and magazines before one settles down to read. The ‘text-pushers’, the ‘island ads’, the ‘full page ads’ are all very noticeable but all cause a disruption, an interruption and irritation for the consumer. Could each of these brand interventions have in some way added delight for the consumer instead of irritation?

The situation is not very different in other media. Flipping channels on TV to avoid advertisements is our natural response and a way of saying that “I don’t appreciate your interruption of my television viewing”. Don’t we all hate the ‘aston bands’ and ‘advertising tickers’ or ‘screen pop-ups’ that intrude while we are in the midst of watching our favourite programs?  Verbose and irritating RJs on Radio, the extremely annoying intrusions on websites, the hordes of marketing mailers, EDMs, SMSes, etc are all examples of daily brand intrusions that consumers hate but are a delight for the brand custodians at the Client side.

The sad part is that we, at the communication agencies are party to this state of affairs. During, our studies we are taught of the principle of a ‘Marketing Organization’ and imbibe the merits of ‘Consumer-Delight’ but, in practice succumb to ‘Client-Delight’ instead. Of Course! The Agency and Client, all have valid justifications and compulsions that lead them to the said behavior but, the consumer does not need excuses.. the consumer just wants value addition to his/ her life.

It is critical that Agencies focus on Consumer Delight and develop tools and techniques now to convince Clients of the merit of communication solutions that work towards the brand purpose in a manner that delights the consumer. It is important that all our brand initiatives deliver Brand-Good instead of just focusing on Brand-Speak.

Brand Experience encapsulates each and every facet of the interactions that a brand creates with its consumers. Product consumption is only one of these interactions. The interactions that brands create in media are critical parts of the brand experience and in some categories even more important than the final consumption. If we accept this role that media plays in building brand experiences, only then we will start looking at ‘media as an ingredient’ and not an  add-on used just for short-term promotion of the brand.

It is also critical for us to understand that awareness has a high decay if it is built using just superficial brand exposure but remains un-eroded if it is inculcated by building memorable and pleasant experiences for the consumers. Hence, marketers need to focus on Brand Engagements and achieve a healthy balance between plain brand exposure and value adding brand experiences. 

The onus is on all Brand Custodians to shift the focus from “Client Delight” to “Consumer Delight” and the results will show growth for the brands that do this consistently.

Sponsorships should deliver much more than brand exposure.

Sponsorships have a very respected place amongst the various advertising formats available to brands across media. As a tool, Sponsorships are excellent but ultimaltely it is the manner of application that determines its success. Many brands have used sponsorships very effectively to strengthen their relationship with consumers. However, not all instances of sponosrships that we see around us are as effective. Let us delve a little deeper into what one should expect from a sponsorship. But, first we must understand the state of regular advertising today.

 

The most common format is what we all know as an 'advertisement'. This is the spot in a commercial break either in Television, Cinema, Radio or a ad-space in Newspapers, Magazines, Website, etc. These ads are a very rude interjection by a brand into the media consumption experience of the consumer. However, as these are a means of funding for the content - the consumers express their gratitude to them by way of their attention.

 

These ads are content-agnostic. At its best, this advertising format only delivers the encoded brand message independent of the message or leave-behind of the content that they are riding. As long as the content does not grossly violate any serious brand directive and is acceptable to their consumer segments - ads can be placed along with such content. Brands use the content either to reach specific target groups or as as a context and brands that are related to this context are expected to have a better return on their investments than those that are not related to the content in any way.

 

This advertising format is over-used, abused and as a virus has started eating into content itself. Often TV programs loose their viewers during the commercial breaks; Newspaper pages with a high clutter are often skipped. Of Course! only those ads which are very high in either their information quotient or entertainment quotient get some attention while the others are punished with Ad-Avoidance. Getting noticed in such clutter is quite a challenge for brands today.

 

In this scenario, generally speaking - Sponsorships are used more as a means of standing-out in this extreme advertising clutter. Using such a wonderful tool as a sponsorship only to be "seen" is gross under-utilization of its capabilities. Given the premium at which sponsorships are available these days, one must really think hard before taking on sponsorships only for driving premium exposure.

 

Brands serve a purpose in the life of their target consumers and add value to their experiences. We often term this as the brand-benefit. The sponsorship too, must add value to the experince of the consumer and this "value" ideally should be in tandem with the benefit that the consumer expects from the brand itsef.

 

A sponsorhip as a visible entity is only a "brand logo" and hence does not have a tangible brand message attached to it. The brand message is a take-out by the consumer of the experience that the consumer gets interacting with the property. The message that a Sponsorships expresses is a function of the choice of the property being sponsored and the manner of association of the brand with the sponsored property.

 

One should consider multiple factors in deciding on a sponsorship but, the strength of association of the brand with the property is the most critical to ensure success. At the minimum, the brand provides the funding for the property and gets a sponsorship tag or logo presence. The extent of branding depends on the amount of funding. Whether a brand is a title sponsor, associate sponsor it really does not matter to the consumer. Whether the program is :"brought to you by" or "powered by" really does not interest the consumer. These are only jargons that allow media sellers to excite brand managers and enhance their own revenue. What matters is if the brand is just present as a logo or is the brand involved in delivering the experience. The higher the involvment of the brand in delivering this experience, the stronger the association and hence better the chances of the sponosrship being a valuable asset for the brand.

 

What should be this experience that the sponsorship delivers to the consumer is a million dollar question. I have seen many sponsorship executions where the connection between the experience delivered and the desired brand objective is so remote and convoluted that only the brand manager understands the connection while the execution does not deliver any brand-benefit to the consumer. The brand custodians involved in the decision need to clearly understand the communicatoin task for the brand and hence select, design and execute the property to then deliver the desired experience which can easily be associated by the consumer  - with the brand.

 

Do not use sponsorship only for brand exposure. If you only need brand exposure - regular advertising with a well crafted message and a well-designed media plan is the optimal way forward. But, if you want to go beyond brand-exposure and brand-talk and let the consumer himself taste the brand benefit in some form, then Sponsorships is the way ahead. Self-realization of the brand benefit by the consumer is far more powerful than a score of ads trying to tell him what the brand stands for.

 

Sponsorships must provide a tangible value to the desired consumer segment so that the brand gains their solidarity in return.