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.

Stop Over-Simplification of Media

While, the core thought of this article about 'over-simplification' may apply to the overall domain of marketing, but I am using the setting of media planning to construct the view.

Lets, first see what is the task or challenge that the media agencies take up in their business.

Every advertiser expects the media planning agency to deliver performance for its business metrics. That is to say that - once a media plan is executed the brand manager expects sales to happen.

Enough has been said about the increasing complexity of the market, the increasingly unpredictable and demanding consumer and the decreasing strength of brands. In such a scenario, the factors that lead to sales success are many. The classical models of marketing have now been replaced by far more dynamic models and media is only one of the many factors that influence sales. Hence, this is not a simple or easy expectation at all.

Even a little bit of analytics will reveal that media has only got limited leverage to drive sales and this leverage varies for different categories and brands. However, there are other interim metrics leading to sales, such as brand recall, brand perception, brand enquiry, brand interactions, etc for which media can be held accountable for. There are so many marketing models and methods that help understand what a brand needs to deliver in media. None of these methods are simple.

Looking at 'media' in isolation and expecting it to deliver sales is a naive simplification.

Media Planning is an intricate science. It deals with engaging extremely incredulous and volatile consumers to convince them of the merits of one of the score of brands that are available to them and possibly get them to move closer to buying the brand. In short, it deals with the wants and desires of people which can never be a simple subject to address.

However, somewhere along the way in the past agencies have made advertises believe that this complex task can be broken up into two simple steps - (i) design the message and (ii) deliver the message to the desired consumer segment.

Here, I will not comment on designing the message since I have already touched upon that in my earlier post titled "Creative is killing Creativity". Lets look at the inherent simplification that has been cultivated in delivering the message.

The first simplification was to strip each medium of its "qualitative" values and believe that each vehicle in a medium and across mediums can be represented by the measure of only "quantity".

This made it very easy to measure media and trade media. One was only bothered about the count or reach as we call it. Research agencies made a killing setting up mammoth research projects measuring this lowest common denominator across media. Yes, there was a qualitative aspect but that was left to interpretation and application by the media planners. Now, we have the media planing community largely addicted and servile to these quantitative research databases totally oblivious to the qualitative value of the media they recommend. 

The second simplification was to believe that consumer minds can be affected just by managing the volume of this media measure.

The GRP was conceived - which is another simplification of the arithmetic that goes into making a media schedule and this GRP became the volume measure of  voice of the brand. Due to its simplicity, clients took to GRPs easily and it soon became a strong trading currency for media. Today, everything that is done is to create, deliver, manage, buy, sell - this GRP. This GRP comes in various reach and frequency packs and is available across media. This GRP has become the magic wand with which the client and the agency attempt to deliver market shares.

The simplification is also evident in the remuneration structure that is prevalent in the industry. Everything that is done in communication is measured in terms of the traded value of media bought and the agencies are paid as a percentage of that. Since, actually estimating the real value contributed by media is difficult - so a percentage of spends keeps it simple.

I guess, the whole media eco-system looks at the issues too simplistically and that is why "value-creation" is reducing day by day and leading to commoditization of media, media schedules, media talent and of media agencies. The advertisers will continue to simplify, but if, the media and advertising domain wants to enhance its value they will have to do away with this over-simplification. After all, Value is in the details.
  

Media as an Ingredient

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

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

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

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

The world has changed. Consumer is King.

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

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

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

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

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

Media has become an ingredient for the brand.

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

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