Share-of-Voice to Share-of-Voices

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Redo the organization - Social Media is here!

"Social Media" is probably the latest buzz word in use in media and communication planning groups. It has been awarded the status of the "messiah" of the advertising world that has the answer to most advertising and communication problems. The most popular reason for the rise to fame of this media is supposed to be that it is 'almost free' :-).

I was recently reading an article in Ad-Age Digital by Judy Shapiro, a brand strategist who very clearly  describes what all comprises of Social Media and how it is different from the other approaches. Reading this triggered a chain of thoughts on what exactly does it need for an organization to be adept at Social Media.

Traditionally, organizations are tuned to the one-to-many model of brand communication. Traditionally, these organizations have a set of people who are supposed to be experts at deciphering what the organization needs to say about its brand; to a set of people who are again decided by this elite group to be the "target group" and they are also the experts at designing (or at least of leading the process of design) and disseminating this message in a planned manner. I may be blamed for being over-skeptical but largely organizations just have a marketing and a marketing and communication department and many have failed to transform themselves into marketing - oriented organizations.

In the realm of Social Media, we are talking of many-to-many messaging - a phenomenon that is new to every organization at the scale that it is happening now facilitated by technology.

Social Media Marketing is not just about using the 'vanguards of social media' such as facebook and twitter and listening to conversations, hijacking opinions, interjecting brand ideas or about getting people to talk about their brands - I believe it is far more profound.

The thought starts at realizing who really owns the Brand. Traditionally, it is the organization and some department within who are the brand owners or custodians. However, the way in which social media has exploded - the control of a brand is moving from the company to the consumers. The company is tending towards a role of a 'facilitator' who provides means to the 'consumers' to 'manage the brand'.

The Brand is a 'Social' being. The brand lives among the consumers; they interact with the brand regularly and talk about it and it is their 'talk' that creates the brand personality. The consumers have relationships with the brand and no company can come and start tinkering with their brand. An organization that instills this into its management and organizes its structure and process to thus facilitate the cultivation of this Social Brand is truly a social media oriented organization.

The most fundamental change required in communication is for the brand to stop looking at itself in the mirror singing praises of itself but instead to start looking out of the window into the world of the consumers to discuss and participate in issues that are central to their lives. Mind you, I am not talking merely about a CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) campaign here but a total re-do of the organization.

Power is flowing into the hands of the consumers more and more everyday and brands that realize and appreciate the change will continue their journey into the next era and the rest one day will be sucked into their mirrors to fade away from the world of the future.