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.

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.

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.

Time to move on....No more "Spray & Pray",

I was inducted into media planning in 2002.

 

The media environment in India was just beginning to evolve into the era of new media. Digital as a media was negligible; Out-of-Home media was limited and traditional; Private FM Radio was just getting liberalized. Cable & Satellite TV was still growing and Print had started expanding by extending into new geographies and segments by way of new editions and supplements.

 

Advertising on TV was the success mantra given the extensive reach that TV offered at a very low cost compared to any other alternative.

FMCGs needed new consumers and repeat purchasers while most other categories were in a growth stage. Driving 'Presence' of the brand was the key objective and media planning science driven by the FMCG juggernauts was all about efficiency. In such a situation, the high-reach-cheap-cost nature of TV suited advertisers and brands were happy spraying their advertisements all over as long as the demographic (Gender, Age, SEC) was as per requirement. And, with a 'good' creative, I must say that most brands did very well for themselves.

 

Since, then a decade has passed by. Consumers have changed. Their needs and aspirations have evolved. In response to that the market has changed with the launch of many more brands and variants to appeal to the the new consumer nuances. The media landscape has changed too, giving much more control and information to the consumers.

 

The rising menace of advertisements and increasing control to the consumers led to Ad-avoidance reaching extreme heights, In such an environment, the effectiveness or results delivered by TV per rupee spent gradually but certainly deteriorated. And, I suppose this is what led to the now cliched term "Spray & Pray".

 

"Reaching" consumers used to be a challenge then but now excepting the hinterlands, I think one can safely say that these days given the high reach of various media.. reaching consumers is not really an issue. The issue is to 'Get Noticed' and to 'Endear' consumers.

 

Some brands have taken the path of "Getting Noticed" too seriously without worrying too much about the "Endear" part and are continuing on their tirade of "Even More Spray & Pray". It is this that is leading them to target higher and higher SOV (share of voice). This beahviour is a dis-service to the brands themselves and to the industry as a whole. It is this beahviour that I have already talked of in my post "Green Advertising is Responsible Advertising".

 

This "Spray & Pray" philosophy requires a focus on rates and CPRPs while, in today's scenario, it is the efficacy of advertising that is far more critical than its efficiency. Even more so when most efficiency parameters are based on 'limited research'.

 

We require a more acute focus on "endearing' consumers which requires one to answer questions related to the manner of advertising communication before we start talking of how much and at what cost. And, this manner of advertising needs us to understand the consumer in far more depth than just knowing the demographic. It requires an assessment of what role each media plays in the life of consumer and how each media can be used in tandem to create positive experiences for the consumer.

 

 

Nothing expresses this thought better than this video which I saw many years ago but, find it still very very relevant.  The Consumer has moved on.. it is time for advertisers also to move on...

 

No more "Spray & Pray".

Green Advertising is Responsible Advertising

We are all extremely vocal about the ill-effects of SPAM and as users of email and mobiles use all available SPAM-Blockers to save ourselves from this malady. However, do we realize that there is an immense amount of SPAM that we encounter daily in consumption of various media?

 

I am referring to the huge amount of advertising that we see all around in TV, Newspapers, Outdoors, Magazines, Radio, etc which we have not solicited but is being thrust upon us. Just think about the number of advertisements in a newspaper on a typical day.. the number of ads in TV and radio.. the number of ads on hoardings and various other outdoor formats on the way to office.. the number of brand messages you see on internet.. the number of promotional calls/ messages you get on your mobiles.. the amount of promotional material displayed across shops and malls...

 

We have become so accustomed to this Advertising SPAM that most of it has become a blind-spot and we don't even raise our voice against it. This excessive & unsolicited advertising is a form of pollution.

 

The TRAI through its recent Notification on Quality of Service has taken a tough stance against this pollution in TV advertising making way for a pollution-free television media. When, I say pollution-free - I am not suggesting that we should have no advertising; but, advertising within "tolerable limits".

 

It should be the endeavour and responsibility of every stakeholder in the advertising industry to sustain the media environment such that advertising and communication do not disrupt the experience of the consumers. Such, an approach to advertising and communication is what I call as "Green Advertising".

 

The popular adage in advertising of "Jo Dikta Hai woh Bikta hai" has been over abused and there has been an on-going match amongst advertisers to out-shout their competition resulting in ever-increasing "noise levels" in media. Every year, this focus on increasing "share of voice" calls for higher and higher investments which only benefit the media houses but, continue to increase the irritation and pollution in media for consumers. It is also to be noted that ultimately, it is the consumer that pays for all the advertising as these advertising monies form part of the cost of the product/ service.

 

The infatuation of advertisers with their logo has made them blind to any concern whether the consumer wants to see their logo or not. They have forgotten the classical truth that "Size does not matter". It is not the size of the logo that impresses the cosumer but what it does for them. In my post "The Creative is killing Creativity", I have already talked about the excessive want of the advertisers to tell their "Brand Story" often forgetting the story of the consumer in the process.

 

Brands that deliver their communnication in a Green manner ie in a manner such that they do call for the attention of the consumers but not at the cost of disrupting their experience but, instead enhance the experience - are the brands that will be truly valued, loved and patronized by the consumers.

 

Green Advertising requires that every communication idea be evaluated for (i) notice-ability, (ii) relevance and significance to the consumers life, (iii) the leave-behind value for the consumer on interaction, (iv) uniquness or relate-ability to the brand  on the one hand and (i) disruptiveness and (ii) cost of implementation on the other.

 

The reduction in advertising time on TV as a result of the TRAI notification should only worry advertisers who believe that the reduction of volume of advertising will erode their brand opportunity. Advertising in a commercial break is only one form of communication - that is one-way, passive, ridden with clutter, ad-avoidance and weakening credibility. A little peek into the life of the consumer shall reveal many more opportunities to enage with the consumers.

 

Green Advertising is the way ahead. Will we be proactive and adopt it across the media ecosystem or shall we wait for more notifications to come before we stop spamming our consumers.

 

Go Green!!

Client gets the work it deserves.

Media Agencies started as back-end print releasing departments of creative agencies many many years ago. The task of media releases was a menial task that the then industry leaders granted only 2.5% commission of the 15% that was available for the creative agencies.

As the media landscape has become more and more complex, the media agencies have risen to the challenge. Since then, the media agencies have evolved - upgraded their toolkit, added skill sets, increased the scope of services they can deliver and have come up as a formidable component of the advertising and communication industry.

 

Yes, the media agency still does media releases but a media release is just the tail end of all the valuable functions that a media agency performs.

 

No other entity has a better understanding of the media landscape of India. The largest media research agencies, the eminent consultancies, the rate-focused auditors, the tv-skewed creative agencies and the self-biased media houses - all barely skim the surface in understanding the media consumption patterns of today's consumer. A media agency is capable of a very clinical analysis of what media the consumer consumes and which touhpoints are best suited for brand communication.

 

Media Strategists today, are armed with databases and tools superior to what any other communication industry entity can either afford or has the commitment to develop. These tools enable media agencies to diagnose brand & consumer relationships and setup media tasks with great precision.

 

It is no longer about a TV or a Print Schedule but the design of the overall architechture of how the multiple media touchpoints included in a brand campaign are programmed to interact and influence the minds of consumers. Creativity is no longer the domain only of develpoing ad-creatives and is inherent in the methods by which media agencies design these media solutions for brand campaigns.

 

Overall, media agencies have skill sets and tools that are a fusion of consumer understanding, category & brand diagnosis, media understanding, creative solution design - all culminating into the function of preparing media-wise schedules (media plans), optimizing these plans to deliver cost-efficiency, releasing and monitoring each component of a brand campaign.

 

So much is available for a client when it signs on a media agency as an AOR. But, what a client is able to extract from the agency is directly related to the strength of their belief in what a media agency can/ should deliver; the focus of the senior management on working with the media agency as a partner; and an understanding of the overall deliverables that a media agency is capable of.

 

The media agencies have evolved over the past decade and are ready to deliver total communication solutions. The Client needs to review what he/ she is getting out of the media agency today and work towards getting more..getting more beyond implmentation planning & buying.

 

Ultimately, the Client will get what it demands (deserves).

Embedding Brand-Good into Media Plans

This is not a critique nor a judgement on any one. It is only some loud thinking on how the advertising/ media industry could become more effective in fulfilling their ultimate objective of doing good for their client brand.

Of course! there are hundreds of dimensions to the above thought but, in this article today I am only zooming in on "Focus on the Brand" in the context of traditional media planning.

A media plan is a optimistic mix of advertising space on various media/ vehicles to expose the provided creative to the desired (usually, demographically defined) target audience made with the primary objective of getting the mix at the cheapest.

As, those in the industry read through - it may be very easy to say we are not like that or we don't do this, etc but, the tougher and right thing would be to get out of denial mode and look to further improvement.

I am not saying, at all that the media plans today are not delivering on brand-good but, the point is are they delivering enough and can this be optimized further. Now, don't take the word "optimized" which I just used and say that for our plan we have already used an optimizer. The said optimizer is for arriving at the cheapest way to deliver the most exposure while, again I am talking of optimizing brand-good.

All media planners out there are doing a fabulous job delivering exposure. They are stuck between the advertiser/client who have their own visions of what their plan should be like (often based on past experience with as much subjectivity as exists in marketing) and most importantly at what cost that vision should be delivered and with the Media House/ Auditor/ Agency Seniors on the other side bringing in all kinds of "expectations" to vitiate the ideal planning process. The job of media planning for the person at the front becomes more of managing expectations rather than of delivering the right media plan. In such a scenario, it is often very likely that the media planner does not embed enough of the brand-good into the plan since he is playing the balancing act between the various actors sitting around the desk to approve the media plan.

Making a media plan is a process and in the process the Brand-Good has to form an important element. We have to make sure that during every stage of the planning process there is a barometer which checks if the brand-good has been maintained from the point we started making the plan right through to the end. And, this is all possible. The only thing that vitiates it is the distraction by various other short-sighted expectations some justified/ some totally unreasonable.

While, one - as a media planner can keep saying that it is all these distractions that spoil a media plan; it is the responsibility of media planners to first put their house in order. Before, one starts making a media plan how much thought is given to what is the brand-good that we are trying to deliver other than brand exposure? How much consideration is given to brand-good in selecting various elements of the plan or do we just choose media vehicles basis the exposure-cost analysis? Once when a plan is made does one really put a metric to the amount of brand-good that has been embedded into the plan? Finally, after the execution of the plan how much analytics is done to assess the brand-good delivered?

Here, I want to introduce the concept of Brand-Fidelity of media plans. A media plan that has low brand fidelity would have minimal or no brand-good embedded within it; while a media plan with high brand-fidelity would be totally focussed on delivering what the brand intended to achieve through the media plan.

Now, what is the brand-good that we need to deliver and how do we quantify and measure it are further challenges but, not impossibles to derive. A focused team, intent on building higg-fidelity media plans will surely find means and ways to idetntify, embedd and measure brand-good.

This is an urge to the industry to re-invent media planning in a way that at the end we have an applause and not questions about the relevance of advertising, Focus on Brand-Good in a way that cant be compromised for any other expectation.

Know Your Customer (KYC)

KYC is a very talked about term theses days amongst most sales oriented organizations. In fact, among some domains (Telecom, Finance, etc) this is actually being enforced by the regulatory authorities. However, this is one aspect that agencies have to take up on a war footing.

No, no.. I dont mean to say that agencies dont know their customer.. it is a bit deeper than that..

It is one thing to know the people who "man" the various stations/ offices but quite another to know the business that they are in. And, that is what I mean that agencies need to understand the business because, it is the business or the brand who is the Customer for the agency.

Yes, no one will admit that they dont understand the business of their Client; but, conversely if I were to ask the Clients if they think that the people at their agency understand their business - the answer may not be a very sweet one. So, lets accept it - we know very little about our clients businesses.

And, this I believe is at the core of the usually publicized commoditization of agency deliverables.

In the absence of suitable knowledge about the business, the communication recommendations from the media as well as the creative agency would be limited to some very superficial idea about how their inputs and efforts would affect the business. The dialogue between the agency and the client is limited to only "media language" and does not graduate to "business talk" that really matters to the client. Unless, the Client appreciates our knowledge and understanding of his business - he/ she wont really give any weightage to any inputs in the realm of strategy.

Doing a campaign is a very transactional thing and we do these by the score - however, strategy is something which is very integral and cannot be done on the basis of the media knowledge only.

But, it is a chicken and egg story. Unless, we understand the business, the client wont involve us in the strategic process and unless we get involved in the strategic process - we wont really be able to understand the business. Anyways, the onus for change is on the agency - unless, the agency is happy just delivering vanilla media campaigns and over a period of time getting more and more marginalized and commoditized.

So, the new mantra of "KYC" has to be taken up by the agencies in earnest and impute the learnings into the process of media solution design. This stance of KYC would need re-orientation of skillsets and resources so that the focus is on the strategic and not just the transactional deliveries.

Lastly, I would say that the ultimate beneficiaries of an agency that understands their business - shall be the clients themselves. Hence, the Clients must encourage this shift and not keep the agency at arms-length when it comes to sharing knowledge and information about their business.

Only, an agency that knows your business can grow your business!!

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.

Future of TV in India

The Campaign A-List has collated the responses of over 300 Senior Professional from the Media Industry. In a recent, blog post "A-List of Changes"  I discussed what are the changes that these professional seek from media and advertising. Here, I am presenting a review of what all do they specifically expect to change in Television.

Here, of course I am ignoring ideas that are too extreme (like - ban TV) or too difficult to digest (such as - add smells to TV). Of course! TV was one of the mediums that had the most variety of comments for its future. I have classified these comments in 5 broad categories, each concerned about the following:

• The TV Technology
• The Advertising on TV
• TV Content
• Pricing of TV Commercial Time
• Research & Measurement for TV

The slide here illustrates the different comments received and hence gives a glimpse of the changes once can hope for in the future.

The A-List is most worried about the overdose of advertising. Hence, in the future of TV wants ad-free channels, limit commercial time, limit ad-durations, limit frequency of ads, zap commercials, stop TV tickers and logos on screen, and so on.  

Overall, in TV Technology the Media Seniors want to have 2-way communication on TV thus making it Interactive. Other wants are - digitization of Cable, making TV HD, Addressability for DTH. Yes, they also want to have a like/dislike button on TV for giving feedback on content and advertising.

In Content, the primary concern is for News Channels about paid news, anchors getting hysterical and dramatization of news.

The Creative people still have not had enough of indulgence in Television and are dreaming of having cheaper ad-rates so that they can make longer duration ads - since 30s is just not enough to tell a story.

TV Measurement as always is wanting - larger sample and better coverage but this time there is more concern about what we are measuring. Instead of TVRs, the A-List seeks to have TV Respect Points and TV Watchability Ratings. Advertisers want to go beyond CPRPs to Ad-effectiveness measures and Impact measures.

Interesting thoughts, which if materialized will certainly change TV for the better in the future. So, I sincerely hope that the A-List is able to bring in the changes that they seek - for if they cant then who else can !!!

The Future: Inevitably Digital

I remember the days when I was a young entrant into the world of media (actually, media research to be specific) as I joined MRUC (Media Research Users Council). Somewhere around that time internet was included as a medium to be measured, into the Indian Readership Survey.

Internet used to be measured at two levels - aware about internet and frequency of usage of internet. While, usage of internet appeared to be a mere blip, there was a fair amount of awareness.

Actually, a funny incident had the researchers very perplexed. In a few small markets, the internet awareness showed levels 3 - 4 times those in any other market. Thanks to the robust back-check system followed by the IRS  - it was soon discovered that the high level of awareness was not of the interNET but of MosquitoNET - a simple mix-up about the NET.

India has certainly come along way since then. Its been about little over a decade since then.

We have all seen the rise in adoption of the internet which started getting adopted as a business application for emails, then soon evolved. Surfing to Search to Webmail to Games to Creating Websites to Blogs to Shopping to Banking to Ticketing to Networking to Socializing..... It now touches almost every part of our lives. In fact, now it is not confined to the computer screen but stays with us through our mobiles all day long.

However, the sceptics are still very adamant that in India internet is still a niche phenomenon and it will not affect the mass of India for many more years to come.  

Yes, the penetration levels of internet are not as high compared to those of television or newspapers today but with the rate at which the penetration of mobiles is increasing, it is just a matter of time..  a matter of very little time that it will surpass the reach of every other media. Just as we 24x7 access to electricity, so we shall have for internet. As products, services and governance starts utilizing the internet its advent as a mass application is inevitable.  

The sooner we believe this future and evolve our structure, methods and practices to address this fundamental change - the easier our future success shall be.

"If you dont give Digital a chance today; Digital wont give you a chance in the future"

The "Creative" is killing "Creativity"

In a quote that I gave for a certain magazine recently, I mentioned that "The Creative" in advertising is overrated and that needs to change. I thought to qualify this statement a bit more elaborately here.

In the domain of brand communication today - the "creative" is considered the most important element. Everything revolves around the creative. And why shouldn't it be so? So many, brands have become household names just because of the creative.

Who can forget the ministrations of Lalitaji of Surf or the Rekha, Jaya Sushma of Nirma. The hummable Hamara Bajaj or the wonderful BPL Washing Machines. Har Ek Friend Zaroori Hota Hai, Zoo Zoos, and the list can go on. OK Sabun, Tandoorusti Ki Raksha, Vimal, Hari Sadu....and many more..

All these creatives are darlings of India and have made the future of their brands, brand managers and of the creative directors too. Here, I am being very generous and actually giving credit of the brand success only to the creative so no one reading this can accuse me of being anti-creative.

But, lets look beyond these successes. For every creative that delighted India there are a thousand that made it to the hate list. Thousands of ads that went into anonymity; thousands of ads that wasted crores of advertising rupees again and again every year. 

Today, Television and Print advertising has almost become a tradition. No one questions why a brand needs TV or Print advertising - the question only is when, what and How Much. Going beyond the traditional is rare.

Dont mistake that I am saying dont advertise.. Do advertise.. but we need to appreciate that the word "Advertisement" has changed since we last reviewed it.

In the days of limited media (thats my fav way of referring to the traditional advertising days) the creative canvas was a "single media". Yes, there was advertising on multiple media but creative in each media was crafted alone. And, each such piece crafted was called the "Creative". We have been so enchanted by the creative as professionals that we didnt even realize when the audience for whom we were making the creative  - lost interest in it.

And, despite repeated studies showing alarming levels of ad-avoidance we still continue to be mesmerized by our own creatives. At times, I feel some brand custodians (this includes brand managers, account & media planners and creatives) are too obsessed and end up creating Innovations (costing multiples of  what a simple creative would have cost) that are surely clutter breaking but also totally meaning less for the consumer. These are what I call "Brand Managers Delights".

So "Advertisement" was about the Brand telling the audiences "I (Brand) will give you entertainment by showing you a creative in this boring media space, but there will be my message in the creative too" and it worked THEN. But, that is what the brand custodians continue to attempt even today when the audience is not dependent upon the Creative for entertainment - the media content by itself is entertaining and absorbing enough. In fact, the same creative is becoming a disruption in entertainment.

Now "Advertisement" is about active engagement of the audience and not just passive viewing/ reading. And, for this active engagement  today we have at our disposal very powerful  media that is targeted, addressable, pull, portable, interactive, measurable, reviewable, expandable, refer-able, mashable, fuse-able, etc besides the fact that advertising messages need not be restrained within the bounds of "ad-break".

The audience too is far more 'available' and hence is open to participation and activation more than ever before.

With such potential media and options available to us to share the brand with the consumers, if we still do not venture beyond the "creative" and dont indulge our creativity in utilizing this multi-dimensional canvass to actively engage the consumers - I think we are limiting our creativity,

The needless, un-investigated, traditional focus on the "creative" is killing "Creativity".

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.

Rationalizing Readership Research

My introduction into the world of media as a professional was through my involvement with readership research. I have been very fortunate to have been inducted into the science of media research by veterans in the industry and I will always be obliged to them for their input and guidance in life. Readership research being the first subject for me in the domain -  is very close to my heart and I have some very strong views on the matter. Here, I want to place 5 points before all of you for your feedback and action.

1. Focus on Readership

Years ago, the readership research in the country took on the onus of providing a wholistic research database which not only provided readership data but also profiled the whole country in terms of demographics, usage/ownership/ consumption of products and services, etc. This research did allow a better understanding of the profile of readers but was used more for developing an understanding of categories and brands.

Over the years, I believe that readership itself has not get its due in this huge research program. The focus on readership needs to be revised as we move ahead.

2. Newspapers and Magazines are different

Newspapers and Magazines are treated absolutely in the same manner in the current readership research. The manner in which these are consumed by readers are different; the media planners and buyers study these differently and the role that they play in a communication solution is different too. But, in the research only the order of questioning (according to the periodicity) and inclusion in the state masthead booklets are the only decisions that treat magazines as different from newspapers.

A fresh view is required to building an approach for investigation and recommendation for newspapers and magazines.

3. Masthead readership is passe

In the era of limited media and advertising - masthead recognition (as a claim) was a good enough surrogate for readerhsip and hence ad-exposure. But now, masthead recall is a very inaccurate assesment of readership. Also, the probablity of exposure to an ad in a newspaper despite the newspaper having been read - is very low. Hence, readership as measured today is not a fair representation of OTS  - the findamental metric for media planing and buying.  

The readership estimates available in the readership research therefore are truly inflated. The actual readership and the probability of ad-exposure would be considerably lower. It is a totally different matter that Publishers now discuss business on "Total Readership" estimates instead of Average Issue Readership (AIR) estimates making this over-estimatation even more acute.

There is a need to revise the definition of "Readership" from the research perspective.

4. Beyond Reach and Rankings

In designing communication solutions, there is a lot of exploration to understand the manner of engagement and the extent and nature of the effect that the media/ media vehicle has on the consumer. The number of consumers who can access a particular media vehicle is of secondary importance. The current research only delivers on the "number of consumers" and nothing else.

Metrics beyond readership estimates need to be devised and measured.

5. Newsprint is getting digitized

Content is no longer only a "printed" entity. The same newspaper content is today accessed on the internet or through mobile phones and iPads. The same content is stripped by net-robots and delivered as part of other web pages. Content is shared and tagged and also re-purposed for rendering in other formats.

Do we only measure the print copy readership or do we measure the publications content exposure across formats. We need to look at a revised scope for what we term as Readership.

Change Ahead

Every year, industry forums keep discussing the future of print. The base for rendering the content may change from paper to a screen - but the rules of engagement with the consumers will remain. We need to get our readership research right to keep it continuously relevant to the changes so that it aids publishers, planners and buyers all to add long-term value to the medium and not just reap short-term results.

Media Fragmentation - an Opportunity.

It is the era of choices for the consumer in every sphere of their lives. And, as the consumer exercises these choices - the consumers life is becoming more and more fragmented. And, it is this fragmentation of the consumers life that is the cause of the phenomenon called media fragmentation.

For each role that the consumer plays in life, for every community that the consumer is engaged with, for every mood that the consumer feels daily, for every task that the consumer needs to complete - there is a different set of media that the consumer interacts with. In each of the above scenarios not just the set of media but also the manner of interaction with the media changes. The expectations from the media are different, the affinity that the consumer feels for different media changes and the effect that each media has on the consumer also varies.

Thus, the term media fragmentation doesnt encompass just the multiplicity of media but also the complexity of its relationship with the consumer. And, in such a scenario the task of the brand manager remains the same as ever - to create an affinity for the brand in the mind of the consumer.

For a mind addicted to the limited means of communication using conventional TV and Print - this scenario is a certain threat but to one who looks at the consumer and media landscape afresh everyday this is a great opportunity. Differentiation is key to brand building and in yester years it was only the creative that offered the key to differentiation in communication while now the choice of media and the manner of use of the media to communuicate with the consumer play as much a role in creating this differentiation for a brand.

In the era of limited media - basis the reach of media first the media to be used for communication was identified and the creative was developed specific to the media. Of course!! Reach of the media is critical but the first step now is to develop an 'idea' for the consumer and then layer this idea with media that best suits the idea. Communication Planning has turned inside-out.

It is this 'idea' that strings together the activity done with each media. In the absence of the connecting idea - the consumer just sees a set of dis-connected exposures/ activities at different times. But, if all the fragmented media activites have the idea at the core then these together form a beautiful collage with each media working in tandem - and to the consumer it is all 'one story'.

Brand managers today interact with so many partners each bringing to them capabilities of working on specific media and in this 'variety' of partners the connnecting idea is very vulnerable to getting diluted. Companies, cannnot afford that this conecting idea gets diluted as it would impact the communication ROI. While, on reach and cost metrics the individual media plans may perform brilliantly - the overall communication effectiveness could be adversley affected.  And, this is where 'media strategists' have a key role to play in organizations. While, the brand managers are best equipped to decide on the 'connecting idea'; it is the media strategists who can best work on its execution along with the multitude of media/ agency  partners.

So, to conclude - media fragmentation is here and only increasing. For brands to utilize it as a opportunity rather than to see it as a threat there is need for an increased focus on communication design vis-vis media planning. To the consumer, only an ill-designed campaign appears fragmented.  

Obsolescence!!

So many objects in our life have become obsolete and been replaced by better alternatives. Here, I just want to remember all those obsolete objects and reflect upon the future.

We grew up listening to the ruckus of the sewing machine as our mother stitched our clothes at home. The big radios at home are nowhere to be seen now.

And, do you remember the record player and the big black records that were a luxury to listen to. And, more recently we saw the cassettes and cassettes getting wasted.

The top-view camera, the big box camera with the stand and the fast vanishing film rolls.

As kids in nursery we used to have a slate and chalks, rarely seen now.

The priyadarshini phone is unknown now while the phones with separate ear piece and mouth piece had already vanished before our time.

Dozens of types of computers have come and gone, I still remember seeing the computer that used those cards as input instead of a keyboard.

The Black & White TV sets are almost gone. The clumsy looking switches are replaced by swanky ones now.

Car models have vanished.

The VCR had a short life.

The kerosene oil stoves in the kitchen are gone.

Rarely see a fountain pen around and the ink bottles and ink droppers are seen no more.

Horse carts outside the railway stations have been replaced by Taxis.

So, may things that were so a part of our lives have vanished - either they have outlived their utility or have evolved into more efficient and contemporary forms. In Future Shock, Alvin Toflersays that the speed of change and obsolescence is only going to get faster and so more and more of our life is going to get transformed faster and faster.

In the media industry, many of us are but in a state of denial - we refuse to see the writing on the wall or even if we do; we never really believe that any mahor shift will happen during our lifetime. The choice is ours to either ignore the change and bury our heads in the sand like the ostrich or anticipate the change and be ready for it.  We need to ask ourselves some questions:

• Do we really think that print media does not need to worry about its future?
• Is TV advertising going to continue on its growth trend for long?
• What all areas of media is digital going to invade?
• How long is the traditional TV spot or the Press ad going to exist?
• How many TVs or screens are out there that no measurement system is measuring?

Obsolescence of many media and media formats is inevitable. Lets stop denying it and prepare 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.

Stop Media Pollution - Go Green!!

This thought has been building in my mind for quite some time now and I am convinced enough of its significance to share with all of you and to seek your view on the subject.

We are all aware of 'pollution' which the dictionary defines as "the presence or introduction into the environment of a substance or a thing that has harmful or poisonous effects". We encounter pollution everyday in our lives and supposedly more so in the urban areas. We hear of water pollution, air pollution, noise pollution and so many more. Here, I place before you the thought of 'media pollution' ie the pollution caused in the media that we consume everyday. Media pollution can be  'in-content' or 'around-content'. the in-content pollution causes a degradation of content while the around-content pollution largely refers to the pollution due to increasing advertising. Here, I will discuss the around-media pollution that relates to advertising.

Advertising serves a purpose and has a social and a commercial reason for existence. However, all will agree that there is too much of it in the recent years. As the markets have become more fragmented, the need to make a "sale" to the limited low-hanging affluent consumers has brought about this ever increasing use of competitive advertising. The driving force is the popular concept of  increasing "Share of Voice" which is actually very contrary to an otherwise conservative Indian culture. In an attempt to out-shout competing brands more and more advertising noise is polluting our media environment.

Go to any busy shopping area in any city large or small and just look around and you will see how shabby and deplorable our landscape looks due to all types of hoardings, kiosks, dealer boards, banners, etc. At some places there is actually no landscape visible. Television which is the advertisers darling media forces an average user to see advertising for over 2 hours a week which may be as much as 25% of the viewers total TV viewing for the week. In some newspapers especially supplements, it takes an effort even to locate content as the pages are full of advertising messages. Innovations in publications seem more like irritations. Spam emails and messages in our computers and mobiles are already issues that require intervention from the governement to curb the meance. Brand call centres have people dedicated to calling consumers for un-solicited sales offers. As consumers move out of home, they are easy prey for ooh events and activation teams of brands who assault their privacy and peace of mind at malls and other venues.

On an average an urban indian is bombarded by hundreds of advertising messages everyday and these advertising messages are creating a lot of pollution in media all around us. The Indian consumer is very tolerant and neither does he get irritated nor is culturally tuned to being rude to anyone easily and hence is silent about this overdose of advertising. But, the consumer is becoming more discerning and assertive and will penalize brands that are not "within limits" of prudent advertising. Already, there is talk of ad-free paid content in different media. It is but a matter of time when the affluent consumers will choose to align with such ad-free distribution systems.

Brands need to re-look at the manner in which they approach brand comunications. Brands have a purpose beyond their sales and that purpose is to improve the life of their consumers. The least that a brand can do is to avoid participating in actions that cause pain to consumers or disrupt their peace of mind. Can the brands turn to advertising philosophies that add value to the brand-consumer ecosystem and do not vitiate the media environment?

Yes, it is not easy. Yes, it may not result in a tactical or a short term benefit. But, the consumers understand and value brands that care for them and a more considerate approach to brand communications will strengthen the bond with the consumer much better than the "me-too" SOV increasing tirade of brands.

Advertise responsibly!! Make a difference not just to the brand sales but to the lives of the consumers. Go Green!

Soon, I will write about the tenets for Green Advertising.

Media Research needs a makeover

"60%@4+" - these are the most mysterious of anything that a media manager/client/ brand manager ever encounters. These numbers are derived from a science so convoluted that even most media planners would be vary of being asked for justifications. Hours in media presentations are spent debating these numbers.

It used to be interesting to derive the operating frequencies by analyzing the brand on marketing factors, media factors and communication factors in the erstwhile Ostrow's model. These principles have precipitated into numerous varieties of Frequency Setting software and tools with various agencies. But, do we ever wonder in today’s context if these promised exposures really happen.

In the earlier days of limited media - an OTS (opportunity to see) really had a high correlation to HRS (Have Really Seen). These days, due to high advertising avoidance the correlation between the OTS that the planners plan with and the HRS is really suspect. Ad-avoidance levels are as high as 70% for some key media across regions around the globe. If the exposures themselves are suspect then where is the question of generating a response from advertising and achieving the marketing objectives. Then can there be any confidence on the 60%@4+ touted by media planners which is ultimately based on the unrealistic OTS figures. Do we not commit too much of money based on media concepts which are now inert due to advertising avoidance.

The concepts of frequencies when proposed where really ahead of their times and provided a guideline for media plans and investments. These concepts were also taken into consideration in the configuration of the media measurement systems then. Since, then the media choices available have increased manifold, technology has changed the nature of media and the manner of media consumption has changed too – but the ‘media concepts’ and the ‘measurement systems’ are still largely the same. Today the relevance of the numbers churned out by the available media research systems therefore are suspect – not due to any mal-intent but due to sheer obsolescence of the tenets of measurement then adopted.

It is not the ‘media planner’ who is to blame. The media planner is struggling hard to make some sense out of the plethora of media options armed with limited and inept research and tools. Evolution as always is happening and media research has not managed to keep up.

Most research systems/ organizations are huge monoliths built over decades. They have just recently realized the fruits of years of sustained efforts to bring sense and stability to the media industry. Kudos for that but, the challenge is not over yet – another wave has started and it is time to shed the old skin again and move on.

Today, all the available research is designed to deliver quantified measures of the audience who have the opportunity–to-see (OTS). Further more, many opine that the present research system fundamentals are more apt for the ‘homogenous nations’ these were created for. The same measurement systems may not be optimum for countries like China, India, Malaysia, etc where the population is highly heterogeneous. Would it also be true to say that in developing the media principles it is the FMCG products that have been the focus more often than not – the principles need to be suitable for all.

All this has to change. Many more changes in the media scenario that the research must address are discussed below:

TV and Press were the primary media. But, a consumer of today is exposed to many more media in a very affective manner unlike earlier. It would be naïve to believe that the situation remains the same today. Measuring and planning for each media in isolation is inappropriate. A more consumer-centric approach to measurement is required.

The level of engagement of the consumer with the media is very complex. While, some media are extremely avoided – others command rapt attention. It would be unfair to treat all media on the same scale of OTS. And mind you, time spent on the media (as measured by the current systems) does not even come close to defining engagement.

Given the variety of content options available through media – the very purpose of engagement with the media is different for different consumers. This means that what communication works for one may not work for another. The measurements in the new system must explore these aspects of audience differences.

The mammoth annual researches done for readership are by design made to suppress sudden changes - sudden readership changes were always attributed to hanky-panky by the publishers. In a period when product markets are very dynamic and volatile – dampened research numbers based on annual samples may be inadequate. The variations in the data may be of more interest instead of numbers averaged across a year.

Finally, ROI - maybe the most mis-used term in media is here to stay and advertisers demand concrete answers. Does, the current research system offer anything for the planner to fall back on to build a sure case for ROI - a case that is not just circumstantial. The awareness tracking studies that are oft used as surrogates to ROI measures - cause more problems than give solutions as most media beyond just TV and Press are still not measured adequately. It is not rare to find awareness measures showing no correlation to the very carefully planned TV and Press GRPs.

Will just measurement of TVRs, AIRs and manufacturing of GRPs be enough in the upcoming world or do we need new ‘measurement concepts and systems’ is a question that all in the industry have to answer.

Media agencies are fighting a continuous battle with the clients on accountability and are most eager to bring in change. Many have attempted in their own limited ways to bridge the research gap. Its time, the media planners too stop pushing obsolete concepts and take their media plans beyond the research limitations. They need to evolve strategic planning processes that compensate for the research lacuna and demand for relevant research. Without this changes will take their own time. It is already late.

However, the real opportunity to change the systems lies with those who own the measurement systems. Yes, sure given the ‘bulk’ that most of these research systems have evolved into – it will not be easy for them to change. At one time they had thought ahead of the times and were granted market success. Today the industry again needs a fresh breed of media professionals to challenge the basics and propose systems based on ‘new thought and knowledge’ and not on ‘old available infrastructure, concepts and resources’.

In Asia alone, the estimated advertising spends for the year 2005 are over $US 65 billion increasing rapidly at a rate of over 27%. I really wonder how much of this money is really doing what it is meant to do. Imagine another year going by and the dollars wasted.

(Published earlier in Pitch Magazine)