Are you doing Digital Media in the Traditional Media Way?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recipe for a Media Plan

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

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

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

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

It is the same for media planning too.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Planning for the Multi-Screen Consumer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TAM to BARC - Evolution in Progress!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

Yes, the mobile is taking over the media monoliths.

Client Delight to Consumer Delight

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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!!

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.

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.  

Brands - Wake up to the power of content

For so many years, content has been an area mostly barred to advertisers. The sanctity of the editorial and the historical divide in the media houses between the editorial and the space selling teams has kept the boundaries intact for many years.

As, competition in media became stronger and as media brands survival and prosperity became tougher and tougher to sustain; the adversity eroded the boundaries a bit in the recent (last decade) past. Media opened up to some interventions in editorial for the benfit of brands.. of course! at a cost.

If, we look around there are examples of brand - content integrations in all media.. some good ones that have given back to the brand as well as to the media while some are an appaling abuse of the advertising brand as well as the media brand. A majority though are brand managers delight and a media planners delight and I am not sure how much do these give back to the advertising brand if at all. Smart media sellers have managed to sell innocuous innovations and integrations that give them their revenue without really giving up much in editorial.

Anyways, the idea here is not to criticise the quality of work done but to ask brand managers and media planners why "content" is not their first port of call. We all know the power of content and yes, while content was not available to advertising brands the advertising break and the advertising spaces were the default choice. But, now over the years brand-content integrations are certianly possible. So, then why are we still spending  crores and crores of Rupees on conventional ad-spaces and not having the guts to invest siginificantly into content. Why is the investment pyramid not the other way around?

Is it because communication strategy is still ruled by conventional creative agencies who still are masters of only the TV and Print creatives? Is it because conventional advertising is a safe bet from the point of view of justifying decisions within organizations? Are brand managers giving vent to their own creative energies by taking part in the creation of the 30 second story? Is it that we are slave to data and measurement which is very ambiguous when it comes to branded content development or integration?

Whatever, the reasons that govern our behaviours at present. these have to change..... more and more investments will go towards producing brand funded content taking away from conventional ad-spaces. As digital media becomes more and more significant the line between content and brand will become even finer...  Consumers of media have been threatening to move away from the 30-second ad-spot for very long.... as a start they are avoiding it desparately.. brands too will need to move their focus of communication away from the ad-space and align themselves to the power of content..

Of course, it means a new perspective to communication, new theories, new models, new skill sets, new tools and research.. another ecosystem to be built for brand communications.. 

What should we measure - cause or effect?

Media is possibly the only domain that has so much research and measurement data available. No other product or service can boast of a measurement system that offers a minute-by-minute relay of the consumption patterns (TAM and AMap) or of a sample survey that is over a 2 lakh sample size which has been conducted every year for more than a decade (IRS) or of a database that records the details of almost every transasction in the domain (Adex). And, there is much more.

So, while there is a lot of reseach measurement available, here, I want to examine if these measures are relevant and appropriate or not. In the marketing-media ecosystem, there are two kinds of measures which can be identified. Lets understand the possibilities that exist and then discuss the pros and cons of each method.

The first type of measures are the "cause" measures. This includes measurement of phenomena that are an input to the marketing ecosystem; that are the stimuli in the marketing system. In a way, this is like measuring the "effort" that is exerted. The Reach, OTS and GRP measures are primarily measures of the media inputs that are being invested by the brand and hence are all "cause" or "stimulus" or "effort" measure.

The other type of measures are the "effect" measures such as sales, awareness, brand image, footfalls, etc. These represent the actions or the mindset of the consumers and hence are an indicator of what is the "result" of the various media and marketing efforts. 

In the days of, scarce media and when the brand choices of customers too were limited; there was a high correlation between the "input" and the "result". Hence, measuring either of them would give the brand manager an idea about the success of the brand. In such a scenario, since measurement of the "effort" was far easier, all the media measurement systems then set up are merely measures of the "input effort". Till recently, these measures served us well. But, the media landscape has changed a lot now.

The compexity in the media landscape and the huge clutter of advertising communication has eroded the effectiveness of conventional advertising. The gap between the "effort" and the "effect" has widened. More and more clients are asking agencies to show the "effect" rather than the "effort". It is quite another matter that due to low sample sizes etc of the research even the actual value of the "effort" is often debated upon. It is an accepted practice that the agency has to provide the measurement of "effort" while the measurement of "effect" is the responsibility of the client.

The Clients are at varying degrees of readiness when it somes to having the "effect" data. These range from those who are not even able to provide regular, systematic data on sales to those who have extensive data on customer interactions with their call-centres, awareness track information, walk-in data, website traffic data, etc. Most of these are data are not captured with the objective of understanding the impact of media and hence are often either not suitable to understand the media impact or need a lot of "massaging" before any inference can be derived. There is no standardization of the indicators of communication "effect" and the efficacy of advertising and communication is diagnosed basis "whatever available" sets of data.

More and more communication design is being linked to such "effect" data but there is a lot of ground to be covered. There has to be a joint effort from the the clients and agencies both to agree upon and setup "effect" data capture systems that are targeted to capture the effect of media.

A lot of discussion happens on "ROI" and if really we want to walk the talk then the frst step is to define "ROI" measures and start measuring them. Lets measure what we want to deliver instead of just delivering what is available to be measured.