Your Brand lives in the Middle-of-the-Funnel

Building a brand is an eclectic process. A label is launched and it takes a lot of curation in the minds of consumers for that label to become a brand. Brand Custodians have always played this game of moulding  brands and getting consumers to rally around them. Because, ultimately it's the brand that is wanted and it is the brand that consumers pay (premium) for.

But, as the 'concept of time' has changed - the time that a business allows for a brand to be built or the time that a consumer gives to a brand to stay in his or her life - both have reduced considerably. This has certainly made the life of CMOs and Brand Managers so much more complicated and has had a huge impact on what we see brands doing in Media.

If, I were to simplistically breakup the typical brand Funnel into Top, Middle and Bottom: 

• at the Top, we see a lot of broad advertising in Mass Media aimed at creating awareness for the brand; 
• in the middle is where we typically measure brand metrics such as 'consideration', 'preference', 'affinity', etc;
• at the Bottom, we see hard-core sales efforts which, in the digital world today take the form of Performance Advertising measured on Conversions to "Sales Metrics"

Each stage of the brand funnel is important, its never abut one over the other - but, it is about the balance between all stages of the consumer journey. 

While. the "Heritage" brands (those than have been there for long) are often accused of too much "Top Funnel" focus often referred to as 'spray & pray' - but, its to do with their distribution structure and the "distance" between the advertising stimulus and the opportunity to purchase or the point of purchase.  Of Course! we see a shift happening towards a more 'performance' mindset.  

On the other hand, the new age D2C Brands start with a huge "bottom-funnel" focus and as they grow, they steer towards sporadic but, high intensity & bold out-bursts on the top-funnel. Cant say, if it is right or wrong as the actions are defined basis the 'end-game' that the promoters have in mind. 

In both the scenarios, the Brand lives in the Middle-of-the-Funnel. Its what the brand does in the middle that defines sustainable success. The Top & Bottom are often the easiest to deploy as they are very tangible. 

The Top-Funnel is easily measured on the basis of media deliverables - reach/ grps, impressions, contacts, etc and also costed for the media deliverables. However, it is very distant from "end-sales'  and its effectiveness is often a mystery - best measured basis awareness measures or using complicated and long-term market-mix models to derive the actual ROI of such investments. Not to say that these investments are futile but, while media delivery measures are easy; effectiveness measures are difficult.

At the bottom of the funnel, usually sales or conversions is the last mile metric and is easy to measure. The measures are usually the amount of media deployed and the sales, transactions, conversions generated, The measures though easy, are often "mis-leading" as conversion measures just tell you 'the percentage of the consumers that crossed a stage' and not, the causality of the media investments or the effectiveness of the media investments. These measures have a lot of misattribution and unless brands managers are prudent - money gets spent on media that has a low ROI.

So, Top Funnel & Bottom Funnel measures and KPIs apparently are very tangible and hence, its an easy (not best) decision to spend on these. But, the Brand building happens in the Middle of the Funnel and that is the toughest space to manage. Brand Love/ Brand Preference/ Brand Image/ etc are intangibles and its also very difficult to assess what media placements will affect what aspects of the brand.

Irrespective of the 'Time-frame' Brand Building is essential. If there is a clear Brand Value which is what the consumers buy the brand for - then, the Top Funnel only Amplifies this Brand Identity to attract larger audiences to the Brand; and the Bottom-Funnel only monetises this Brand Asset by generating transactions for the Brand. Without a strong middle - both, Top Funnel as well as Bottom Funnel become unsustainable and fail to spur growth for the brand.

There is a continued debate in the market about the balance between "Performance" and "Brand" investments and rightly so - Feed the middle of the funnel else, the "Label" will never turn into a strong "Brand".  

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".

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.