Veni Vidi Data-avi(?)

OK - dodgy title I know (and will probably do bugger all for search traffic) but anyway, this week I was asked to right a couple of paragraphs on my opinion on the role of data in today's media climate. So I thought I'd share.

Media use, habits and diets have been changing steadily for several years – ‘Media stacking’, the Internet, e-mail, mobile phones, and so on. Unsurprisingly, changes in consumer behaviour have followed. As Bob Liodice (President and CEO of the Association of National Advertisers) confirms, “It’s no longer a matter of if consumers change their behaviour, but how fast and whether we can keep up.” Never has understanding the consumer been so important.

Today the customer journey may not be any longer than it was 10 years ago, but it is has certainly become much more random and harder to follow. Our traditional ‘funnel’ has become a snakes and ladders board.

Luckily, the increased use of digital technology has created a magnifying effect allowing us observe what consumers are thinking, experiencing and doing relative to the buying process with greater clarity and granularity than ever before. We now have access to real time information about what people search for, buy and how they make their purchase decisions. Facts, figures, likes, dislikes and so on. The value of data has increased tenfold*, if not more.
However, this data, unless it is harnessed, will remain nothing more than facts, figures, likes and dislikes.

Despite this changing landscape the basic principle of delivering the right message to the right people at the right time holds true. In today’s climate it is essential that we use this wealth of raw information to form real insights and a superior understanding of our consumers. Only then can we respond to what we’ve learned quickly and with a greater degree of relevance irrelevant of media.

We are no longer media-centric, but consumer-centric instead.


And there we go. Thoughts?


*Allen Adamson's new book BrandDigital was insightful on this

Interacting with Interactivity

OK, so I’ve been pretty inactive the last month (I blame it on house and job moving). Anyways, given that I’m now getting my hands dirty in the digital world I thought I’d better have a bit of a read up on interactivity. So I read one of the most un-interactive overcomplicated titled articles in the world –

“Social psychology of interactivity in human-website interaction” in the “Oxford Handbook of Internet Psychology”.

(To be fair, once de-academicised it’s pretty good reading.)

Here's what struck me...

It’s generally agreed that there’s a basic advantage to digital methods of communication: it encourages active participation and not just passive reception. You can get involved more with it. It’s interactive.

Take a look at “interaction” in the Oxford Compact and you get two definitions:

1. Influencing each other
2. (of a computer or other electronic device) allowing a two-way flow of information between it and a user, responding to the user’s input

The second definition will carry no surprises for digi advertising folk but the first is interesting. Can simply making something interactive make it more influencing?

There's a solid argument to suggest so:

• Numerous studies (especially by Sundar) prove that there is a direct correlation between amount of interactivity and positive appraisal of a website. Basically, more interactive stuff makes people like the site more.
• Secondly, interactivity increases involvement which leads to greater engagement with the site's content. This, in turn, increases scrutiny of the site. People become more focused and form more considered opinions.

So are we saying that if we increase interactivity people will like our stuff more?

Not necessarily. There’s a few things to consider:

• Site vs Content – A positive opinion of a website doesn’t always mean a positive opinion of the actual content. I might think a funky new agency’s website is brilliant but it doesn’t mean I think they have something interesting to say.
• Navigation – What if interacting is a pain in the arse? Sure, there are loads of things I can click, tweak, drag, etc but if it’s too much of a hassle it’s a turn off.
• Cognitive Burden – If I’m using so much of my brain interacting and determining how to best digest the site have I got enough of my little brain left to absorb the actual content properly?

It’s funny really. People claim that more interactivity makes them like the site more. Yet, when it comes down to engaging with the actual content or message of the site there’s less of a correlation. Too little interactivity and no-one wants to get involved, too much and they miss the actual content. ‘Medium’ interactivity seems to be the way forward and results in more positive appraisals.

Of course, getting people to like your content is also dependent on the construction of the message itself not simply on the cleverness of the interactive design. Nonetheless, interactivity has the potential to generate greater involvement and engagement. There must be a sweet spot somewhere.

Finding this ‘sweet spot’ is one of the keys to making successful digi campaigns in my opinion, but it can be tricky. And does this spot change based on type of content (eg entertainment vs news)? Or by gender, relationship with brand (prospect vs advocate), motivation for visiting and so on?

Either way, maybe content isn’t always king after all…

Stupid Google and the Pancake People

I came across a really good Nicholas Carr article during my post-holiday-looking-for-anything-to-avoid-work blues last week. It’s about how Google is changing the way we consume info and had a lot of blogging action already. (Thanks to Amelia for the link.)

The basic principle is that our mind is adjusting to consuming information the way the internet presents it – in short, sharp, interlinked snippets. We quickly scan small chunks of info hopping from page to page in search of that key nugget of information (‘power browsing’). Hyperlinks propel us from site to site where footnotes once suggested further reading, aggregators give a peak at info where “Introductions” once gave an overview and Yahoo Answers lets us cut through the crap altogether and grill a whole community for specific info.

Apparently all of this is obstructing our ability to read and absorb longer texts, full articles and books. The British Library, for instance, noted that people using their online journals and e-books constantly jumped from source to source rarely returning to any text they’d previously visited. They simply “skimmed” a few pages before bouncing to the next article.

Carr points out that, ironically, we may actually be reading more today than we did in the 70s (thanks to SMS messaging, e-mail and the internet) but in a totally different way. “Once we were scubadivers in a sea of words. Now we zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski”. This is even being echoed offline. Since March this year The New York Times has devoted the second and third page of every edition to abstracts of the articles featured.

Way back in the 4th century BC Plato’s character Socrates feared that the development of writing would hinder day to day general knowledge (men would “cease to exercise their memory and become forgetful”). The Gutenberg printing press drew similar concern from Squarciafico (the Italian Humanist) questioning whether the easy availability of books would lead to intellectual laziness. Should we be concerned that the net is making us stupid?

I guess it’s a simple debate of breadth vs depth – we may learn about a whole load of new stuff, just in less detail (although there are exceptions, such as Wikipedia). I mentioned this point a while ago when debating whether ‘integrated clients’ would struggle to review a variety of work from a variety of agencies across a variety of media. Would they become ‘pancake people’ (thinly spread across a broad area)?

What about a ‘pancake agency’? Is a fully integrated agency simply a jack-of-all-trades? A recent report from the University of Chicago Graduate School highlights the so-called “Dilution Effect” (Rory Sutherland touched on this the other week). Put simply, people generally want things to serve more than one purpose, but when said thing accomplishes multiple goals it becomes less associated with the achievement of a single goal. For instance, a laser-pen is great when you want to give a lecture and make notes at the same time, but would you use it just for day-to-day writing? Apparently not. Likewise the gym – it may have started as a great place to exercise but once it also becomes a place to socialise it loses an element of its status as a get fit venue.

So would Fallon, for example, lose some of its reputation for great TV ads if they started doing good DM? And could an integrated client judge it anyway?

Then again, if we were to add a little depth to a well known figure of speech we’d realise that “Jack of all trades, master of none, though ofttimes better then master of one”. Hmm…

Naughty Me

I’ve been a little lax of late (new job, exams, etc, etc) and given that I’m buggering off on holiday tomorrow I thought I should leave at least a token entry to keep my blog momentum up! So here are a couple of things grabbing my attention at the moment…


The Newton Machine
This one’s hit the blogosphere already (thanks to Alex for the link) but the more I think about it, the more I really like it. Basically, TopShop have installed a ‘Newton Machine’ in their Oxford Street store. This ‘machine’ (invented by the German photographer Helmut Newton) is actually just a camera. However, it is set up in a way that allows the model to take the photos themselves (i.e. no photographer needed). The model stands in front of a mirror and holds a small controller that lets them adjust the camera’s timer and flash thus allowing them to perfect their pose before taking the shot. When they’re good to go they simply press a button and take the picture.

Here's its launch in 1972:

Newton’s inspiration was two-fold. Firstly, he recognised that models were usually better at taking photos than their (more often than not) boyfriend photographers. Secondly, it was a middle finger to the controlled and static fashion shoots of his time.

In TopShop, you’re the model. Try on some TopShop clothes and orchestrate your own photo shoot using this Newton Machine. Your pictures are then posted on an online gallery and you get your own A5 paper copy to take home.

More importantly, TopShop have really managed to embrace Newton’s principles and given up a bit of their brand to their customers. Bo**ocks to the static half-dressed mannequins and the engineered instore posters that we put up every month, you show off the clothes you want to wear however you want to show them off. And have fun doing it in the process.

Newton himself claimed that his job was to “seduce, amuse and entertain”, TopShop lets customers do it themselves all under the TopShop brand. Clever. And, if I am allowed to be a little self-indulgent it brings to mind a previous post on Trust and who we consider trustworthy (i.e. "people like ourselves").

Adidas Football – Dream Big
For me, Adidas really gets football. I’ve given them the nod before and their “Dream Big” online campaign is another great example.

I’m guessing it’s come out of their “Impossible is Nothing” stuff but in this campaign Adidas sends some of its top football stars to random ‘local’ destinations to have training sessions with the local teams, all of whom have ‘written’ to Adidas asking for their help. (They’ve dreamt big – get it?) Gerrard, Viera and Beckham hotfoot it to the smallest football league in the world – the Isles of Scilly (only two teams and one football pitch) – taking their Predator boots and merchandise with them whilst the likes of Kaka, Alonso and Fabregas fly out to tiny Andorra to teach youth teams the art of passing with their AdiPure boots.

Each trip is broken into a set of clips that are drip fed onto the site and, despite initial reservations, I reckon they’re really good. (I even get an e-mail letting me know when a new series is out.) They’ve got a real feel of the classic Nike “Parklife” advert which every aspiring Sunday League Player relates to. Maybe I’m being a bit naïve, or maybe it’s just because I’m one of those aspiring Sunday League Players, but I’m hooked nonetheless.

In fact, I’m going to write Adidas a letter…

Public Service Narrrowcasting

Ofcom predicts that by 2012 100% of the UK will have digital multi-channel TV. Despite the current strength of commercial broadcasters such as Sky and Virgin this should actually be great news for Public Service Broadcasters (PSB). Niche channels for niche programmes designed for niche audiences, a real way to satisfy all tastes of our culturally and demographically varied population. Gone are the days of us young city folk liking or lumping the latest topical farming issue on the Archers. We’ll all head to the American version of the Apprentice on our channel instead.

To be fair, multi-channel TV has been around for a while now and there have been some real success stories, especially amongst the sports, movies and generic entertainment channels. But there have also been some losers, most notably the likes of science, nature, classical music and history (the clever stuff you might say). Sadly a nature programme on a nature channel will be lucky to get 1% of the audience it could have received on wide-ranging BBC2.

One could argue that this is natural selection, democracy working at its best, people voting with their index fingers. However, niche channelling is rather anti-PSB. According to Ofcom Public Service Broadcasting has a duty to:

• increase our understanding of the world
• stimulate our knowledge and learning
• reflect our UK cultural identity
• to ensure diversity and alternative viewpoints are represented

Its aim, and indeed its success, is based not just on audience size but also on its schedule range.

David Attenborough, writing for The Times, is in firm support pointing out that the role of PSB is to cater for the whole population, not segregate it – Broad-casting, not Narrow-casting. He supports this argument by suggesting that many people hold ‘allegiances’ with specific PSBs: “the notion that great numbers of people, tired after a hard day's work, come home and flip through 50-odd programme channels to decide what to view is, in fact, largely illusory.”

I’m with Attenborough on this one. As Cowper (the guy who did the “variety is the spice of life quote”) says “The earth was made so various, that the mind of desultory man, studious of change and pleased with novelty, might be divulged”. It is down to our PSBs to do this ‘divulging’ (after all, nearly all of us pay for them).

However, from an advertising perspective niche channels (whether fully commercial or part public), should be the way forward. Greater ability to target audiences, more tailored creative, better media positioning, less wastage, and so on. Yet this is often not the case, if only due to incompetent media buying. As a youngish, laddish, fan of witty banter I’m partial to a bit of Top Gear and Never Mind the Buzzcocks on ‘Dave – The Home of Witty Banter’. I’m less partial to the breast milk and tampon adverts in the breaks though.

Ultimately a wider variety of content can only be good for the consumer but the digital world is asking questions of Public Service Broadcasting and their offerings (note BBC tackling it head on with its iPlayer). As Petrarch said, “Sameness is the mother of disgust, variety the cure”. It will be interesting to see what the cure is in 2012.

Who can you trust? PART 2

I wrote a piece on trust a while back and concluded that companies are more trusted than governments, but the way in which we interact with them is crucial. A couple of weeks later I went to an Acacia Avenue seminar on the topic and decided that I’d only just scratched the surface. Delving deeper was not as easy as first thought.

Even the basic definition of trust is pretty confusing – there are 24 plausible descriptions. But the first (and presumably most read) goes as follows:

“Reliance on the integrity, strength, ability, surety, etc., of a person or thing; confidence.”

This seemed pretty solid and even pays homage to the word’s origin (it comes from a Middle Age game called “tryst” involving one set of villagers chasing a load of rabbits towards a line of club-bearers who, ‘standing in tryst’, would wait for the bunnies to arrive before bopping them dead). However, one key element, featured in other definitions and implied in the game outlined above, is missing – expectation.

This is where trust works for brands. Consumers have an expectation that brands will represent/display certain attributes. They don’t just rely on these qualities, they expect them. Stability from John Lewis (only 4 chairmen in the last 100 years), openness from Pret a Manger (recipes given away online), practising what you preach from Innocent (Fruitstock) and self-confidence from ghd (that one’s from the girls, I don’t actually have any hair to straighten).

Despite this expectation and my previous conclusions a GlobeScan survey on trust in institutions found ‘global companies’ and ‘large national companies’ to score second and third from bottom respectively. In fact, both scored negative ratings whilst ‘armed forces’ topped the table. However, a glance at Edelman’s survey on specific brand trust suggests they are far more trustworthy then the army with Johnson & Johnson, Coca-Cola and Microsoft leading the way!

So what’s going on? The key difference is in the question asked in each survey. GlobeScan measured “Trust in an institutions ability to operate in society’s best interests” whilst Edelman’s focus was simply on “Which brands do you trust”. One concentrates on the community and one on the individual. It pains me to say it, but Thatcher spotted the importance of this difference a while back – “There’s no such thing as society. There are only individual men and women”.

I don’t agree with her sentiments but recognising this difference is essential for the poor performing ‘global companies’. Ultimately people still crave community (think London Marathon, Diana’s funeral, Facebook, reaction to Thatcher’s comment, etc) and it is one of the original pillars of trust. Brands are our bunny-boppers.

So is the trick nowadays to think community/society and not just individual? Perhaps – Coca-Cola and Microsoft are fighting AIDs, HP are saving the forests, everyone's chasing 'green trends', and so on. Maybe we’re not in the age of the individual after all?

Hmm… this may need a Part 3. Until then, I’m sticking with Bob Dylan – “If you want somebody you can trust, trust yourself”.

Daddy, what's a planner?

Whenever there’s been a bad day at the office our creative director has got a great leveller/motivational line:

“It could be worse; we could all be doing real jobs.”

And although it’s meant as a light hearted gag I’ve always thought he’s right, to some degree. Now whether what we do counts as a real job or not is a bigger question. The problem for me is that whilst I find it unproblematic telling my mum the bits about work that make it not a real job, I struggle to actually explain the real job that I do! It’s easy to wax lyrical about the crèche-like atmosphere, table football, well-known brands and boozey lunches, but really difficult to explain what a planner does.

Now, as a planner you’d think this would be easy – a vaguely abstract idea translated into an easy to swallow thought piece. But it’s not. I don’t really know how to explain exactly what I do. It’s a bit like a doctor being the worst patient.

I even looked for advice from the APG and got an even more complex answer listing the variety of characters a planner can play – social anthropologist, brainstorming facilitator, data analyst, think piece polemicist, and so on. None of which are very ‘mum facing’.

I’d like to think that I know what I do (or am at least meant to do), and to be fair there are different types of planners that specialise in different types of fields and that work in very different ways. Yet this is a very ‘inward-facing’ explanation – you get it if you work with planners. However, outside of adland all I end up with is “I do thinky stuff and google a lot” or something vaguely attempting humour (side-stepping the question).

Whilst this plagued me for a while, I’ve decided to give up trying to explain it and have taken a different tact. Rather than think about “What a planner does”, I’ve gone for “Who a planner is”. And I found this (thanks to my boss):

I don’t know who wrote it or where it’s from, but I like it. And in true planning style it distinctly resemble a beer induced back-of-a-fag-packet solution.

So if the client asks, I’m not a planner, I’m an explorer.