Nokia may be eyeing trend-setting consumers in the 16-35 years age group for ‘circular entertainment’ (see my previous post), but in 5 years, 35-year-olds will be over 40 and their lives may revolve around something more important than creating their own entertainment – ‘creating’ being an essential criterion in the phenomenon Nokia is describing.
That’s because most 40-year-olds will be in the middle of their careers, with growing children, and pressures of upward mobility driving their lifestyles. Creating their own entertainment is unlikely to be top-of-mind for them – though, a digital lifestyle is certainly going to be ubiquitous 5 years from today. Most likely, it’ll be the children in the family who will create their own entertainment.
In fact, this is no big discovery. Today, perhaps not children, but trend-setting teens are finding their own ways to entertain themselves. They are sitting on the Internet, downloading stuff, creating pages about themselves, networking with others, and sharing their creations – self descriptions, stories, photos, images, videos, podcasts, comments on other websites, blogs, etc.
They are also on their mobilephones – talking, messaging text, images and videos, sharing ringtones, listening to music or playing games. Even while studying or commuting, they have their iPods or other MP3 players plugged in for music – music which they have downloaded from the Internet or from their friends to create personal playlists.
You won’t find them watching TV half the day like the generation before them used to. Today’s teens are digitally active – participating and creating content for themselves. If I were Nokia looking at future trends, I would study the trend-setting 12-24 year olds today (and not the 16-35 years age group as they did).
15 March 2008
12 March 2008
Circular Entertainment
Late last year, Nokia released an interesting bit of news in the market. That, within the next five years, as much as “25% of entertainment will be created and consumed within peer communities.”
This is no ordinary soothsaying by Nokia, but the result of a global study (by The Future Laboratory, UK) of trend-setting consumers (9,000 consumers aged 16-35 years from 17 countries) and their digital behaviours and lifestyles, investigating the future of (their) entertainment.
According to Mark Selby, Vice President, Multimedia, Nokia, the study, titled A Glimpse of the Next Episode, revealed that “people will have a genuine desire not only to create and share their own content, but also to remix it, mash it up and pass it on within their peer groups – a form of collaborative social media.”
[I remember Apple’s Steve Jobs say something very similar way back in 2000.]
Mr Selby explained, “The content keeps circulating between friends, who may or may not be geographically close, and becomes part of the group’s entertainment.”
Nokia has dubbed this phenomenon ‘circular entertainment’ and is pinning some of its business hopes on it. Having watched Nokia’s N-series advertising all through last year, I’m pretty sure Nokia had wind of this trend much before the study was done.
Perhaps the world is already headed in this direction. Perhaps it’s Nokia’s way of engineering a consumer trend in order to capitalise on future marketing opportunities. Whatever the case may be, ‘circular entertainment’ seems like an inevitability!
You can access the Nokia press release here.
[Citation: Nokia press release, 3 December 2007 – Nokia predicts 25% of entertainment by 2012 will be created and consumed within peer communities.]
This is no ordinary soothsaying by Nokia, but the result of a global study (by The Future Laboratory, UK) of trend-setting consumers (9,000 consumers aged 16-35 years from 17 countries) and their digital behaviours and lifestyles, investigating the future of (their) entertainment.
According to Mark Selby, Vice President, Multimedia, Nokia, the study, titled A Glimpse of the Next Episode, revealed that “people will have a genuine desire not only to create and share their own content, but also to remix it, mash it up and pass it on within their peer groups – a form of collaborative social media.”
[I remember Apple’s Steve Jobs say something very similar way back in 2000.]
Mr Selby explained, “The content keeps circulating between friends, who may or may not be geographically close, and becomes part of the group’s entertainment.”
Nokia has dubbed this phenomenon ‘circular entertainment’ and is pinning some of its business hopes on it. Having watched Nokia’s N-series advertising all through last year, I’m pretty sure Nokia had wind of this trend much before the study was done.
Perhaps the world is already headed in this direction. Perhaps it’s Nokia’s way of engineering a consumer trend in order to capitalise on future marketing opportunities. Whatever the case may be, ‘circular entertainment’ seems like an inevitability!
You can access the Nokia press release here.
[Citation: Nokia press release, 3 December 2007 – Nokia predicts 25% of entertainment by 2012 will be created and consumed within peer communities.]
14 February 2008
Mobilephones will change journalism
With the recent push for citizen journalism by many media houses (print, TV and online), the mobilephone has become an indispensable device for reporting news. However, the mobilephone – with camera, audio, video and uploading/emailing features – has been viewed as an amateur’s attempt at news reporting, and given less credit than the equipment used by professionals in their line of work.
However, all that may be changing soon – according to an article in The Guardian, Forget shorthand – a camera phone is the new tool of the journalist’s trade, by Jeff Jarvis, who is journalism professor at City University of New York. In the article, Prof Jarvis claims that the mobilephone is “the new tool of the journalist’s trade,” and feels it will be an indispensable unit of the journalist’s gear in the future.
Citing Reuters’ mobile journalist (mojo) initiative – used in the World Economic Forum in Davos earlier this month – which equips reporters with the Nokia N82 phone for professional work, Prof Jarvis writes that the N82 mobilephones “are kitted with a wireless keyboard, a miniature tripod, a solar battery and a small microphone – along with all the relevant software to edit and publish multimedia content.”
He suggests, “The portability and discreet look of all-in-one devices, apart from their practicality, also change the relationship between journalists and interviewees…”
To know more about Reuters’ mobile journalist initiative and Jeff Jarvis’ views on using mobilephone technology in journalism, read The Guardian article here.
[Citation: The Guardian, Forget shorthand – a camera phone is the new tool of the journalist’s trade, Jeff Jarvis, 11 February 2008.]
However, all that may be changing soon – according to an article in The Guardian, Forget shorthand – a camera phone is the new tool of the journalist’s trade, by Jeff Jarvis, who is journalism professor at City University of New York. In the article, Prof Jarvis claims that the mobilephone is “the new tool of the journalist’s trade,” and feels it will be an indispensable unit of the journalist’s gear in the future.
Citing Reuters’ mobile journalist (mojo) initiative – used in the World Economic Forum in Davos earlier this month – which equips reporters with the Nokia N82 phone for professional work, Prof Jarvis writes that the N82 mobilephones “are kitted with a wireless keyboard, a miniature tripod, a solar battery and a small microphone – along with all the relevant software to edit and publish multimedia content.”
He suggests, “The portability and discreet look of all-in-one devices, apart from their practicality, also change the relationship between journalists and interviewees…”
To know more about Reuters’ mobile journalist initiative and Jeff Jarvis’ views on using mobilephone technology in journalism, read The Guardian article here.
[Citation: The Guardian, Forget shorthand – a camera phone is the new tool of the journalist’s trade, Jeff Jarvis, 11 February 2008.]
13 February 2008
Robert Redford pitches the 4th screen
“The GSMA continues to take seriously both the business of delivering content and the art of creating content, as they lead the exciting mobile sector into the future.”
– Robert Redford, actor/director/producer
Until recently, I was not aware of Hollywood megastar Robert Redford’s involvement in, and contribution to, the world of mobilephones.
Redford, who, besides his Hollywood role, has been nurturing the independent film and independent filmmakers through his Sundance Film Festival and the Sundance Institute since the early 1980s, has now become a key force in the exploration and promotion of content delivery on the mobilephone.
As I write this post, Robert Redford is at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, Spain, presenting his argument that “the mobile phone is the ‘fourth screen’ – after theater, television and the iPod – extending the reach of movies to new audiences in the global community.”
According to a recent article in EETimes by R Colin Johnson, Robert Redford pitches mobile phone as '4th screen' at confab, Redford believes
“…independent film makers have a unique opportunity to reach new audiences in the global community via their tiny mobile-phone screens. Last year, the Mobile World Congress showcased independent films on mobile phones from the Sundance Film Festival, which is sponsored by the Sundance Institute, of which Redford is founder and president.
This year the Congress invited Redford to participate by keynoting the Mobile Entertainment track within the Congress, where he will address the opportunities for both artists and independent filmmakers to reach mobile-phone viewers worldwide.”
[Citation: Mobile World Congress press release; EETimes article Robert Redford pitches mobile phone as '4th screen' at confab, R Colin Johnson, 11 Feb 2008.]
– Robert Redford, actor/director/producer
Until recently, I was not aware of Hollywood megastar Robert Redford’s involvement in, and contribution to, the world of mobilephones.
Redford, who, besides his Hollywood role, has been nurturing the independent film and independent filmmakers through his Sundance Film Festival and the Sundance Institute since the early 1980s, has now become a key force in the exploration and promotion of content delivery on the mobilephone.
As I write this post, Robert Redford is at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, Spain, presenting his argument that “the mobile phone is the ‘fourth screen’ – after theater, television and the iPod – extending the reach of movies to new audiences in the global community.”
According to a recent article in EETimes by R Colin Johnson, Robert Redford pitches mobile phone as '4th screen' at confab, Redford believes
“…independent film makers have a unique opportunity to reach new audiences in the global community via their tiny mobile-phone screens. Last year, the Mobile World Congress showcased independent films on mobile phones from the Sundance Film Festival, which is sponsored by the Sundance Institute, of which Redford is founder and president.
This year the Congress invited Redford to participate by keynoting the Mobile Entertainment track within the Congress, where he will address the opportunities for both artists and independent filmmakers to reach mobile-phone viewers worldwide.”
[Citation: Mobile World Congress press release; EETimes article Robert Redford pitches mobile phone as '4th screen' at confab, R Colin Johnson, 11 Feb 2008.]
12 February 2008
Bridging the digital divide
From what I’ve read in the Indian media, Sri Dhirubhai Ambani (the late don of the Reliance Group) had said that, with mobilephones, the whole world is in your hands. In fact, at the moment, there’s a Reliance Communications mobile blog ad campaign running which is using these very words of Sri Dhirubhai Ambani as its theme.
To tell you the truth, I do believe that, with 2 billion mobilephone users around the world (that’s double the number of Internet users), the mobilephone will most likely put the power in the users’ hands. Mobilephone users will be able to connect to and reach anyone almost anywhere. Which means, the mobile technology will be able to breakthrough all political, economic, social and cultural barriers to bridge the digital divide that exists with telephones (landlines), computers and the Internet.
To this end, the GSM Association (the global association of GSM mobile technology companies and brands, based in London) is doing everything possible to support the bridging of the digital divide. According to the GSM Association (and I quote from their website),
“The GSMA believe that the promotion of open, competitive market conditions is fundamental to extending the benefits of mobile communications to all, from the most developed Western European markets to remote areas in developing countries. Mobile has a critical role to play in improving health, wealth, education and social mobility.
To ensure that the benefits of mobile communications are understood and available to everyone who needs them, the GSM Association has developed an integrated programme aimed at better identifying the value of mobile communications. As part of its wider ‘Bridging the Digital Divide’ initiative, the GSMA is working to tackle the cost barriers to ownership and address the economic and social benefits related to mobile.
Its work in this area falls into two categories:
The Total Cost of Ownership and Economic & Social Benefits. The ‘Total Cost of Ownership’ takes a 360 degree view of the mobile communications environment. This includes examining how regulation and tax affect the take-up of mobile phones. It also includes work on delivering a lower cost handset to consumers; which is part of the Emerging market handset programme.
The second area in which the GSMA seeks to address the digital divide is in the area of the ‘Economic and Social Benefits of Mobile Communications’. This looks at the role of micro-payments, the function that a mobile phone plays in facilitating disaster relief, relevant studies and the GSMA’s Development Fund.”
In fact, the GSMA’s commitment goes as far as instituting a ‘Bridging the Digital Divide’ category in the annual Global Mobile Awards which recognises achievements in the global GSM mobile technology field.
[Citation: GSM Association website, Bridging the Digital Divide. Global Mobile Awards website, Category 5, Bridging the Digital Divide.]
To tell you the truth, I do believe that, with 2 billion mobilephone users around the world (that’s double the number of Internet users), the mobilephone will most likely put the power in the users’ hands. Mobilephone users will be able to connect to and reach anyone almost anywhere. Which means, the mobile technology will be able to breakthrough all political, economic, social and cultural barriers to bridge the digital divide that exists with telephones (landlines), computers and the Internet.
To this end, the GSM Association (the global association of GSM mobile technology companies and brands, based in London) is doing everything possible to support the bridging of the digital divide. According to the GSM Association (and I quote from their website),
“The GSMA believe that the promotion of open, competitive market conditions is fundamental to extending the benefits of mobile communications to all, from the most developed Western European markets to remote areas in developing countries. Mobile has a critical role to play in improving health, wealth, education and social mobility.
To ensure that the benefits of mobile communications are understood and available to everyone who needs them, the GSM Association has developed an integrated programme aimed at better identifying the value of mobile communications. As part of its wider ‘Bridging the Digital Divide’ initiative, the GSMA is working to tackle the cost barriers to ownership and address the economic and social benefits related to mobile.
Its work in this area falls into two categories:
The Total Cost of Ownership and Economic & Social Benefits. The ‘Total Cost of Ownership’ takes a 360 degree view of the mobile communications environment. This includes examining how regulation and tax affect the take-up of mobile phones. It also includes work on delivering a lower cost handset to consumers; which is part of the Emerging market handset programme.
The second area in which the GSMA seeks to address the digital divide is in the area of the ‘Economic and Social Benefits of Mobile Communications’. This looks at the role of micro-payments, the function that a mobile phone plays in facilitating disaster relief, relevant studies and the GSMA’s Development Fund.”
In fact, the GSMA’s commitment goes as far as instituting a ‘Bridging the Digital Divide’ category in the annual Global Mobile Awards which recognises achievements in the global GSM mobile technology field.
[Citation: GSM Association website, Bridging the Digital Divide. Global Mobile Awards website, Category 5, Bridging the Digital Divide.]
11 February 2008
The ubiquitous mobilephone
We may switch off our TVs and our PCs, or leave them at home or at the workplace when we are done with them, but we can’t leave behind or live without our mobilephones. The mobilephone has become a part of our lives – an electronic appendage that stays with us 24/7.
A rough count says there are 2 billion mobilephone users in the world (that’s almost 1 out of every 3 persons); and, as far as handsets go, 1 billion mobilephones were sold globally last year. That’s a huge market! No wonder marketers view the mobilephone as a great advertising platform – a ‘third screen’, after TV and the PC.
In India, mobilephone users are doubling every 2 years, with an estimated 225 million users today. So, when people say that digital advertising/marketing in India will be built around the mobilephone, I quite agree. After all, the mobilephone is the most ubiquitous and personal of all devices we use today, offering a unique 1-to-1 platform for communication.
Then, why aren’t marketers jumping onto the mobilephone advertising/marketing bandwagon?
They are, but slowly. The biggest obstacle facing marketers is availability of technology – which, of course, keeps improving in leaps and bounds. Technology offers better handsets, faster networks, multimedia options, and targeting software to send customised promotional messages to mobilephone users.
Today, mobilephone users can not only receive broadcasted text messages from advertisers, but also location-based information/offers using GPS, and customised messages based on user demographics through mobile-Internet-brand partnerships. In this context, mobilephone users with Internet access are better advertising targets than the rest of the crowd.
However, the fear of turning off and losing customers, if users view mobile advertising messages as spam, has cautioned mobile service providers (more than brand marketers) from rushing into offering mobile advertising. After all, they have a lot more to lose than brand marketers who advertise on TV or on the Internet.
A rough count says there are 2 billion mobilephone users in the world (that’s almost 1 out of every 3 persons); and, as far as handsets go, 1 billion mobilephones were sold globally last year. That’s a huge market! No wonder marketers view the mobilephone as a great advertising platform – a ‘third screen’, after TV and the PC.
In India, mobilephone users are doubling every 2 years, with an estimated 225 million users today. So, when people say that digital advertising/marketing in India will be built around the mobilephone, I quite agree. After all, the mobilephone is the most ubiquitous and personal of all devices we use today, offering a unique 1-to-1 platform for communication.
Then, why aren’t marketers jumping onto the mobilephone advertising/marketing bandwagon?
They are, but slowly. The biggest obstacle facing marketers is availability of technology – which, of course, keeps improving in leaps and bounds. Technology offers better handsets, faster networks, multimedia options, and targeting software to send customised promotional messages to mobilephone users.
Today, mobilephone users can not only receive broadcasted text messages from advertisers, but also location-based information/offers using GPS, and customised messages based on user demographics through mobile-Internet-brand partnerships. In this context, mobilephone users with Internet access are better advertising targets than the rest of the crowd.
However, the fear of turning off and losing customers, if users view mobile advertising messages as spam, has cautioned mobile service providers (more than brand marketers) from rushing into offering mobile advertising. After all, they have a lot more to lose than brand marketers who advertise on TV or on the Internet.
08 February 2008
Leapfrogging
Going by the phenomenal increase in mobilephone usage in India, where users have doubled in the past 2 years to reach 225 million in number, Netcore CEO Rajesh Jain’s prediction of ‘the future of digital marketing in India being built around mobilephones’ may eventually come true. What may make this possible is the nature of the mobilephone technology.
To begin with, mobilephones do not require their users to be educated or literate. Learning a few simple operations is enough to use a mobilephone. Next, mobilephones do not depend on existing infrastructure such as electricity or wired lines or using the local transport system to travel to a destination. Availability of a mobile network and a ‘charged’ battery is enough.
Furthermore, mobilephones do not limit their users from being rooted to a spot as in basic telephones. On the contrary, mobilephones allow their users the freedom to make and receive calls in the privacy and convenience of their life situations. Very simply, unlike other technologies like computers and the Internet, mobilephones are easy to use.
For emerging economies like India and China, whose progress is stymied by lack of adequate education and infrastructure, this is a great boon. In fact, more than India, the mobilephone technology has really taken over China, which boasts of a user-base of 500 million people – more than double of India’s mobile population and, apparently, equivalent of the whole of Europe’s mobile users.
In India and China, mobilephones seem to have leapfrogged into prominence over better-known technologies such as computers and the Internet. Their widespread use, and growth, seems to have gone so far as to upset a few business predictions and surprise the whole world.
The latest (7 February 2008) edition of The Economist magazine discusses this very phenomenon. Two stories in the magazine are worth reading: The limits of leapfrogging which talks about the absorption and diffusion of new technologies like the mobilephone; and Of internet cafés and power cuts which explains why emerging economies like India and China are better at adopting new technologies than at putting them into widespread use. And, between the two, what this phenomenon may signify in the future.
To begin with, mobilephones do not require their users to be educated or literate. Learning a few simple operations is enough to use a mobilephone. Next, mobilephones do not depend on existing infrastructure such as electricity or wired lines or using the local transport system to travel to a destination. Availability of a mobile network and a ‘charged’ battery is enough.
Furthermore, mobilephones do not limit their users from being rooted to a spot as in basic telephones. On the contrary, mobilephones allow their users the freedom to make and receive calls in the privacy and convenience of their life situations. Very simply, unlike other technologies like computers and the Internet, mobilephones are easy to use.
For emerging economies like India and China, whose progress is stymied by lack of adequate education and infrastructure, this is a great boon. In fact, more than India, the mobilephone technology has really taken over China, which boasts of a user-base of 500 million people – more than double of India’s mobile population and, apparently, equivalent of the whole of Europe’s mobile users.
In India and China, mobilephones seem to have leapfrogged into prominence over better-known technologies such as computers and the Internet. Their widespread use, and growth, seems to have gone so far as to upset a few business predictions and surprise the whole world.
The latest (7 February 2008) edition of The Economist magazine discusses this very phenomenon. Two stories in the magazine are worth reading: The limits of leapfrogging which talks about the absorption and diffusion of new technologies like the mobilephone; and Of internet cafés and power cuts which explains why emerging economies like India and China are better at adopting new technologies than at putting them into widespread use. And, between the two, what this phenomenon may signify in the future.
07 February 2008
Digital marketing: still to evolve in India
Somehow digital marketing hasn’t taken off in India. At least, not in the way one would have expected, considering India’s penchant for the Internet.
According to internetworldstats.com, India had 42 million Internet users in 2007, with a penetration of 3.7%. International Telecommunication Union (ITU), however, pegs the figure much higher at 60 million users as of September 2007, with a 5.3% penetration. Even then, compared to the United States with over 215 million Internet users and a penetration of 71.4% (Nielsen//NetRatings, November 2007), India has a lot to catch up.
And, as far as digital business goes, it’s a dismal picture. According to a recent Exchange4Media article by Rosy Ngaihte covering the India Digital Summit 2008, “spends on Internet advertising in India is just 1.8 per cent.”
What seems to be the problem with digital India? Plenty, if we go by what the market leaders have to say.
The same Exchange4Media article quotes V Ramani, Co-founder and Vice-Chairman of Connecturf, a conglomerate of digital marketing companies in India: “The audience for digital advertising is fragmented and there is low penetration among women, teenagers, language consumers. Also, there is limited geo-targeting and there is no trade exposure.”
Havas Media’s Vishnu Mohan, CEO-APAC, is more hopeful: “There is enormous growth in digital marketing, although it is still in the process of evolution. Digital media as a medium will be a substitution for TV ad sales, but traditional media will continue along side. To enable digital access, the facts and processes need to be addressed better… and along with that clients also need to be educated.”
There’s more. With low ownership of PCs and poor Internet connectivity, digital marketing in India may need to rely on other digital media solutions to prosper. For instance, the mobilephone market may offer a solution for growth. According to Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), India had over 225 million mobile subscribers as of November 2007, or almost a 20% penetration.
[According to the US Federal Communications Commission, as of June 2007, the United States had 243 million subscribers, a 81% penetration.]
Perhaps, that’s where India’s digital marketing business will come from – from mobilephone users (and not the Internet). Almost 2 years ago, I remember Rajesh Jain, CEO Netcore, saying that the future of digital marketing in India will be built around the mobilephone (or words to that effect).
Maybe Mr Jain was right. Maybe it’s too early to tell. Whatever the case may be, as we see it now, India’s digital marketing business is still to evolve into an industry of some reckoning.
[Citation: India Digital Summit 2008: ‘Digital media as a medium will be a substitution for TV ad sales’, article by Rosy Ngaihte, Exchange4Media, 11 January 2008.]
According to internetworldstats.com, India had 42 million Internet users in 2007, with a penetration of 3.7%. International Telecommunication Union (ITU), however, pegs the figure much higher at 60 million users as of September 2007, with a 5.3% penetration. Even then, compared to the United States with over 215 million Internet users and a penetration of 71.4% (Nielsen//NetRatings, November 2007), India has a lot to catch up.
And, as far as digital business goes, it’s a dismal picture. According to a recent Exchange4Media article by Rosy Ngaihte covering the India Digital Summit 2008, “spends on Internet advertising in India is just 1.8 per cent.”
What seems to be the problem with digital India? Plenty, if we go by what the market leaders have to say.
The same Exchange4Media article quotes V Ramani, Co-founder and Vice-Chairman of Connecturf, a conglomerate of digital marketing companies in India: “The audience for digital advertising is fragmented and there is low penetration among women, teenagers, language consumers. Also, there is limited geo-targeting and there is no trade exposure.”
Havas Media’s Vishnu Mohan, CEO-APAC, is more hopeful: “There is enormous growth in digital marketing, although it is still in the process of evolution. Digital media as a medium will be a substitution for TV ad sales, but traditional media will continue along side. To enable digital access, the facts and processes need to be addressed better… and along with that clients also need to be educated.”
There’s more. With low ownership of PCs and poor Internet connectivity, digital marketing in India may need to rely on other digital media solutions to prosper. For instance, the mobilephone market may offer a solution for growth. According to Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), India had over 225 million mobile subscribers as of November 2007, or almost a 20% penetration.
[According to the US Federal Communications Commission, as of June 2007, the United States had 243 million subscribers, a 81% penetration.]
Perhaps, that’s where India’s digital marketing business will come from – from mobilephone users (and not the Internet). Almost 2 years ago, I remember Rajesh Jain, CEO Netcore, saying that the future of digital marketing in India will be built around the mobilephone (or words to that effect).
Maybe Mr Jain was right. Maybe it’s too early to tell. Whatever the case may be, as we see it now, India’s digital marketing business is still to evolve into an industry of some reckoning.
[Citation: India Digital Summit 2008: ‘Digital media as a medium will be a substitution for TV ad sales’, article by Rosy Ngaihte, Exchange4Media, 11 January 2008.]
04 February 2008
$24 billion and growing
Over the past five years, advertising on the Internet and other digital media (video games, mobilephones) has increased substantially. Growth of digital advertising has far out-distanced traditional media (print, TV, outdoor), and continues to accelerate as I write this blog post. According to eMarketer, online ad spend in the United States alone is expected to be $24 billion this year, growing at 22%.
[According to a GroupM forecast, total ad spend in the United States is expected to grow by 3.7% to reach $169 billion this year.]
The rate of growth in digital advertising is not the only thing that is changing. More importantly, what is changing is the way advertising and marketing campaigns are being – and going to be – executed. Delivering personalised marketing messages with accuracy far superior to traditional mass media advertising – made possible by a partnership between creative and technology.
To this end, the Google-Publicis partnership (see my previous post) is no surprise. It has evolved over the past few years, setting its first milestone last year when Publicis bought over Digitas, the largest independent digital ad agency in the world. Soon after, Microsoft bought over aQuantive, the second-largest digital ad agency.
The idea behind such moves is, no doubt, to occupy a dominant position in the digital advertising/media space. And, to me, the strategy seems a cut above traditional ad agencies setting up their own digital advertising divisions. I bet we are likely to see many more collaborations, mergers and acquisitions of the Google-Publicis kind in the days to come.
The good news is that the digital advertising business is large enough, and has the potential, to accommodate everyone. Google-Publicis may now have a ‘first mover’ advantage, but others will soon follow with their own strategies.
[According to a GroupM forecast, total ad spend in the United States is expected to grow by 3.7% to reach $169 billion this year.]
The rate of growth in digital advertising is not the only thing that is changing. More importantly, what is changing is the way advertising and marketing campaigns are being – and going to be – executed. Delivering personalised marketing messages with accuracy far superior to traditional mass media advertising – made possible by a partnership between creative and technology.
To this end, the Google-Publicis partnership (see my previous post) is no surprise. It has evolved over the past few years, setting its first milestone last year when Publicis bought over Digitas, the largest independent digital ad agency in the world. Soon after, Microsoft bought over aQuantive, the second-largest digital ad agency.
The idea behind such moves is, no doubt, to occupy a dominant position in the digital advertising/media space. And, to me, the strategy seems a cut above traditional ad agencies setting up their own digital advertising divisions. I bet we are likely to see many more collaborations, mergers and acquisitions of the Google-Publicis kind in the days to come.
The good news is that the digital advertising business is large enough, and has the potential, to accommodate everyone. Google-Publicis may now have a ‘first mover’ advantage, but others will soon follow with their own strategies.
30 January 2008
The Google-Publicis Partnership
Kevin Heisler’s post on the searchenginewatch.com blog states that “Google’s Tim Armstrong, president North American advertising and commerce, and Penry Price, vice-president of North American sales, with Digitas Chairman and CEO David Kenny will lead the global Google-Publicis partnership.” Thereby, repositioning the role of advertising, and advertising agencies, in the world of business.
But what does the Google-Publicis partnership mean to the world of advertising and business?
As I understand, the attempt is to provide personalised and customised messages to very clearly- and sharply-defined target customers so as to provide higher returns on advertising and marketing spends. It’s something direct marketing agencies have been trying to do for many years, but, somehow, have not been able to achieve the desired result as the right technology has not been available to them.
The Internet, of course, has changed all that. And, although direct marketing agencies, along with others, have made their moves through online advertising and CRM initiatives, traditional advertising agencies, which manage the bulk of media spends, have never really embraced the Internet and its potential. That’s because advertising agencies have (a) been too wrapped-up in their creatives, and (b) not understood technology.
The Google-Publicis partnership is expected to change all that. Mostly in the outlook and the thinking in the professions of advertising and marketing, as well as in the deliverables advertising agencies are accountable for. How will this new partnership strategy work? In a recent Advertising Age article, Publicis, Google Take Things to the Next Level, Abbey Klaassen discusses the new strategy:
“Publicis chief Maurice Levy and Google CEO Eric Schmidt last week outlined a plan to create products to make agency life more efficient. While the statement was ambiguous, it did introduce a plan to exchange talent, embedding Google engineers within media-planning and -buying groups and bringing agency executives to the Googleplex to get a crash course in internet technologies. And while the deal may have been instituted at the holding-company level, it will be implemented among Publicis Groupe’s creative and media shops.”
The article continues to say, “The idea is that certain agency functions -- for example, online-ad trafficking -- could benefit from new technologies to make it more efficient. The talent exchange will not be limited to agencies' online functions but will include offline areas as well, such as spot media, cable TV or radio-ad buying. It also will help Google develop relationships with Publicis creative shops, such as Saatchi or Fallon.”
According to the Advertising Age article, Maurice Levy, chief of Publicis Groupe, views this partnership as a triple win for clients, Google and Publicis, calling it a “collaboration ... based on a shared vision of how new technologies can be used to improve advertising.”
However, not everyone in the industry has welcomed the Google-Publicis partnership. For instance, Sir Martin Sorrell, chief of WPP group, has commented that Google is likely to be a short-term friend and a long-term enemy to Publicis… and to advertising agencies in general. Apparently, Sir Martin had used the term ‘frenemy’ to describe Google.
[Citation: Advertising Age article, Publicis, Google Take Things to the Next Level, dated 28 January 2008, by Abbey Klaassen. Also, Kevin Heisler’s blog post Google NYC and Digitas Lead Google-Publicis Partnership on searchenginewatch.com.]
But what does the Google-Publicis partnership mean to the world of advertising and business?
As I understand, the attempt is to provide personalised and customised messages to very clearly- and sharply-defined target customers so as to provide higher returns on advertising and marketing spends. It’s something direct marketing agencies have been trying to do for many years, but, somehow, have not been able to achieve the desired result as the right technology has not been available to them.
The Internet, of course, has changed all that. And, although direct marketing agencies, along with others, have made their moves through online advertising and CRM initiatives, traditional advertising agencies, which manage the bulk of media spends, have never really embraced the Internet and its potential. That’s because advertising agencies have (a) been too wrapped-up in their creatives, and (b) not understood technology.
The Google-Publicis partnership is expected to change all that. Mostly in the outlook and the thinking in the professions of advertising and marketing, as well as in the deliverables advertising agencies are accountable for. How will this new partnership strategy work? In a recent Advertising Age article, Publicis, Google Take Things to the Next Level, Abbey Klaassen discusses the new strategy:
“Publicis chief Maurice Levy and Google CEO Eric Schmidt last week outlined a plan to create products to make agency life more efficient. While the statement was ambiguous, it did introduce a plan to exchange talent, embedding Google engineers within media-planning and -buying groups and bringing agency executives to the Googleplex to get a crash course in internet technologies. And while the deal may have been instituted at the holding-company level, it will be implemented among Publicis Groupe’s creative and media shops.”
The article continues to say, “The idea is that certain agency functions -- for example, online-ad trafficking -- could benefit from new technologies to make it more efficient. The talent exchange will not be limited to agencies' online functions but will include offline areas as well, such as spot media, cable TV or radio-ad buying. It also will help Google develop relationships with Publicis creative shops, such as Saatchi or Fallon.”
According to the Advertising Age article, Maurice Levy, chief of Publicis Groupe, views this partnership as a triple win for clients, Google and Publicis, calling it a “collaboration ... based on a shared vision of how new technologies can be used to improve advertising.”
However, not everyone in the industry has welcomed the Google-Publicis partnership. For instance, Sir Martin Sorrell, chief of WPP group, has commented that Google is likely to be a short-term friend and a long-term enemy to Publicis… and to advertising agencies in general. Apparently, Sir Martin had used the term ‘frenemy’ to describe Google.
[Citation: Advertising Age article, Publicis, Google Take Things to the Next Level, dated 28 January 2008, by Abbey Klaassen. Also, Kevin Heisler’s blog post Google NYC and Digitas Lead Google-Publicis Partnership on searchenginewatch.com.]
29 January 2008
Accuracy
“Global ad spends on digital media will double by 2010. In the days to come, the spend on digital media would take over spends on TV ads. There will be a shift of economic power from traditional media to new media.”
– Mark Read, Director - Strategy, WPP, and CEO, WPP Digital UK, as quoted in a recent Exchange4Media article on the India Digital Summit 2008
The growth and potential of digital advertising cannot be denied. More and more marketers are moving away from traditional advertising and towards digital. In fact, it’s not just digital advertising which is of consequence to marketers today, but the whole gamut of digital marketing which is changing the way marketers look at advertising and communication – and marketing of their brands.
Today’s digital advertising agencies are capitalising on this change since they understand how to interact with the target customer, tailor messages to suit audience preferences, generate responses, track responses in various ways, and deliver an accurate return on the marketer’s investment. Using state-of-the-art technology, digital advertising agencies are optimising on campaign delivery through real-time targeted online advertising.
The name of the game is accuracy. Accuracy in terms of customer segmentation, customer profiling, creation and delivery of tailored messages, responses elicited and collected from different vantage points, and spends controlled to offer higher returns on investment. This, in turn, helps improve accuracy of marketing and communication strategies. Though, I must say, without the right technology, none of this would be possible.
At the centre of this digital marketing is the customer, not the brand. Thus, traditional brand-centric advertising agencies which have been slow to welcome this change, have fallen prey to newer and smarter digital advertising agencies. Hence, the recent collaboration between Publicis Groupe and Google Inc is a landmark event in the world of advertising and marketing.
– Mark Read, Director - Strategy, WPP, and CEO, WPP Digital UK, as quoted in a recent Exchange4Media article on the India Digital Summit 2008
The growth and potential of digital advertising cannot be denied. More and more marketers are moving away from traditional advertising and towards digital. In fact, it’s not just digital advertising which is of consequence to marketers today, but the whole gamut of digital marketing which is changing the way marketers look at advertising and communication – and marketing of their brands.
Today’s digital advertising agencies are capitalising on this change since they understand how to interact with the target customer, tailor messages to suit audience preferences, generate responses, track responses in various ways, and deliver an accurate return on the marketer’s investment. Using state-of-the-art technology, digital advertising agencies are optimising on campaign delivery through real-time targeted online advertising.
The name of the game is accuracy. Accuracy in terms of customer segmentation, customer profiling, creation and delivery of tailored messages, responses elicited and collected from different vantage points, and spends controlled to offer higher returns on investment. This, in turn, helps improve accuracy of marketing and communication strategies. Though, I must say, without the right technology, none of this would be possible.
At the centre of this digital marketing is the customer, not the brand. Thus, traditional brand-centric advertising agencies which have been slow to welcome this change, have fallen prey to newer and smarter digital advertising agencies. Hence, the recent collaboration between Publicis Groupe and Google Inc is a landmark event in the world of advertising and marketing.
26 January 2008
Digital advertising: collaborating into the future
Earlier this week, Reuters released a story about a collaboration between France’s Publicis Groupe, one of the top four global advertising groups in the world, and Google Inc. If anything, the story defined a possible strategy for the future of digital advertising.
Here’s an extract:
France's Publicis and Web search engine giant Google Inc on Tuesday revealed they were combining their expertise to expand in the fast-growing digital advertising market.
However, the pair did not wish to give details just yet. They would only say that Google would exchange its technological know-how for Publicis's analytical and media planning expertise.
Eric Schmidt, Chairman and CEO of Google, and Maurice Levy, Chairman of Publicis, told journalists the two companies had been cooperating for more than a year.
Maurice Levy said the collaboration would allow Publicis to “grow the business of our clients through better use of the Internet, sending the right message at the right time.”
Read the full Reuters story Publicis, Google reveal digital advertising cooperation here.
Here’s an extract:
France's Publicis and Web search engine giant Google Inc on Tuesday revealed they were combining their expertise to expand in the fast-growing digital advertising market.
However, the pair did not wish to give details just yet. They would only say that Google would exchange its technological know-how for Publicis's analytical and media planning expertise.
Eric Schmidt, Chairman and CEO of Google, and Maurice Levy, Chairman of Publicis, told journalists the two companies had been cooperating for more than a year.
Maurice Levy said the collaboration would allow Publicis to “grow the business of our clients through better use of the Internet, sending the right message at the right time.”
Read the full Reuters story Publicis, Google reveal digital advertising cooperation here.
25 January 2008
Digital has redefined advertising
It’s probably clichéd to say this now, but I’ll say it anyway: the Internet has changed everything. It has redefined our work, our businesses and our lives. From what we want (materially, that is) to when, where and how we want it. Fuelled by the parallel growth in telecommunications, our world is now defined by the digital.
Not so much, perhaps, in the Third World where Internet penetration and ownership of computers as well as basic/mobile telephones are still low, but the phenomenon has definitely changed lives in developed countries. And, along with it, it has changed the way marketers want – or, rather, have – to reach out to their customers and service them.
This, in turn, has put a lot of pressure on traditional media (like print, TV, radio and outdoor), and advertising agencies which rely on them to deliver brand messages, in order to offer digital advertising solutions. Mind you, this change is not just about advertising on the Internet or on the worldwide web, which usually means online advertising. It’s about media becoming digital.
It means that, now, the way we conceive an advertising campaign has to be different. Not only in the way technology has to be used to deliver the messages, but also in the way (a) advertising messages have to be planned and created, and (b) media has to be mixed, negotiated and bought. In short, it means the digital world has redefined the world of advertising.
This obviously requires a change in the way advertising agencies think and do their business. However, if you look around you, you’ll find that most advertising agencies across the world – particularly their creative teams – have remained static. They have neither changed their thinking from traditional to digital media, nor invested in building skills and capabilities to offer digital advertising solutions to their clients.
Is it any wonder that marketers are turning to new media agencies?
Not so much, perhaps, in the Third World where Internet penetration and ownership of computers as well as basic/mobile telephones are still low, but the phenomenon has definitely changed lives in developed countries. And, along with it, it has changed the way marketers want – or, rather, have – to reach out to their customers and service them.
This, in turn, has put a lot of pressure on traditional media (like print, TV, radio and outdoor), and advertising agencies which rely on them to deliver brand messages, in order to offer digital advertising solutions. Mind you, this change is not just about advertising on the Internet or on the worldwide web, which usually means online advertising. It’s about media becoming digital.
It means that, now, the way we conceive an advertising campaign has to be different. Not only in the way technology has to be used to deliver the messages, but also in the way (a) advertising messages have to be planned and created, and (b) media has to be mixed, negotiated and bought. In short, it means the digital world has redefined the world of advertising.
This obviously requires a change in the way advertising agencies think and do their business. However, if you look around you, you’ll find that most advertising agencies across the world – particularly their creative teams – have remained static. They have neither changed their thinking from traditional to digital media, nor invested in building skills and capabilities to offer digital advertising solutions to their clients.
Is it any wonder that marketers are turning to new media agencies?
24 January 2008
The DM disconnect
Not only are advertising agencies inadequate in handling technical and B2B products and services (see my previous post), they also lack sufficient skills in handling direct marketing, or DM. That’s because there are fundamental differences between advertising and DM, which advertising agencies cannot, do not, or are not willing to grasp.
While advertising is about building brands, DM is about building and managing customer relationships.
While the ‘brand’ takes centre-stage in advertising, the ‘customer’ is at the centre of all DM.
While advertising is a one-to-many (typically a B2C) mass-media communication targeted at customer segments, DM is a personalised one-to-one communication targeted at individual customers.
While advertising is a one-way flow of brand information and brand benefits to the customer, DM is a response-driven communication which encourages the customer to participate and interact (and not just be a passive receiver of information).
While advertising washes its hands off after the ads are released in the media, DM takes accountability for every response received (or the lack of it) and every rupee spent on the campaign.
Although DM proves that it works, there is a vital disconnect from the practitioners of advertising who believe that, since it lacks the glamour and the marketing spends of mainline advertising (see here), DM is down market, below-the-line, and not worth their trouble.
While advertising is about building brands, DM is about building and managing customer relationships.
While the ‘brand’ takes centre-stage in advertising, the ‘customer’ is at the centre of all DM.
While advertising is a one-to-many (typically a B2C) mass-media communication targeted at customer segments, DM is a personalised one-to-one communication targeted at individual customers.
While advertising is a one-way flow of brand information and brand benefits to the customer, DM is a response-driven communication which encourages the customer to participate and interact (and not just be a passive receiver of information).
While advertising washes its hands off after the ads are released in the media, DM takes accountability for every response received (or the lack of it) and every rupee spent on the campaign.
Although DM proves that it works, there is a vital disconnect from the practitioners of advertising who believe that, since it lacks the glamour and the marketing spends of mainline advertising (see here), DM is down market, below-the-line, and not worth their trouble.
23 January 2008
The B2B block
A couple of weeks ago, a client of mine with a portfolio of B2B products and services (from one of the leading business houses in India) was lamenting about her advertising agency’s inadequacy in servicing her organisation.
My client stated that, since her organisation’s business was both B2B and technical in nature, her advertising agency did not possess the requisite skills to service her account. That, leaving aside the skills and knowledge needed to do the job, neither her agency’s creative nor the servicing team even showed any willingness to understand the nature of her organisation’s business.
To be fair to the advertising agency, it isn’t always possible to quickly pick up skills and knowledge in technical matters, and churn out amazing advertising campaigns – or sets of sales collateral which are heavy with technical product/service information. After all, an advertising agency’s job is to create great advertising and optimise on the campaign’s media spends, not become a master in every technical product/service it handles.
That is why companies that sell technical products and services need to provide relevant, and sufficient, product/service information and knowledge – and even training – to their advertising agencies prior to expecting any campaign ideas. Unfortunately, too few agencies make this clear to their clients, thereby falling into an expectations trap.
Of course, to be fair to the organisation with its portfolio of technical products and services, this sharing of information and knowledge does happen – though, in the eyes of its advertising agency, it does not happen often enough or sufficiently enough. Hence, while developing communication programmes and sales collateral for its customers and business associates, an organisation with its technical portfolio often runs into serious communication problems with its advertising agency… with one blaming the other.
However, there is one area where advertising agencies falter. And, that is in their lack of understanding of the B2B marketing process. Perhaps because advertising agencies are so wrapped up in campaigns for consumers and consumer products, they have a poor understanding of the B2B selling and decision-making processes. Agencies sometimes refuse to accept that the nature of B2B business is very different from selling directly to a consumer. And that, the B2B communication process may require a different approach.
This makes me wonder if advertising agencies actually have a mental block in creating campaigns for B2B products and services. Perhaps, that’s what my client meant when she spoke of the lack of willingness that her advertising agency showed towards her organisation’s business.
My client stated that, since her organisation’s business was both B2B and technical in nature, her advertising agency did not possess the requisite skills to service her account. That, leaving aside the skills and knowledge needed to do the job, neither her agency’s creative nor the servicing team even showed any willingness to understand the nature of her organisation’s business.
To be fair to the advertising agency, it isn’t always possible to quickly pick up skills and knowledge in technical matters, and churn out amazing advertising campaigns – or sets of sales collateral which are heavy with technical product/service information. After all, an advertising agency’s job is to create great advertising and optimise on the campaign’s media spends, not become a master in every technical product/service it handles.
That is why companies that sell technical products and services need to provide relevant, and sufficient, product/service information and knowledge – and even training – to their advertising agencies prior to expecting any campaign ideas. Unfortunately, too few agencies make this clear to their clients, thereby falling into an expectations trap.
Of course, to be fair to the organisation with its portfolio of technical products and services, this sharing of information and knowledge does happen – though, in the eyes of its advertising agency, it does not happen often enough or sufficiently enough. Hence, while developing communication programmes and sales collateral for its customers and business associates, an organisation with its technical portfolio often runs into serious communication problems with its advertising agency… with one blaming the other.
However, there is one area where advertising agencies falter. And, that is in their lack of understanding of the B2B marketing process. Perhaps because advertising agencies are so wrapped up in campaigns for consumers and consumer products, they have a poor understanding of the B2B selling and decision-making processes. Agencies sometimes refuse to accept that the nature of B2B business is very different from selling directly to a consumer. And that, the B2B communication process may require a different approach.
This makes me wonder if advertising agencies actually have a mental block in creating campaigns for B2B products and services. Perhaps, that’s what my client meant when she spoke of the lack of willingness that her advertising agency showed towards her organisation’s business.
18 January 2008
Not glamorous enough
I often run into confrontations with advertising agencies. Advertising agencies, particularly in India, are so self-absorbed with branding that they overlook a vital tenet of marketing – which is to sell the client’s product. Unless the client’s product sells, no amount of advertising or branding can justify the company’s communication spends. Well, not for very long.
Advertising, though often central to marketing, is only one of the many channels of communication. To sell, a company needs to prepare and use other communication channels as well: product brochures and catalogues, sales presentations, mailers, posters, promotional collateral, technical data sheets, demos, customer lists and testimonials, installation and user guides, etc. This is particularly true for selling engineering or technical products.
However, advertising agencies find these (what they call) below-the-line communication channels not glamorous enough. What's worse, these communication channels don’t command high spends. Plus, they require deeper understanding of the client’s product, customer behaviour, as well as the sales process. Sometimes, they demand faster turnaround times from concept to delivery.
To advertising agencies, these communication channels are too labour-intensive and not remunerative enough. So, they shun away from working on these below-the-line strategies and creatives – and stick to big advertising campaigns. In so doing, I feel, advertising agencies fall short of fulfilling the wider role of marketing. But then, that’s how it has always been.
Advertising, though often central to marketing, is only one of the many channels of communication. To sell, a company needs to prepare and use other communication channels as well: product brochures and catalogues, sales presentations, mailers, posters, promotional collateral, technical data sheets, demos, customer lists and testimonials, installation and user guides, etc. This is particularly true for selling engineering or technical products.
However, advertising agencies find these (what they call) below-the-line communication channels not glamorous enough. What's worse, these communication channels don’t command high spends. Plus, they require deeper understanding of the client’s product, customer behaviour, as well as the sales process. Sometimes, they demand faster turnaround times from concept to delivery.
To advertising agencies, these communication channels are too labour-intensive and not remunerative enough. So, they shun away from working on these below-the-line strategies and creatives – and stick to big advertising campaigns. In so doing, I feel, advertising agencies fall short of fulfilling the wider role of marketing. But then, that’s how it has always been.
17 January 2008
An inherent paradox
Like historians, the marketing/business strategist can draw meaningful conclusions from experiences and data from the past. To do this meaningfully, the strategist needs to keep an open mind; to act like a pioneer exploring unknown territory and, then, arriving at a destination which may not be of her/his choice.
The job can be tricky. Experience and data reveal the past; drawing conclusions lead to the future. The tasks are opposite in direction. One task requires investigation; the other, invention. It’s as if a paradox is inherent in the job of the strategist.
Moreover, as the strategist works in the present, s/he has to manage the participation of the team members at work on the project, as well as the politics that governs them. This is not always easy.
When people come together on a project, they bring with them their past experience and their current concerns, both as individuals as well as members of corporate/business teams. They bring into the project their egos, insecurities, personal interests and commitments that may transcend the problem at hand.
Yet, these people determine the shape and the outcome of the project. Sometimes discretion, or withholding proprietary information, or just plain ignorance may prevent an otherwise acceptable solution from being considered.
This, too, is a paradox inherent in the job of the strategist.
The job can be tricky. Experience and data reveal the past; drawing conclusions lead to the future. The tasks are opposite in direction. One task requires investigation; the other, invention. It’s as if a paradox is inherent in the job of the strategist.
Moreover, as the strategist works in the present, s/he has to manage the participation of the team members at work on the project, as well as the politics that governs them. This is not always easy.
When people come together on a project, they bring with them their past experience and their current concerns, both as individuals as well as members of corporate/business teams. They bring into the project their egos, insecurities, personal interests and commitments that may transcend the problem at hand.
Yet, these people determine the shape and the outcome of the project. Sometimes discretion, or withholding proprietary information, or just plain ignorance may prevent an otherwise acceptable solution from being considered.
This, too, is a paradox inherent in the job of the strategist.
16 January 2008
Why is it so?
In my work as a marketing and business strategist, history plays an important role. Not history in general, but the history of the brand or business I am assigned to work on.
Unfortunately, my clients, in their hurry to get on with the project – which is, typically, to formulate a strategy to take the next steps in their marketing initiatives – almost always overlook the history that precedes the marketing problem at hand. They feel what’s done is done. They need to save the day by jump-starting onto the future. That’s because, with competitors edging in, time is of essence.
But, getting the facts right is important too. Facts related not only to the sales performance of the brands in question (after all, generating revenue is critical in business), but also to the events and the decisions which have led to the problem or situation the brand/business is in right now. Analysing these facts is important as they lead not only to better understanding of the project in hand, but also to sudden discoveries and solutions.
Sometimes, asking a simple question like ‘why is it so?’ can lead to solutions. This was pointed out to me, when I was in school, by an American physicist called Julius Sumner Miller, through his educational programmes on ABC TV (i.e. on Australian Broadcasting Corporation). Professor Miller used to insist on going back to the sources, breaking things down to their basics, and then thinking one’s way back into the problem.
Professor Miller used to say that this method was more fun, if not effective, as it involved the imaginative exercise of suspending one’s knowledge of how things turned out, so as to recreate the possibilities which might still be open to the scientist.
For marketing strategists, this learning and practice are invaluable. When working on a marketing problem, we need to know what the choices and possibilities were at a given time. We need to know why a particular strategy was adopted, and why others were not. We need to know what went through the minds of the people when they formulated and adopted a specific strategy to bring us where we are today.
In marketing, as much as in science or history (see my previous posts), asking ‘why is it so?’ is critical to finding solutions to current problems. That’s because, in marketing, as it is in science and history, a strategy/solution once adopted in the past can easily mask, or undervalue, the original problem of the brand or business. Thereby, misleading marketing strategists in their work.
Unfortunately, my clients, in their hurry to get on with the project – which is, typically, to formulate a strategy to take the next steps in their marketing initiatives – almost always overlook the history that precedes the marketing problem at hand. They feel what’s done is done. They need to save the day by jump-starting onto the future. That’s because, with competitors edging in, time is of essence.
But, getting the facts right is important too. Facts related not only to the sales performance of the brands in question (after all, generating revenue is critical in business), but also to the events and the decisions which have led to the problem or situation the brand/business is in right now. Analysing these facts is important as they lead not only to better understanding of the project in hand, but also to sudden discoveries and solutions.
Sometimes, asking a simple question like ‘why is it so?’ can lead to solutions. This was pointed out to me, when I was in school, by an American physicist called Julius Sumner Miller, through his educational programmes on ABC TV (i.e. on Australian Broadcasting Corporation). Professor Miller used to insist on going back to the sources, breaking things down to their basics, and then thinking one’s way back into the problem.
Professor Miller used to say that this method was more fun, if not effective, as it involved the imaginative exercise of suspending one’s knowledge of how things turned out, so as to recreate the possibilities which might still be open to the scientist.
For marketing strategists, this learning and practice are invaluable. When working on a marketing problem, we need to know what the choices and possibilities were at a given time. We need to know why a particular strategy was adopted, and why others were not. We need to know what went through the minds of the people when they formulated and adopted a specific strategy to bring us where we are today.
In marketing, as much as in science or history (see my previous posts), asking ‘why is it so?’ is critical to finding solutions to current problems. That’s because, in marketing, as it is in science and history, a strategy/solution once adopted in the past can easily mask, or undervalue, the original problem of the brand or business. Thereby, misleading marketing strategists in their work.
14 January 2008
How it all turned out
I often wonder what India was like in the past. I wonder how India, whose boundaries stretched from Baluchistan to Burma, shrank over the years to become what she is today. I wonder why India was invaded so many times – by Arabs, Moghuls, Pathans, Huns, Sakas, Greeks, etc. – and yet, the people of India never ventured out of her boundaries to invade and conquer other lands.
I wonder why, even though written records were maintained as early as 3rd century BC, there is so little documentation of our history before the Muslims came into our country in the 12th century AD. Or, did the Muslims come into India 400-odd years before that when Muhammad ibn Qasim entered Sind? I guess that’s a part of Pakistan’s history now, not ours.
I wonder if, originally, India was a Hindu state, does it mean that, in view of all the invasions and colonisations, we have actually been under ‘foreign rule’ for the past 1,500 years or so… until our Independence in 1947? And, I wonder if a concept that is built on the idea of ‘breaking away from foreign rule to re-build a Hindu state’ will influence the politics of our country now?
One of the reasons why many of us don’t pay attention to history is the fact that we know how it all turned out. It’s written in our books. We can see some of it right before our eyes. Our present is a proof of what happened in history. And, considering our preoccupation with the present, and plans for the future, we can’t be bothered all that much by the past.
And yet, so much of our present, and our plans for the future, are actually rooted to our past. We are the way we are because of what happened before us. If we examine our past, perhaps, we can have a better understanding of our present – and make better plans for our future. It’s not just ‘how’ it all turned out that should matter to us. It should also matter ‘why’ it turned out the way it did.
I wonder why, even though written records were maintained as early as 3rd century BC, there is so little documentation of our history before the Muslims came into our country in the 12th century AD. Or, did the Muslims come into India 400-odd years before that when Muhammad ibn Qasim entered Sind? I guess that’s a part of Pakistan’s history now, not ours.
I wonder if, originally, India was a Hindu state, does it mean that, in view of all the invasions and colonisations, we have actually been under ‘foreign rule’ for the past 1,500 years or so… until our Independence in 1947? And, I wonder if a concept that is built on the idea of ‘breaking away from foreign rule to re-build a Hindu state’ will influence the politics of our country now?
One of the reasons why many of us don’t pay attention to history is the fact that we know how it all turned out. It’s written in our books. We can see some of it right before our eyes. Our present is a proof of what happened in history. And, considering our preoccupation with the present, and plans for the future, we can’t be bothered all that much by the past.
And yet, so much of our present, and our plans for the future, are actually rooted to our past. We are the way we are because of what happened before us. If we examine our past, perhaps, we can have a better understanding of our present – and make better plans for our future. It’s not just ‘how’ it all turned out that should matter to us. It should also matter ‘why’ it turned out the way it did.
10 January 2008
What were they thinking?
There’s something about knowledge, or learning, that fascinates me. It’s the fact that once something new is known, or learnt – i.e. once something new becomes old news, or obvious, or standard practice – that new learning becomes the lowest denominator of our knowledge. We no longer rely on the old knowledge. The new knowledge replaces the old and becomes second nature to us… as if we knew it all along. We quickly forget what it was like not to know what we know now.
Does this sound confusing? Well, let me try to explain.
Today, most of us are very familiar and comfortable with mobilephones. The mobilephone is as much a part of our lives as, say, a wristwatch is. We had telephones before this, but they didn’t quite cut it. When we were on the move, we couldn’t use our telephones we had at home or at work. We needed a communication device which was smaller, lighter, wire-free… portable. With advancement in science, technology and telecommunications, the mobilephone solved our problem.
But now that our problem of talking over distances while on the move is solved by a mobilephone, it is difficult for us to think about our old problem in the old way. What was once unknown to us has now become obvious – a fact of life. What had once tested our ingenuity and skill is now known even to a child… thanks to the collaborative efforts of many skills, technologies and disciplines of knowledge.
This phenomenon of knowledge transfer affects not only the immediate past (with reference to mobile telecommunications), but the distant past as well. Today, when historians dig into our past to determine what happened, say, 2000 years ago, they use their current knowledge base and their modern tools. But, couldn’t this be a faulty approach to determine how life was 2000 years ago and how human civilisation progressed over the years?
Shouldn’t history be put into its context – in that specific period in time – when both ideas and civilisation developed from what men and women knew then (and not from what they know now)? Shouldn’t history be focusing on what men and women were thinking then – and what they were doing then to improve their lives? Shouldn’t historians be focusing on what was possible then – on what was imagined, and practiced, by men and women then?
If historians have to invent, to fictionalise, their narratives, they might as well get their contextual framework right. Using modern knowledge and modern technology may not be the right approach.
Does this sound confusing? Well, let me try to explain.
Today, most of us are very familiar and comfortable with mobilephones. The mobilephone is as much a part of our lives as, say, a wristwatch is. We had telephones before this, but they didn’t quite cut it. When we were on the move, we couldn’t use our telephones we had at home or at work. We needed a communication device which was smaller, lighter, wire-free… portable. With advancement in science, technology and telecommunications, the mobilephone solved our problem.
But now that our problem of talking over distances while on the move is solved by a mobilephone, it is difficult for us to think about our old problem in the old way. What was once unknown to us has now become obvious – a fact of life. What had once tested our ingenuity and skill is now known even to a child… thanks to the collaborative efforts of many skills, technologies and disciplines of knowledge.
This phenomenon of knowledge transfer affects not only the immediate past (with reference to mobile telecommunications), but the distant past as well. Today, when historians dig into our past to determine what happened, say, 2000 years ago, they use their current knowledge base and their modern tools. But, couldn’t this be a faulty approach to determine how life was 2000 years ago and how human civilisation progressed over the years?
Shouldn’t history be put into its context – in that specific period in time – when both ideas and civilisation developed from what men and women knew then (and not from what they know now)? Shouldn’t history be focusing on what men and women were thinking then – and what they were doing then to improve their lives? Shouldn’t historians be focusing on what was possible then – on what was imagined, and practiced, by men and women then?
If historians have to invent, to fictionalise, their narratives, they might as well get their contextual framework right. Using modern knowledge and modern technology may not be the right approach.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
