The Long and Winding Road – Gamesmanship of Shopping – Snapshot

In the past few years, new digital tools have led to a renewed energy about shopping that ultimately benefits consumers and brands. The growth of online tools like social networks, the mobile web and coupon sites have transformed shoppers from passive recipients of information — merely taking in communication from marketers — to active creators and distributors of product information and opinions.

Consumers have become an integral part of the process and are having fun with it. This has led to a new shopping mindset that is analogous to playing a game. The result for advertisers is a shopping landscape that is more complicated but provides a wealth of opportunities. How can marketers influence purchase behavior in this new shopping paradigm and where in the purchase path they can leverage new tools?

Yahoo! and Universal McCann partnered to help marketers understand the new dynamics in the path to purchase so they can use digital media more efficiently to engage shoppers.

Click the link above to download.

All three concurred that the industry as a whole needs to do a better job of recruiting and developing top talent, with Sorrell noting that the current trend of simply poaching talent from competing agencies is counterproductive to grooming future leaders. Roth chimed in and agreed, but also pointed out that IPG has made diversity a major priority. Sorrell countered by repeatedly asking Roth if there was a Chief Talent Officer on the IPG board and then stated that he felt the holding companies were simply “paying lip service” to the issue. Roth quickly responded: “Maybe you are, but we’re not.”

On the subject of the holding company format, all three executives agreed that acquisitions will remain an important part of the future, though they all stated a preference for more organic, internal growth. Technological and digital advances were also a focal point, with Wren stating that he anticipates a total integration of traditional and digital marketing within two years, doubting that agencies will still have Chief Digital Officers at that time. Roth shared a similar perspective when he stated that digital must be ingrained into the DNA of all parts of the business, but he felt the opportunity for specialists and digitally-focused agencies would likely remain.

The discussion ended with the three sharing their views on what role clients can play in the fostering of stronger relationships. Wren pleaded with clients to trust the agencies and frankly suggested that they should “pat someone on the back instead of prying $5 from their wallets.” In a rare moment of agreement, Sorrell stated that praising agencies when they do good work goes a long way in improving morale. Roth opined that both sides get the most out their symbiotic relationship when they view each other as partners with common goals.

After the CEO panel was a one-on-one interview with Miles Nadal, Founder, Chairman, & CEO of MDC Partners Inc. He followed up on the above discussion by stating that he believes the role of the CEO is synonymous with Chief Talent Officer, and he shared his views on the underestimated impact of social media and being accountable to clients who are seeking a return on the investments they make with their agency partners.

The second half of the morning’s program kicked off with a panel on television programming, with executives from AMC, History and Lifetime Networks, and Science Channel and Animal Planet discussing the future of what is still the biggest and most important screen that advertisers use to reach consumers. All felt that the use of social media to connect with viewers changes the game, though Nancy Dubuc (History and Lifetime) said that a show’s potential social media reach doesn’t determine whether or not it will be green-lighted. The importance of Netflix and streaming video services was also touched upon, though Charlie Collier (AMC) said, “we don’t’ dive in for the pennies,” with Dubuc agreeing that the main focus remains on TV screens and Nielsen ratings.

Geomentum CEO Sean Finnegan took part in a discussion on mobility and place-based business models, focusing on how local marketing is being transformed by emerging platforms. On the topic of new engagement standards, Finnegan stated that the universe of new technologies has added measurement complexity; however, Geomentum continues to focus on the most important metric to its clients: sales and business results.

Next was an eye-opening look at the present and future of gaming as presented by Ken Simon from Microsoft, a UM client. He took attendees through a close look at the “war for the living room,” providing staggering numbers on the reach, ever-expanding scope of the gaming target audience through innovations such as Kinect, and innovative means advertisers can use to appeal to consumers.

The day’s last discussion centered around new advertising guidelines, particularly as it pertains to digital marketing. All speakers agreed that it is of the utmost importance for the advertising industry to properly police itself in this realm, or run the risk of the federal government intervening and constructing strict guidelines that could limit the effectiveness of targeted marketing.

Transformation 2011 provided opportunities to think about the present and future states of the media, advertising, and marketing worlds, and IPG, Mediabrands, and their affiliated agencies were crucial to the discussion.
Special thanks to Jonathan Nierman at Mediabrands for this recap. Check out Mediabrands online at www.facbeook.com/mediabrands

After some opening remarks by 4A’s representatives, the action immediately kicked off with an in-depth conversation with Keith Weed, CMO & CCO of Unilever, an Initiative client. He spoke at length about how digital technology in particular has changed the game, noting that there’s so much going on, marketers can literally make things up on the fly. He gave an advertiser’s viewpoint on the need of the industry to evolve, removing the classifications between traditional and digital marketing to empower brands with the ability to connect with consumers through multiple channels simultaneously. Weed also commented on dealing with conflict between advertisers and agencies, sharing his opinion that the most fruitful relationships often are those that are the most enduring. He even stated that “everyone has failed” if an advertiser feels the need to walk away from an agency partner and begin anew elsewhere.

Fareed Zakaria, Editor-at-Large of Time Magazine and CNN on-air personality, then took the podium for a fascinating look at how events are transforming the world. He cited three big trends in particular: political stability around the world thanks to the end of the cold war, the extraordinary level of economic convergence globally and the resiliency of the worldwide economy, and technology and connectivity linking people together virtually in real time. He ended his remarks with the poignant opinion that the USA “globalized the world, but that it has forgotten to globalize itself.”

Robert Groves, Director of the U.S. Census Bureau, took the stand next, leading attendees through some of the most interesting findings from the data collected in 2010. He pointed out that while the U.S. population continues to rise, its growth has slowed significantly. However, foreign-born residents are flooding into the U.S. at astronomical rates. Marketers in the room were certainly taken aback by some of the figures he presented, but the changing face of America is also a huge opportunity for the growth of brands.

UM’s Jacki Kelley then took part in a discussion on communication planning, verbally sparring with other members of the panel and drawing applause when pointing out that some agencies, such as UM, are already leading the communications planning charge and being compensated based on results, as opposed to impressions or other outdated measurement metrics. Kelley also remarked that listening to client partner insights is crucial when developing communications and overall marketing plans, a fact she has learned from sitting on both sides of the client/agency table.

Immediately following that breakout session, Mediabrands Chief Digital Officer Quentin George helped spearhead a lively discussion on improving targeted marketing, stating that it makes advertising more relevant for consumers and more efficient for brands. Yet, he also noted that targeted marketing is an augmentation – not a replacement – for traditional media planning, as this highly-specified way of appealing to consumers is still in its infancy. Many issues – most notably privacy – are still being worked out both by the industry and governing bodies such as the FCC.

Much more is going on Wednesday, including a panel discussion on agency and advertiser collaboration featuring holding company CEOs Michael Roth (IPG), Martin Sorrell (WPP), and John Wren (Omnicom). Mediabrands Communications will bring you the highlights on Thursday.

Special thanks to our Mediabrands reporter, Jonathan Nierman, for this recap. Check out Mediabrands on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/mediabrands

For years, we’ve gotten used to building up our loyalties around one side or the other of the major players in the digital game. Are you a PC or a Mac? Do you use Google or Bing?

But in this time of ever-overlapping mobile, TV, search, and social worlds, rivalries are no longer so clearly defined—it’s not search vs. search, or hardware vs. hardware. It doesn’t really matter that Apple and Google are companies that manufacture totally different products—they are competitors because they share the same consumers, expansive aims, and innovative mentality. Ditto Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, Verizon, and other digital products that you use on a regular basis. In 2010, it’s all about partnerships, staying relevant, and looking forward.

With this said, any digital partnership should really be evaluated on the basis of not just what it means for the consumer, but what it means for the companies that have been excluded from the partnership. And it is through this lens that we examine the latest: Bing and Facebook, together at last.

A partnership between Bing and Facebook is good for both of them, mostly because it excludes Google. Google has made it clear that they are looking to expand into the social space. It makes competitive sense for Facebook to expand into the search space. And put simply, it’s much easier to expand into search than it is to expand into social, since creating a pervasive social network on Facebook’s scale is nearly impossible. This partnership was a good business decision.

What does this mean for the consumer? Well, let’s stop and think about the importance of search. For most web users, search is the internet. Search is our digital transportation system – the road that gets us where we need to go on the internet.

Bing is very much the number 2 player in the search game. Though Bing has constantly proven itself to be more innovative in search than Google (even forcing Google to play catch up with features in image search, and on their homepage…) it’s hard to usurp a company that has become so integrated into our habits. Google has recently made headlines by integrating Twitter results into its search. But by partnering with the socially-dominant Facebook, Bing takes the “social-search” concept to another level. Clearly, if social search is appealing to you, Bing is the way to go. Your friends’ “likes” will pop up if you search for “restaurant in the East Village,” and who wouldn’t want that, right?

Um, we guess. There’s something about search that seems like it should be objective, even if it’s not. If search is a roadmap to the internet, shouldn’t it quietly point you in this direction or that one, without your entire social network standing jumping and cheering you over to the right?

Maybe we’re overreacting. Your search results will otherwise stay the same, we assume, and with SEO fully in place, it’s not like search was ever really an objective roadmap. Search has always been “smart.” And if your Facebook friends are people whose opinion you trust, your search just got smarter.

I’ve been fascinated by the recent publicity around The Gap and their new logo. They have decided to scrap the new logo and return to the original branding, largely due to the volume of negative buzz surrounding the change.  As I read the reports, I started to think back to the infamous launch of New Coke from the 80s, as well as several more recent back-tracks, from the new packaging for Tropicana to the recent change in the packaging for Sun Chips.

My first reaction was that while there is a clear trend here of brands reacting to consumer feedback, the reasons cited for the negative feedback have become increasingly disconnected from the actual product experience. When New Coke was pulled from the shelves, it was because of a perceived issue with the actual taste of the product. Contrast that with the recent Sun Chips uproar – over the noise the package makes! Nothing to do with the actual product itself!  Even the logo for The Gap clearly has no relationship to the store experience or the products sold! What is going on here?

What’s happening here is the continual rise in the power of the consumer. UM’s recently-launched Wave 5 survey has been tracking the explosion of social media and the associated power that it places in the hands of consumers since 2006. The most recent data reinforces the tremendous opportunity – and risk – that this provides brands. Consumers are actively looking for an ongoing relationship with brands, and the data clearly shows that when they have this relationship, there are enormous positive benefits for brands.

However, the examples above illustrate the double-edged nature of this transfer of power. The reality moving forward is that consumers will be more and more vocal about all aspects of brands – not just the actual brand experience – and brands need to  accept and embrace this. This all raises some fascinating questions around the role of measurement and research in new product development and brand evolution. I am guessing that a volumetric risk assessment of the negative PR impact was not always conducted in the examples above before decisions to reverse course were made.  Did The Gap forecast a significant negative sales impact if they continued with the new logo? Did Sun Chips have strong evidence that the overly loud bag would stop people buying them?

In this ever-expanding world where consumers and brands engage in a lively dialog and consumers wield power for both good and evil, the brand impact needs to be measured, forecast, and factored into every major marketing decision.

Whether it’s buying a car, choosing a financial services provider, or deciding whether to buy a Mac or a PC, everyone relies on other people to help.

Depending on the category, and the exact nature of the target, somewhere north of 50% of people say the most important influence on their final decision is family and friends,  96% say they take their friends and family’s opinion into account.

While friends and family used to influence one another face to face, this is changing.  Face time is declining – between 2005 and 2009 shared family time dropped 30%. [1]  There are a lot of reasons for this – economic stress means that people who are working often have to work harder, or to travel farther to find work. People are working farther from home – Among transplants, 40% say that the place they consider home is not where they currently live. [2]  But they are still staying in touch, and they are still helping one another make purchase decisions.

This is not exactly new news. In fact, it’s so obvious that when we put marketing plans together we ignore it.

The change is not what, but how

When we look at how people are making purchasing decisions – the process is still the same. If anything, the groups of people collaborating on a decision are bigger than ever – crossing geography, nuclear and step families, and generations. They gather information, share it, discuss and decide. What’s changed is not what they do; it’s how they do it.

People are still making decisions within networks that share information and discuss it, but these days the networks are tied together with digital media, rather than just face to face communication. This presents two opportunities for marketers:

1. A channel opportunity: Digital media – Social media, IM, Email, text messages, pictures sent via the mobile web, just as a start.
2. A targeting opportunity: There is a relatively stable cast of characters across decision making networks:

• A doer – the person who actually gathers the information, and from a marketers point of view, becomes the lead
• A catalyst – the person who has the idea for whatever needs to be done. Whether buying a second home, or vacationing in the tropics
• A professional friend – a friend who works in the industry who can advise on the pros and cons of the various options being considered
• A cheerleader – Someone who provides emotional support for the decision

The implication for marketers

The mistake that most marketers make is in focusing their marketing efforts on the doer alone. Because the decision making network is held together by digital media, and because the different players in the network want different types of content  – we hypothesize that by programming  content discretely to the players in the decision-making network we can increase the overall efficiency of a client’s marketing efforts.

We’ll be testing this hypothesis in some upcoming client engagements, and will post again on what we find. In the meantime, if you’d like more information, take a look at the studies below.

[1] Source: USC Annenberg School digital future project

[2] Source Pew Social & Demographic Trends survey

This was the question taken up Thursday afternoon by the Advertising Week panel “Judges’ Choices: Effie Winners that Stood out and Why.” The small panel was moderated by Matt Seiler, CEO of UM and Chairman of Effie Worldwide, and the relatively intimate setting allowed for a bit more interaction than we are used to at Advertising Week. And although we would love to say that it was interaction with the audience that made this panel the best one yet, we’re not going to give ourselves that credit.

Throw five intelligent, self-aware, and creatively-driven people on a stage and engage them in a dialogue and you’re bound to come out with some marketing principles to live by. This panel rarely felt like we were eavesdropping on the behind-the-scenes conversation of the Judges at the Effies, because it wasn’t consensus that the panelists were aiming for. It was intelligent, skeptically-productive dissent. Every time one of the Judges came to a well-stated, evidence-supported conclusion, another piped in with an equally pointed piece of wisdom with which to temper it.

Enough. Let’s talk about what they said. Seiler suggested that each of the judges come prepared with a favorite case study from the Effies. They were to describe the case study, play the video, and explain why it worked. After the individual presentations, the audience would vote on their favorite. Here were the judge’s selections:

Ilana Bryant, Global Chief Strategy Officer at StrawberryFrog, presented the case study for Earth Day: http://www.effie.org/winners/showcase/2010/4616.

Todd Cuningham, SVP, Strategic Insights and Research at MTV, presented the Ford Fiesta Movement video: http://www.effie.org/winners/showcase/2010/4279

Mark D’Arcy, President and CCO of Time Warner Global Media Group, spotlighted the partnership between CNN and Facebook that allowed viewers to watch the 2009 Obama inauguration live: http://www.effie.org/winners/showcase/2010/4578

Shiv Singh, Head of Digital for Pepsico, presented the 2010 Grand Effie winner, the “I’m in” Campaign for the Detroit Public Schools: http://www.effie.org/winners/showcase/2010/3956

The judges then went on to describe what they liked about each other’s favorite entries: what they thought worked, what they thought could be replicated. Media ideas that break convention, no-bullshit presentation, avoidance of buzzwords, leaving out what doesn’t matter, a clearly-stated objective – these were all strategies that achieved the judges’ unanimous support. But a spirited conversation was sparked by the observation of what appeared to be a trend in the winners: campaigns that spurred social movements.

Citing the Ford Fiesta Movement, the Earth Hour campaign, and the Detroit Public Schools “I’m in” campaign, the judges suggested that “going forward, great media campaigns should always be thinking on a movement level.” Seiler observed that these days, marketing effectiveness is measured by whether people are actual doing something – action is required. Bryant brought up that “people are looking for a movement in the sense of a community.” It is for this reason that cause marketing and social media-focused marketing have become popular awards winners simultaneously: the judges agreed that “doing good” has emerged as a theme behind “movement marketing,” and “movement marketing” in 2010 is all about taking advantage of social media.

But D’Arcy brought up a savvy counterpoint: the “bullshit threshold” of the public is creeping steadily higher with every movement-level campaign. Brands must remain meaningfully engaged in what they are professing to the people, lest they get caught in their audience’s “spam filter.” Singh jumped in to join a conversation he’s no doubt had many times about the Pepsi Refresh campaign. “Meaningful deeper impact is what really matters,” he said; 1.3 million dollars to social causes can’t be argued with. Cunningham added that it was all about authenticity, and campaigns supporting a brand’s real identity. “Companies are under full transparency now. Start with what your brand is about, and then align with it.”

Over and over, the judges found themselves referring the Dove campaign for Real Beauty—an exceptional example of cause-marketing, but a campaign that lacked the community-driven “social” component that is now required in 2010. One wonders what that campaign would look like if it was launched today. Might its message ultimately be weighed down by focus on tweets and mobile-app readiness?

Throwing around the idea of cause-marketing-based social movements had all the judges talking past the set end time. Bryant closed the conversation: “Not all movements are cause-marketing based,” she reminded the audience. “They’re just culturally relevant.” She reminded us of the movement that got Betty White on SNL. “Think above your product. But it doesn’t have to save the world.”

There were a few common threads that came to the forefront, one of which was sparked by this question: How do your companies (or clients, if you look at it from the agency side) determine how to get the most out of their social media outreach? What kind of agencies are leading the way, and how do you make that determination? The simple answer was that nobody yet has really taken the lead. All agreed that collaboration among agencies is currently the best way to achieve results, plucking the best ideas from wherever they spring. Pepsico, Microsoft, and Ford all commented that it’s a team effort to reach a common goal.

And just what is that holy grail of an idea? Simply put, it’s anything that results in organic consumer engagement.

Ruxin pointed out that approaching social media as a stand-alone content channel is the best way to succeed. Reading a Facebook news feed is content. Following someone on Twitter is content. Those channels actually can help consumers follow other media as well, as they then get access to the content that their friends and social networks are connecting to, in addition to the content they consume firsthand. It’s a web of information that is begging to be shared, and it is content that now competes with traditional media such as television and print. Ruxin later pointed out that the social media campaigns that work are those that aren’t forced. Genuine engagement goes a long way, but users can smell it when marketing is being shoved in their faces, and they often respond by not responding.

The social media sphere is still a work in progress. For agencies, the key is to stay as far ahead of the game as possible and to get on board quickly when the train is leaving the station. As more pieces of the puzzle are revealed, the picture will become increasingly clearer.