Just after Mumbrella360 last year I first met Darren Woolley over a coffee. 12 months later our photos were on the front cover of the Mumbrella360 conference guide sandwiching David Gyngell as we promoted our State of the Media session where we presented results of a joint industry survey…

The idea for the State of the Media industry survey came about through several conversations where we shared very similar and passionate colleague feedback regarding the ongoing and worsening challenges facing the media trading process. When such topics appear in the media trades it ignites various opinions, much finger pointing and often many anonymous inflamed responses. Everyone has a view – whether expressed openly or behind closed doors – and the issues seem entrenched industry wide.

In March this year our survey went live where we presented a list of 12 challenges and possible solutions and asked everyone touching the media value chain to rank the proposed challenges from their own unique perspectives. Respondents were also given the opportunity to share their opinions through open comments.

Our aim was to recognise and give a voice to large, small, multinational and independent segments of our deep and diverse industry and find alignment across these multiple stakeholder markets – and of course revive the debate through the slightly provocative question ‘Is the media industry all talk and no action?’.

Results of the survey were presented at the Mumbrella360 conference in early June, followed by a panel discussion with representatives from multinational and independent stakeholder sectors – marketer, media agency and media owner/publisher.

The panel discussing the ‘State of Media in Australia’ at Mumbrella360. From left, Linda Pallone – Blackmores, Rob Dingwall – Kellogg, Chris Mort – TNS, Toby Hack – PHD, Tony Kendall – Bauer Media, Zac Zavos – Conversant Media, Denise Shrivell – MediaScope and Darren Woolley – TrinityP3

Survey results were published through a State of the Media white paper featuring the following top line insights:

• Marketers & media agencies are clearly aligned on challenges surrounding cross channel audience measurement and campaign effectiveness.
• Media agencies & media owners are aligned on challenges surrounding staff recruitment and retention, this being the number one challenge highlighted by media owners.
• Media owners also recognise increasing competition from other media channels and pressure on business models as key challenges.
• All stakeholders identify an ongoing disconnect between marketer, agency and media owner with marketers specifically highlighting this as a top issue.
• Not surprisingly independent media owners highly rank the challenge – limited scope for outside the square or new opportunities.
• Keeping up to date with key market trends in a fast evolving industry was also a key challenge for all stakeholder sectors.

These survey results highlight challenges which are often raised and quite well known in our industry such as the need for cross platform planning & buying, cross platform campaign measurement & attribution – and recruitment, training & retainment.

Slowly some of these challenges are being addressed though progress is slow. As an example the MFA’s (Media Federation of Australia) efforts in the creation of an automated trading hub – particularly for TV, has stalled – but MCN recently announced the launch of their automated PayTV buying platform. Automated platforms in radio and digital signage channels are emerging overseas and will eventually hit our market. Digital media is fairly well down the track with their exchange based trading systems – though not without pain points.

However, the many open comments attracted through the survey emphasise the deep-rooted and ongoing frustration felt at all levels of the media trading process and the impact this is having on campaign outcomes and importantly our broader media industry.

“Increasing dysfunction across all parts of media trading results in less than optimum returns for clients & raises questions about the long-term viability of all involved in this process.”

This dysfunction was the focus of a very open and honest Mumbrella360 panel discussion where procurement and agency remuneration were recognised as core catalysts to the many challenges raised.

Offering their views in the panel discussion were:

Marketers:

Rob Dingwall – Media & Marketing Operations Manager – Kellogg’s Australia

Lynda Pallone – Marketing Services & Integration Manager – Blackmores

Media Agency:

Toby Hack – Managing Director Australia – PHD Media

Chris Mort – Chief Executive Office – TMS Aust

Publisher:

Tony Kendall – Director of Sales – Bauer Media

Zac Zavos – Managing Director – Conversant Media

After the session 2 of the panellists offered their further input…

Chris Mort – CEO of one of Australia’s largest independent media agency – TMS commented – “The issues of remuneration and staff retention have spread through the industry like a plague but over the last 10 years it has certainly accelerated with the rise of procurement departments. I don’t believe there are any easy solutions – the situation simply has to be managed as best as possible like any supplier operating in any category. Keep as low a cost base as possible, keep it as flexible as possible, ensure your remuneration arrangements allow for a possible upside and be decisive – don’t procrastinate on the tough decisions. However – when it’s all said and done – clients hold all the cards as they pay the suppliers and they find themselves under increasing internal pressure to reduce costs. As I said – there are no easy solutions.”

Zac Zavos from independent digital media publisher – Conversant Media - publisher of The Roar and Lost @ E Minor commented – “The panel provided an interesting set of opinions. The key takeouts for me were the importance of strong briefs from brand owners. And from a publisher’s perspective, understanding the rebate model in which your client agency is working under. Media agency people and processes are significantly constrained and it’s unlikely this will change soon. So as media owners we need to work within these constraints.”

The many frustrations raised in the survey are clearly symptoms of the top line issues surrounding procurement and remuneration, the resulting squeeze on media agency margins and the flow on effects down the media trading line. These symptoms include – lack of resources and experienced staff, time pressures resulting in poorly briefed media, unsustainable work hours, staff retention, dealing with an increasingly fragmenting media market, the separation of media and creative, lack of innovation and outside the square campaign recommendations. The list goes on….

Media agencies are now forced to look for other revenue streams with issues also being raised around transparency on rebates and agency trading desks.

There are difficulties within all sectors of the media trading process. Feedback regarding client expectations and understanding of a continually evolving media market were uncovered. Both large and small media owners are pivoting fast to develop advertising and non-advertising related business models – and establish their position in a continually changing and increasingly complex, competitive marketing environment.

As highlighted in the Mumbrella360 session, clients and marketers “hold all the cards” and until the entire advertising and media function is recognised as an investment rather than a cost these challenges will continue. Moving the CMO (Chief Marketing Officer) to the board room table has also been signalled as an important step in this process.

After the session many colleagues approached me expressing their opinions and sharing their own experiences. It’s a topic we all have views on as we’re all impacted in our day to day professional lives.

So where do we go from here?

Firstly we should recognise it is indeed a wonderful time to be part of a dynamic and exciting industry – it’s certainly not dull. However, there are no straightforward or easy solutions particularly to the larger challenges raised.

To try to alleviate the frustrations and attempt to find some kind of resolution our entire media industry needs to understand and consider the problems.

Through MediaScope, I aim to keep the momentum going by providing an independent and neutral platform with opinions from a broad industry cross section. I’ll also review and highlight products and services which can help alleviate at least some of the symptoms of this dysfunction through the streamlining of trading processes and workflow inefficiencies.

If you’d like to get involved and share your opinion please get in touch. I’m aware we all have livings to earn so I can offer a platform for sensitive anonymous comments – as long as they’re expressed rationally.

To follow the ongoing debate please subscribe to MediaScope’s weekly newsletter here. You can also access a copy of the State of the Media whitepaper by emailing me – denise@mediascope.com.au

However – as Darren mentioned at the end of our session ‘it starts at the grassroots’. What one thing can you do today to help improve our industry and address at least some of these challenges?

I’ll continue to have a go and do my part to ensure this time next year we’ll be having a different conversation – not with all the solutions but a conversation based on a better understanding of the challenges.

And finally, if given the opportunity again – I wonder who Darren and I will be sandwiching on the cover of next year’s Mumbrella360 conference guide…

The old adage of “measure twice, cut once” is something that holds true in marketing communications just as it does everywhere else. And while benchmarking is usually something initiated by marketers seeking to verify assumptions, it should be an initiative that’s equally welcomed by agencies.

Far from being something to dread, a benchmarking exercise is an opportunity to bring clarity through methodical evaluation, reasoned thinking and calm discussion.

Here’s why:

1. No more guess work

A benchmarking exercise usually begins because a client assumes they’ve been paying too much for services. Without proper benchmarks, the key word here is “assumes” and benchmarking should be undertaken to specifically take the guesswork out of costs, and define what really constitutes fair value for everyone concerned.

2. Make budgets predictable

I often hear marketers say things like, “how is it that the same thing I asked for last week, costs twice as much the next?” What’s really being said here is, “I don’t know how much things [should] cost.” A benchmarking exercise will bring clarity to agency cost structures and empower marketers to make informed decisions, armed with an understanding of what they should budget for.

3. Alleviate agency / client tensions

A benchmarking study can help reduce friction between agencies and their clients because cost structures are clearly defined before projects begin. If an issue subsequently arises around costs, both agency and client can point to recent benchmarks to justify or pushback on costs, thereby promoting discussion around data rather than assumptions.

4. Set performance expectations

With cost benchmarks clearly defined, both marketers and agencies can discuss and agree on performance expectations and requirements at the outset. This enables agencies to knowingly undertake projects against a defined set of cost criteria and for clients to set aside adequate budgets that are in-line with expectations.

5. Manage change or integration

During times of acquisition or major change – particularly when multiple agencies are involved – benchmarking can help marketers manage to define budgets and ensure multiple agencies are working within defined or accepted cost structures. Not arming yourself with up-to-date benchmarks can very quickly lead to unwelcome budget surprises that cause tension and dissatisfaction on both sides of the value equation.

While these are just five positive highlights of benchmarking, the key takeaway here is marketers need to arm themselves with up-to-date benchmarking data at least once a year. And it’s an exercise and discussion agencies should welcome just as much as marketers welcome being able to manage budgets with transparency and ease.

What benchmarks does your organisation use to define fair value and manage costs?

I see marketers invest a great deal of time and effort in getting the most out of their marcomms spending. Unfortunately, not the same level of attention is given to buying and using research. Somewhat surprising given that research should be informing many of the marketing investments we make.

Here is how you can get more out of research:

1. Be clear about how you want to use the research

There are two types of marketers – those who believe in the role of research and those who don’t.

To the believer, I would suggest that research should serve as a lamppost – not as a prop to support your personal opinions but as a light source that illuminates alternate pathways so you can choose which way to follow.

To the imperious marketer who goes solely by his or her gut, I would say make all the right decisions using your instinct but utilise research to avoid the bad ones! Instinct is codified experience and is valuable but insight (from market intelligence and customer information) is vital. Because, the past does not always show you how to deal with the present and the future.

2. Get a fair budget for a fair job

Let’s say you have $100 as your marketing budget. When the research area asks to spend 5%, the rest of marketing sees that as $5 less to spend on their programs. But, what if a $5 research investment can help the business make better marketing decisions stretching the available $95 to deliver $105 value?

Don’t plead for a budget instead sell its benefits. “No budget” means “it’s low priority”. Establish the value of past projects. It will determine the volume of future funds. It is better not to do any research than to do ‘token’ research.

3. Don’t do more research than what you need

Getting a decent budget does not mean you spend it anyway. Marketers often undertake new research without fully analysing all the available information. It is common to see reams of research reports sitting on shelves and servers.

Once you settle on what questions you want answered, make sure you look for pointers within every source you have already got – market intelligence, industry data, consumer research, field reports, whatever – before embarking on any new research. In your research budget, set aside serious dollars for analysis, an area underfunded in many businesses.

4. Buy business outcomes not research outputs

Don’t evaluate research proposals on the basis of outputs offered i.e. number of interviews, interview length (or number of questions), number of focus groups, range and volume of reports etc. Look at how well these help shape the decisions that will impact on your marketing and business. The ultimate value of a research project is always the cost of the wrong decision it might help to prevent. Pick the best research provider for the purpose.

5. It is better to be vaguely right than be precisely wrong

Decision making is not about having 100% of the information. It is about making 100% use of all critical information and overlaying it with pre-existing knowledge.

Do not be tempted to collect every little detail about your consumer, your marketing effort or your competition. A longer survey may increase the quantity of data but diminish its quality. Stay focused on what is needed to make the more important decisions. Not everything you measure matters and not everything that matters is measurable.

6. Understand purchasers as people

This follows from 5 above. Knowing your target as an individual is as important as knowing them as a user of a product or consumer of a service. Understand the role your product or service plays in the life of an individual ahead of measuring every usage characteristic. Big data is about discerning behaviour. Good data is about sensing the drivers behind it. Tag people’s emotions just as you track their actions.

7. Thinking search? Think again. Think Research

For the newbies, here’s some advice. In a world dominated by search, do not let yourself drift away from Research. The discipline is evolving into new forms. Its functions might fragment but its foundations remain firm. Segmentation will be relevant even when marketing to a target of one. Monitor online conversations but don’t merely get caught in the moment.

And, finally, get hold of a copy of ESOMAR’s new book 10 answers to contemporary market research questions before you embark on your next research project.

Last week I flew to Vienna to help a pharmaceutical company develop their strategy. It was a two day event.

We used the first day to explore their current situation and past by, among other things, creating a massive visual history across one wall. We delved into the important events that have shaped them and the lessons they’ve learned so far. We looked at the challenges they faced and told stories of how these challenges were really impacting their work.

For me this is the foundation for any strategy. The executives need to know and share the problems and opportunities they want to tackle. They need to get talking and make some real choices.

On the second day we focused on the future. I stepped them through a visualisation to get them out of their heads and then we shared stories of where the future was already happening in their business.

We call these Gibson stories inspired by William Gibson who is reported to have said: “the future is already here, it’s just unevenly distributed.”

This idea of finding things that work and then work out ways to do more of it certainly appeals as it avoids the dreaded problem spiral (if you look for problems you will find them) which can drain the energy from even the most upbeat group.

Towards the end of the second day we had things on every wall: purpose statement, goals, illustrations of a desired future, strategic themes. You can imagine that the participants might feel a little punch drunk by this stage as each new idea smacks them about the head.

Then we finally we pulled it all together with a strategic story. I’m always amazed by the effect. All of a sudden everything falls into place for them. It has meaning. It’s something they can now explain to others.

I like to finish a workshop by getting everyone in a circle and just asking, “so how do you feel right now? Not what you think, but how do you feel?”

For many they felt energised and a sense of accomplishment. They all admitted to feeling a little confused half way through and wondered how it would come together. I warned them they would.

For others they wanted to get to the next step and work out the plan. For me I wanted them to keep their strategic conversation going because no matter how good a two day event might be it’s often the beginning of the decisions they have to make.

Executives need time to let the possibilities sink in. But it’s far better to make some real decisions, put them into action, learn from experience and adjust moving forward.

Is your business developing strategy using story? Interested to hear your experiences. Please share with a comment.

There are many different ways that marketers and procurement evaluate and manage agency relationships. In the past three weeks while travelling through the USA, Canada and the UK, it became clear that for all the various systems available on the market, there are only really five different approaches.

1. The discussion – where the agency head sits with the marketing head and they discuss the issues.
2. The score card – where a performance score card for the agency is scored by the marketing team and the results shared.
3. The gap analysis – where the client scores the agency and the agency assesses their own performance and the gap between the two is evaluated.
4. The shared score card – where the agency and the marketing team score each other against a set of common criteria.
5. The open, shared multi-agency score card – where all of the agencies and the marketing team all score each other against a set of common criteria.

It was interesting, when speaking with various marketers and procurement teams, to see how they undertake their agency relationship evaluations and that each process seems to have an underlying approach to managing their agencies.

It got me wondering if the choice of a particular agency relationship evaluation approach was indicative of a particular style of management.

Recently I posted on the various metaphors used to classify the way marketers manage their agencies and I will refer to these here.

So here goes some hypothesis to be discussed and tested. I look forward to your feedback and input into this.

Casual chats

“Off with their head” shouts the marketing royal. The agency sits in shock. The relationship had appeared to be on track. After all there were no complaints. Then out of the blue, this hits them like a ton of bricks.

This often ad-hoc (even though the intention is to be regular) feedback and review is the sign of command and control. The King of the court sits in judgement. Largely tactical in execution, the agenda is set by the King and executed on the serfs on a whim.

This is the ultimate power play on the agency to reinforce who is really in control here. The sad part is that marketers who use this approach often convince themselves it is a fair and manageable approach. But no matter the intent, without structure and defined process, it is basically a pure expression of command and control.

Score card

Like a panel of judges sitting in judgement on the competitors in a sporting event. The agency lines up to have their performance judged by the marketers.

At least the criteria is set and known by the agency, so they are able to focus on how to maximise their score. This is why setting the right criteria is so important. But the process assumes that the performance of the agency is completely in their control. Like the diver or the gymnast or the ice skater, the agency is performing for the judges.

The fact is that the agency performance is actually dependent on the marketer’s performance. They are interdependent. Don’t believe me? Then how can the same agency do great work and deliver great results for one client and totally the opposite for another client?

Judging your agency for anything more than their most basic skills and capabilities is simply passing the buck and avoiding the mutual responsibility of the underperformance.

Gap analysis

There are quite a few marketers that love the gap analysis because it is a 360 degree approach to agency relationship evaluation. But what does this mean? The marketer scores the agency and the agency scores themselves and we study the gap between the two.

Oh, and if you want the reverse, then you make a list of different questions about the marketers (usually a lot less than the number of questions about the agency) and do the same in reverse.

The focus here is usually more on the gap than the actual score. It is a passive aggressive power game. Where the marketer’s perception of the agency is compared with the agency’s perception of themselves and everyone focuses on closing the gap – which is usually making the agency ‘realise’ they are way out of step with the power in this game.

Shared two way score card

This is where two parties sit down and compare and discuss each others performance against a common and equal set of criteria. A balanced and equal score card of performance that focuses on the way they work together and acknowledges that the results they produce are interdependent on the performance of each party.

This is where marketers and agencies talk about partnership. Not a business or financial partnership. But a partnership in co-creation of a strategy, a brand positioning or a communications event.

This requires a high level of trust and emotional maturity from both parties. Because each party recognises the other’s contribution as important. Accepting this is a huge reflection of your management style, because it minimises the opportunities to leverage the power game of the buyer over the supplier.

Open, shared, multi-agency / client score card

Taking that one step further is when the marketer not only recognises and acknowledges one agency, but many agencies working in partnership together. It is creating a circle of trust between those agencies and the marketing team, which is the basis of collaboration, cooperation and coordination.

Again, creating a level playing field of evaluation between all stakeholder groups – agencies and marketing teams – you are able to assess where these groups are working together well and where there are issues. This is the fundamental difference between this approach and the rest.

The others measure agency performance alone. They are often nothing more than a tricked up score card of agency performance. That is fine if you see your agency as a supplier or vendor simply delivering a service. But for those agencies that work with the marketing team to co-create marketing and communications strategy and implement it, then the performance measure lacks dimension.

Instead, this approach is used by those who embrace and encourage true collaboration.

Which agency relationship evaluation are you?

Do you have an agency relationship evaluation process? Or are you considering one? There is no right or wrong approach. But perhaps you should consider what it says about your management style when you are selecting the approach right for you.

So which one are you?

I saw this on Facebook last night. It was a post by Barney Hoskyns, shared by my friend Stan Johnson at BrandDNA.

I have reproduced it in its entirety here as I think there is food for thought for the suppliers of creative and especially for the buyers.

STOP WORKING FOR FREE.

Calling all freelance content providers (musicians, writers, actors, photographers, designers etc):

Join me in WITHDRAWING UNPAID LABOUR from the creative and media industries. The exploitation of freelance content providers has gone on too long, and we are all responsible for letting it happen.

Please do not:

• Write, act, photograph or design for free
• Provide images, music or performances for free
• Do radio or television interviews for free

If a company or corporation asks you to provide your time and skills for nothing, TURN IT DOWN. You have nothing to lose by saying NO.
If you have any concern at all for your economic future as a content provider – and for the future of subsequent generations of such providers – please don’t ignore this issue.
PASS THE WORD ON to any content providers you know.

Further thoughts for those with a slightly longer attention span…

TO THE EXPLOITED:

• If you allow yourself to be seduced by the myth that your unpaid labour will “look good on your c.v.” (or equivalent blah), try to see that you jeopardise not only the welfare of your replaceable elders but your OWN long-term economic future.
• You set up a paradigm whereby you in turn become replaceable. The rolling exploitation of unpaid workers and perpetual interns is based on a false notion of deferred reward.
• If we do not start demanding recompense, ultimately humans will have no value. As Jaron Lanier states in his essential new book WHO OWNS THE FUTURE?, “Capitalism only works if there are enough successful people to be the customers.”
• How is it that our online habits have huge big-data value to tax-avoidant entities like Google, Facebook and Amazon yet NO VALUE WHATSOEVER when we request payment for our contributions to the networked information economy?
• We must return to the core humanist principle of valuing not just institutions and material things but actual living humans.
• If the present economic paradigm prevails, it will vindicate Margaret Thatcher’s contention that there is no such thing as society. Wouldn’t it be nice to prove her wrong?

TO THE EXPLOITERS:

• If you are making money from the labour of others, then you should share that wealth with them.
• If you knowingly exploit somebody while telling yourself, “Why would I pay someone if s/he’s willing to work for nothing?”, how do you sleep at night?
• If you habitually hire interns, at what point does their work experience end? At what point does somebody actually become WORTH PAYING?
• The culture of internship and work experience sustains class inequality, because only privileged kids can work for free. Only THEY receive the economic subsidy the government withholds from those born poor and with little hope of educational betterment.
• This is not only a moral but a MARKET imperative. In the long term markets will collapse if there aren’t enough people sharing in the wealth.

THANKS FOR LISTENING.

So are you guilty of exploitation? Or is there nothing to feel guilty about and this is simply market pressure? I think this is worth discussing.

The discussion over decoupling or unbundling has been going on forever. We seem to go round and round on this every few years. The discussion between Procurement, Marketing and their Agencies seems to become hostile and adversarial every time the hot topic of Production comes up.

The lack of transparency, trust and team work drives this complicated discussion into areas where it doesn’t want to go. Why is this? Here are some basic discussion points to help avoid some of the pitfalls and hopefully get a better outcome.

The mark-ups and hidden benefits

Discuss with the Agency and their chosen partners what mark-ups, rebates or other benefits that are offered in return for business being passed to them. If you can agree a ‘right of audit’ then all the better.

However, it is believed that this practice has been stamped out in the UK, but this is far from the case. Many dark arts are well and truly still in play. So talk about them openly

Collaboration

The Agency should ideally operate in a manner that has the Client’s interests at the very heart of the relationship (A little like a trustee). Now in many cases the Client facing Agency folk do have Client interests at heart, but inside the Agency many people have a different view.

This is often down to personal relationships or a fear of failure. The Creative function and Traffic department of the Agency needs to understand it has an obligation to spend Client money efficiently and effectively

Best Value

Agencies should always aim to deliver exceptional value, but in many cases they fail to deliver against this metric. They either have short delivery windows due to a raft of factors some or many are the Clients fault, but some can be sorted by the Agency.

The Agency should shop around to achieve value as the market is very competitive, but too many mates and favours are used in order to deliver on time and budget. So aim to deliver value every time.

Exceptional Quality

Ask yourself every time what type of quality is actually required to deliver against the communication objectives. If it is a simple BOGOF retail offer then quite simply do you really need to throw everything at it – surely just getting it done will suffice?

Interested to hear your experiences and thoughts. Please leave a comment.

Here’s a thorny question for you – what’s the role of your advertising agency today?

Depending on the set-up of your internal marketing teams, the answer can take many forms and, if you’re like most marketers, the answer could include some (or all) of the following:

• Strategy planning and development
• Research
• Brand and campaign development
• Promotions
• Advertising production across multiple media
• Testing and measurement
• Media planning and buying

Even Wikipedia defines the role of the ad agency in very familiar terms – “a service business dedicated to creating, planning and handling advertising for its clients…”

The reality is, the world’s changed and marketers have had to rethink why they hire ad agencies and the roles they want them to play in their businesses. Only then are marketers really able to define the success metrics that matter and partner with the right agency(s) that make the most sense for their individual needs.

Darren Woolley from TrinityP3 encapsulates the issue as follows:

“The role of agencies has diversified along with the diversification of the marketing options. In the Mad Men era, the agency was the marketer’s partner. They took responsibility for developing strategy, conceiving campaign ideas, executing production and media, and managing the process for the marketer. But now the marketer has many specialist agencies…”

And it’s that diversification of marketing options and possibilities that’s at the heart of the challenge facing marketers and their relationships with their agencies today. Many marketers still define the role of their ad agencies in traditional terms without thinking about how they’ll collaborate with the other specialised agencies they’ve hired to address new opportunities like Social Media.

In many cases the role of an agency evolves organically, rather than being planned and managed which can lead to stress and frustration on both sides. So if that’s got you thinking, here are ten questions to consider to help define the role of your agency(s) more clearly:

1. Does the agency have a clear understanding of your objectives?
2. Do your internal teams have a clear understanding of the agency’s mandate?
3. Has the role of the agency evolved since you hired them as a result of new marketing channels?
4. Have your marketing requirements changed or evolved significantly since you hired your agency(s)?
5. If you have multiple agencies – are boundaries and responsibilities clearly defined?
6. Are your agencies collaborating or are they working in silos?
7. Are you frustrated that your agency(s) aren’t addressing some aspects of your business requirements?
8. Are there challenges or unwelcome surprises around time spent and costs incurred?
9. Are any of your incumbent agency contracts operating on the same contract that was negotiated more than five years ago?
10. Have your agency or internal marketing teams changed significantly in the last few years?

Woolley also makes the point that all this is something marketers should contemplate throughout the life of the relationship:

“Today it is the marketers responsibility to define the role of the agency not only at the time of establishing the relationships, but on a regular basis as the needs of the marketer change.”

Clearly defining the role of your ad agency at the outset of the relationship, and at regular intervals during its term, can save you and your team time, money and yes, angst. Many of the issues you’ve faced with your incumbent agencies in recent years could likely be solved if you, your teams (and your agencies) had a clear, up to date definition of what their role really was. Benefits of clear definition include:

• Alignment of objectives
• Clear definition of success metrics
• Defined roles and expectations of both marketer and agency
• Defined roles amongst multiple agencies
• Improved collaboration between agencies

And yes, likely improved results too.

If you’ve not considered the role of your agencies recently, ask your teams what they think the role of your agencies should be. Better yet, ask your agencies what they think their role is too. The answers (and the gaps) might surprise you.

Interested to hear your thoughts. Please leave a comment.

As Strategic Partners and Gold Sponsors of last Thursday’s AANA Connect Conference, I was one of five TrinityP3ers soaking up the collective brain power gathered in the sumptuous surrounds of Doltone House in the city. The agenda focused on the biggies impacting the marketing and communications industry right now and as such covered areas including innovation, data, digital, content, online and social media.

This post is merely 10 take-outs for you to takeaway from my seat in the house. My views may not be the same as other attendees but for anyone who didn’t get a chance to go they give you a snapshot of who said what and what went down and a prompt to delve further into some of the topics that might interest you.

So here’s your takeaway, no delivery fee and much better for your waistline than a pizza.

Take 1: Inese Kingsmill, Corporate Marketing Director Telstra. Intro and announcement of Sunita Gloster as the new CEO of the AANA.

Inese Kingsmill eloquently opened up the day and set the scene for how it would unfold. Her announcement of Sunita Gloster as the new CEO of the AANA was great news and a huge coup for the AANA – we can expect great things if Sunita’s track record is anything to go by.

Take 2: Keynote Address. Creel Price, Serial Entrepreneur. The Enemies of Innovation.

Creel kicked off our day with energy, motivation and the 7 Deadly Sins of Innovation. The room was captivated by this serial entrepreneur, as he presented with passion, insight and a fair amount of humour and self deprecation. Applying the 7 deadly sins to innovation, his watch-outs soon led to must-dos. Sticking to the pizza theme, here’s just a few slices of Creel Super Supreme.

Avoid gluttony. Peel back the fat within your organization but don’t get too lean or you’ll lack flavor and substance. Counteract slothfulness and introduce flexible job descriptions that can evolve based on project and prototype. Envy can be an evil force, instead look to your existing people and partners and motivate and inspire them – the grass is rarely greener. Side-step pride that can creep in and slow business down and use similar tools to Creel’s ‘Magic Metrics’ which set goals that staff can own and work towards. Don’t get too greedy. If it’s all about profit, staff will switch off. Social causes can incentivise so much more than dollars and deliver so much more satisfaction.

And finally, wrath. The fear of failure is present in all of us. Make your staff fearless, encourage brave ideas and give them power to help your business grow. Creel and his partner did that by being very clear on their company’s DNA – they knew exactly what type of pizza they were creating and everyone who joined them on their adventure worked to the same recipe, ultimately a recipe for success.

Creel’s story and his approach to business is inspiring and the work he continues to do with both corporates and children is outstanding. Companies wanting to find out how they can get involved in his work channeling the entrepreneurial spirit in children should visit www.clubkidpreneur.com or www.fiftydollarchallenge.com. And if ever you get a chance to hear Creel speak, I can strongly urge you to take it. I’ll be seeking another slice of Creel Super Supreme myself.

Take 3: Mark Reinke, Executive GM – Group Marketing, Suncorp Group. Data Reigns Supreme.

Mark then took the stage, laughingly making a note to self never to follow Creel Price again. However, Mark need not have feared. He was insightful and entertaining, making the often dry subject of ‘data’ not only bearable but interesting with his ‘Myths, Mistakes and Mad Men’ approach. The big takeaway for me was not to suddenly become vegetarian and throw away all that meaty instinct and creativity but rather to add value and go gourmet with data as a vital base moving forward. Asking the right questions to address your business issues will focus your data collection and enable data to be used to fuel innovation and business growth. In a nutshell, ignore data at your peril, use it to survive, use it cleverly to succeed.

Take 4: Helen Crossley, Head of Measurement and Insights, ANZ, Facebook. The Future of Online Marketing.

Helen was engaging and to the point in her presentation of The Future of Online Marketing. A mammoth topic to speak about in half an hour let alone half a day, but addressed nicely with her Top 3 trends of Hyper-targeting, Cross Platform usage, and the coming of age of Analytics.

One of the tasty morsels Helen focused on was multi-screening and the figures in the US highlighting the fact that around 93% households have multiple screens “on” at any one time. Interesting to note is that mobile, the most intimate of all the channels, seems to be under-utilised as a primary source of communication, possibly due to fear of privacy issues.

Further analytics in this area may well make it easier for marketers but in the meantime, are there opportunities right now to harness the intimacy of the mobile device and use it as a primary means of communication to truly hyper-target at the most personal level?

Take 5: Anthony Hourigan, CEO, Hourigan International. Elevation of Marketing as a Profession.

Anthony’s rallying cry to the troops to elevate marketing as a profession went down a treat before lunch. “Our Tribe… our creative tribe” as he referred to the marketing and communications industry as a whole, needed to lift our game and occupy more seats at the very top, many of those currently held by CFOs. Hourigan defined marketing’s Creative Leaders needing to be both General and Artist, having the unique ability to balance commercial reality with creativity.

The big question is, do we have the marketing talent in this country to see more CMOs as CEOs? Talking to other delegates at the conference I think we do. Some of them are already there. I also believe there is a need for some mentoring in the financial space to not just make our CMOs capable of doing the CEO role but confident. Undoubtedly, as Anthony points out, there is an untapped source of creative leadership within our marketing community and Anthony will take anyone interested in joining him on his crusade to elevate them to the top.

Take 6: Spaghetti Sticks

Creel Price’s team building exercise posed the challenge: Were we smarter than a 5^th grader? Who knows but we had a lot of fun doing it and to those at my table, we may not have won but our little tower was still standing when all others had toppled…say no more (other than a huge thanks to John Chatterton for his ‘inspiration’ and good memory!).

Take 7: Choose your track: Adrian Weimers, Brand Communications Corporate Manager, Toyota or Madeleine Fitzpatrick, VP / Director of Marketing McDonald’s.

Adrian focused on media fragmentation and the multi-tasker taking his audience through case studies illustrating how media fragmentation has benefited Toyota. Toyota’s use of sponsorship and online content, activations, user participation and most recently its first digital only launch highlighted how forward thinking companies are using this new world of fragmented media options to benefit rather than slow them down.

At any one time there are so few people looking to buy within the automotive category, it is a classic case for hyper-targeting as Helen Crossley pointed out, allowing companies like Toyota to get truly innovative not just pin-pointing their target but talking directly to them at the right point in the purchase cycle. Companies can either view media fragmentation as a disabler or they can, to use my favourite pizza terminology, MYO (make your own), tailoring each slice of their campaign, indeed each mouthful, to individual needs, wants and tastes.

I didn’t attend Madeleine’s presentation, for the third time this week annoyed I can’t yet clone myself and be in two places at once, but from what I gather it was equally as entertaining and insightful as Adrian’s. Madeleine’s focus was on the rise of consumer power and the importance of engaging with them and her case studies demonstrated McDonald’s focus to do just that, TrackMyMacca’s being just one of many data-driven creative innovations for the fast-food giant.

Take 8: CMO Panel:

Ahhh the 3pm slot. It’s a hard one and Nathan Hodges, GM at TrinityP3, did well to get the panel and audience talking about the key industry issues of the day. The panel was well chosen with Yannick Durand, Ben Slocombe, Andrew Caie, and Bryan Meridith all sharing their knowledge and experience, happy to chat about their views and company perspectives on innovation, digital, content and creative leadership.

Just one little morsel from this session was an interesting insight offered up by Ben Slocombe from Lion. Ben had an epiphany a few weeks back on the topic of Content. With so many options available he felt he was drowning in them so he simplified it. Ben defined 4 types of content – Text, Photos, Motion Content or Participation.

Put simply in these buckets, the maze of content available becomes easier to decipher, data can support which audiences relate best to what, and your decision making becomes somewhat easier at least in terms of what type of content you can use to connect with a given audience. It’s what you then say or do that will determine whether you’ll have a sizzling bestseller or a pizza left to go cold.

Take 9: Clash of the Media:

Less of a clash and more of a classy sit down with these well spoken media directors and CEOs airing their views. John Steedman, Chairman CEO GroupM did a great job moving the questions around the panel, consisting of Liam Walsh, Ed Harrison, Alastair Fysh and Nick Chan. He also did a respectable impersonation of Russel Howcroft who unfortunately had to scoot back to Melbourne for something more important than us (just joking Russel).

One of the hot topics for this group was clearly whether newspapers and magazines would survive this digital revolution we are experiencing. I thought Nick Chan’s point helped to sum it up and reiterate sentiments from earlier in the day: digital and online are creating opportunities to increase interaction with existing customers and establish connections with new audiences. Chan’s experience is that online interaction has actually increased accessibility to his publications, Better Homes and Gardens being a case in point.

Know your audience, use data to help inform you of their needs, wants, likes and dislikes, then create key messages that connect with them on different levels in multiple channels. You essentially become a part of their everyday life much like the technology you are using to connect to them.

Take 10:

So how was my takeaway on Thursday night post AANA Connect? In one word it was inspiring.

Inspiring Australian marketers to innovate.

Inspiring us to get smarter using data.

Inspiring us to use this digital revolution to talk more directly with individuals, connecting with them as intimately as possible, becoming a greater part of their lives.

Inspiring us to look at media fragmentation and the rising power of consumers as opportunities to talk to our customers at a more intelligent level in a more interactive way.

And inspiring us all to take risks, be brave and have the confidence to elevate marketing to its rightful position at the top table steering businesses to commercial success through creative leadership.

Not a bad way to spend a day really.

Since January 2000 we have been offering our clients a television production cost assessment service. This service is designed to provide marketers and procurement with a framework for managing the cost and quality of their television advertising production investment.

The television production cost assessment service includes:

1. Reviewing the creative brief and assisting in setting the production budget and timeline expectations
2. Reviewing creative concepts from the agency against the budget and timeline requirements
3. Evaluating agency director and production company selections
4. Assessing the proposed production methodology and cost
5. Assisting marketers in negotiating with the agency and production company
6. Reconciling final production cost against proposed cost and identify insights for future improvement

In the past 18 months we have increased the number of regional clients that have used this service. One of the questions that often arises prior to our engagement is what savings can they expect us to deliver.

The answer is it depends.

We often quote savings of between 10% and 15%.

We do not get remunerated on savings, but we are very happy to have our services evaluated on value. The easiest thing in the world is to drive down the price of television at the expense of quality. And no one will thank us for reducing cost if the result is a commercial that everyone is too embarrassed to watch.

In the first four months of 2013 we have been particularly productive. Between January 1 and April 30 2013 we have reviewed 25 productions. Of these, 11 were in Asia and 14 in Australia. For the purposes of this discussion, we provide these services in Japan, South Korea, China (including Hong Kong and Taiwan) Philippines, Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam.

Overall results

The 25 productions equated to more than $12 million in proposed production costs and the output was 63 masters. The average cost per production is just under $500,000 and the average cost per master produced is a little under $200,000 each.

Identified savings = 9.5% or $1.2 million

The savings identified were just under $1.2 million or 9.5% of the total value of the productions. This equates to an average saving of around $47,700 per production. With the average fee of $3,400 per production (fees are based on production budgets and range between $1,600 – $5,200 per production) this equates to a 14 times return on investment.

ROI = 14 times

Asia versus Australia

While not a statistically significant sample and acknowledging the sampling is not random, and productions are where the advertisers had identified a need for assessment and management. However, the difference between the Asian and Australian productions are interesting.

While the total production value is about the same, with less productions the average production cost was higher for Asia. But with more masters produced the cost per master (or commercial) was lower than in Australia. The most noticeable difference was the average cost per production of identified savings. Asia was more than double the Australian average identified savings.

Does this mean that the agencies in Asia were less diligent in preparing their production estimates than in Australia?

Production Insights

This is a phenomenon we have noticed in markets we have operated in over the past 13 years. When we have been working with our clients over a period of time the average identified production savings will decrease over time as the agency becomes more compliant with the rigour of the TrinityP3 production assessment process.

TrinityP3 has offered production assessments and management in Asia since 2008 when we opened offices in Singapore and Hong Kong. In many cases, our clients in Asia will operate over a number of markets with a different agency office in each market and a different agency team,

In this particular sample, most of the productions and agencies have had three or less assessments within the past 2 years, Compared to the Australian market, where we have operated for the full 13 year, and where the clients and agencies have worked with TrinityP3 many times.

Moving from Investment to Insurance

With all of our longer term clients we offer an annual summary of results of our production assessments. In one particular case the procurement team noted the fall in identified savings and suggested to marketing that our service was no longer financially viable as the return on the investment in the services had fallen to an ROI of 5 from a high of 18 over the past 3 years.

The marketers took the advice and we parted company amicably, as we do not see the sense in providing a service which is not seen to add value. But 18 months later we were called back to review a production that was seen to be particularly expensive. On reviewing the creative and the proposed quote, we saw many of the hidden contingencies and inflated costs from the agency.

In reviewing the report with the CMO, we asked if we could look at all future productions, as we had done before. I cautioned him that as always we could not and would not guarantee savings and that the results and the return on investment may fall again, perhaps even quicker this time as the agencies were familiar with the process. He told me that he would just have to think of this as an insurance policy and not an investment.

Interested to hear your thoughts on the production assessment process. Leave a comment to let me know.

So you are filling out your comms campaign brief to the agency (and TV is your medium of choice). So when you get to the bit in the brief that says how much your production budget is, what do you put in the blank field? This is a point of contention for many marketers, with some feeling it is better to provide the budget and others not.

Why set an advertising production budget?

When you think of professional services, and especially commercial creative services, negotiating or agreeing the budget upfront is important. After all, there is no point briefing an architect to design a building without indicating the budget for the construction.

Likewise in advertising, it is very important to set a budget as it will indicate to the agency your financial expectations and the agency can apply their creative talents within these parameters. This is a good thing, clever creative is just that, clever, it does not have to be expensive.

Setting a budget will ensure is that you will be more likely to end up with a great piece of creative work and enough media budget to make sure enough people will see it to hopefully ensure it delivers its full efficacy.

What happens if you do not set a production budget?

Some marketers are worried that providing the budget will simply have the agency spend it. The fact is that without the budget they will most likely end up spending more money than they need. That is why in setting the budget it should be based on what the production is worth to the organisation based on the task at hand.

If you do not set a budget you are wasting everyone’s time as they are working without understanding the framework they are working within and this will lead to having to be reigned in (creatively or financially or both) somewhere along the line. A big production idea without a big budget is an embarrassment to all. Where a big creative idea is delivered bang on the money, it is a winner for all.

How to set a budget

The easiest thing is to just add a few percentage points to last year’s budget, so your spend is based upon historical trends. The problem with this is you could be simply compounding past inefficiencies and inequities.

So how do you draw a line in the sand? How do you set production budgets?

It’s easy (and the concept has been around for years)! All you do is set a percentage of your media spend as a production budget. The media spend is usually the biggest single expenditure in the advertising budget. The media budget is based upon the task, the strategic importance of the project, the demographic targeted, the reach and frequency required and the value to the organisation and the marketing strategy.

To calculate your production spend the next bit is simple, you decide what category your campaign fits into and apply the appropriate percentage to the initial media budget and this becomes your production budget. e.g. A retail TVC (this is a TVC with a price point included no matter what the product) should have a production spend of 10%, so if you are spending $2 million on media you should be spending $200,000 on production.

Over the past 13 years we have been tracking media to production ratios and can provide these guidelines by advertiser category:

• Service industries (Financial and Telco) – the percentage is between 10% and 15%
• FMCG or Consumer Goods brands – the percentage is between 15% and 20%
• Luxury goods (big ticket items or services) – the percentage can be up to 30%

But these are simply the starting point. The secret is to set the budget also taking into consideration criteria like:

1. the total media investment (in the first year)
2. the strategic importance of the campaign
3. the potential for on-going use

For a reality check it is always wise to consult a senior member of your marketing team or an independent specialist.

The production budget is a guideline

From these benchmarks you could say that any percentage over 35% means you are potentially in the “I am seriously wasting money” zone. But here is the thing, these percentages are guidelines. They are the starting point against which the production cost is referenced. The agency should deliver concepts to this budget to answer the brief, but it should not prohibit the agency from presenting more expensive concepts as well.

If Steve Jobs had religiously followed these guidelines, then the 1984 commercial above to launch the MacIntosh would never have been made. Legend has it that the cost of production was so high that there was only enough media money for the spot to run once during the Super Bowl. Now that takes a fairly courageous marketer to follow this strategy (luckily he was the CEO).

The point is that these would be developed at the agency’s expense and presented with a clear indication of the cost to deliver at the time of presentation. This gives the brand team the opportunity to assess the value of the additional cost above and beyond the budget.

How to keep the agency within budget

If you can’t afford the media spend to reach your target demographic with significant frequency then a big production spend is not always the answer.

Your agency may say there is a strong possibility that the TVC will go viral on the internet / YouTube because it is such a brilliant piece of creative and worth the investment, ask them to guarantee it and watch their faces.

First of all, never let yourself be up-sold (you know the scenario). The agency pushes a few ideas across the table, they go through the motions of trying to sell them to you. And when that’s over they all smile broadly and say,

“But we also have this idea. It’s a beauty, unfortunately it’s a little over your budget”.

This is the line in the sand that you cross at your own risk.

• You can either just put up your hand and say “Well we don’t want to see it, go back to the drawing board and come up with a ‘beauty’ that is within our budget”. Do this twice and the agency will get the idea that you are serious, and (if they are up to it) start producing clever work that is within your budget.
• Or you can review the ‘beauty’ and if you believe it has merit, ask the agency to prepare a ballpark quote that they can guarantee accurate within 10%. (Any agency producer worth their salt can do this) and then review if you can afford this increased level of investment without decimating your media budget.

This is a decision that must be made at the time the concepts are presented. The most responsible and the safest approach is the first one. The second is a higher risk strategy and definitely one not taken lightly.

But either way you are making an informed decision and not being placed in a position of being forced to over commit budget funds simply because the on-air date is too close.

I would be interested to hear some of your experiences in this area. Please leave a comment with your thoughts.

Today the retail supply chain is undergoing a game changing transition that will remove a number of established businesses that sit in the middle of any purchase. The raise of on-line trading will leave these businesses with eroded brand values or worse, be road-kill on the side of the technology highway.

The origins of today’s modern marketplace can be traced back thousands of years. The opening up of distant trade routes led to multiple money making opportunities and a proliferation of middle men and women along the way.

The commercialization of the Internet in the 1990’s was a major game changer for the traditional retail model. Up until then the purchase of that ‘little black dress’ involved the gainful employment of numerous pairs of hands from farmers to shop assistants. While remote areas were serviced by catalogue shopping via direct mail the majority of goods followed the tried and tested route.

New financial vehicles have been deployed up and down the supply chain to help grease the wheels of business. Improvements to shipping, legal frameworks, marketing, local transport providers, warehouses, merchandisers as well as the removal of trade barriers have all had a hand to play in the endless pursuit of that perfect little black dress.

But nothing fundamentally challenged this well trodden business model like the arrival of the Internet.

Avoiding a mauling in the Mall

So what’s changing to cause this extinction of the merchant; the whole-hearted acceptance of purchasing on-line?

Gone is the fear of buying without trying first, now that the returns process has been simplified.

With one of the key purchasing demographic groups glued to their iPhones the need to visit the shop is fast losing its fascination.

The on-line shopping experience is today at least comparable with a visit to the Mall. This has been driven by better merchant facilities plus secure and dynamic websites. Fast and cost efficient inventory and shopping cart software like Magento and the maturing of complex shipping aggregation engines like Temando have all vastly improved the buyer’s experience.

Now we have the means to supply most goods straight to the door with a casual swipe of a finger. So what is going to become of that long list of traditional handlers in the middle?

Let’s take that LBD once more.

The Net-a-Porter model clearly demonstrates the changes taking place causing the elimination of the middle merchants. Previously an Australian purchase could be manufactured in Asia, shipped to the UK, then final delivery back to Sydney. Now with the opening of their Hong Kong hub the need for the UK warehouse and pick and pack facilities, the shipping of around an extra 20,000 km is not required. Today you can sit in the comfort of your lounge room on a Sunday night and order that must have LBD and be trying it on in the comfort of your own Sydney home by lunch time on Monday.

The rise of the Merchant of Suzhou

Ask yourself do we really need multiple warehouses and movements before that LBD finds its rightful place in the wardrobe. By removing the layers of warehouses and the physical shop costs the shutters will come down on a lot of businesses. Also, a contraction of unnecessary movements will also reduce the carbon footprint of these necessary commercial ventures. Re-zoning of empty shopping centres will clear the way for high density housing in all capital cities. But this is just one future scenario.

Naturally there will be major resistance by anyone within this middle layer of enterprise. ‘Adding value’, ‘ease of supply chains’ and ‘tried and tested business models’ will be rolled off the silver tongues to help shore up the interest of the vested.

The speed of understanding, deployment of new technology and the reconfiguration of existing logistics businesses, will dictate the timing of this streamlined delivery chain.

One of the major business risks holding back this transition of maker to door would have been the ability to ensure that the quality controls are in place to replicate the existing service levels.

Quality control requires special attention but in the garment industry this already occurs in the manufacturing industry therefore these learnings are already available at a local level.

Again with technology solutions it is now easier for the manufacture to deliver the goods directly to the customer. Companies like Temando take care of the processes, carrier relationships and customs paperwork to simplify the transition. Centralized distribution or drop shipping points will either be managed by tech savvy third party logistics companies at the point of manufacture or point of entry into any given market.

Streamlined inventory controls will also reduce the need to warehouse stock. Order-make-delivery to wardrobe within a matter of days will cut costs, dramatically reduce stock obsolescence and again, soften the carbon footprint on the planet.

What this means for Marketers

Marketers have moved at varying speeds to realize the opportunities that await them in this changing market place. If you are historically wedded to profit from an existing business model it is sometimes hard to convince the powers that be to alter course.

Online shops such as Net-a-Porter, ASOS and The Iconic have already captured the hearts and minds of fashion shoppers with price and service models that are superior to traditional bricks and mortar ventures.

These are all online shopping centres that promote other brands within their brand. Today are these more valuable than the traditional shops of Myer, DJ’s and shopping centres like Westfield?

The challenge for marketers is to understand and communicate internally the value of the brand and then position it in a highly dynamic digital marketplace. The ability to be able to reach out to customers who are now comfortable with not having to touch and feel the goods before they buy is now a truly one on one relationship. The world of social media means you will be praised and gossiped about so partner with businesses that truly understand the brave new world not just pay lip service to it.

While the marketplace changes goes through radical change the selection of your marketing partners also needs to change as well. It is not about a creative award winning graphically rich website. What a retailer needs is the equivalent of online merchandisers or window dressers. They need to understand the needs of the customer and make the sales process simple and fast.

Disclosure: Chris Sewell is the CEO of The Gaia Partnership whose marketing communications CO2counter has been deployed in the Temando offset to measure carbon in transport and supply carbon offsets.

Here is a procurement practice that I will never understand. When managing the tender process at some point they get all of the agencies into a room for a question and answer session.

The idea is that this ensures a level playing field and ensures that no agency has an unfair advantage over any other. The problem is I have never actually seen this achieve anything except to have the procurement team tick off a step in their procurement process.

This is particularly popular in government procurement processes, where I am told it is mandated by the procurement policy of government to ensure due diligence and governance in the process.

Now I understand if the sessions are just to provide information to the suppliers participating in the tender process, but considering it is a meeting of competitors, I think it is naive to expect competitors to ask questions that could reveal their competitive strategy.

The best way to demonstrate this is with an actual example of where this process went wrong. In this particular case, the tender was not a government tender, but a pharma-company who were undertaking a creative agency tender.

The tender process was similar to the ‘traditional’ and rather ‘old fashioned’ creative pitch, with a Q&A process around the RFP, where the team shared questions and answers with all respondents and then those responding with creative concepts were all asked to attend a single briefing session.

Q&A Session

So having received the extensive RFP documentation, the agencies were given two days to review the paper work and submit their questions to clarify the requirements and the process.

The process issues and questions were fairly straight forward, but the procurement team were concerned that there were many more process questions than there were questions about the requirements.

When you looked at the questions, they were fairly prosaic in regards to process, but the agencies asked very few questions on requirements because the agencies knew that all questions and the answers would be shared with all the other agencies.

So it would be counterproductive to ask questions that would reveal the agency’s strengths by using the questions to probe the desirability of those strengths through the Q&A process.

e.g. With a requirement in the RFP for data analytics the agency my explore the desirability of econometric modelling, but in doing so they will then remind all agencies participating to offer econometric modelling, effectively eliminating their potential competitive advantage.

Briefing Meeting

The more strategic the process being evaluated, the greater the impact of this open process. At the time of providing the brief to the agencies, the response against which they will be judged successful or not has commenced. Even at the time of reading the brief any good agency is already exploring possible strategic directions and creative territories.

Yet when the agency is in the open forum of the briefing session, they are expected to ask questions to explore these strategic and creative directions in front of their competitors. It is not going to happen. So the whole process gets reduced to at best a point scoring exercise on trivial issues or a total waste of time.

In some cases I have seen agencies spend significant amounts of time actually formulating misleading questions to ask in the briefing session to try and throw the other agencies off their strategy.

Focus on what you are evaluating

If you are selecting a media, creative or digital agency, then you are really wanting to select them for their strategic and creative thinking. So why would you use a process that diminishes their competitive advantage by sharing their strategic and creative thinking with their competitors?

I know this may not be immediately obvious, but sharing questions and undertaking open briefing sessions is effectively sharing the agency’s thinking with their competition.

So with the desire to keep the process “open” and “fair”, to comply with guidelines and provide the level of due diligence, the process actually works against the evaluation of the very criteria that is central to selecting a suitable agency.

The frustration is that I have had this conversation many times with many different procurement people. In almost every case they agree with the logic of the argument. But they always fall back on the fact that these are in the guidelines that they need to comply with.

It reminds me of the definition of insanity – “Doing the same thing over and over again and hoping for a different outcome”. Is it any wonder there are so many complaints about these processes and yet nothing ever changes. Is it just procurement insanity?

What do you think?

I remember about 10 years ago, being engaged by a marketing team to work with a well known management consulting firm who had been brought in by senior management to restructure and improve the marketing process. The interesting observation was that rather then customising the structure and process to the strategic requirements, the management firm had a six-sigma developed process that they tried to impose on the marketing team in the interest of best practice.

What I also observed was there was little commitment from the marketing team to the process. The problem appeared to be there was little or no recognition that the current process was obviously functional. The team were not consulted to assist in determining the best way to improve the process of engagement between the internal team and marketing.

It was around this time that we developed the Engagement Agreement process.

The role of SLAs and KPIs in process

Around the time we commenced in using the Engagement Agreement process, I was also reviewing a large number of agency services agreements, that all contained either SLAs (Service Level Agreements) or KPIs (Key Performance Indicators). Many of the marketing and procurement people we were talking with seemed to believe that these contract clauses would assist in managing and improving agency process and performance.

There are two things that are misguided about this belief:

1. Most SLAs and KPIs are based on the assumption that the performance of the agency is simply due to the agency alone. But this fails to recognise that the strategic and creative components are co-created and that the performance of the agency is directly impacted by the performance of the marketer.
2. Many of the KPIs and SLA clauses I have reviewed do not go to the core of the process purpose and are often superficial and inconsequential and therefore have little or no impact on process or performance improvement.

Even as recently as last year a major corporation procurement team wanted me to sign a contract that would financially penalise us if we did not return phone calls within 2 hours 99.5% of the time. I was curious to see if the clause would be reciprocal (NO), wondered who would be monitoring the time lag between the call and the response time (NO ANSWER) and what impact on project performance did they expect from the KPI (NO IDEA).

KPIs and SLAs are great for places like call centres (where they were first used) but in complex relationships based on interactions and contributions from multiple parties to deliver the outcome they are far too 2-dimensional.

The Engagement Agreement Process

The Engagement Agreement process is a facilitated workshop involving all of the key stakeholders involved in the process. The workshop is a collaborative process that is facilitated to achieve three key outcomes:

1. Identify the core areas of interaction and engagement and prioritise these
2. Map the current processes and allocate roles and responsibilities at each step
3. Collectively review the current process to identify bottlenecks, duplications and inefficiencies

It is the collective and collaborative process that aligns the participants in defining the current process and diagnosing the issues. Participation in the process leads to a high level of commitment and commences the movement of the alignment process to deliverable.

The process has been used and developed by Sally Webster, Lecturer in PR and Marketing at Victoria University, who has been recognised with a National Citation for her work with Engagement Agreements.

An example of the benefits

Several months after a pitch we managed, I was contacted by the marketing team who asked if we could help sort out tension that had developed very quickly between the brand team and the new agency.

One of the issues was that, like many marketers post the appointment of the new agency, the marketing team simply leaped back into executing the marketing plan without actually engaging the agency in their expectations or agreeing on how to engage. (We had offered to undertake the Engagement Agreement but both the agency and marketers felt it was not needed.)

The Engagement Agreement process defined the areas of regular interaction including annual planning, campaign development and the like, but someone highlighted that the most tension was caused by the day to day interactions between the brand team, who were under high levels of pressure, and the agency.

In the workshop discussion it was discovered that because of time pressure the marketing team would regularly resort to email. And because the client was in the outer suburbs, face to face meetings were kept to a minimum. And as everyone was so busy it was almost impossible to find time for telephone discussions.

In discussions between the marketing team and the new creative agency it was found that this is where many of the tensions were rising. Emails were often misinterpreted leaving the agency confused.

The result of the workshop was that collectively they designed some basic rules of communication including the use of email, phone discussions and face to face meetings.

The result of this simple innovation was dramatic.

Just as Sally Webster saw an application of the Engagement Agreement process with her students, can you see anywhere in your business where this approach could give you better engagement with those you work with, either internally or externally?

Let me know by leaving a comment here.

How to re-engage with your audience in the new marketing landscape

In the first half of this diatribe, I explained my view that the changes in the media landscape are reducing and may even remove our ability to interrupt the audience with our brand messages. This led to the conclusion that advertising has to evolve into something that people actually want or need in their lives in order to survive. Something they will pull into their world, rather than have us push it. I believe that as well as working out what the brand wants to say and where it wants to say it, we need to answer a third question; why would the audience want to engage with it? In part two I will explore this idea of why in more detail.

My view is that marketing has developed and evolved into four different approaches or nodes. And that one of the key issues with managing audiences and engagement today is that people don’t recognise the existence of these four approaches and the inherent differences between them in terms of how and why consumers engage. We end up trying to fit square peg advertising into round media holes. In so doing we risk losing the audience and consequently our livelihoods.

These four nodes or approaches to doing the job of advertising in my view are;

• story telling
• relationship building
• system building
• ecommerce

I’ll explain each one briefly, as in isolation I hope they’re fairly easy to understand. Crucially I will give a view on WHY consumers might choose to engage with this node. I’ll discuss how ‘new’ media affects the approach in good and bad ways. I’ll then talk about what I think we can conclude from this seemingly trite observation.

Story Telling must be entertaining

Historically marketing has used a ‘story telling’ approach. Brands create stories (or ads) about themselves. Consumers have engaged when it’s been informative and entertaining. The best ads work when we create entertaining, unexpected stories people can relate to. This is the mechanism most under threat from the decline of interruption as an option. The only reason for the audience to choose to engage is if the advertising is entertaining. That’s why as an industry we prize creativity so much. Why when we actually do the hard work on analysing effectiveness we find that ads that win creative awards are also often more effective. The more entertaining the ad is, the more people will choose to engage with it, beyond the forced intrusion of the ad into their schedule.

The issue is that this form is reliant on the push mechanism. I can count the number of ads people will actually choose to seek out and sacrifice their leisure time to watch on the fingers of one hand. One hand that’s lost a few fingers. We might like to kid ourselves that our ads are so highly creative that they are genuine entertainment. I certainly have. Given that places like HBO spend hundreds of millions of dollars trying to be entertaining and don’t always succeed, I think we might be somewhat delusional.

Integrated branded content is one solution to the issue. Can we make the brand part or all of the broadcast show? Networks and media owners are starting to grapple with this issue. I’m a fan of this approach when done well. When the brand has a real reason to be part of the show. When the show genuinely reflects what the brand wants to say. Some of the Masterchef integration has been first class. Some of it clunky and intrusive. Shows like Iconoclasts and the amazing stuff from Red Bull Media house show it is possible to do long form brand content, worthy of a place in a commercial schedule.

‘Digital’ media also offers up some real opportunities to counteract some of these issues. In recent years we’ve see the rise of a more participatory approach to story telling, like the “Share a Coke” and “Best Job in the World” campaigns. I think this more cognitive, behavioural approach to marketing has huge potential. If the audience is shrinking, how do we have a deeper impact with a smaller group of people? Or encourage sharing and ‘virality’? The maths works. It is, however much more complex than the old ‘make ad, air ad’ approach. Nothing strikes more fear into the heart of the marketer than the agency saying, “don’t worry this one will go viral!”

There’s also a real risk that in the search for an engaging participatory approach we lose sight of the brand proposition. In the rush to be interactive we often forget that we are still in story-telling mode and that the story we are telling is the carefully constructed one of what the brand wants to say. Or we lose sight of how hard it actually is to get consumers to participate. Clicking ‘like’ is hardly a huge step on from passive media consumption. In some cases, we lose sight of the plot all-together. A tasty iSnack 2.0 anyone? All too often the mechanism cart gets so far in front of the brand horse, the brand is all but lost.

The owned media space also gives us a great platform to develop brand owned content and be ‘always on’. Can we command an audience through regularly producing and airing great content on our owned digital channel or site? Brand as publisher and ‘content marketing’ are certainly hot topics right now and rightly so.

Always on content, however, is hard, uncharted territory, many of us are unprepared for. Brands and agencies are not set up to deliver the sheer volume of content required to fill an ‘owned’ channel. Being genuinely entertaining, week in week out, to secure regular traffic to your owned space, is far from easy. Look how well some of our broadcast channels aren’t doing at this very game. At another time I’ll also outline my view that there is no such thing as a free media lunch. I believe there’s a cost to securing an audience, through whatever channel. Owned media audiences aren’t free. Look at the millions Foxtel, Nine, Seven and Ten spend promoting their own channels if you need indicative evidence.

Once you’re not entertaining in your owned space, however, you’re dead. The old approach of careful crafting between client and creative, of ad testing, high cost production and rock star directors cannot survive this world. Adam Ferrier recently asked in Encore magazine, if the days of big production budgets were over and if that was a loss? I wonder if instead of spending $1 million on one precisely constructed ad we might see brands spending the same money but getting 100 three-minute pieces of content that fills their channel.

The risks here are all the same. In all this proliferating and additional complexity, in this additive world, the job didn’t change. We still have to powerfully communicate what it is the brand has to say. It cannot be a balancing act between being entertaining and being ‘on brand’. It has to be both or nothing. This has always been a creative tension. Not always a healthy one. Certainly not one that has always been resolved. I refer you to any boring ad you ever saw. Or the raft of ads you like, but cannot remember what on earth they are selling or saying.

Nothing exacerbates my marketing OCD more than people talking about their latest ad as a ‘film’. I don’t make films, sadly, I make ads. The distinction is crucial and commercial. The pressure to be genuinely entertaining enough to command an audience can only make this tension even more difficult. As the need to be entertaining in our story telling rises, as the media in which we broadcast them gets complex, so the need for razor sharp brand strategy also rises or we risk forgetting why advertising exists in the first place. Being creative, being entertaining is an executional necessity, but it’s not a raison d’etre.

Relationship Management must deliver a reward

The second ‘marketing node’ is relationship management. Service businesses in particular have long used a relationship management approach and rewarded consumers in order to drive retention. They have developed quite a science and an infrastructure behind it. As well as a raft of specialist agencies servicing the need. What many brands who have tried to operate in this space have failed to recognise is that the audience, in return for agreeing to a relationship with you, demands some type of reward. If you want to ping me messages every week, I want something back from you. That’s probably not just a link to the YouTube clip of your latest ad, or a happy birthday on my birthday. To truly build relationships with consumers there has to be a value exchange. We are no longer in the entertainment space. We are in the realm of reward. That changes everything.

Technology has obviously had a profound impact in this space, allowing the data to drive apparently tailored personalised messaging, hence hopefully deeper engagement. A bit like content marketing, ‘big data’ is a hot topic, but knowing who I am, where I am and what I like isn’t good enough. You still need to use it to give me stuff I want!

It’s much easier to do data-driven relationship marketing when you own the billing and transaction relationship. Banks, telcos and other service businesses automatically own rafts of data upon which to base their relationship campaigns and offers. Most FMCG brands don’t have that luxury. Hence they haven’t really developed deep expertise in this field.

As the big data providers gain traction however, this becomes a much more real option for product marketers. Having worked in both service and consumer goods it has always struck me how poorly developed the story telling skills of many service brands are and conversely how appalling product brands are at retaining those consumers they have through relationship management and the delivery of reward.

What’s really interesting to me is seeing some major product brands getting into this space. Coke have developed a portfolio driven, multi brand loyalty space in Coke rewards. I think this is great, ground-breaking stuff, however simple it may look if you’re a bank marketer. I know just how hard it is to pull off portfolio-led initiatives in brand led business. To do that in the relationship / reward space is even harder. It may be an acorn right now, but it’s really no surprise that one of the world’s most creative and innovative product brands is leading the charge on product relationship marketing.

System Building must create utility

Mobility and the rise of the ‘app’ in particular have driven real growth in a new marketing ‘approach’. This is the third node or the notion of system building or software development as marketing. Nick Law of R/GA talks far more authoritatively than I ever will about the rise of software as media and how that fundamentally changes the nature of the marketing that flows through this channel. I subscribe to Nick’s view of the world and believe this new approach of all of them has the greatest potential to change what we do. In my opinion, getting this ‘channel’, if we can call it that, right relies squarely on the notion of utility. If you want me to use your marketing rather than consume it you better make it useful, or you will be deleted. Commonwealth Bank have been doing some nice work in this space with their Effie winning Investorville campaign and their Property Guide app. Real usefulness that also delivers real brand messages.

Now some of you might be muttering the word gamification into your developer’s or hipster’s beard right now. Surely Investorville is a game? Obviously there are elements of gaming inherent in the design. They make it fun and engaging. But in my opinion gaming is not why this campaign works. It works, I believe, because it’s useful. Try selling Investorville as a product for people to play on their Xbox and you’ll see just how good a game it isn’t.

Gamification for me is mostly just another modern aspect of interactive story telling. If it isn’t entertaining it won’t succeed. Again, like HBO make content, EA make games. They are the new competition for consumer attention, not the agency down the road. Done badly, brand apps are just another form of lack-lustre story telling with no real reason for the consumer to engage, gamified or not. Done well however, brand apps and software create genuinely (often socially) useful applications that consumers will choose to pull into their lives.

In his article for Wharton’s ‘Future of Advertising’ program, “11 big trends that will reshape advertising in 2012 and beyond”, Max Kalehoff argues that a key trend is that ‘successful advertising will be about service.’ I think he’s right. This is a whole brave new world of marketing we have yet to master.

eCommerce must make transaction easier

The final node, which really needs little explanation is e-commerce. This space is currently dominated by the B2C brands that are increasingly using e-retail as a means of vertical integration by proxy. The likes of the big retailers bemoan the competition issues created by a globally connected shopping environment, but it is the new reality. A bit like the changing media landscape and the warming planet, we have to accept it, deal with it and move on. In my opinion, the harder Coles and Woolies push the FMCG suppliers on margin, the more and more likely it becomes that the product brands join in the e-commerce transformation. Sure the barriers and logistics are hard, but they are removable, if the incentive is high enough. The stakes rise daily. In the UK last month, my alma mater Diageo launched its first real online ecommerce site. Selling direct to consumer, bypassing the powerful supermarket chains and effectively vertically integrating its business. Another small acorn, but the way ahead seems clear.

The WHY is different at each node

Each of the four nodes then works in a very different way. And is perhaps best suited to a different marketing ‘job’.

Story telling MUST be entertaining in order to acquire new consumers. Relationship management MUST be rewarding to keep consumers loyal. System building MUST create utility in order to deepen relationships with existing consumers. E-commerce HAS to make transacting simple, easy and convenient.

Hyper Connected Advertising

Those of you who work as specialists in some of these disciplines may be looking curiously at the egg I am teaching you to suck, but there’s one further step that I think makes this approach genuinely interesting. That’s what happens if we connect it all together. I’m going to call this, with my tongue firmly in my cheek I might add, ‘the hyper-connected advertising system’. Here’s what happens if we start to think systemically about the whole rather than the parts. Let’s follow a hypothetical advertising development journey in our new hyper-connected systemic world.

We start with a story-telling approach, not radically different to what many brands are doing today. But we make it two way, interactive, telescopic and always on. We begin to collect the most basic data about who the consumer is, as they click onto our owned media channel to see more of our content. We add to this our relationship approach, inviting our consumer to receive rewards for telling us more about themselves. We collect more data. We use that data to push more relevant, entertaining content and stories into their feed. A mutually sustaining system.

Now we know a fair bit about our end users, so we build and get them to use our brand utility app. This transforms the amount of data we have about the base and further deepens and enhances our entertainment and reward strategies. Finally we take the last step and begin to transact with the base directly. Our data infrastructure is now substantial.

In building the ecosystem, we’ve attracted new consumers, made them loyal, kept them active and secured direct access to their wallet. Along the way we’ve also reduced our reliance on paid media as a channel and third parties for retail and distribution. Sure we’ve spent a lot on data management and software development, but we are spending less on production, media and trading terms. We’ve changed the business model, but most importantly we’ve retained the audience and they, if you remember, are ALL that counts.

Final Thoughts

The consequences of this for brands, agencies and media owners are transformational. This is advertising climate change. At a later date, I will explore what some responses to this new world might be, but for now the key observation is that unless we start to wrestle with the challenge of why consumers should bother to listen to what we want to say, they might just stop listening all together. Dramatically reducing the amount of fossil fuel we consume is not easy in an oil-driven economy. Dramatically reducing our reliance on interruption is pretty difficult with our current levels of thought leadership and a fragmented brand and agency model. Change will require a level of systemized, integrated thought that is currently beyond many brands and agencies. Only the best will survive, but change we must.

If this all sounds a little theoretic and hard to grasp, I’d leave you with a final thought. The best brands in the world today are already doing this. God I hope they don’t call it ‘hyper connected advertising’, but my model is based on observation and admiration of what the best in class in our business are doing. Not drowning in the rising tides of marketing climate change, but waving, thriving and growing. Brands like Nike, Nespresso, Gatorade and Apple are all moving rapidly towards this approach. It’s not just possible, it’s happening.

Unless all of us accept the new complexity and try and make advertising that consumers will actually be happy to pull into their lives, our business and our profession may well sink under the rising waters of technological advancement and the on demand media revolution.

Like finding the solutions to climate change, we cannot solve these problems with yesterday’s thinking, or through small step incrementalism. We need radical wholesale change. It starts with us all accepting we have got a problem. Interestingly one of the key symptoms of that problem, is the over reliance on metaphor and analogy. I am on the road to recovery. Are you?

At the recent WFA Global Marketing Week in Brussels I was interviewed on the impact cost reduction was having on innovation and creativity. Seeing the edited result here got me thinking about the impact I have seen in recent years where cost reduction became more important than the results and value marketing and their agencies were delivering.

From the first day of setting up TrinityP3 we have not accepted payment linked to savings because the easiest thing in the world is to reduce advertising and marketing costs at the expense of effectiveness and value.

“Cutting costs without improvements in quality is futile.”

—W. Edwards Deming (1900–1996)

The three examples that immediately come to mind are:

1. Media cost over media value
2. Reduction of agency fees at the expense of expertise
3. A focus on price leading to increased cost

These are actual examples and to protect the guilty, the naive and the stupid I have changed or eliminated the details that would identify who they are, but I am sure they will see themselves in these examples.

Media cost over media value

A global consumer goods company CMO was talking to me about the performance of his media agency and wondering what I thought of them because he had doubts on their level of innovation and proactivity. The agency had a good reputation with their many other clients and within the marketplace so I was surprised he was having such a negative experience.

I asked about how the agency were remunerated and he told me that on the global agreement they had the typical small margin deal but that the bonus was quite substantial based on delivering very aggressive CPM (Cost Per Thousand) goals.

Typical of many global, and sometimes local, media agency deals is a focus on providing a bonus to the media agency based on achieving lower media costs and one of the easiest measures of media cost is CPM. The problem is that a media agency can achieve low CPMs by buying low quality inventory and avoiding the high quality, premium media environments that attract a premium price and therefore drive up the CPM.

I asked the CMO to describe the symptoms he saw as reflecting the agencies poor performance and he said that for their significant media investment he almost never saw his spots on air yet he always saw his competitors spots. And that the agency rarely came forward with innovative sponsorship or media properties.

We talked about when he watched television and this was when he got home from the office around 7.30 pm. This is zone 1 and premium time with premium viewers and rates. There is no way the agency could schedule in this time without compromising their bonus. But clearly the competitors did not have the same limitations.

Likewise, many of the exciting and interesting sponsorship deals are for premium properties and these invariably come with premium audience delivery costs. Even though they can provide excellent value in positioning, awareness and brand association, the measure of cost of audience delivery, CPM, does not take any of this into account.

Here is a prime example of where measuring cost and providing an incentive to lower cost has eliminated the opportunities to embrace the media value, leaving the brand in the bargain basement.

Reduction of agency fees at the expense of expertise

A global entertainment company contacted me to discuss undertaking a media agency pitch. It was felt that the agency had been under-performing for the past 12 months or more with little or no obvious strategic input and a high turnover of staff on the account.

Both of these are obvious symptoms of potential remuneration issues and so I suggested to the marketers we undertake a remuneration benchmarking prior to the pitch to get a baseline of the level of remuneration. Sure enough for the level of spend the mix and complexity of the media requirements the agency were paid about 35% less than benchmark.

Interestingly, on bringing these findings to the attention of the marketing team, we were informed that 18 months earlier the regional procurement team had benchmarked and reduced the agency fee by 30%. The agency accepted the reduction in the fee as the alternative was to have to defend the business in a pitch.

Instead, the agency took the 30% reduction in fee and effectively removed the senior account management and media strategy and planning from the account replacing them with the resources they could afford. They did not touch the buying / trading function as this is the area that was regularly checked by media buying audit.

On the basis that the average media agency fee is between 2.5% and 4% of media spend, they had effectively saved 30% off the agency fee and effectively put the 96% – 97.5% of the media spend at risk of underperformance. The problem is that they did not know this for 18 months as the only thing they were measuring was media buying cost and not the media value delivered.

A focus on price leading to increased cost

A financial services company had appointed an agency and commissioned us to assist with the negotiation and benchmarking of the proposed agency fees. A year later the contract was being reviewed by the company procurement team and I received a call from the procurement lead.

He was reviewing the production rate card and was questioning the rates we had negotiated. In his experience in the print industry he was aware of studio rates that were less than half of the rate we had negotiated. In the conversation I pointed out that the advertising agencies were typically more expensive than the production houses associated with print companies and brokers. The reason is that the agency is developing the creative work and that typically they utilise a better calibre of studio artist / designer.

He disagreed and went off to negotiate with the agency, convinced that our benchmarks were out-of-step with this objective of reducing agency costs. He came back several weeks later gloating about his results, especially on studio costs. The rate had been negotiated from $180 per hour to just $90 per hour. He had calculated that on the previous year’s artwork spend he had effectively saved the company more than a million dollars.

It was an impressive price reduction and I asked him to share the whole rate card. On this there was a ‘new’ charge being file archiving and file retrieval. Anyone aware of the Apple Mac OS and Adobe In-Design application know that this is effectively Command O and Command S. Yet here was a charge of $90 each.

Most of the jobs going through the agency studio for this client, and something we knew but he did not, are simple changes and corrections. These are typically billed in 30 minute increments. Because of the many stakeholders and the volume of work these changes outnumber the longer, base artwork costs by more than 5 to 1. So what is the cost implication?

Under the old system the price was $180 per hour. Five in one jobs are billed at 30 minutes which is a cost of $90 each. Under the new prices in the rate card those same jobs are now $45 for the studio time plus $90 for the file retrieval plus $90 for the file archiving being a total cost of $225. Reducing the hourly rate by 50% effectively raised the cost 150% in more than 80% of studio projects.

Even worse, it appears that the number of times jobs jobs were sent back through the studio for revision increased because the lower rate created the perception that the cost consequences were also reduced. He did not save the company more than a million dollars, he effectively cost the company money because the focus was on the price and not the cost or the value to the company.

Are you focused on Cost? Price? Or Value?

Here are three examples that come to mind when people are focused on price or cost and not value. Marketing is a value proposition. But so much of the conversation is based on cost and price. The results of this are often counter to the true objective to be more efficient and cost effective.

Do you have any examples of where cost reduction has been applied at the expense of value in marketing? You do not have to provide details, just share the basic premise as I have done. Leave a comment and share.

So we have all accepted that digital is an integral part of our commercial landscape.

If you have not accepted this view then it may be time to put down the device in your hand and pick up that stone tablet next to you…

If you want to stick around perhaps a description would help – and what better source than the ultimate content curator – Wikipedia:

‘A web content management system (web CMS) is a bundled or stand-alone application to create, manage, store and deploy content on Web pages. Web content includes text and embedded graphics, photos, video, audio, and code that displays content or interacts with the user. A web CMS may catalog and index content, select or assemble content at runtime, or deliver content to specific visitors in a requested way, such as other languages. Web CMSs usually allow client control over HTML-based content, files, documents, and web hosting plans based on the system depth and the niche it serves.’

So that is well and good but what is the best CMS system to use?

Depending on who your developer is will entirely dictate the answer to this question. It comes down to personal preference entirely. Get twenty developers in a room, sit-back, pour yourself a large one and let them debate for hours. Highly entertaining – if you like that sort of thing.

If you don’t have time for light entertainment here is a quick summary of 5 of the most popular Open Source systems.

Ratings (1-5 with 5 being excellent) are based on overall capabilities for a beginning to intermediate user.

WordPress

With over 60 million users this is the Mac-Daddy thanks to its ease of use and quick installation. The core software (now at version 3.5.1) is built by volunteers – hence their positioning ‘Wordpress is both free and priceless at the same time’.

Known as a bloggers best friend – as per its original purpose – the software has now evolved to include thousands of plugins and themes that can transform any site from a simple blog to a full e-commerce platform thanks to good page management features, media uploading and numerous features to assist in content management.

Like many Open Source systems, WordPress has often been of concern for the more security-minded who worry about the open access nature. This is largely unfounded.

WordPress is not just used by the stay-at-home blogger but has become a core component of the systems used by some of the giants of information and technology including Sony, Samsung, CNN and eBay. These guys are not known for their cavalier attitude to security.

Having said that, these companies and many others still primarily use it as a blogging platform – cue hysteria from some developers. Yes it is open source which means new add ons are being created all the time but this constant evolution means that some plugins may be become outdated and cease working.

Don’t get me wrong – I love WordPress like a cute Labrador puppy that just wants to please…but… it does have its limitations when required to perform against other systems more specifically designed for enterprise driven needs.

Best Use: Blogging

Rating: 4.5

Review

Concrete5

A powerful CMS that also doubles up as a strong framework for the development of web apps. It is largely designed for non-programmers who want a static site – About, Contact etc. thanks to easy set-up and ability to inline edit very simply handling links, images and other ‘blocks’ brilliantly.

This is designed with the user in mind and it shows. With the minimum of tuition even the most hapless of users will be able to change content with the use of simple front-end editing.

For the more advanced the opportunity exists to code your own themes with HTML Javascript and CSS templates and convert, whilst the less code-savvy start with a theme and then override styles.

Tutorials are readily available with some of the video offerings particularly useful compared to other systems.

In terms of add ons Concrete5 can be seen as pricey and has been accused of lacking the depth of choice of other CMS’s however this is changing at pace.

Although built from the ground up as a commercial CMS it has one of the fastest growing develop community’s within Open Source CMS (although still smaller than many other platforms) as well as an actual support facility if forums cannot assist making it a good choice for beginners to intermediate levels.

Best Use: Community

Overall Rating: 4

Review

Joomla!

Visit the Joomla site and you will see them claim of millions of users – no surprise given it is so customizable. It is a true heavyweight amongst CMS platforms and has a million module creators (yes you read that right). The problem with this abundance is finding one that suits your needs.

Joomla is perfect for developers looking for an extendable CMS with a lot of functionality. The basic product can provide a huge array of options thanks largely to the third-party extensions available.

In particular this is a platform worth considering if you are looking at incorporating memberships areas, forums, articles from external authors etc. giving you plenty of opportunity to set limits on time, length, author etc.

The basic stuff – colours, logos, themes etc. – is pretty easy to master however even the most seasoned developer needs some guidance once you start moving on from here.

However be warned that many of the smartest modules are not cheap if you do venture off of the range.

Should you get into trouble, as ever, the Joomla community is there to help – and what a friendly bunch they are…there is also a comprehensive admin section that is easy to use and there are a kaleidoscope of templates and styles, menu management tools and feeds so for this reason the likes of Citibank, MTV, Linux and Harvard use the system.

Best Use: Small/Medium Business.

Rating: 4

Review

Drupal

A close cousin in many ways to Joomla!, in terms of purpose. It is another titan of the CMS world with enough modules to power almost any kind of site. These modules are (relatively) easy to customize and the majority of menus, sidebars and configurations can be changed without needing to change the theme.

Of course, reading between the lines, this means the basic system whilst easy to install is relatively bare bones – hence the need for so many modules in order to help build that kick-ass site that you have dreamed of.

Like those community-built sites listed above, Drupal has an active community to assist with problems and has even moved to hosting face-to-face Drupal events and forums.

This is probably necessary as the system can be intimidating given the volume of options and configurations on offer – there are over 6,000 modules – just don’t even mention the ‘creative/confusing’ names for some functions… This is a system that justifies a developers salary.

If you can find them, there are so many modules to choose from that the system can be overwhelming, complicated and slow. Beware – as can be the case with other community-built systems – unfinished modules lurk in the depths.

Having said that, a major bonus of the community-built system is the sense of collaboration that ensures there is always someone on the various forums willing to assist with any issues making it a popular choice with some big boys like Universal Music and MIT.

Hey, anything that is good enough for the Mr Obama and the White House is good enough for me.

Best Use: Big Business

Rating: 3

Review

ModX

An Open Source PHP application framework that is feature rich and allows almost full customization using templates in regular HTML/CSS/JS this system has been gaining increasing popularity from a passionate and vocal community.

Its interface looks impressive and provides developers with a vast array of options for customization that can make other systems look like tin-pot dictators.

On top of this ModX minimizes the need for SEO expertise being built with this critical factor in mind without the need for additional plugins.

This is a system that is really built for those with strong development skills who enjoy complete control over the CM included an integrated blog and varied features. Many users enjoy the ease of navigation with the left hand side menu that pops open with pages as well as incorporation of the newest technologies that help ‘future-proof’ the site.

However, some developers have complained that the system can be difficult to use for the uninitiated – which given the relative lack of documentation – can be a number of people. Make the wrong move and you can step on a landmine that explodes everything. This is something to be wary of when handing control to a client that lacks ModX experience.

Unfortunately the forums can often be of little help with ModX contributors having an unfortunate reputation for arrogance when dealing with new users.

As one reviewer so eloquently wrote – ‘if the caches fail it’s like having the Sword of Damocles over your head; you are provided nothing but ‘The White Screen of Death’’…

Best Use: Tech Sites

Rating: 2.5

Review

There are dozens of CMS systems to choose from depending on your requirements each has their own merits. For the vast majority of users WordPress is hard to go past – hence its popularity. Whilst it was designed as a blogging platform, it has evolved to become so much more. Whilst it can frustrate with its lack of flexibility on occasion, it is a system that all but holds your hand through each step – think of it as a ‘Benign Dictator’.

At the other end of the spectrum stands ModX that is a wonderful CMS system for those familiar with its capabilities but given its unforgiving nature it is not to be used for ‘P-Platers’.

Concrete5 is a great platform for developers and agencies working across a wide variety of clients as it is easy to use and once all of the addons are incorporated can really let you play to your hearts content.

Joomla! Is a thinker – it has great depth. Many users only skim the surface of its capabilities and can get frustrated with weeks of work and a sense of frustration however those who have broken through the pain barrier describe a developers nirvana.

Drupal really starts to move towards the bigger end of town and lends itself nicely to construction of bigger more complex sites thanks to impressive scalability without some of the barriers of ModX.

I encourage you to research as much as possible before making your final decision. Even the most cursory investigation will find a cross-section of views about every system so maybe the best advice is to try a few on for size and see which fits best.

Let me know which CMS you favour and why by leaving a comment.

If you have been following TrinityP3 for any length of time you may have noticed a gradual (or maybe not so gradual) rise in the brand’s presence online over the last couple of years.

In this post I am going to share a few of our strategy secrets and I am also going to demonstrate how the big increase in digital visibility has a significant and measurable impact on company revenue.

Many thanks to Darren Woolley, Founder and MD of TrinityP3 for allowing us to publish these results and to outline how we have achieved this.

This has been a collaborative project from the outset and has required a lot of belief and a lot of hard work from the team at TrinityP3, particularly from Darren, and a phenomenal commitment to a rigorous publishing and social media schedule.

Oh. yes… and a bit of courage. Being prepared to stand up and have your opinions published on trade sites that allow spiteful anonymous comments is not for the faint-hearted. This industry is rife with tall poppy syndrome and I think we all recognise this.

There were some tough times early on, particularly in the Winter of 2011 when traction was still quite slow. But, the commitment remained and as we gained momentum the rewards began to show.

How can you measure digital ROI?

There is a lot of debate about whether ROI is measurable with anything to do with digital marketing.

How do you measure it?

Should we be talking instead about ROE? (return on engagement)

Or should we be talking about ROI? (return on influence)

Or what about ROR? (return on relationship)

And many other permutations can be searched and found indexed on thousands of search engines. There is no shortage of new acronyms for digital return, that’s for sure.

In the end there is really only one metric any business should be concerned with:

Growth in revenue.

Simple as that.

Impressions, clicks, rankings, pageviews, subscribers, CTRs, actions, unique visitors, bounce rates, traffic sources, paid vs organic, social signals, influence measurement, conversions and more are crucial in measuring progress and in identifying areas to concentrate efforts or reduce emphasis…

But, these mean nothing if you are not seeing increased revenue and increased profits.

Without a measurable increase in revenue what is the point of all this effort?

The “How long is a piece of string” element is in how long it will take for you to see growth in revenue.

And this will depend on a very large range of factors and influences – your commitment, your expertise, your resourcing, your offline influence, your reputation, your investment, your networks, your agility, your team, your time…

So, let’s look at how we are able to measure real ROI for TrinityP3′s project.

I will start with the cold hard stats and this will give you a good picture of the relationship between growth in website traffic and growth in revenue. Then I will take you through a blow by blow account of some the strategies we have used to get here.

As an introduction, the project has been based on a combination of SEO, Content Marketing, Social Media and technical compliance. And there have been a number of shifts in strategy over the two year period covered.

Some seriously huge changes to search and the internet have taken place in 2012 and if your online strategy was not agile enough to cope with the shifting ground you would have suffered the consequences.

This has been driven by Google’s aggressive stance on search engine result manipulation and webspam. If you had SEO skeletons in your closet then they sure as hell came tumbling out after the infamous Panda and Penguin updates.

To clarify before we start, the growth figure I reference in the title relates to a 300% increase in “unique visitors” to the TrinityP3 website. This takes out repeat visitors which can be influenced by staff, consultants or agencies accessing the site for their individual projects.

It is difficult to manipulate either unique visitors or Google organic visitors so these can be seen as true reflections of the website rewards of our efforts.

TrinityP3 website results

First let’s look at how various sources and Google Analytics metrics performed when 2011 figures are compared with 2012:

Unique visitors grew by 303%, Google organic traffic grew by 284% and Twitter and LinkedIn saw phenomenal growth.

Visitor growth looks like this in Google Analytics’ Audience Overview data:

You need to know where your visitors are coming from so what were the most important sources of traffic to the website?

Anyone who doubts the market dominance of Google should do this little exercise using their own analytics. I have intentionally left out the long tail (lower traffic) of traffic sources – traffic from every Google geo-location in the world, multiple social bookmarking and smaller social media sites (StumbleUpon features quite strongly), trade sites – thanks Mumbrella, AdNews, Campaign Brief, and also visitors from colleagues’ sites or strategic partners’ sites among others.

Direct traffic indicates brand visibility and often comes from PR and offline strategies but will also include a healthy chunk of what is known as “Dark Social” which is traffic from social media sites, particularly Twitter, which Google is either unable or unwilling to share data on.

Now for the most important figures.

How has this growth in website traffic from a number of sources affected revenue?

This graph shows clearly what has happened in 2012:

As you would probably expect unique visitors is growing at a much faster rate than revenue but the overall trends are very clear. (I’m sure you’d love 303% growth in revenue but let’s get real).

The actual revenue growth is 38% during what many are calling tough times in the industry.

Interesting?

As the leading strategic marketing management consultancy in APAC, we are regularly approached by marketers and procurement wanting to discuss potential projects they are interested in engaging us to help. These projects range across the full gambit of marketing communications from media to PR and SEO to sale promotion and regularly include:

• Agency roster alignment and management
• Agency remuneration benchmarking and modelling
• Marketing budget setting and management
• Marketing department alignment and structures
• Media buying benchmarking
• Agency search and selection and Pitch management
• Television, digital and print assessments and management
• Agency relationship management
• Marketing process optimisation
• Agency contract reviews and negotiations

Occasionally the organisation will have a procurement policy that means that they cannot appoint us to assist them without a competitive tender and so I often find myself being asked to supply details about our competitors so that they are able to invite us to tender against one of more of them.

In the interest of complete transparency, we are therefore offering a list of our competitors in the category of marketing procurement and marketing management in Asia-Pacific and Oceania. It does not purport to be a complete list, although it is reasonably comprehensive. So I am more than happy to add the details of any suitable organisation that has been overlooked. Please just let me know their company name and URL as a comment below.

Accenture Interactive - What they do (from their web site) - Using proprietary assets, pools of benchmarks based on more than $14 billion a year of media spend and more than 170 dedicated media professionals, we help our clients increase their media value. Outperform the competition and achieve high performance in media management.

Agency Register – What they do (from their web site) – We provide ‘best practice’ thinking, highly transparent, accountable processes, and adhere to the highest ethical standards so that review/evaluation outcomes are: decisive, beyond reproach, align with the needs of the business as–a–whole. To ensure all outcomes are merit based and free of any potential conflict–of–interest each evaluator of the agencies under consideration is required to confidentially submit a Declaration of Interest.

APR – What they do (from their website) - We optimize your productions and the systems that surround them. APR helps International brands identify cost efficiencies and implement the latest processes & best practices to create the greatest possible value across the entire spectrum of their advertising production spend.

Aprais - What they do (from their web site) - Aprais enhances business relationships. With a global network of experts working with proprietary, state-of-the-art evaluation software, Aprais offers a consultative, results driven process of in depth evaluation, global benchmarking, and actionable steps aimed at maximising relationship productivity. Relationship management is all we do – so there is no possible conflict of interests.

Bird Bonette Stauderman (BBS) - What they do (from their web site) - Founded in 1985, BBS has five offices worldwide and more than 45 consultants on five continents. BBS’ advertising production consultants are former TV, Interactive, and Print production and procurement executives, all recognized authorities in their field. Our goal is to increase and ensure the best advertising production value for our clients’ budgets.

Challenger Consulting - What they do (from their web site) - Our business philosophy is to put the customer first and provide high quality strategic plans and blueprints for effective implementation. We work with our clients to achieve real results, regardless of the challenge.

The Clinic - What they do (from their web site) - The Clinic helps advertisers get the best from their agencies by advising on agency selection, negotiating remuneration and servicing structures, and optimising the relationship to achieve exceptional performance. Part advertising agency pitch consultant, part financial adviser and part relationship counsellor.

Faulkner Media Management (An Ebiqity Company) - What they do (from their web site) - Faulkner is a truly independent media consultancy, set up to answer the question “How can I get better value and greater effectiveness from my media budget?” For more than two decades we have been helping our clients drive continual improvement from their media. We work collaboratively with our clients and their agencies to demystify the whole campaign development process. We don’t just audit. We help drive improvement – genuine, quantifiable and sustainable… from Campaign briefing, strategy, planning and buying to post-campaign learning and agency relationships.

Enth Degree - What they do (from their web site) - At Enth Degree we believe that it’s easy to drive down costs, but it is more sustainable to identify appropriate cost savings whilst simultaneously improving the service delivery of a marketer’s communications agency partners. We value manage all disciplines in the communications process including creative, media, digital, PR and promotion. Our clients can choose services from both the ‘Qual’ and ‘Quant’ sphere to best suit their individual needs and maximise value from their communication suppliers.

Kenesis Media - What they do (from their web site) - Kinesis provides independent strategic consultancy services for marketers, media and communication companies who require expert guidance, new thinking, improved performance and sales results and understanding the fast changing, complex and dynamic communications world.

Maximised – What they do (from their web site) - Working globally and locally with marketing departments; advertising agencies (creative; media; BTL; Digital); stakeholders (sales; finance; executive; regional teams etc) and procurement to help maximise performance between internal teams and external suppliers/partners. Our focus is on improving processes; systems and attitudes to create environments that allow relationships to flourish and be maximised!

Murphy Cobb & Associates (MCA) - What they do (from their web site) - MCA are a multi-channel production consultancy. We find ways to put great creative ideas into action, whatever the platform, ensuring you optimise your marketing investment.

Navigare - What they do (from their web site) – Navigare is a Sydney-based consultancy that provides confidential and bespoke relationship management advice to CEO’s, senior marketers and their advertising (digital, PR, promotional, print management) and media agency partners. Founded in 1996 Navigare has worked at a senior executive or Board level discreetly, behind the scenes, to solve the client / agency relationship and performance problems of many of Australia’s largest consumer marketing businesses . The Practice is also deployed by many forward-thinking advertising agency CEO’s with a genuine commitment to best practice client service.

The Observatory - What they do (from their web site) - The Observatory International offers the broadest toolkit for marketing procurement and relationship management. Today more than ever, marketers need to drive greater efficiencies and show tangible results. The Observatory International offers support at every stage of planning, procurement, resource allocation, agency selection and relationship management. You’ll work with senior consultants who understand the challenges and the concerns of all stakeholders – marketing, finance, procurement and communications agencies.

Portland Group (An Infosys Company) – What they do (from their web site) - We offer a range of services to support clients in their drive to improve efficiency and thereby financial performance (profit improvement and return on assets/capital). Our consulting services can be summarised into four key focus areas: Procurement Efficiency, Supply Chain Efficiency, Asset Efficiency and Organisation Efficiency

R3 - What they do (from their web site) - R3 was established in 2002 in response to an increasing need from marketers to enhance their relationships with their agencies. Our core service offerings include proprietary tools and processes in all aspects of improving marketing efficiency and effectiveness, as well as in the areas of Agency Relationships, Remuneration and Reviews. They combine thirty years of market testing outside of Asia with enhancements and improvements for this region. In addition, we also conduct independent media analysis and other bespoke research projects around sports, stars and agencies.

Spatial Access – What they do (from their web site) - We work with advertisers in pursuit of continual improvement in efficiency and effectiveness of media and marketing investments. Spatial Access (SA) was launched on the 13th of October 2003 and has evolved into a measurement and evaluation specialist of media & marketing investments. Today, we provide a wide range of audit, advisory and analytical services. Our team of over 30 talented individuals services more than 120 clients across 7 cities in India and 6 countries across the globe!

This is a work in progress – To the best of my knowledge this is a reasonably comprehensive list of companies in this niche category in the Asia Pacific and Oceania region. If you know of any more, please leave their name and URL here as a comment so we can check them out and add to the list where appropriate.

How to re-engage with your audience in the new marketing landscape

I’ve got a dirty secret. It’s one I share with many marketers. I’m an analogy addict. Try
saying that fast, five times in a row.

I can’t resist the lure of a good related story to dramatize my point. I find it impossible to just say what I want to say. I need to find a parable, a metaphor, a simile or even just a piece of urban mythology to dramatize my point. I guess that makes me a drama king. See even when trying to talk honestly about my addiction I use a bloody archetype.

No surprise then, that I can’t rid myself of this affliction when it comes to writing down
what’s on my mind about marketing. Marketing after all is littered with metaphors and
analogies. The worst thing, however, is that I genuinely believe marketing is at a moment
in time when it’s all about to change.

We are at an inflection point. A crossroads, would be the more obvious of popular symbols to pick to represent where I feel the profession and industry are at. The problem is that history is littered with analogies for the hero, facing impending doom. There’s a million metaphors to choose from. I feel like a kid in a toyshop. Yup there I go again, even when talking about how to pick analogies, I use an analogy. I tell you it’s a disease.

One oft used story is that of the boiled frog. Its urban myth that the frog gently heated in
a pan of water will not leap out. But it serves to make the point. In a somewhat cruel and
unusual way. As marketers I do believe we are being gently cooked, as the consumer
landscape heats slowly up and we stay resolutely still.

Canute is another powerful tale that represents where I think we are. A true one to boot.
I’d use the traditional spelling of his name but it wreaks havoc with my spell check. I do
genuinely see many of my colleagues and friends standing resolutely on the shores of
advertising as the seas of change roll steadily in.

So how to pick one? How best to exemplify my point. How do I light the blue touch
paper, set the platform alight and put a rocket under the ass of Aussie marketing?

I’ve ended up with Climate Change. It’s a really good metaphor for what I want to say.
Not that I believe the challenges facing marketing are the same scale or impact as our
environmental crisis. They’re much bigger than Al Gore’s little temperature problem for
God’s sake. But I do think the marketing environment faces some of the same challenges.

• The data is indisputable. There’s a seismic shift underway.
• A large number of people, especially the manufacturers of marketing fossil fuels,
are in total denial about what’s happening.
• There are a heap of snake oil salesmen selling the marketing equivalent of windfarms
and hybrid cars.
• Nobody has a clue about what to do instead.

So I’m going to try to talk about some of that. A bit like Al Gore, I’m probably going to
ask as many questions as I answer, but I’m hoping to leave you no longer in denial and
somewhat hopeful that you don’t have to be underwater in 5 years time. Here’s how I’m
going to do that.

1. I’m going to set the platform alight. I’m going to re-present the data and hope
that you draw the same conclusions from it that I have. That the crucial question
to answer is no longer what to say in our marketing, but how do we get anybody
to listen?
2. I’m going to talk about how advertising and marketing has evolved as new media
have emerged and try and explain WHY some things have worked and others
haven’t. Why does the audience respond to some things, not others?
3. I’m going to hang it out there and suggest how it might have to evolve further to
really deal with the challenges and access the opportunities the new environment
has to offer.

Five years ago I used to describe myself as a marketing expert. I knew how to do
marketing. I’d been well trained at Mars, Diageo and Virgin and I knew my stuff. It may
just be the descent into senility and the onset of my second childhood, but nowadays I
don’t feel I can say that. Nobody I know, knows how to do marketing anymore. I’ve gone
from marketing guru to marketing novice. So of course I’ve started my own consultancy!

The best I can say in a pitch or an interview nowadays, however, is that I am an expert in
re-learning how to do marketing. I’m not living in denial. I know the world changed and I
need to play catch up and play it fast. I’m going to talk about why I feel that way. As
always with these things I make no pretence of being right. I gave up the illusion that I
might be right, about the same time I gave up on the idea that I could dance.

But I hope to make you think. Maybe you can start where I have got to and make some sense of it all. First though, I think it’s worth reminding ourselves that not EVERYTHING has changed.

In and amongst all this turmoil, the job has not changed. Marketing’s role is to change the way customers and consumers behave, usually in order to make more money for the organisation. If we can focus on doing this for the long term, not just the short, we are doing our job really well. Whilst that may seem a trite truism it’s always worth restating, as the real world gets in the way all too often and we end up focused elsewhere. On things like awareness and likes and awards and a whole heap of other things that might be good measures, but aren’t good reasons.

As we break that truism down there are some other constants in all this change. The tasks we need to perform haven’t changed. We need to acquire new consumers, get the current consumers to buy more, keep those consumers and persuade them to pay a higher price. I also believe the fundamentals of the way to change long term behaviour also hasn’t shifted. We need to create a true, differentiating and motivating brand positioning, wrap it in a powerful brand identity and then find ways of communicating it to the people who we want to affect in a comprehensible, impactful way.

Our purpose, our goals and our message haven’t shifted. But the medium has. It’s shifted
radically and fundamentally and it’s going to keep on shifting for quite some time yet.

Most call it ‘digital’ to try and contain it in a box, but I think its much, much more complex
than that. The medium is not defined by the transmission technology. For me its about
the changing way our audience consumes media, not how the media arrives into their
lives. It’s my opinion that we are still mostly trying to fit square peg advertising into
round media holes. I realise that’s yet another analogy, but I think it makes the point quite
clearly.

The way we connect to people, the way we communicate our message, the way
we engage with an audience, has to change fundamentally, because the audience is
changing its media consumption habits. If we keep trying to blast out a message to an
audience that isn’t listening and doesn’t care, we won’t achieve the same results. At that
point, marketing will no longer make the organisation more money. Then the analogy is
simple. You and me and the rest of the marketing profession are then royally,
fundamentally and irrevocably screwed.

So let’s talk about media and just for a moment let’s leave the world of metaphor behind
and talk about some facts.

The media landscape has changed, but worse than that it’s still changing. This is where I see a whole heap of climate change deniers clinging on to the past in the hope that we are just having a slightly warm media summer. The issue is the same as the environmental one. We are not yet at crisis. We have not yet sunk under the ocean. But I think the data, like Al Gore’s famous long-term temperature chart, shows us which way we are heading.

Let’s talk TV. It’s still the best way to deliver audience we know of. I think that’s why it’s
so easy to warm ourselves by the cosy fire that’s burning under the mass broadcast
medium. It’s still operating pretty well. Television is more memorable than any other form
of advertising medium (Deloitte 2010). Even in 2012, broadcast TV still reached 87% of
all Australians (Nielsen, 2012), that’s a pretty seductive number. But when you look a little
closer, all is not well.

Listen more closely to Mr. Nielsen for a second. One third of all those viewers, are
watching time-shifted TV. And we know that 86% of time-shifters skip through the ads.
Don’t believe the snake oil salesman who tells you that people still retain key information
from fast-forwarded ads. It’s just not true. Perhaps even more surprisingly online TV
watching already has 43% penetration. That’s already half the reach of broadcast.

Whilst the media climate change deniers will tell you that TV is still effective as a broadcast
medium, they are only telling half the story. There’s an on demand narrowcast tsunami
right behind the TV beach. Once the audience is on demand, we can be sure the one thing they are most unlikely to download and watch is the advertising.

The other great claim of the sceptics is that nobody consumes media in any depth
‘online’. That watching a two minute YouTube clip isn’t the same as watching primetime.
But it’s just not true. If we look at consumption data we can see that online viewers watch
as many hours of content online as broadcast viewers. What you watch online isn’t that
different it seems, but where you are watching it and whether there’s any advertising in it
is totally different.

The change is also about to get faster. In Australia, we are managing all of this online, time shifted, ad skipping TV on an internet infrastructure so outmoded that it struggles to handle content rich email. Once the NBN arrives, get ready for some real change.

So what about putting all those lovely ads onto our YouTube channel, owned media
space and buying a raft of banners and Facebook ads? A bit like TV, some people will
watch them. It’s not a total waste of time. In fact it’s probably necessary to do it. It’s just
not sufficient. It’s necessary to have toilets in your office. It’s just not sufficient to make
your business succeed.

As the head of advertising for Tooheys, Hahn and XXXX in Australia I needed to sell over
1.5 billion drinks per year. Doing that by relying on the 150k Facebook friends of those
brands was never going to be sufficient. You do the maths.

I’m no futurist. Nor am I any kind of tech expert, or early adopter, but it seems to me that
if I can watch exactly what I want, when I want and not get interrupted by the ads, I will. I
have Apple TV and Foxtel IQ at home. I don’t watch ads. And I LOVE ads. I make ads. I’m
an ad advocate. I truly believe that within a very short time frame the nature of scheduling and channels as we know them will change beyond recognition and in so doing our ability to interrupt the audience with a juicy ad will be at best hyper-diluted, at worst over.

So if the old way of beating the audience over the head with the media stick is almost
over, but the digital messiah might, today at least, just be a very naughty boy, what do
we do instead?

In my opinion we need to start by changing the question. Historically we have asked ourselves, “what shall we say and do?” and “where shall we say and do it”. The ad agency and the media agency. These are still important questions. They are necessary. But not sufficient. For me the key question to ask now is “why would anyone want to listen and engage?”

The issue as I see it is we can no longer rely on our ability to interrupt the audience with
our messages in ANY medium. Digital or analogue. And audience is EVERYTHING.
Remember we are in the behaviour change business. We need an audience whose
behaviour we can affect. To really understand what’s going on then, we need to reexamine
WHY people might CHOOSE to engage with marketing in the first place, and
work out how to replicate that every time we take a new campaign or idea to market.

We seem, as an industry, to be worried about the wrong things. We obsess over the
WHAT of advertising. Is it creative enough? Pretty enough? Dramatic enough? Award
winning enough? We debate HOW to get the message out. Spreadsheet after
spreadsheet of media planning detail.

Again these things are necessary. But not sufficient.

We need to turn our attention to WHY. WHY will an audience choose to pay attention to what we want to say? If we cannot demand they pay attention, we have to know WHY they might do so voluntarily. In order to make work they choose to engage with.

I’m interested to hear your thoughts (and analogies). Please leave a comment.

There is a lot written on time management, but I think I may have stumbled on a relatively easy and simple way to help marketers manage their time more effectively.

Let me go back a step.

In recent months I have noticed that although I arrive for our meeting at the appointed hour, especially with senior marketers I will often need to wait up to 15 mins for them to arrive. This is a fairly regular occurrence, and while they are full of apologies for keeping me waiting, the cause is always the same,that they were caught up in the previous meeting.

It has become a bit of a joke in some cases, like the marketer I meet with every six weeks, who even at 9 am is running 15 – 20 minutes late. It is because he starts at 7 am as this is the only time he has to ‘do work’ other than sit in meetings all day.

You often hear marketers talking about how they have back-to-back meetings all day and complain that there is therefore no way they can get their work done, except after hours.

The problem:

The problem is Outlook, or whatever calendar they are using. I noticed with my Busy Cal (I am a Mac user and have been since 1988) that the default meeting time is one hour. So if I schedule meetings, as they are invariably out of the office I allow 30 mins to prepare and transit and then one hour for the meeting. But in the office, the easiest way is to simply schedule one hour blocks back-to-back.

The problem here is this leaves you no time between meetings. At the end of each meeting there are tasks that need to be done and preparation for the next meeting. Just the transiting from one meeting room to the next takes time. And we have not even contemplated the phone messages and the emails that pop up throughout the day. On an average working day I get between 200 – 300 emails, which I feel confident is not unusual. I am sure in large organisations some people get many more as email has become the default mechanism for keeping everyone in the loop.

The solution:

The solution is of-course to make the meetings shorter to create time between each meeting. Why do meetings have to be 60 minutes? (Even the current affairs show 60 Minutes runs only 44 minutes with ad-breaks and station promos). Scheduling 45 minute internal meetings (meetings in your office) means there is always 15 minutes to: make phone calls, reply to urgent emails, prepare for the next meeting and, god forbid, collect your thoughts.

No I am not suggesting 30 minute meetings as it is to easy to schedule these back to back and end up in the same mess. Now there is a very solid reason for shorter meetings.

Why this works:

First, it has been proven that the human brain can sustain concentration for around 20 minutes maximum. In 45 minutes, with some effort, you could have two bursts of sustained concentration. But in actual fact even if it is only one that is around half the time wasted, compared to two thirds of the time wasted currently. (I would submit that most one hour meetings are currently 45 minutes once you take out the time you wait for everyone to turn up)

Second, shorter meetings require people to be focused and organised and so are a better use of the time and the resources available. After all, how many times have you been in a meeting where there was no clear agenda, no defined objective and after an hour of more, no specific and agreed outcome or at a minimum agreed next steps and responsibilities or timelines?

Too many meetings are held simply under the guise of achieving collaboration or alignment, while there are many other ways of doing this.

Interested to hear your thoughts. Have you found other ways to manage this issue?

CMO’s struggle to harness content marketing yet 61% are increasing the investment in it.

The dichotomy.

Top Australian marketers are finding it difficult to allocate budget and resource to content marketing. Yet they’re wanting to get it onto the C-Suite’s agenda, and know that it now encompasses social, search, website, email, blog, e-zine, and other key digital content areas that already sit in their existing plan and P&L.

This was the dichotomy that the Association for Data-driven Marketing and Advertising (ADMA) and Australia’s leading content marketing agency, Edge, unearthed whilst facilitating a recent roundtable.

You can check out more insights in the joint whitepaper here

Other key points:

1. No vision or documented plan
2. Lack of alignment throughout the business and clear senior ownership and governance
3. Distribution challenges due to the proliferation of content marketing options
4. The dilemma of managing in-house with existing resource or outsourcing to specialists
5. Measuring the value in return

Jodie Sangster, CEO of ADMA says, “Content marketing is on a path of significant growth—in terms of the level of investment made in content-led marketing strategies, and in the extent to which organisations have embraced the ‘engagement’ model in place of ‘sales’ communications. Content marketing is here to stay, and the organisations doing it effectively will reap the rewards.”

Fergus Stoddart, Commercial Director at Edge says, “The congruence of new data and CRM technology, changing consumer media consumption habits, social media and digital distribution means that the business case for content marketing has never been more compelling.”

I say….take a read of the white paper here and let us know your thoughts. It definitely is a blurry topic. Content has been around for decades, and distribution channels have different terminology, but at the end of the day I believe that it should be a powerful weapon in a marketer’s armoury if it’s planned correctly, aligned, owned, implemented and measured.

Love to hear your thoughts on this one.

Running an agency review is time consuming and disruptive at the best of times. But imagine you want to not only review your media agency, but also your creative agency and your digital agency? And you want to do it all at the same time.

Why?

In this case, and now in several since, it was because the brand was undertaking a significant strategic change. In one of these situations they were introducing a more interactive one-to-one strategy, another client was moving to a heavy content marketing strategy and the third wanted to engage a more direct response strategy. In each case the incumbent agencies were seen to:

1. have a vested interest in preserving the status quo
2. not have strengths in the new core capability areas required
3. not be particularly collaborative with each other or the marketing team

It was time to Spring Clean the agency roster and make a fresh start.

Working with new agencies is like moving into a new home – a fresh start but has teething problems

In each case the marketers discussed with us the pros and cons of undertaking the agency reviews concurrently versus consecutively.

Consecutive Pitches

To undertake one review at a time would certainly require less resources on any day and would cause less disruption initially, but the process of three agency reviews could possibly extend over a period of 6 – 8 months, during which time there would be constant disruption.

There was also the consideration of the transition process. If all agencies were replaced as an outcome of the process, how would the brand transition from one agency to the next?

Would this be best consecutively or concurrently?

Concurrent Pitches

But would running three pitches at the same time stretch the marketer resources to breaking? And would there be enough time in each pitch to really investigate and interrogate each agency’s capabilities to the depth and detail that would ensure the best outcome?

It was then that we suggested that rather than thinking of it as three pitches at once we manage a hybrid solution that had three distinct stages, with each stage investigating a particular aspect:

• Stage 1 – Market search, credentials and chemistry (Separate)
• Stage 2 – Strategy workshops and financial proposals (Collaborative)
• Stage 3 – Creative alignment and negotiations (Collective)

We call this a Collaborative Concurrent Pitch as the process is highly collaborative in establishing a collective relationship between the successful agencies involved and the marketing team.

Stage 1 – Market search, credentials and chemistry

This stage looks at each category of agencies individually, being media, creative agency and digital. A search brief was prepared highlighting core competencies, along with cultural, competitive, size and geographic considerations.

From the market search brief, a market report identified those agencies that suited the profile in each category. From this list, six agencies were identified in each category and approached to provide a detailed written response to a credentials brief.

This credentials brief requested information on the agency structure, client base, key staff and case studies to demonstrate core competencies. It also asked the agencies to list the agencies they currently worked with in the other categories being reviewed and to provide feedback on these agencies. eg. Media agencies listed creative and digital agencies with whom they currently directly worked.

Once all of the credentials documents were reviewed, all agencies attended a one hour chemistry session where they were requested to answer the question “Why we would be the ideal agency partner for the client” and be open to answering questions arising from the credentials documents they had supplied previously. They were also quizzed on the agencies in the other categories in regards to their preferred working partners.

Stage 2 – Strategy workshops and financial proposals

This stage was focused on testing strategic thinking and collaboration between the various agencies.

On completion of Stage 1, the marketing and procurement team had a very clear perception of the eighteen agencies and began the process of shortlisting these in each category. The challenge was to shortlist a maximum of three in each category meaning the list was reduced by half.

With three media agencies, three creative agencies and three digital agencies eventually short-listed, it was then a process to mix’n'match the best alignment, based on chemistry and culture of each agency and the agencies own preferred partners and experience. It was interesting that even agencies within holding companies did not necessarily recommend their own agency partners within that holding company. A final mix of three was determined, with a different media, creative and digital agency in each team.

The agencies were informed that they had been short-listed and informed on their team partners for the strategic workshop process. Each agency was given the opportunity to object to the team they had been allocated, but because of the process of obtaining their input previously all agencies were happy with their team. Each agency was also told that their success was not determined by the team they were allocated and that the client reserved the right to appoint agencies from across all three teams to make the final composition.

I have written about the benefits of the strategic workshop previously, both for fostering internal alignment and also testing alignment with incumbent agencies, therefore I will not labour the point here.

Needless to say the key benefits of running strategic workshops with three agencies from different categories or disciplines demonstrated:

1. If there was a natural lead agency or if they agencies managed the process equally
2. Which agencies naturally collaborated with the other agencies and which did not
3. Where the strategic leadership and thinking was coming from across the three agencies
4. How each of the agencies interacted with the marketing and brand team in the presence of the other agencies
5. Which agencies and personalities were inclined to dominate and which were inclined to be dominated

It was interesting to note that these combined strategic workshops can have between 12 and in one case more than 50 participants. Interestingly it did not matter how many people participated across the three agencies and the marketing team, it was still very easy to see and assess the dynamics that developed across the day in each workshop.

During this process we provided all three agencies in each category with a financial proposal template to be completed and these were benchmarked and reviewed with the marketing and procurement teams.

Stage 3 – Creative alignment and negotiations

The final stage was to then select the preferred media, creative and digital agency. Interestingly, in the times we have undertaken this process, we have never had a marketing team select all three agencies from the one group. There is no particular reason that is evident at this stage, but it does demonstrate that ultimately the selection is driven by a best team in each category and the demonstration of how they collaborate with others is secondary.

With the composition of the preferred agency structure in place and with the agency financial proposals benchmarked and reviewed, it is then possible to commence developing the financial model and negotiation strategy. One of the benefits of this approach is that you can negotiate a performance and value based remuneration model that aligns the three most strategically important agencies in the roster to the marketing strategy.

The other benefit to note is that the process is much more collaborative than the usual agency selection pitch or RFP and this establishes the basis of the relationship going forward.

Key Benefits

1. Disruption is shorter than if the agency reviews were held consecutively
2. Requires less resources than holding three separate pitches as there are significant economies in the combining and alignment of the process
3. Allows marketers to build business ready agency teams and relationships
4. Collaborative process creates a collaborative foundation to the agency relationships
5. Allows the marketers to build and apportion resources and negotiate across the agencies during the selection process to suit the needs of the marketing strategy
6. Marketers can test the level of collaboration and the way the various agencies can work together in the workshop process

While advising a marketing team to take on three reviews at once may seem like a nightmare, the fact is that if the purpose is to have a complete refresh of the agency relationships currently on the roster, then the Collaborative Concurrent Pitch process is definitely the most efficient and effective way to achieve this that I have seen.

What are you thoughts?

With many campaign schedules seemingly running close to the wire nowadays having time up our ‘production’ sleeve is no longer apparent. Creative rounds, research, amendments to brief etc. all increase the pressure at the important production phase.

Given the pace of business nowadays, the pressure to approve estimates is further evidenced by a schedule that often sees progression to pre-production and location recces immediately after estimate approval.

Time crunching or making up lost time is one of the key reasons affecting a budget blowout. Through all these variable effects, what is becoming increasingly apparent is the need and pressure for clients to immediately approve estimates. To accommodate the urgency around estimate approvals, here are 5 ways to assist in having the dotted line signed and all parties in agreement.

Racing against the production timeline is no reason to not fully assess production estimates prior to approval.

1. Estimates are the sum of one

Indeed they are. Production estimates are a sum of many parts, being a range of external 3^rd party suppliers. These include film production, post production, music, audio and voice over, talent fees, casting and the list goes on; all required to submit their estimates to the agency.

All these components take time for an agency to brief and collate together as one summarised estimate. Juggling what needs to fit to balance within the overall production budget requires having to negotiate with some suppliers to cater for other suppliers – it’s the balancing act of managing budgets when producing.

Agencies need to allow additional time within their timing schedule, source competitive estimates and establish engagement early in the campaign with all suppliers.

2. Respect client’s evaluation time

Whilst an agency may have rightfully required more time than scheduled for briefing and estimating, presenting an estimate to a client with the expectation of a signed approval either that day or the following is neither efficient nor methodical.

A client has the right to take the time to review the estimate thoroughly, discuss within their internal teams and possibly even have top-level management approval, before signing on the dotted line. More often than not, this step in the process of production is now absent; and needs to be respectfully considered. Why?

3. Clients right to query

Production budgets are not an agency’s money spend, it’s a client money spend. “Why are we being charged $xxx in producer fees? Why are the talent fees so high? If I sign this estimate with a music allowance ballpark cost doesn’t that then become a firm fixed cost?”

Questions pertaining to the detail within an estimate are sometimes not particularly welcome by agencies; the indignation of the query creeps in a little, the time to justify and respond to queries is niggling and the added delays can also create tension. So how to avoid?

4. Supply the detail

Third party estimates? Internal head hours?

Provide the detail – be transparent.

Whatever the remuneration agreement between agency and client in relation to third party costs mark-ups – yes or no – either way provide the suppliers estimates as supportive documentation with the agency estimate. This should include all external suppliers – those invoicing through another supplier.

For example casting and post-production are commonly included within the film production house estimate. The cost onus at the end of the day lies with the client. The objective is to prevent situations like a phone call where the agency representative says ‘We left off the xxxx cost’. E&OE are not placed on agency estimates for no reason.

5. Revisit the budget

Just as Creative need to revisit the brief when it’s edging closer to final creative presentation, so too is the requirement for the Producer and Account Service personnel to revisit the initial production budget when finalising estimates.

If over budget then an alternative estimate that fits the budget should be presented. It may well be that you’ve ended up over budget due to further creative extensions from the initial brief – these may have evolved as agency proactive suggestions or client requests. However these came about and whatever the reasoning, having a supportive estimate that is within budget to present, is often effective in having the over budget estimate approved.

In summary, consideration to these 5 steps within the planning schedule ensures that the production process is not unduly delayed and all concerned can progress confident that the project is correctly budgeted and approved.

I’d be interested to hear your views. Please leave a comment.

My wife Cao She, recently shared the story from Chinese history about Bian Que, who established the basis of Chinese medicine as it is still practiced today. It got me thinking about the way we work with our clients.

The story is from the Spring and Autumn Period in China (about 770BC). King Wen of Wei asked the most famous doctor Bian Que “You and your two brothers are all very good at medicine, but who of the three of you is the best?”

Bian Que thought carefully and answered modestly “My eldest brother is the best, my second brother is the second best, and I am last”.

King Wen was confused and said “If you are the least then why are you the most famous one?”

Bian Que answered “My eldest brother always cures people before the disease has a chance to attack. Therefore people do not appreciate he has cured them, so nobody realizes how good he is, except my family of course.”

“My second brother can cure people when the disease have not become a serious problem, so people think he can only deal with very minor illnesses. Therefore he is only famous in our home town.”

“I, on the other hand, only see patients once the disease has progressed and has become a life threatening illness. People can then see me perform surgery, so they all think I am the best because they believe I can perform miracles. That is why I am well known across the whole country”.

Crisis Management

It got me thinking about the way we work with our clients. In the majority of cases, and especially the first time a marketer calls us, the marketer or the procurement team have hit an insurmountable problem – typically something like the agency has fired the client or the negotiation has failed or the production costs continue to be significantly over budget, all requiring immediate intervention and often some significant action – like Bian Que’s surgery.

It is this situation which reinforces the perception that I am the ‘Mr Wolf’ for the marketing industry. We are engaged to assist in sorting out the resultant mess and to get things back on track.

Therapeutic and Preventative

But this is not the only work we do as increasingly marketers and especially those more enlightened procurement professionals are realising that rather than waiting for something to break, it is worthwhile looking for ways to improve and repair issues before they become much bigger issues. Typically this includes remuneration benchmarking and modelling, strategic supplier alignment and marketing process alignment, which are as much preventative as they are therapeutic.

The implementation here is rarely as disruptive or as difficult as the more interventionist processes required when addressing major issues with the marketing process or relationships.

Prevention Rather Than Cure

The biggest opportunity I see from this story is for marketers to embace a more preventative approach to managing and optimising their marketing process and relationship management – this typically is relationship and collaboration management using either Evalu8ing or Hainsight, developing more aligned marketing processes with the Engagement Agreement process or Production Management – all preventative and collaborative in their approach and delivery.

I believe that many marketers think that the day-to-day process and management will simply look after itself and that any steps to manage this are only required when problems arise. The issue with this is that often many of these complex relationships and systems are riddled with problems and inefficiencies which do not become obvious until the system is under extreme stress and yet daily rob the organisation of budget and time.

If only more marketers and procurement people were less focused on how to spend the marketing budget or reduce the marketing budget to see that there is a powerful opportunity to make the whole process work more efficiently.

Until that day, like Bian Que, we become more famous for fixing the major issues faced by marketers than we do helping prevent them in the first place.

Digital media trading used to be simple. There was a time; eons ago, when all anyone had to worry about were banners, buttons and click through rates. It was so simple inventory levels could even be tracked by scribbled numbers on pieces of paper! Of course at that time we thought it hugely complicated and cutting edge. Little did we know but fast forward 18 years and those humble practices seem like child’s play compared to the current complex digital trading eco-system.

However, for all the complexity, digital media trading has never been such a fascinating journey, full of exciting opportunities for advertisers, agencies and media owners. Keeping up with the pace of change and having an informed view about how to navigate through the multitude of decisions is a challenge faced by all modern marketers. The important thing is to always have a clear view of your destination and the measures of success along that journey through the digital eco-system.

Of course it is easy to be distracted. No self respecting conference, forum, trade mag or blog can resist in some shape or form, talking about automated buying, real-time bidding (RTB), demand side platforms (DSPs), Ad Exchanges, Data Management Platforms (DMPs) and Agency Trading Desks (ATDs).

Boy, we’re an industry brilliant at creating acronyms!! All of this is rather long-hand for the simple process of buying, serving and tracking an advert that’s targeted to a particular audience based on a number of targeting filters. And that is what marketers need to keep in mind, is the core process is the same, just the eco-system is much more complex than before.

So for all the complexity let’s not forget that this is just about buying the right ad at the right price, serving to the right person, in the right environment at the right time with the aim to encourage them to perform the right action / outcome.

Thankfully there are masses of material and opinion that can be found online that explain in graphic detail about the role of each of the innovative tech platforms within the new eco-system. The ANA whitepaper on Agency Trading Desks is a terrific map and a must read for those wanting to understand the role of the trading desk, the origins, benefits and crucially the questions to ask of your media agency.

So whilst there’s no shortage of material explaining the changes to the eco-system, it’s difficult for marketers to get to grips with the decisions and actions that they need to make to ensure continued value from their media investments. We’re not talking small scale either. Google predicts that the future digital display market will be worth $50 billion dollars and perhaps as much as 50% of future trading will be conducted through a real-time bidding process.

In one paragraph let us explain that $50bn landscape!!!

There are now more people online, spending more time looking at an increasing number of websites and as a result there are more available ad slots to sell, not all of which are sold – supply exceeds demand. At the same time an increase in data collection, targeting abilities and technology that allows buyers to bid on and buy individual impressions rather than buckets of impressions, has created a new type of marketplace where advertisers can have greater control of where their ads are shown and whom they’re shown to.

To facilitate trading within this new marketplace ad-exchanges have arisen that provide the hub where buyers and sellers can trade ad slots in real time. The role of the Demand Side Platform is as a technical layer that allows for buying across multiple ad-exchanges, at an impression-by-impression level, in real time with targeting filters enabled. All within a single interface. Still with us? The agency-trading desk as the name suggests resides within an agency and is a centralized, service-based organization accessed by agencies within the group to buy ad slots via a DSP on behalf of the agencies clients.

This all sounds pretty sensible, if not a little complex (trust us I’ve hugely over simplified).

If only things were that simple. However, no great surprise a multi-billion dollar business with multiple layers of technology is going to attract some challenges and fiercely raged debates. That’s by no means a reason to ignore the opportunities offered but rather by understanding the debate, informed decisions can be made.

The hot topics as they current stand fall into the following themes:

Transparency

A combination of trading and new ad technology provides equal measures of lack of transparency and mistrust over trading practices. Perhaps much of that mistrust is unfairly levied at media agencies, or perhaps not!!

What’s up for debate is the perception about the way that agencies make their margins from their client’s media dollars. Agencies will argue that they’re often blind when it comes to buying through ad-exchanges, which in turn does little to repair already fragile relationships. The issue of ‘Arbitrage’ also adds a degree of opaqueness that many agencies will argue tarnishes them unfairly.

Rather than get hung up on transparency, the advice has to be to neutralize the debate by developing remuneration models that both incentivise and reward. Models that galvanize all sides to strive for effective and efficient outcomes are clearly the winners in this space.

Verification

You only have to look across the much-publicised Lumascape Digital Display Ad Tech landscape to appreciate that ads don’t always appear where they should. At times innocent at others potentially reputation damaging, the problem is so toxic it warrants its own set of logos on the Lumascape landscape.

The solution is not an overly simple one and is debated at an industry trade body level. Nonetheless it is one that the modern marketer needs to be aware of irrespective of whether trading is handled by a media agency partner or handled in-house. Which leads to another hot topic.

In-house vs. Out-source

I’ll come onto one of the big reasons why ‘In-house’ is becoming a very real option for a growing number of advertisers but the fact remains that trading through a media agency partner is now not the only option.

The advent of exchange based trading and ad tech platforms have given many advertisers the environment and tools that they require to maintain control over their media investments. The decision to move digital trading is not to be taken lightly and can be a disruptive force within a marketing department. A decision not to be taken lightly especially given the myriad of costs / disruption / pros and cons to be considered.

However, one of the primary reasons for advertisers exploring in-house trading, aside from control of costs and margins, are business decisions based on controlling customer data.

Data

Try as we may to avoid using the ‘D’ word it’s nigh on impossible when reporting on the developments within the digital trading space! Whilst we won’t go down the ‘Big Data’ route, the fact remains that data is playing an increasing role in the decision making process of how digital media is bought, served and tracked.

Those advertisers who have brought digital trading in-house have data high on their agenda and not only want to control the use of their customer data but also don’t want to find themselves with the real threat of losing invaluable data as and when they decide to move their media buying account from one agency to another.

If only there was one solution to suit all needs… there isn’t. Understanding the implications of where digital media trading is going is fundamentally crucial for all advertisers who currently spend in digital, or have any aspiration to spend on digital in the future.

Questions and opportunities…

Let’s remind ourselves that for all of the complexity surrounding the new digital trading ecology, there are many fantastic and exciting opportunities that will benefit clients, agencies and media owners alike.

This space will only become more complicated but as it does so will advertisers understanding of how to navigate, assuming that is that they start to ask the right questions now and make informed decisions.

Here are the three most important considerations to help you navigate this eco-system:

• Decide whether digital trading remains within your traditional media agency, whether you appoint an independent or take the step to bring digital trading in-house.
• Don’t squander the valuable opportunities by obsessing on cost and transparency. Take control of the situation and implement remuneration models that incentivize and reward.
• Crucially, have an ambition for digital media and clear vision for how it will drive business growth – this will inform what technology is right for your business rather than technology dictating what direction your business takes.

This post was the basis of the Trendsetters article published by The Internationalist on April 4, 2013

Here we look at the multi-million dollar question: “How do we get better work from our creative agencies?”…and provide 3 very simple, yet often forgotten ways that you can help.

If you have asked the question either of yourself or of someone else, “How do we get better work from our creative agencies?” then take some time and read on for 3 top tips worth remembering.

1. Spend more TIME working on the brief

The number of clients who decide they have a business issue and whip out a brief in a day is many…too many. Nobody, no matter how urgent a task is, should ever turn a brief around in a day. It will be riddled with holes and lacking thought.

Briefs need time. Information gathering takes time. Incubation takes time. Collaboration with other team members to get it right takes time. And making it an inspiring piece of paper that will deliver inspirational work… you guessed it, takes time.

On average we recommend a week to write a solid brief, making it truly inspirational is down to you and what you put in it.

Day 1:

Draft the brief after identifying a business issue and getting internal approval to use communications activity to address it. Sleep on it.

Day 2:

Review and revise the brief, gathering missing information, facts and figures.

Day 3:

Get internal buy in, distributing to all internal stakeholders for input.

Day 4:

Revise the brief based on feedback.

Day 5:

Sign off and distribute to agency/agencies prior to face-to-face briefing.

2. Spend more TIME briefing the agency

Clients are getting better at this and not just sending a brief through via email and expecting an agency to interpret it and develop work. Face to face briefings are essential if it is geographically possible. Otherwise technology these days allows us Conference Calls or Skype to make sure a brief can be delivered personally so it is understood completely.

By all means send it through to all parties in advance so everyone can read through it and have questions ready. Then allow an hour with all parties present to go through it and answer questions as they arise. With everyone starting on the same page (pardon the pun) the response to your brief will undoubtedly be more productive.

If there is also the opportunity to make the briefing memorable and relevant by location choice, taste testing, demonstration or entertainment then do it. The more time and effort you put in could well make all the difference to the quality of work you get back.

3. Give the agency more TIME

“Agggghhhhhh” I hear from offices everywhere as you read this small yet somewhat powerful subhead. Yes, as much as it hurts, giving your agencies more time will result in better work. It’s been proven time and again that slow and steady gets results – just ask the tortoise. Speak to any Creative Director or successful Creative Team and they will tell you their process for developing work.

They spend the first few days bashing out all the obvious ideas (we know this because that is the work we see when we only give them 2 or 3 days and then sit in a creative presentation thinking, “well, I could have thought of that myself why am I paying them?”). If we give them more than a few days however, they then incubate and sleep on it and incubate some more. And low and behold as the weeks go on, the ideas get better, richer, more entertaining and more memorable.

Unfortunately, creative folk are not yet like their technology counterparts getting faster and slicker by the hour – we are yet to invent a Creativatron that can churn out clever, entertaining ideas that build our brands and create sales.

So how long do we give these tortoise-like creative geniuses? That depends on you, them, and the task at hand. Roughly, we suggest 3 weeks on big briefs where you have the luxury of planning ahead, knowing the work is on the horizon and being ready to brief on time.

On average 3 weeks seems to be the point where you get truly cracking ideas coming out of a brief. Anything prior to that, the work could be better. Anything after that, it doesn’t get much better ie. It’s time for your input to take things to the next level.

You may be horrified at this length of time, but just think about how many times you’ve delivered a brief, given them a week, been unimpressed by the work, given them another week, been only slightly more satisfied and given them another week by which time stress buttons are pressed and it ends up being an all singing all dancing pitch type scenario with strain on the relationship, pressure on the teams and general unhappiness all round.

Would it not have been easier to let everyone breathe, do what they are good at and end up with a super-charged meeting after 3 weeks of creative development possibly with some conversation around potential directions and so forth in between?

My suggestion is to just try it. Take the 3 week challenge with your agency on your next big brief and see what happens. Get organized, make sure your brief is a work of art and inspiration, deliver it, take a deep breath and tell them they’ve got 3 weeks.

However, make it clear, the deal is that they need to blow you away at that presentation in 3 weeks time. You will gain a huge creative fan base, every team in the agency will want to work on your briefs and you may just end up with the kind of work you deserve.

What all that means in answer to your question about getting better creative work from your agencies

See a pattern emerging? Yes in this time poor world we live in, I am merely suggesting we give everything a bit more time.

Time = thought. Thought = better briefs. Better briefs = better work.

Have a think. It’s worth your time.

I’m interested in your thoughts on giving these processes more time. Please leave a comment to add your views.

One of the things that constantly amazes me is the response I get when presenting feedback to agencies following a pitch. It seems from the reactions to our debriefing report and process, that this is an area that is often overlooked or at least handled badly by marketers and apparently by many other consultants.

In my fifteen years as a copywriter and creative director in agencies, and especially the last five years at JWT, I was heavily involved in new business pitches and remember how vague the feedback often was post pitch. Terms like “your strategy / creative was not strong” and when you probed to understand the responses became even less clear and less helpful in understanding and improving the way we work.

My experience since founding TrinityP3 thirteen years ago is that agency feedback is pretty much the same today. Even when I searched The Good Pitch site set up by ISBA and the IPA in the UK there is little direction on providing agency feedback except that it “should be thorough and delivered within 4 weeks of the pitch”.

The purpose of providing feedback

My belief is that if an agency is willing to participate in your selection process, then the least you should do is be open, honest and thorough in providing them with feedback if they are unsuccessful.

The purpose of providing this feedback is to:

1. Help the agency understand why they were not successful
2. Give them an understanding of how they performed compared to the other agencies
3. Provide them with advice and direction on areas they can improve

This requires a more rigorous and detailed feedback session than simply ‘having a chat’.

Why providing feedback can be difficult

When we are managing reviews and pitches, many marketers will ask us to give the agency feedback on their behalf. I prefer to have the marketer there during this process so they can provide any input and also see how we do this. I think many people find the process of providing feedback to the unsuccessful agencies as confronting as it requires them to justify or rationalise their decision.

This fear of confrontation with the unsuccessful agencies means that marketers will often look for ‘tangible’ points such a creative quality or strategic skills, even when the reason the agency was unsuccessful was more intangible such as chemistry or simply if they liked you enough.

Yet if these are the reasons the agency was unsuccessful, it is important that you are honest, rather then misdirecting them to potentially make changes in areas where no changes are required and are simply an excuse to compensate for a lack of courage.

When to provide feedback

When you inform an agency that they are unsuccessful at any time in the process (credentials, chemistry, workshop, presentation or the final negotiation) you should offer to provide them feedback at a time that suits them. This can be by telephone, but it is better provided face to face.

The reason for not providing feedback at the time of informing them they have been unsuccessful is that they are often processing the news and are not really open to taking in the feedback. If they do ask why during that conversation, it is important to have one or two points to explain that you can then elaborate on later in the feedback session.

How to provide feedback

The feedback session can take place either at the agency or at the marketers offices. The important point is to have an agenda of the feedback you want to provide. This can be structured a number of ways, but there must be a structure. The problem with the way many people provide feedback is that being unprepared and unstructured they often provide feedback off the ‘top of the head’.

TrinityP3 has developed a feedback process that takes the agencies through each stage of the process and shares with them the scores they were given against the assessment criteria and more importantly compares this with the average score given to all of the agencies in the process. This not only allows the agency to see where they scored low, but also how this compared to the average of the agencies they were competing against.

This then becomes the basis of the discussion with the agency. We present the scores for each of the stages that the agency participated in and provide insight into any of the scores where the agency was above or below the average. The agency will invariably have questions and so we answer these as openly and honestly as possible, taking into consideration any sensitive issues.

I have had to provide feedback to an agency CEO that the client did not trust him because of the way he sweated and fidgeted nervously or the strategy planner with the strong halitosis or the creepy senior account guy who kept looking the client in the chest. I think it is important to be honest and sensitive in these situations because the alternative is to deflect the agency from the real issues. And if handled correctly you will find the agency will thank you.

Steps to providing valuable feedback

1. Implement a score card process with commentary for each step of the process to ensure you have a detailed record of the agency’s performance.
2. When you inform an agency that they are unsuccessful, offer to provide more detailed feedback at a time that suits them.
3. Structure the feedback around the scores given to the agency at each stage of the process and provide a comparison to the average given for each.
4. Be open, honest and thorough in providing feedback, but also be sensitive to the feelings of the agency individuals.

Things you should never do in providing feedback

1. Avoid abdicating responsibility for giving feedback to someone else not involved in the process
2. Never make comparisons between individual agencies, always make comparisons to the average
3. Never share information provided by other agencies, even by way of demonstration as this breaches commercial confidentiality
4. Don’t avoid issues or questions that you find confronting. It is better to be honest and sensitive than to lie or deceive.

What do you think about agency feedback? Is it a challenge or something you want to avoid? Or do you have a better way of providing constructive feedback? Let me know by leaving a comment here.

It was the buzzword of 2012, with everyone from CocaCola to the local hardware store talking about how it would change their business. But what exactly is content marketing? And how can you make it work for your brand?

It’s not exactly a new concept – in various forms, content marketing has been around for hundreds of years (did you know John Deere launched a customer magazine as early as 1895?) From P&G’s radio soap operas in the 1930s to the custom publishing boom and now the growth of online media; at its core, content marketing is simply the practice of using content to change a behaviour.

In the US, Kraft has been employing a digital content marketing strategy since the early 90s, designed to cut through the clutter of traditional advertising. The company began publishing branded content on its Kraft Foods site in 1992, and has since added a magazine, YouTube channel, social media properties and mobile platforms to its portfolio. According to Julie Fleischer, Director of Content Strategy and Integration, Kraft wants to “own” its audience online by producing high quality, engaging content, not by placing an advertising message between the user and the content that only interrupts. And it’s working, with the ROI on their content strategy among the highest of all their marketing efforts.

Hubspot is another great example of the power of content marketing done well. By producing case studies, videos, podcasts and ebooks that educate their audience, inbound leads have become the company’s most successful method of customer acquisition. The lesson to be learnt here is that only producing content about your own brand is nothing more than PR; content marketing efforts should position your brand as a thought leader and include information that is useful and helpful to the reader.

But understanding the concept of content marketing and what it can achieve is only the first step. How can you apply it to your business to drive sales and increase ROI? Here are five basic principles:

1. Establish a content strategy – the ‘why’

There’s no point producing content without knowing why. First, consider what you’re trying to achieve. Do you want to increase sales? Be seen as a thought leader? Strengthen your relationship with existing customers? Unfortunately, in an attempt to jump on the content marketing bandwagon, many businesses are producing content without clear goals or any kind of mission statement.

2. Identify your target audience – the ‘who’

To understand the what, where and when of content, you must begin with who. Look at your analytics, ask questions online and on social media and conduct polls and surveys to get a clearer picture of who your customers are. It’s also important to listen to what they’re saying, especially if it’s negative. Keep a close eye on social media pages and blogs and get to know what they’re talking about on other platforms.

3. Produce content that is valuable and compelling

Although people are engaging with more content than ever before, online audiences are much savvier and more selective about the content they consume, which means your content needs to attract, engage and retain the attention of your target market.
Content marketing is about storytelling, not selling. It requires publishing skills, not marketing skills. And that’s why the most successful content marketers today are hiring journalists, not marketers or copywriters.

4. Market your marketing

Many content marketing efforts fail because those responsible think the fact that they’ve produced content is the end of the process. But it’s only the beginning. And this is where social media becomes so powerful. In the words of Jay Baer – President of Convince and Convert – “content is fire, social media is gasoline.” There’s no point producing great content if no one sees it, so make use of technology like social media to get your message out there.

5. Data and measurement

Any successful content marketing strategy requires data in order to measure what content is working, what isn’t, and adjust accordingly. Matthew Pinkney, Head of Content for AFL Media offers this advice: “Try, test, discard if necessary”. One of the many benefits of digital media is that it’s so easy to make changes if something’s not working.

It doesn’t take much to get started on your content marketing journey. As long as you always keep the ‘why’ and ‘who’ front of mind, you’re halfway there already.

Interested to hear your thoughts on content marketing. Please leave a comment.

No-one can deny the huge transformation taking place in the media industry. It affects all areas from the buyer to the seller and the intermediaries, the agencies. It poses significant problems and challenges in the way the category works and delivers value.

Each day when you speak with these stakeholders, everyone has great concerns regarding fundamental issues in the industry – and even greater concerns that no alignment on solutions can be found.

For a long time there has been much talk and even some attempts to address the issues and challenges in marketing, media and advertising but there appears to be very little progress on practical solutions.

The more complex the media landscape becomes and the faster it evolves the more entrenched these issues seem, and the more elusive the solutions needed to enable us to evolve and progress as a viable industry.

A survey recently released by TrinityP3 and MediaScope asks everyone involved in the media value chain to highlight their key issues and challenges and suggest practical and workable solutions.

Take the survey here

This is done in an attempt to revive the debate and enable, not only industry organisations and larger players, but stakeholders of all sizes and structures to have a say and be heard – from marketers to large and small agencies, multi-national to independent media.

The issues are relevant to a hugely diverse stakeholder market, yet perhaps the first steps to doing more than just talking about them is to find common ground and alignment.

Issues for each stakeholder market can include -

• Marketers – looking for more certainty in an increasingly complex and diverse marketing eco-system
• Agencies – increased pressure to find relevancy and provide matching services to meet shifting client needs
• Media – continually pivoting to find a revenue model in an ever fragmenting and increasingly competitive media and marketing landscape

Even though the issues are quite different all stakeholders are treading water to find more viable and effective business models.

While the problems confronting us can at times seem insurmountable, solutions can only be found when all stakeholders are able to have their say and be heard and then we as an industry can find true alignment.

The TrinityP3/MediaScope industry survey asks you to prioritise several issues and challenges and corresponding solutions. There is also the opportunity to pose your own solutions.

At Mumbrella360 in early June we’ll be present the results of the survey. There will then be a panel discussion with representatives from each of stakeholder markets including marketer, agency, large and independent media owners.

We’ll also ask each Mumbrella360 delegate to decide to change just 1 piece of behaviour to take with them into market.

We should all have an opinion on the best way to move our industry forward. This is your chance to be part of that important debate. Please fill in the media industry survey here.

Your responses are completely confidential and there is an option to receive a copy of the results in recognition of your contribution.

Let’s not let another year go by with too much talk but too little action…

For more information click here

There is a saying in advertising production that goes “There is never enough time to get it right, but always time to fix it”. It is interesting because one of the features we observe on a regular basis is what I like to call the Gravitational Effect on the Production Timeline.

The production scenario

Here we are a few months out from the on air date and the marketer briefs the agency on a project. Because we are months away from the deadline (BTW do you know why it is called a Deadline? Because that is the line that if you cross it you are dead) and everyone is feeling pretty relaxed. Concepts are developed and media strategies proposed and everything appears to be moving along nicely.

Lets jump forward a couple of months. Now it is a week from the deadline, the media on air date, and the agency producer and the production house are complaining there is not enough time and they will need to book the edit facilities on Saturday at double time to get the edit done and the client will need to approve the edit on Sunday morning so dubs can go red hot urgent and at 20 times the cost to be on-air Sunday night.

Okay, maybe it is a slight exaggeration to make a point. But the question is “how did we get here?

The gravitational effect

Somewhere between the briefing and the deadline gravity took effect. Now gravity has two meanings and both are relevant here:

1. The invisible attraction between masses – the force of gravity
2. The measure of the importance or gravity of the situation

You see, the two masses are the project and the deadline and as they get closer together the rate of attraction increases by the inverse square. That is, it increases exponentially. Likewise, the gravity of the situation is increasing and so decisions and actions become exponentially important.

The pace of change seems to increase compared to the more leisurely iterations of the creative work, with the time to explore and consider alternatives. Now there are many more decisions to be made on directors, talent, locations, wardrobes, treatments etc. Each one heavy with import and consequences if made without due consideration.

Why production gravity?

There are two stages to the development of most advertising. The first is conceptualisation. The second is production. Conceptualisation is taking the brief and a blank piece of paper and coming up with an idea. Or two. Or three. Or for some marketers 27 concepts, because the marketer wants to be sure they have the best idea and they can only do this it they explore all of the possible territories. Each step takes time and resources and money (but that is for a different discussion).

Then the marketer may concept test one of more to ensure they have the right idea or send it to regional or global head office for final approval or both. Only then, when we have the final approved concept, do we get to stage two.

Now there is no point rushing stage one, because what is the point of getting the concept on time if it is not the best idea? Far better to take time to really explore the option in what is rather a low gravity environment. After all the deadline is months away before the on-air date and how long does it take to make a television commercial anyway. A week or two at the most.

Now at stage two the production people get involved and the first thing they do is prepare a production timeline with every step of the process mapped out with roles and responsibilities. I often wonder why this was not done at the briefing stage? The quote is prepared and suddenly the gravity of the situation rises. This is going to cost money. The fact is the cost of the iterations of conceptualisation are usually a hidden cost – hidden safely in the agency’s retainer. But here in stage two for most advertisers it is a tangible cost. And guess what? The less time you have to produce the concept the more it will cost you.

Do you want quality, cost or time?

There is another old saying in advertising production and that is “Do you want quality (high), cost (low) or time (on time) because you have to have any two for a successful production”. Now if you have allowed gravity to take effect and you are now four weeks out from an on-air date and the television production is not underway, then you have no time. If you are a retailer you can possibly lower the quality, or otherwise you have to accept the higher cost.

The gravity of the situation

With the timeline under the pressure of production gravity, suddenly the marketer is in a grave situation. The agency and production company require on-the-spot approvals to meet the deadlines. Suddenly there is no time to reflect, consider or collaborate with colleagues and superiors at the various approval stages.

Sure, it is easy for the agency to expect you to make a decision on an off-line edit (what ever that is) as they have been working with it for the last three days, according to the production schedule. But you walk into the edit suite and see it for the first time. Your heart sinks as you wonder how hundreds of thousands of dollars in production could look so ordinary and why is it nothing like the Creative Director and the Director promised?

There is no time to really discuss or consider the consequences, as the agency producer looks at you expectantly reminding you that if you do not approve the spot now, the only option is to drop and charge the first week of media. Is this any way to be making decisions?

How to avoid the gravitational effects

You cannot get rid of this completely, but you can minimise the effect with three simple steps:

1. Ask the agency to get production involved earlier to set up a timeline at the briefing stage or as soon as the media production requirements are known.

2. Have the agency producer / production manager prepare an agreed agency timeline for conceptualisation and production and present it to you well before you see the first concepts.

3. Share the timeline with all internal stakeholders and make sure everyone involved in the approval process puts essential dates into their diaries. If there are any conflicts or issues resolve these up front and adjust the timeline.

And of course finally hold yourself and the agency accountable for sticking to the timeline.

What do you think? Would that work for you?

It was fascinating to read some of the insights from the recent Content Marketing Institute research report on Content Marketing in Australia – 2013 Benchmarks, Budgets and Trends.

It may surprise you to hear that a whopping 98% of Australian B2B marketers use content marketing which is higher than both North American and UK marketers. Aussie B2C marketers are a little behind this figure at a healthy 89%.

B2C marketers were shown to favour mobile apps, mobile content, print and newsletters whereas B2B leans more toward case studies, white papers, webinars and research reports.

Also interesting to note that, on average, 4 social media platforms are used to distribute content with Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and Youtube having the highest rates of use.

Although brand awareness and customer retention were cited as the top goals the key success measurement is website traffic.

Let’s look first at website traffic being the primary metric for effectiveness.

This makes total sense to me because with analytics and other tools you are able to accurately track sources of visitors, demographics, keywords bringing visitors, devices used, content effectiveness, geographic locations and much more.

You are able to track and measure which content is the most popular, which is shared the most, which is driving the most engagement, which titles are working and which content is attracting the most links.

But, this is the biggest takeaway of the research – despite the obvious commitment to content marketing and a stated intention to increase spend substantially, only 31% of B2B and only 20% of B2C marketers thought their efforts were effective.

That is a pretty worrying statistic!

So why are most failing?

It comes down to a number of common mistakes that I see with surprising regularity.

Here are my top 8 content marketing mistakes in no particular order:

1. Publishing is not frequent enough

You have a company blog and you have committed to creating and publishing content on a regular basis. All runs well for the first few months and then everyone who has signed on to write gets busy.

And one of the first things that gets left behind is the blog writing.

Your site drops from a couple of posts a week to maybe a monthly post and then you realize further down the track that no one has published for a couple of months.

Freshness and frequency are big ranking signals for Google (and let’s face it Google has more than 90% market share in Australia for search).

All of the momentum in content visibility that your early enthusiasm gained is slowly slipping away.

If we look at the potential of regular posting with my SEO hat on (and of course assuming the content is relevant and good quality), let’s say you have committed to just two 500 word posts per week.

That’s 4,000 keyword focused words a month and 8 new pages on your website.

Yes, that’s 48,000 keyword relevant words in your first year and 96 new pages on your site

Now take a look at your main competitors.

Can they compete with this amount of value?

2. You are not delivering value

This one involves quite a major shift in mindset.

Not that long ago business talked about protecting IP. Business ensured that their methodologies or practices were kept away from any public forum out of a fear that competitors would use the information and take a slice of the pie.

Non-disclosure agreements anyone?

Well, the game has changed and those who understand how the new socially motivated consumer and business operates, are giving value on a consistent basis. Look at any of the major tech based startups in the past few years and see how much value they are sharing.

Step by step tutorials, cheat-sheets, free templates, white papers, training through webinars, free versions of browser extensions and online tools and much, much more.

This is not giving away IP. This is demonstrating leadership and is a key way businesses attract new clients/customers.

This generosity is also rewarded with high levels of social sharing and brand advocacy leading to higher presence on social platforms and in search through powerful social signals.

Look at the most prevalent model for web based tools and services.

The free version is the hook – it usually has great features that will make your management or measurement of tasks more effective.

The paid version has all the bells and whistles and this comes at a premium. This is touted as an enterprise or professional solution and due to the quality and utility of the free version it is easy to attract people to upgrade to the premium version.

Note I said attract, not sell.

Think about this when you are creating content.

3. You are talking about yourself too much

How long does it take for someone in your audience to switch off if you consistently talk about yourself, your services or your products?

About three messages would probably do it.

Do not be too self-promotional.

Online attention spans are very short and you only get to lose someone once.

Drop the sales pitch, give your audience content that is valuable, funny, engaging, surprising, memorable or is so comprehensive that it becomes a point of reference.

Remember it is not about you, it is about the person who is taking the time to read your content.

How many times do you come across content that is an overt sales letter?

Way too often I’m sure!

Do you have the urge to share a sales letter with your audience?

No, of course not.

I have seen some phenomenal pieces absolutely wrecked by a hard sell finish.

Yes, that dated “internet marketing” temptation to stuff a big monetizing call-to-action in at the end.

As soon as that Paypal button appears you can guarantee the majority of your readers will bail out.

And they will never share it.

4. Your content lacks a unique voice

How many websites do you visit where there are large blocks of text with complex technical language or overly descriptive text.

Somehow the authors have missed one of the critical elements of online communication.

And that is the development of a warm, friendly tone and a unique voice.

If people want complex explanations they will search scholarly articles or journals.

I find the easiest way to explain what I mean is this:

Imagine you are seated at a table having a coffee/glass of wine/bite to eat with someone who you know quite well.

They are interested in what you do and have some understanding of it.

If you read your content out loud does it sound like it would work naturally in this environment?

If it doesn’t, go back and work on your writing until it does.

Remember, as far as the person reading your content goes, they are the only person reading it and you are talking to them and only them.

So always address your content to “you” or “your”.

The internet can be extremely impersonal so you have to be more human than human.

Examples of sites that have mastered the new art of web copy include Copyblogger, Kissmetrics and Hubspot. Check them out.

5. Your content is too short

Sure, sometimes complex ideas can be communicated in just a few words. And sometimes wisdom does not need a lot of elaboration (Seth Godin springs to mind).

Sometimes a picture can be worth a thousand words.

But…

Search engines have certain requirements in order to assign value and authority to content.

They cannot see images and optimizing images with alt tags and descriptions is not the “1000 words” solution you are looking for.

And a short post which is light on text gives the search engines very little to work with. The algorithms are becoming so sophisticated that it is no longer about keyword density. Associated language is much more important than any repetition of key phrases.

Structure is also very important – what words are used in headings and sub-headings?

How unique is the content?

Are you giving value that is above and beyond what is already published on the web?

Is your take on a topic unlike others out there?

What about Linkbait?

If you are unfamiliar with the concept of linkbait, this is how it works.

You create a definitive explanation of a particular topic. You examine and explain every possible element of the topic and you reference a range of high quality resources.

Apart from people bookmarking your content for future reference (or to complete reading it), people will link to it for a number of reasons.

• Associate themselves with high quality reference material
• As a vote – an expression of approval
• To direct their audiences to a comprehensive explanation to demonstrate a point
• To improve the authority of their own content

All of this popularity and the groundswell of links to content and the associated social sharing sends very strong signals to search engines that this is a valuable addition to the results pages.

The more this happens the higher your rank for any keyword targets and the higher your visibility. This presence in search will incrementally grow the numbers of visitors to your site.

Most Linkbait is created as long form content. If you look at the leading sites on the web “epic” or “long form” is the standard and because of the success of this strategy it is worth investing in the development of exceptional content.

If you look at recent examples of remarkable content creation you will see how seriously some companies are taking this.

Project management, creative, copywriting, research, web design, developers, data analysis all collaborate on one project to create something exceptional, link attractive and newsworthy.

This is an extremely effective way of getting more brand awareness.

6. Your social media content strategy is poor

Now that you have produced this brilliant piece you go to social media and distribute through your many social channels.

Except there are only a few dozen people following you on Twitter. And you only have a couple of hundred Facebook Likes (of whom less than 10% will see your post). LinkedIn will get the content in front of a few of your personal connections – those that actively use LinkedIn daily that is. And that Google+ page that you haven’t been able to figure out how or why just sits there doing nothing.

So you share – and nothing happens.

You wait for your post to “go viral” but instead there is a deafening silence.

No interaction, no comments, no retweets, likes or shares.

Why is that?

Social media requires a consistent and highly focused strategy.

So many companies set up a few profiles, put some stuff out on them, go away for a few days then wonder why the “incredible power of social media” is eluding them.

Building relationships is the key to social media effectiveness. And this net needs to be spread as wide as possible. It is difficult to describe yourself as a thought leading brand if few people are following you or sharing and interacting with what you are posting.

And by that I don’t mean cute pictures of kittens on Facebook to get the Like quotient up.

Again it comes down to knowing who your audience is and what you can do to give value to them.

Then you can tailor what you share to these groups.

As this sparks interaction you must have processes in place to not only respond but to nurture these new relationships (without looking like a stalker).

Generosity is one of the key stumbling blocks I find businesses continually come across.

Simply put, share other people’s stuff. But only if it’s great.

Do it often and without expectation of any reciprocity.

Champion other people more often than you share your own content (see mistake #3).

Understand what the acceptable levels of sharing and of repetition are across all channels.

Set a social schedule and use tools to ensure your hard work is reaching the most people possible.

A final thought on social media strategy is how many people are actively engaged and supportive of your social strategy from within your organization?

Does the C-suite know any of the detail of the strategy?

Do employees other than in Marketing know anything about it and are they encouraged to contribute in any way?

Is there a simple policy in place to protect both the company and the individuals who work for it?

I am growing a bit tired of seeing “thoughts are my own” as a disclaimer on social profiles.

How is this for a social media policy from a very high profile tech based company?

3 words…

Use Good Judgement.

No pages of SOPs and rules, just three words and a large amount of trust and self-belief that they are hiring the right people .

7. You haven’t factored search optimisation into your efforts

This one is a huge and unfortunately very common mistake.

SEO and content marketing are essential partners as without an understanding of how search engines work your content will have almost no visibility.

Thankfully the old days of SEO being that irritating requirement to stuff irrelevant and clumsy text into your titles and body are very much gone.

SEO is all about ensuring that your website is performing as cleanly and efficiently as possible.

It is about ensuring that Google and the other search engines can easily crawl and index your content.

It is about using critical points to clearly articulate what each page or post is about.

And it is about understanding visitor behavior and structuring content in an intuitive and streamlined way.

This is just the beginning.

Technical compliance is crucial before you can even begin to publish content thanks to a number of momentous updates from Google in 2012 and into 2013.

(Sorry, brief interlude with some technical stuff)

Once you have your site technically correct (no accidental duplication, no bad links, you have reliable servers and DNS, low numbers of crawl errors, robots.txt correct, friendly URLs, no missing or incorrect length metadata) then you can optimize content for publishing.

Set up a checklist and make sure each of the points are covered.

• Install features or plugins to take care of XML sitemaps, canonical tags, author attribution, recommended reading, metadata creation.
• Use shorter keyword focused URLs
• use headings and sub-headings in H1, H2 and H3
• use a “more tag”
• reduce size of images and optimize with title, alt tag and description
• manage categories and tags
• make sure the title tag and meta description do not exceed guidelines length

Then promote through social media, email lists, newsletters, social bookmarking sites, pinging services, trade press and anywhere else people would be interested in what you are saying.

Successful content marketing does take a fairly high level of technical understanding particularly with how the web works.

Why?

Here’s a stat for you:

These are WordPress stats – WordPress.com users produce about 39.3 million new posts and 41.4 million new comments every month.

That’s one free blogging platform.

Competitive?

If you would like your content to be seen then you have to maximize your chances.

8. Your titles are incredibly dull

Here’s another hint about how the web works.

Titles are King – descriptions are Queen.

A very large proportion of the time all an internet user sees is your title and your description. (by description I mean your meta description)

There are some really useful posts on how to make the most of titles by following a particular formula and there are some classic posts where bloggers pull apart the really dreadful titles people use.

Here’s how it works.

You only have a couple of seconds to convince people that they cannot afford to miss taking action by clicking the link.

The title is the first point of connection.

Each tweet on Twitter is just a title and a link.

A search on Google will surface a title and a description.

A share on LinkedIn or Facebook or Google+ will present a title and a description.

Social bookmarking platforms like StumbleUpon, Delicious, Digg or Reddit will show your title and description.

So why would you waste all the hard work creating something exceptional if your title is just plain boring and is not at all compelling?

And what about those descriptions we all see that are taken from somewhere in your post and really don’t sum up why your audience should “check this out”?

These 2 areas offer a massive opportunity for marketers to convert more people into website visitors and generally they are handled very badly.

Did you know that any title tag should not exceed 65 characters including spaces?

Or that a title that is too short will be seen as an error by Google?

Did you know that a description should not exceed 155 characters including spaces?

I’m sure you have seen many titles and descriptions cut off before the message is completed with a…

This also dilutes your keyword effectiveness.

Here is my tip:

Put at least 20% of your efforts into your title and description. Make it as compelling as you possibly can.

Use your copywriting skills to really hook people in.

And deliver on the promise you are making in your title with your content!

That’s the full 8 mistakes – for now.

There are plenty more – at the end of last year I published a post on 30 reasons your content marketing strategy is failing miserably. Please check it out.

Creating content, being a publisher, connecting with audiences, building relationships are the most exciting aspects of the new super-connected world.

Being successful at this however does require a commitment to learning the art of web copy and it also requires a level of technical understanding that initially may be a bit daunting.

However, when you get it right the opportunities can be astonishing.

I would love to hear your views – mistakes I’ve missed, points you disagree or agree with or anything else content marketing related – please leave a comment.

One of the issues that arises when decoupling production, especially to a transcreation specialist, away from the creative agency (and I am using creative in the context of producing ideas and concepts so could include design, digital or advertising) there is a demarcation between the two processes. I have written previously on this with the thought that it should not be considered a continuum, but is actually two interlinked stages. In fact, the secret to separating these two processes is how you think about the actual process itself.

I have found that you can think about the development of advertising much like you would think about the development of an automobile. Much of the language for the two is very similar. There is consumer research, strategy, design, concept testing and then a prototype and more testing before specifications are developed and it goes into production.

Eliminating testing, the main steps in the process are:

1. Strategy
2. Concept / Design
3. Prototype
4. Specifications
5. Manufacture / Production

Look familiar? This is very similar to how advertising moves through the process in response to the marketer’s brief. There is a communications strategy, concepts, quoting and then production.

But lets look at these steps more closely and see where collaboration and hand-over naturally occur.

Strategy

Like advertising, automotive manufacturers need to understand consumer trends. They are aware of the competitive strategies and market opportunities. There is a significant investment down the track and getting this right is important. With advertising, getting the content and message right is important otherwise the significant media investment is at risk too.

Concept / Design

The designer then develops sketches and drawings forming these into concepts much the same way as the agency creative do in response to the strategy. There can be several iterations that are explored or tested to find the best solution.

Prototype

The prototype brings the concept to reality and gives it shape and form. It is an expensive process, but an important one, to really understand the viability of the design and concept. In much the same way, in advertising this can be the comprehensive layouts and storyboards. It could be taking it further to animatics or even producing the one off execution of the concept. It depends on the requirements of the marketers and the capabilities of the transcreation company.

Specifications

While the automotive engineers are involved in the design, this is where the engineers take the lead in developing the specifications for the manufacture or production of the vehicle. It is also where the transcreation company, which has been privy to the strategy, concept and prototype, comes to the fore and leads the production specifications in consultation with the agency creatives and the marketers.

Manufacture / Production

When the vehicle goes into production, it is the engineers who oversee the output. Of course the designers may see the first one or two, but at this late stage it is more out of courtesy than need. Unless of course a problem or issue arises that requires a design rethink. But you would hope that as they roll off the production line most of these bugs have been well and truly ironed out. As the transcreation company begins to undertake translations and make culturally required changes to the concept expression, the agency creatives are consulted largely out of courtesy or if there is an issue.

What this provides is a natural transition between the concept design and the production process and that is the prototyping and the specifications. On one side the agency creative on the other the production team.

• The strategy and concept / design is agency led
• The prototyping the creatives lead in consultation with the production team
• The specifications the production team leads in consultation with the agency creatives
• The production is naturally production led

It provides a natural transition, with each party knowing their role and responsibility.

Interestingly, when you look at the way the automotive industry invests in the various stages of the process, the upfront is where they spend time and money making sure they get the design and concept right. Then in the specifications they look to achieve the economies of scale and the manufacturing efficiencies to reduce cost where possible and maximise return. This is the reverse of the way marketers currently invest with around one percent of marketing budget invested in concept development.

That is my prototype model for thinking about the advertising creative and production process.

What do you think? Is it useful? Can it be improved? Leave a comment and let me know.

It may surprise the many advertising agencies that complain to me about procurement that we are also often required by procurement to tender to assist in running tenders. I know this may seem overkill, to go through an RFP process to select a consultant to run an RFP process, but that is the nature of business these days.

And just like many agencies I have recently been increasingly frustrated in the quality of the procurement profession (and I use the term loosely in the examples I am about to give) and the way it is practiced because while many procurement people work hard at adding value to the process, there is still an inordinate number of procurement people who slavishly follow process at the expense of any possible value existing in the outcome.

I will declare up front that in both of these cases we were not successful, but in no way is this sour grapes. In actual fact, in one case we withdrew and in the second we wished we had withdrawn sooner when the warning signs were flashing.

In both cases the organisations involved professed to be of high moral standing and integrity, yet the behaviour and practice of the procurement process was very much short of this lip-service and in fact has certainly damaged my perception of those organisations.

I cannot reveal their names or identify them in any way as they conveniently hide behind confidentiality agreements, which I agree should be used to protect commercially confidential information, but in these cases are used to protect those who have little regards to honour, trust and integrity.

So what did they do wrong?

1. Confidentiality Agreements

In both cases the process started with a particularly onerous Confidentiality Agreement. One was 16 pages and the other 24 pages long. I am a strong advocate of Non-Disclosure Agreements and Confidentiality Agreements to protect commercially sensitive information. I believe they should be straight forward and in plain language.

However in this case, the longer confidentiality agreement had buried in its numerous clauses an Intellectual Property clause that effectively meant that any IP arising from the RFP process was to be assigned to the Party disclosing confidential information (i.e. The client) and that this did not exclude existing IP. Effectively signing this supposed Confidentiality Agreement would mean that all of our valuable existing IP would in effect be assigned to the client. PASS.

2. Project Definition

Now protected by the confidentiality agreement they provided very little in the way of commercially confidential information such as current agency arrangements or spend or even the size of the project we were to tender for or the proposed timeline. I am really not sure what they were wanting to protect, because none of the information provided in the subsequent RFP had any information that could not be found on their website or a 0.20 second Google search of the organisations name.

Yet we were expected to prepare a cost proposal without any of the details on their proposed objectives, timeline, process and the like. And if we asked questions, this is what happened…

3. Providing Answers to Questions

In fact there was no point asking questions, even the most basic and fundamental. I asked one of the procurement people if they could let me know the following:

• How many consultants had been invited to tender – after all, before I invest time and resources filling out an RFP I need to assess the odds of success.
• What is the selection criteria for selecting the successful consultant and if there are multiple criteria how would these be weighted – so I could better structure my response to meet their needs.
• What was the selection process and would there be an opportunity to meet and discuss their requirements – so I could determine if chemistry was seen as a selection criteria or if they simply saw the selection process as a commodity.

They refused to answer any of these questions on the basis it was outside the procurement guidelines. What type of guidelines completely negate a suppliers ability to assess if they are even right for the project except in the broadest terms, assess the potential return on the investment to participate and allow you to assess the probability of success?

There is an underlying arrogance to this flavour of procurement which assumes that suppliers are willing to unquestioningly jump through flaming hoops and crawl across broken glass for the chance to pitch for their business. The problem is that the companies that are willing to do this are usually less capable and therefore less successful.

4. Time Management

Then the final insult was being asked to respond to all 69 points on the RFP in 48 hours. Sorry 96 hours, if you included working through the weekend. because when you are running a busy and successful business and managing to keep overheads low, of course you have people sitting around waiting for the opportunity to dedicate themselves to completing an RFP that asks you to demonstrate how you see yourself aligned to the organisation’s values.

We refused, only to be told that everyone had refused and so please just provide an estimate of costs in the next 24 hours and a decision would be made the next day. Well two weeks later, we were still waiting. This is not unusual. Agencies have told me of waiting more than six months for any contact from an organisation after turning themselves inside out to complete an RFP in five days.

I understand that often the selection process can become messy and protracted. We have one like that at the moment. But we try and keep all candidates aware of what is happening to alleviate any concerns. I asked a couple of procurement people about this and they told me it is their procurement policy to keep any communications with those responding to an RFP to a minimum to avoid compromise.

Suggestions on how to clean up

1. If you have procurement guidelines make sure that either the guidelines or their application and interpretation are not working against the best possible outcome, especially when selecting suppliers that will need to work in a highly collaborative manner.

2. Use confidentiality agreements to protect commercially sensitive information only. Do not try to sneak other clauses into these agreements. And even better use them to acknowledge that the party receiving the confidential information has existing IP too that should be protected.

3. Be open and honest in providing information such as the details and scope of the project, the process including details of the selection criteria and process, to make sure the potential participants have all they need to assess their suitability and desire to participate.

4. Be open to answering all questions in regards to the process, the scope of the work and the project details. Share the process answers with the other candidates, but do not share questions and answers which demonstrate the strategic thinking of a candidate without their permission.

5. Manage your project schedule realistically to ensure there is enough time for every stage of the process, both for those responding to the RFP and for the assessment on the organisation side. If the timeline blows out keep the respondents updated with the reason and the revised timing expectations.

My concern is that whether deliberate of not, much of what passes for procurement process creates a perception of arrogance that leads to distrust, when the purpose of the procurement process is invariably to ensure that all parties get an opportunity to be fairly and justly considered.

What do you think?

If you want some ideas on how to combat the commoditising effects of procurement and the RFP processes, check out this SlideShare presentation I gave to AMSRO last year.

This post first appeared on Mumbrella on March 28, 2013.

Translating corporate environmental strategy into marketing output

Gone are the days when telling the world you use recycled paper cuts it as a sufficient response to the environmental requirements section of a tender. Expectations have moved forward despite the watery environmental guidance offered up as policy by the major parties in this country.

There have been major improvements by leading, forward thinking businesses in the compliance requirements for all aspects of sustainable practices. From the growth in the building of 5 star Green offices to energy efficient (read carbon as well as cost) refits. From light bulbs to travel rules, sustainability is now embedded in the day-to-day business strategy. Whilst the initial focus has been on high emitting areas of a business, the energy efficient glow is now shinning brightly on how to include the Marketing spend.

The importance of weeding out the bad corporate citizens as partners

Marketing is connecting with consumers in a relevant and cost effective manner. Delivering this message in a targeted way requires an efficient process. Reducing carbon and therefore lowering the environmental impact of communication is by its very DNA an efficiency driver.

So how do you get your marketing partners to understand this and work with you in the language of lower CO2?

Anyone you ask is more than capable of wheeling out an elegant environmental statement.

We recycle this and that and we really really care. If they are not able to tell you the carbon impact of the goods and services they provide for you these statements are not worth the PDF they are displayed on.

Media planners should supply a carbon assessment of their proposed strategy. Agencies the carbon from the production of the ideas. And printers must share the footprints of the printing and freight they generate on your behalf.

As with most things in life you get what you ask for

How does one even start the process?

Existing contractual arrangements with your agencies and printers/managers will most probably not have any tangible environmental deliveries. So you will have to negotiate with them to ensure they deliver more accountable reporting that matches the requirements of your company. If there are no clear overall guidelines that translate easily across into Marketing we can assist with interpretation.

The big environmental gains can be made when going to market to seek new alliances by adding environmental deliverables with a focus on evidence of achievement.

Setting guidelines for environmental requirements when going to market

Firstly let’s look at the weighting of the important factors in any purchasing decision. Naturally your major drivers remain service and price. These will deliver ‘value for money’.

When looking at the sustainability factors you will need your company’s risk assessment process or the standard evaluation matrix if you have one.

Both should have a section on sustainability. Typically this is a blend of environmental criteria and governance and is given at least 10% of the weighting in the decision making process.

The key is to include more qualitative requirements insisting on evidence to make this a relevant, comparable section to base your decision on.

The art is in the questions and insisting on a requirement for reporting with validated figures.

If the response gets a pass mark on a question by answering ‘We purchase environmentally friendly office consumables such as print cartridges that can be recycled’ then you are clearly asking the wrong question.

Here are a couple of examples of how you could structure questions that demand evidence:

1) Explain how you measure the environmental impact of any project you undertake on our behalf. Please show reporting functions and frequency and examples of the report.

2) Based on your ability to show the environmental impact of any work you conduct for us please show examples of how you will work with us to minimize this without adversely affecting the business strategy.

Your business has it’s own unique requirements in this area. Independent guidance is definitely required. If you need to understand more just ask

As carbon pollution increasingly becomes a hard cost as well as an issue of corporate reputation, understanding your company’s current marketing carbon footprint today will not only help the planet it will also increase your bottom-line.

I am interested to hear your views. Please leave a comment.

Since Jan Brady famously once said “Marcia, Marcia, Marcia” in episode 10 of season 3 of The Brady Bunch, because her big sister was getting all the attention, I’ll simply say, “content, content, content” about marketing attention in 2013.

There are a bunch of insights in the first ever study into Content Marketing in Australia by the CMI and ADMA. It’s a must read for marketers and agencies.

Here a few headlines:

• Australian marketers use an average of 12 Content Marketing tactics. This seems to correlate closely to Google’s Zero Moments Of Truth (ZMOT) analysis where consumers on average research 10.4 pieces of online content before making a purchase (note, this has increased 2-fold from 5.27 in 2010).

• Only 29% believe their content marketing is “very effective” or “effective.” It always amazes me how many marketers are going through the motions, doing things the way they’ve always done them. I can’t believe so many marketers are settling for mediocrity.

• The top 3 content marketing goals are: Brand Awareness (73%), Engagement (71%) & Customer Retention / Loyalty (68%). That’s obviously a massive spread across the marketing spectrum. My view is that content marketing should be used for brand engagement. I’d be interested to know what you’re using it for.

• 61% of Australian marketers plan to increase their content marketing budget over the next 12 months. This raises an interesting question of whether it should be produced in-house or outsourced to specialists?

• The top challenge for content marketers is producing the kind of content that engages, closely followed by producing enough content. Interestingly I was at a client today that was drowning in fantastic content however they didn’t have a structured approach to market it to their customer base. If you’re looking to transform your digital activity in 2013 then you’ll need to achieve the right balance between content production and content that truly engages.

One area the report fails to delve into is whether marketers are commercialising content, however there are plenty of other thought provokers.

So delve in deeper here

And let us know what you think? Is your content marketing strategy working for you? And if not, what areas are the most challenging?

Perhaps you should check out a previous post on the subject “30 reasons your content marketing strategy is failing miserably”

I just came back from the World Federation of Advertisers Global Marketers Conference in Brussels. As is often the case with these things, some parts of it were really valuable and other parts less so. But one thing struck me as I finished the week.

At the moment I think the world of marketing is split between four extremes.

The first extreme is that you think you know everything about the change that is happening as digital and data disrupts our industry.

The second is that you believe you don’t know enough – or even don’t know anything.

The third extreme is that you actually understand the enormity and the true impact of what is going on.

And the final extreme is that you really don’t get any of it at all. I’ve drawn a graph to illustrate roughly what I mean.

Of course, most of us sit somewhere on this four-way continuum, somewhere between these four extremes. But it’s becoming increasingly clear to me that it’s really important as a marketer to know exactly where you sit, because where you sit makes a fundamental difference to how you equip yourself for what is happening and what is yet to come.

First of all, the marketers that really don’t get it, and don’t think they know enough

There were plenty of those to be found in Brussels. And what a great group – because they got loads out of the conference, asked the best questions, made the best observations, learned the most from the speakers and delegates and left with the biggest mindset shift. Given the speed and extent of the change that’s coming, I think it’s the safest group for any of us to be in, whatever our actual or perceived level of expertise.

Marketers who get it but know they don’t know enough

The other terrific group of people to hang out with were the ones who actually get what is happening, but don’t think they know nearly enough about it. And I’d put the Google team in this group – clearly a company that is on top of far more than most of us, but which (at the WFA at least) demonstrated a constant state of insecurity and self-criticism, leading it to innovate like it is on the brink of exiting the market. Seeing this up close (suspending any cynicism just for a moment) showed me why Google is still around after all these years, and will be for several more.

Marketers who think they get it all, but don’t really

Then there were the guys and girls who believe they get what is going on, but actually don’t. There were lots of them, I’m afraid, either spruiking on stage or opining in the conference hall and side functions. They were the ones who were talking about digital as a channel, or integration as matching messages, or brand ideas as communication ideas, or marketing as a business unit. They were the ones presenting case studies as simple systems with clear cause and effect. They were usually from companies operating in the boom markets like China, patting themselves on the back for double-digit growth while their business elsewhere remains flat. They all seemed to have something to sell, even if it was just themselves.

The marketers who actually do get it

And finally, there were the ones everyone wanted to discover and connect with – those that believe they get what is going on, and actually do get it. The real experts, the proper geniuses. Except there weren’t any. We all searched for them the whole week. We all wanted to learn from them, find out their secrets, use their knowledge and expertise in our businesses.

Maybe it’s just me, but I didn’t spot a single one.

This week I was lucky enough to attend the Global Marketer Conference in Brussels, organised by the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA) and the Belgium Advertising Association (UBA). Having enjoyed listening to the speakers I’ve written down my serious and not so serious take-outs from what the marketing leaders shared. Other people will no doubt have their own take-outs, but these are mine for your interest and enjoyment.

Nathan Hodges, Paul Duxbury and Darren Woolley: WFA Global Marketer Conference 2013

Key

	The most serious advice – ignore this at your peril
	Fairly serious advice – think about it
	Not a laughing matter – but it won’t hurt you either
	Light hearted advice
	Just for fun

Stephan Loerke, Managing Director of the WFA

Whilst it remains important for marketing to be effective and efficient, marketers must also embrace the idea of ‘marketing with purpose’, elevating what they do beyond the functional to the emotional and how it can add value to our everyday lives.

Know your consumer. If there’s one thing a conference audience wants to know at the start of the day it is the WIFI access code. Stephan didn’t disappoint and the quality of the signal was excellent.

Karel De Gucht, EU Trade Commissioner

The biggest trade challenge facing the EU now is how to remove trade barriers between Europe and China, and one of the key levers is getting convergence on regulation.

Think on your feet. It’s a brave EU official who opens the floor to questions, and a smart one who when asked a lengthy and not totally clear question neatly responds by restating the question as something else that we really want to talk about.

Chris Burggraeve, President, WFA

The World Federation of Advertisers has been around for sixty years and whilst ‘advertising’ in 1953 meant mainly press and today covers many more channels, the WFA’s focus on effectiveness and efficiency in advertising spend remains equally relevant today.

Respect local knowledge and skills. The acknowledgement of the role of the UBA in promoting and supporting the cause of advertisers in Belgium was well received and reminded us that local communities and collaboration lie at the heart of this global federation.

Kimberley Kadlec, Worldwide Vice-President, Johnson & Johnson

Almost regardless of the size of your marketing budget, in today’s digital world you can be really big on the small screen. And using digital to personalise your communications can deliver impressive and long-lasting responses from your customers.

Keep up with the jargon. ‘Emocampaign’ (btw this term came from tweets about Kim’s presentation) is a fun and descriptive way of talking about commercials that pull at the heart strings, and a good way of showing you are up with the latest marketing lingo- try dropping the term into your next agency meeting and see what reaction you get.

Marc de Swaan Arons, Executive Chairman, Effective Brands (on behalf of Antonio Lucio, Global CMO and Global Head of HR, Visa)

Making one person responsible for Marketing and HR might seem strange, but could be a brilliant way of ensuring strong internal and external alignment to a core message. The support and enthusiasm Visa generated behind their “go” campaign is evidence of this.

Be calm under pressure. If your friend (Antonio) has to ask you (Marc) to fill their conference slot at 24 hours’ notice, don’t worry as the audience will be understanding, especially if you have a clear message and an engaging, relaxed style.

Miguel Patricio, Chief Marketing Officer, ABInBev

A strong set of brand ideals is really important for sustained growth of international brands. These ideals need to be clear and simple enough to survive translation across markets and through all levels of the organisation, to ensure the brand stays ‘on message’.

Immerse yourself in foreign cultures. There’s no substitute for living in foreign countries and understanding the differences, especially if you start to think like a local.

Rory Sutherland, Vice Chairman, Ogilvy Group

Behavioural economics can give marketers a whole new perspective and challenge the seemingly unarguable logic of economic theorists (and the finance department). A good place to start developing your behavioural science learning is Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely.

Take time to consider new ideas, just for the sake of it. Rory didn’t spend too much time illustrating how his ideas could be applied in practice and rightly so, as his intent was to communicate an idea and to get the audience thinking – which is good for our brains and for opening our eyes to new possibilities, even if the implications and practicalities of the idea have not been crystalised.

Will Gilroy (WFA) & Jeremy Cohen (Edelman)

Humble apologies but I was whisked away to give an interview to the WFA during this slot so I missed all but the last five minutes, so I cannot comment fairly. Hopefully the slides and notes will be available for review.

Plan your events carefully. If asked to speak after the ever so dynamic Rory Sutherland, think twice and pass. Or hope the audience will be so energised and alert you’ll get their full attention regardless of the subject, which is I’m sure what happened.

Andy Fennell, Chief Marketing Officer, Diageo

Marketing in the modern world can sometimes look unfathomably complex. But Andy convinced us that the best approach is to keep it simple: spend more, go premium and focus on emerging markets. And what he didn’t say directly, but clearly indicated is the need to give your team the freedom to act whilst making them fully accountable.

Learn from your mistakes. Andy was the only speaker to share a failure from their career and to advise that if you are going to get a poor rating, do it early in your career – you will survive and you will probably be a better marketer for it.

Do let me know if you have any comments. It would be great to hear from you here or on twitter @pcduxbury.

Here is a chance to have your say and be heard.

Media is going through a time of huge transformation. Not just from a media agency point of view, but across all parts of the value chain, from the media owners to the agencies and ultimately the marketers and advertisers.

These changes are being driven by technology and associated social change, where media channels are becoming more fragmented and the media consumer is more empowered than ever before. Some are even becoming media in their own right through blogging and social media.

Have your say in identifying the key issues for the media industry and setting the priorities here

Everyone is talking about the myriad of issues the industry is facing and addressing. But perhaps the time has come to start to agree and prioritise which are the biggest or more pressing issues and which are of less importance.

With Denise Shrivell of MediaScope, TrinityP3 is offering you the opportunity to have your say and prioritise the issues you and the industry are facing – be it as a marketer, an agency or a media owner. We have identified a list of 12 issues (by no means a comprehensive list) that we want you to prioritise from your perspective based on the role you play in the media value chain.

They are:

• Media Audience Measurement – standardisation & methodologies for individual media channels cross platform
• Recruitment & Retention – finding & retaining quality & relevant people resources
• Keeping Up to Date – with constantly evolving market trends
• Tracking media ROI & attribution across channels – proving effectiveness of media/channel activity
• Cost of continually evolving technology and research
• Fragmenting Market & Increased Competition – from other media & channels ie social & owned media
• Contracting Marketing Spend/Margins – finding an effective business model
• Disconnect & lack of recognition of needs & expectations between client, agency & media
• Billing structures – time & resources required verses monetary return
• Increased focus on media ROI rather than brand benefits
• Issues surrounding data ownership and privacy
• Limited scope for outside the square or new opportunities

We also have some suggested solutions we want you to review and prioritise or even pose your own solutions.

To do this simply go to the survey by either clicking on this link or copying and pasting it into your browser.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/TrinityP3-MediaScope-Media-Industry-Survey

The responses are confidential and there is an option to receive a copy of the results in recognition of your contribution.

Click here to take survey

Please share this with your colleagues, clients and friends in the media industry as the more people that participate the better view we have of the challenges ahead.

Social media is still on the lips of most marketers and is now starting to infiltrate C-level discussion.

Thankfully the hype is settling down and strategic planning and logic is starting to be applied.

If you use the Super Bowl as a barometer, then at this year’s game (XLVII), you would have spotted these 26 TV Ads (out of the 52) with a Twitter hashtag:

1. M&Ms – #betterwithmms
2. Audi – #braverywins
3. Hyundai – #pickyourteam
4. GoDaddy – #thekiss
5. Doritos – #doritos
6. Best Buy – #infiniteanswers
7. Disney Oz – #disneyoz
8. Fast & Furious movie – #fastandfurious
9. Toyota – #wishgranted
10. Doritos – #doritos
11. Calvin Klein – #calvinklein
12. Cars.com – #nodrama
13. Bud Light – #herewego
14. Hyundai Sonata – #epicplaydate
15. Volkswagen – #gethappy
16. Subway – #15yrwinningstreak
17. Subway – #FebruANY
18. Bud Light – #herewego
19. Subway – #FebruANY
20. Bud Light – #herewego
21. MiO Fit – #changestuff
22. Pistachios – #crackinstyle
23. Speed Stick – #handleit
24. Budweiser Clydesdales – #clydesdales
25. Tide – #miraclestain
26. Samsung – #thenextbigthing

Whereas only 4 Ads mentioned Facebook, and 1 mentioned Instagram. None mentioned YouTube or Google+.

This is a massive turnaround from 2012 when both Facebook and Twitter were mentioned 8 times each.

Why?

Because Twitter is a character limited, short sharp notification platform, and Facebook is a social network for engaging with friends.

So it’s a no brainer that if you’re at a sporting event, then you’d be with your friends watching the game, with the occasional short distraction thrown in.

Touchdown

And it was impressive to see that Oreo had their social team and management on standby to quickly react to the ‘lights out’ drama.

Within minutes they scored with this Ad deployed via Twitter with the caption “Power out? No problem.”

https://twitter.com/Oreo/status/298246571718483968/photo/1

Turn the lights on again

However the tectonic shift is not in the type of social media being used it’s the fact that businesses today must integrate the fundamentals of social media into all aspects of their business practice:

• real-time
• people
• communities
• information
• connection

It’s no longer good enough to allow channels to operate in isolation, databases not to seamlessly talk, feedback to be ignored, and poor customer experiences to be created by out of touch front line staff.

Businesses must re-engineer into social businesses or face losing market share.

Here are my top 3 tectonic shifts required

Shift #1 – In-source employee ideas

Attract the right talent, and harness their potential for knowledge sharing.

Gone are the days of a pigeon hole job spec where information is cascaded up and down an organisation at snails pace.

Social businesses need to be agile and open to ideas from all employees. And more importantly harness the power of their employees to create content and conversations that can be shared both internally and externally.

How many of your front line staff are creating content for your company blog or Facebook page? How many are starting provocative topics of conversation in LinkedIn? And how many are shooting videos and snapping pictures at your corporate and sponsored events?

Social businesses such as Starbucks, Zappos, and Nokia are getting their employees excited about the brand they work for.

Nokia has evolved its internal collaboration strategy from forums and wikis to SharePoint and Socialcast. Over 14,000 Nokia employees now use Socialcast daily to facilitate communication and collaboration and keep up to speed on events as well as share stories.

Shift #2 – Outstanding customer experiences

No, it’s not a new concept, however it’s such an easy one to implement. Empower your staff to deliver incredible experiences.

A social business needs to constantly think of the water-cooler stories, taxi conversations, and party discussions that are now being held in social media.

A frown at reception, an “I’m too important to talk to the customer” attitude, or failing to return phone calls simply won’t cut it in 2013. And yes all 3 happened to me last week at a medical centre, with a telco and in a retail shop. They all lost my business.

And internationally, The Royal Bank of Canada recently achieved a 17% improvement in customer satisfaction from implementing a social customer care system that was integrated with their traditional call center.

So remember, it’s all about ‘them’, customers, and not about ‘you’.

Shift #3 – Commanding the centre of attention

We’ve started seeing the emergence of Social Business Command Centres with Dell, Gatorade and Hootsuite’s 2012 Presidential Election Tracker amongst the early examples.

It can either be one physical space or a virtually constructed team. However, most importantly, it’s the centre where listening, product innovation, customer care, engagement, advocacy and real-time content analysis is focused on.

This is critical for understanding industry shifts, changes in customer behaviour and competitor conversations.

With 2.5 quintillion bytes of information being created every day and 80% of the information created being unstructured, it should be a full time job to unearth actionable insights and not left to the juniors in the department.

Nokia uses a tool called Agora which is a 6-screen social visualiser to monitor how customers use and talk about their brand, products, and competitors, and to get an instant feel of what’s being said about the company worldwide.

And NAB launched their social media command centre in Australia in December 2012. Take a look here:

Note, NAB’s social media community grew more than 350% in 2012 and now has over 135,000 followers across Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn and Google+ with content reaching over 12 million users. They apparently receive around 5,000 comments and resolve 600 customer service requests through social media every month, a 10% growth in customer service interactions in social media, on average, for every month in 2012.

Action

So what do you take away from this post?

Hopefully the need to adapt your business now.

Some areas you can action internally. And others may need new partnerships.

If you want to read more about the stages of social business transformation, then I recommend Altimeter’s latest report here, written by Brian Solis and Charlene Li:

And if you need some help, then touch base with TrinityP3 and let’s discuss social business before your competitor does.

It is interesting how traditionally the conceptualisation or ideas phase and the production or implementation phase has been seen as a continuum. That is the agency that is briefed on the project also produces the project.

This stems back many years when creative and production was offered as part of the process of the agency selling media. What was the point of the client buying media and then developing the creative in-house (which was the standard at the time) when the agency could provide this service as part of the media commission and of course a little service fee on top.

It is interesting because technology and a demand for greater accountability on cost effectiveness are continuing to change this view. More than a decade ago, major advertisers in the UK began to decouple production from the agencies. Television, print and later digital production is being outsourced to production specialists, who are more efficient than the agencies at delivering the outputs required.

There are largely two main directions this takes:

1. Going directly to the suppliers the agencies have traditionally used and forming direct relationships with these suppliers eg. Production Companies, Post Production Companies, Print Studios, Digital Workshops
2. Going to one of the growing number of transcreation companies that have grown, primarily out of the UK and Europe but are increasingly multinational and global

Why decouple production from your agency?

• Many agencies structure their remuneration to rely heavily on the production process to subsidise the conceptualisation process (as apparently no-one wants to pay for ideas?) and therefore costs can be high
• If you are a high volume and especially a fast turn-around advertiser (think retail, telco and financial services) there are economies of scale that are difficult to achieve with the agency alone
• The specialist transcreation companies have invested heavily in workflow and approvals systems to speed up the process and lower the overheads and so provide a low-overhead, lower cost alternative
• You are using multiple agencies for ideas and conceptualisation so you can deliver economies of scale at the production-end consolidating with a single supplier

So which way do you go?

The answer to this depends on your production requirements. The questions you have to consider are:

• Where is the majority of your production spend? Is it in a particular media production such as television or digital or print or across all areas?
• What is the size of your spend? Is there enough to deliver the economies of scale to make the decoupling process worthwhile.
• How cost effective is your current production? Are your incumbent suppliers delivering the efficiencies for your spend?
• What is the nature of the spend? Is it creating new productions or is it largely working to templates or creating multiple versions?
• How centralised or decentralised is your production requirement? Are you a single market advertiser or do you develop executions from the core brand idea across multiple and diverse markets?

Case Study 1 – Decoupling television post production

A telco client approached TrinityP3 concerned over their increasing cost of television production. We reviewed the past three campaigns and identified the heavy use of CGI effects in the agency developed campaign as the main driver with each production more complex than the last. Reviewing the proposed production spend and schedule for the coming year we were able to develop a business case for decoupling the CGI and post production from the agency and assisted the client in the process to deliver a 27% saving on their post production costs.

Case Study 2 – Transcreation services across multiple regional markets

An Australian advertiser had traditionally used an agency network to develop the primary brand strategy in Australia and then customise the creative concepts to suit each of the regional markets across Asia Pacific. Invited to assist with their agency review, TrinityP3 identified a significant component of the incumbent’s spend, especially in these regional markets was production. In fact the low agency fees in these markets were being more than subsidised by a higher than expected production cost. We developed a business model from our knowledge of the main transcreation companies and identified an initial 32% saving on production costs.

Case Study 3 – Off-shoring digital production services

A financial services company had several years earlier engaged a digital agency with off-shore capabilities to provide their digital build requirements. TrinityP3 was asked to review the process and costs of this arrangement and identified that the off-shoring facility was under utilised. As the digital production spend had grown the agency had continued to perform more of this work locally than off-shore. TrinityP3 was able to provide the client with a number of options including a financial model for decoupling digital production to an off-shore facility that would reduce their annual costs by more than 50% in the first year with no loss of quality or increased risk.

Of course decoupling production from your creative agency is not for every advertiser. The process is time consuming and can pose significant risk if poorly executed. But for those advertisers with the right requirements, spend and mix to make it worthwhile it can deliver significant savings.

The agencies largely are against it, primarily as it reduces their revenue. But what are some of the risks or issues that you have heard about the decoupling process?

Leave a comment here so we can discuss them.

It has been common practice for many years to produce television commercials on a regional basis to yield the potential economies of scale. The problem is that many regions are not populated by homogeneous markets. Instead, the region is filled with diverse and vibrant but often contracting and conflicting cultural norms that must be considered during the production process.

Often the need to accommodate these difference within the production process can significantly diminish the anticipated savings, depending on the creative concept, as more and more additional versions are shot to cover the specific and individual requirements of each market within the region.

Some years ago when I was an agency producer I was sent to Malaysia to oversee the production of a series of regional TVCs for our client a producer of a beverage / cordial aimed at mothers and their children.

The cordial contained a large amount of vitamin C our client from America was quick to point out this was the products USP (unique selling proposition), ideal for promoting happy, healthy growth in children.

The client had briefed the agency to make a TVC that could be easily adapted to the regional areas of China, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.

The Agency had come up with a TVC that had a jingle based upon a classic Beach Boys tune. What this had in common with the target demographic I failed to recognize, nevertheless the client had bought the publishing rights and the deal was done.

All was going swimmingly until preproduction when the cultural requirements and sensitivities for the various markets began to clash. The Brand Manager from Sri Lanka and their counterpart from Bangladesh began discussing the wardrobe for their collective version.

For Bangladesh, the Brand Manager insisted the mother in the TVC wear a sari, the traditional dress of the region. As the production manager I personally remained neutral as both views were valid for the respective markets.

Eventually it was decided that the sari would be used for both versions.

The production proceeded well, the Chinese / Singapore and the Malaysia / Indonesian versions were completed without a hiccup.

It was the last day of the shoot and the mother was supposed to sway gracefully in time to the Beach Boys music as her children danced about holding and drinking the product, a magical and innocent advertising moment.

After the rehearsal the Brand Manager from Bangladesh approached me concerned that ‘her movement it’s, it’s too lascivious!” referring to the mother in the scene.

Now the word lascivious does exist and I knew what he meant but I had never heard it used in contemporary language. How a woman in a sari gently swaying could be considered lascivious was beyond me. I of course had to find a solution to the problem which was easy to do, with a re edit for the Bangladesh version, the lascivious mum ended up on the cutting room floor and the kids got extra close ups dancing and enjoying the product.

At the time, on the studio floor I thought how sad it was that a woman in a sari, gently swaying could be considered lascivious.

While we may think of the world as an increasing global village, the fact is that cultural diversity is alive and well and very healthy and must be considered when planning regional productions. Additional scenes, multiple shoots with different talent, wardrobe and even locations will be required and this will add to the cost and reduce the expected savings.

Greater Asia is a place that demands careful consideration when planning regional TV campaigns, and as a word of advice, always avoid anything that might be considered lascivious.

With the launch of the weekday editions of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age to a tabloid size this week it raises the question as to why marketers did not take more of the opportunity to create advertisements that capitalised on the event.

With around 50 different advertisers appearing across The Age and Sydney Morning Herald, Monday’s launch day saw only 3 creating an advertisement associated with the monumental change of the size in the newspaper’s nearly 180 year history.

BMW took the lead by “Change the Way You Move” with six various sized advertisements to promote BMW X1 which included a promotion of a chauffeured driven ride home in a BMW X1.

The Commonwealth Bank played on the change of size to highlight that interest rates often change and promote fixed interest home loans. The advertisement appeared as if it had been originally planned to appeared in a broadsheet newspaper and therefore had been cut off as it did not fit the new tabloid size. A bit lost on many readers as it looked as if it was a printing error but nevertheless a good attempt to focus on the change of the day.

Challenger promoted the ability of annuities to remain stable even if, as the headline read “This paper might shrink but my savings don’t have to.”

Mumbrella reported that Media buyers welcome first Fairfax ‘compact’ edition and data from Commercial Monitors shows that there were more overall number of advertisements on the previous Monday editions, up by 8 in Sydney and 4 in Melbourne.

With a greatly increased print run that was sold out in most outlets across the city by lunchtime, the interest in the newspaper was heightened with the new look. The topical nature of the change was being promoted across the day with publicity and news stories that scrutinised and dissected the new format. Even an evening edition of the tablet version of the newspaper (it almost sounds like the evening Mirror and Herald are being reincarnated).

The interest in special events, be they Royal and celebrity weddings, babies or scandals creates higher news interest be that readers or viewers. Advertisers should not let these opportunities slip through their fingers.

But with the amount of attention and interest being incredibly high only three thought it worthwhile to hone in on the new situation.

Opportunities like this are few and far between and worthy of engagement gold by the advertisers who took advantage of the moment.

Interested to hear your views. Please leave a comment with your thoughts.

Three years ago I was invited to talk to the ISBA COMPAG group on developing and managing collaboration between agencies. This has been a focus for me personally and for TrinityP3 since 2005, when we noticed that one of the big challenges for many marketers was managing their roster of agencies, while most processes and systems looked at only individual supplier relationships and not how to manage these more holistically.

This led to the development of the Evalu8ing system, which allows marketers and procurement to manage the multiple relationships that exist between marketing and their roster of agencies in one survey and one system. The process of using Evalu8ing with our clients has led to insights into the key elements required to create a collaborative environment, or at least a cooperative environment within the agency roster.

Taking a page out of the writings of one of my favourite authors, I was able to present this as the ABC of developing collaborative agency relationships – with grovelling apologies to Dr. Suess.

Here I want to revisit this presentation and expand and update some of the observations in that original presentation, which is here for reference. lets start at the beginning…

BIG A little a what begins with A?

Arrangements

With so many channels and so many specialist agencies, it seems that agency rosters can multiply like coat hangers in your wardrobe. This is because the roster structure evolves organically rather than being strategically planned. What I mean by this is that agencies are often added in response to an immediate need. This is a tactical approach to roster management and means that the suppliers within the roster often do not see a strategic requirement for their services so they are competing for their place in the roster.

While some marketers and procurement people see this as a power advantage, the fear and uncertainty this creates in the suppliers is counterproductive to creating collaboration which is heavily based on trust. Not to mention counterproductive for creativity which likewise requires a high level of trust. This does not mean you cannot have a competitive roster. It is simply that competition in the roster should be positive and not ever at the expense of the trust between the marketers and the agencies.

Alignment

The game Tug-o-War is a prime example of what can be achieved if a team of people are aligned. However alignment does not occur naturally in large groups of individuals or between multiple teams. Simply putting teams of people together will not create alignment. In fact depending on the diversity of the people within the teams and the diversity between the groups, alignment can be almost impossible unless you create some common, specific, measurable, achievable, short term objectives to which people can align themselves.

In the ideal situation, these would be the short term goals determined in the marketing strategy and then interpreted and defined for each of the agencies to deliver against. This alignment is also encouraged where all of the teams within the roster share in a success based reward.

Assessments

If you achieve alignment, you cannot simply rely on everything running smoothly. Of course, where it is small teams, it is easy to check in to ensure the relationship is on track. But larger teams and especially where there are multiple marketing teams within the organisation, all accessing and interacting with the same group of agencies on the roster, it is important to have a more rigorous and structured review process and the discipline to regularly review the relationships.

Interestingly, the type of process you use can influence the level of collaboration. You see in many cases people use performances based score cards and questions, where the criteria is specific to the performance of the individual agencies. There is a score card for media and a score card for digital and a score card for creative. This approach immediately positions the agency as a supplier and the marketer as a buyer. It reinforces the power game between the two and often leads to ‘scoring’ points off the agency with low scores.

The other issue is that different score cards for different disciplines focuses the agencies on their personal performance and away from the concept of the collaboration for the benefit of the collective group. This is why all parties should be assessed against common, consistent criteria with a true 360º approach where the marketer is also evaluated based on the same criteria. This is one of the fundamental principles of Evalu8ing as it creates a perfectly even playing field devoid of the power plays so common in other relationship score cards and surveys.

Big B little b what begins with B?

Bonus

Most agency remuneration models are counter collaborative as they recognise and reward the volume of work undertaken by the agency and not the results delivered. If you are rewarding agencies for the volume of the work they undertake, then you will find that each agency will be competing for more work as a way to increase their revenue. And in an environment of a limited budget it means they are competing with each other for a share of that budget.

This type of competition works against collaboration as each agency is working on bettering their position at the expense of the other agencies you want them to collaborate with. Instead, the bulk of the remuneration should focus on rewarding all the agencies collaborating together for achieving their and hopefully your common goal. The focus should be placed on having all parties align to a measurement of success.

Bonding

There are a lot of technology companies making a fortune out of selling technology solutions for collaboration. But as my colleague Shawn Callahan at Anecdote has found, there are many reasons these collaboration tools fail to get traction with human beings. And that is a key point about collaboration. It is about relationships between human beings. Collaboration requires those groups of people to share values, share expectations and share their goals and objectives. This requires a high level of trust. Interaction, talking and sharing these objectives provides the opportunity to share learnings from successes and failures. This sharing and bonding builds trust.

The problem is that many times these ‘bonding’ opportunities only occur with account management, and often at the most senior level. Here there are financial and relationship agendas as the account management team of each agency is responsible and held accountable for the profitability and financial growth of the account. Instead, marketers should encourage agency teams to share and bond at all levels and across all disciplines within their agencies. In my experience this is especially effective in creative and production, where the focus is more on outcome than financial performance.

Boundaries

Following on from Arrangement, is the need to set very clear operating boundaries. Often when agencies are appointed to fulfill a tactical need there are no clear boundaries set up in the engagement. This can first of all lead to the incumbent agencies on the roster feeling threatened and secondly the new agency unknowingly overstepping their area of responsibility increasing the perceived threat. This leads to turf wars with the agencies becoming more focused on defending their patch and share of budget and trying to take a share of budget from the other agencies.

To stop turf wars requires rules of engagement in contracts. There needs to be very clear and defined roles and responsibilities. This is not simply in regard to disciplines and services, but also in defining process. We have found that the Engagement Agreement process is an ideal way to work with the agencies to define these role, responsibilities and boundaries, but it also sets expectations and allows the agencies to own the process.

Big C little c what begins with C?

Capabilities

One of the ways agencies are trying to increase revenue is in the diversification of their services and capabilities. This is sometimes achieved through acquisition of another specialist agency or grown through recruitment of key agency staff. But it is almost impossible for any one agency to excel at all of the disciplines they say they provide.

The problem for marketers is in determining what is the core competency of their agency and what is simply a bolt-on competency in an attempt to capture more of your budget. In determining the core capabilities, the best way is to talk with the agencies’ other clients, who use these services and see what they think of the quality. Another way is to simply have the agency present case studies on a regular basis of what they have delivered for others. The main thing is to judge the agency’s core competencies through action not words.

If a rostered agency demonstrates a new competency that allows you to potentially consolidate your roster and remove a specialist, then simply undertake a limited review of that capability between the two in a structured and transparent way. Any other approach and you will encourage distrust and suspicion between the agencies on your roster.

Communication

Of course great communication is essential for collaboration. But I want to specifically focus on disputes and dispute resolution. This is because I believe that creativity is like sand in the oyster that creates the pearl, creativity and innovation is prickly by nature and can cause irritation. But managed properly this can create valuable enduring and productive relationships. Therefore a dispute resolution process is essential.

When disputes arise, rather than ignoring these and hoping they go away, it is far more effective to create a forum that allows a free exchange of concerns on issues. This collective ownership of the problem will often produce ideas and innovations that enrich the relationships, the process and ultimately the marketing outcomes.

And Culture

In the original presentation my last C was collaboration itself. And I reiterated the importance of managing the process by establishing rules and regular management. But more importantly than this is Culture. Collaboration is not simply a process. You can implement a process but that will not mean you will get collaboration.

Collaboration is where two more parties have agreed to work together to achieve a mutual goal where all parties share in the value created. This requires the presence of a culture of collaboration. It means developing mutual trust and shared values. Because if you do not have a desire to share the value of the outcomes you will at best have cooperation or at worst simply coordination. But essential to collaboration is a culture that builds and maintains mutual trust between all parties.

Interested to hear your views on getting collaboration between agencies. Leave a comment with your thoughts.

In the past we’ve outlined why low advertising print cost does not necessarily mean great value and one of the factors highlighted that accounts for a great deal of wasted expenditure is the problem of obsolescence.

Whether you are a large multi-national or small to medium business, you’ve most certainly got boxes of now obsolete and excess printed collateral material (not to mention promotional items) stored collecting dust, incurring warehouse storage fees or simply taking up valuable real estate somewhere.

I’ve seen an on obscene amount of obsolete print (and promotional items) sentenced to destruction and equating to hundreds, thousands even millions of advertising and marketing budgeted dollars.

Here are a few steps to spring cleaning out what’s lurking in your cupboards, setting up responsibilities and ordering sensibly:

STEP 1. Perform an Audit

Be aware and informed.

Identify what you own, where it’s located and how much it’s worth.

While you may think you know exactly what you own and where they are located you may be surprised by what you discover once your investigation is complete. 
Here is what you need to do:

• Involve your suppliers and key stakeholders.
 Find out where your stock items are located – this includes warehouses, retail stores, branches, head office storerooms and third party suppliers.
• Obtain stock reports from all stockholders. At a minimum this report should include stock item codes, title, version date, quantity on hand (in unit of measure), last order date activity, any backorder requests.
• Establish if the stock has been paid for. 
In some situations the supplier (particularly in the case of some generic items such as stationery and promotional elements) may be in a contractual arrangement where the stock is owned by them until the marketer draws down on the item. 
This may mean any obsolete stock that is identified may need firstly to be paid for by the marketer (and accrued against someone’s expenditure budget) before it is made obsolete.

Once you have compiled this information someone needs to review the item and make a decision on whether it should be retained or made obsolete.

STEP 2. Ownership and Accountability

Be accountable.

Every item produced, ordered and stored for your company should have an owner. 
The major stakeholder or requester of the item, a person who is responsible for it’s lifecycle and the budget it is allocated to.

 If you already have good stock item husbandry measures in place – congratulations you should already know who the stock owner is, if you don’t you may need to go to step 3 and then come back to this step.

While stock ownership is easy at the commencement of the items generation, as staff (owners) move on within a company or leave, the stock item quickly becomes like a temper throwing child in a shopping centre – no one wants to take responsibility for it, which is why it is advisable to allocate the division’s cost centre to the item, ensuring the item doesn’t become a hot potato that just keeps being passed around with no actions or decisions made on its fate.

Even with ownership allocated, the decision to obsolete an item is difficult for a lot of people for various reason such as:

• Fear of retribution whether legitimately (ie they have been negligently forecasting or deciding on quantities) or
• Because they think it might be useful later, but very rarely is, or
• They are one of the 2- 5% of Australians who Swinburne University estimate are hoarders, in which case you will need to fess up and delegate this accountability to someone else.

Ok – so you’ve determined what you have and who is taking responsibility for it,

STEP 3. Review stock report and samples

Be thorough.

Obtain samples of all stock items (and each version) – start by requesting these from your main warehouse supplier/s.

You can use this batch of items to cross reference to other stock holders’ stock reports without making them provide samples. However, anything any stock holder has that does not have a stock code/version date identified you will also need a physical sample, just to ensure you are not making a decision on something you think it might be.

Sometimes a digital photo can suffice if there is any doubt rather than incurring logistics and courier fees.

Now the identified stock owner needs to physically review the element and determine if it is still relevant, up to date and if it will be required for the future (and if so, by whom). 
This process can take a while and includes engaging with other existing and potential stakeholders.

A word on stock codes and version control

It’s simple, but you’d be surprised how some businesses still don’t include (or it has been forgotten ) a stock item code (or key number) and version date on an item.

Having this provides a quick and simple way of identifying an item (from concept to obsolescence) and determining if the item is valid, without having to trawl through the content to then decide if the item is still relevant or superseded and therefore now obsolete. 

Smart operators include an expiry date for the item if known, i.e. end of a promotion/offer and log this in their inventory system, which will then appear on stock reports, making for easy obsolescence decisions.

STEP 4. Make a decision

Be honest and brave.

Now, you’ve made a decision to obsolete an item, calculate the value of the obsolescence (value of stock x quantity on hand).

Inevitably, the value of this stock obsolescence will be confronting to many owners and a possible revelation to business unit managers. For whatever reason the item which was made obsolete along with the value of obsolescence should be tracked and managed for future financial accountability, KPI reporting and monitoring.

Formalise your decision in writing using a standardised template and circulate to all parties requesting that the item be obsoleted and removed from their inventory.


STEP 5 – Obsoleting an item

Be responsible.

Don’t just ask your stock holder to “bin the items”. Ensure you know what is actually going to happen with the unwanted items and that they are being destroyed, recycled responsibly.
 Paper and cardboard is easily recycled but consider the options for some of the other items you might be wanting to make obsolete.

I’ve seen (and recycled, repurposed) lots of promotional type items, everything from branded t-shirts, plastic drink bottles (which leaked and goes to show the importance of quality control particularly in offshore supply, but that’s another story) to large scale acrylic/metal point of sale material destined for landfill which is not only environmentally unsound but also corporately irresponsible.

 Seek advice (the original supplier or your warehouse are usually good places to start) as there are many simple ways of being responsible and in some cases even making back some money , although I wouldn’t go factoring profit into any budget.

 Request your stockholder to report on how they destroy or recycle the item and capture this information in a central system such as the logistics system.

Don’t forget to ensure a few hard copies are retained in an appropriate place for posterity, nostalgia and those award entries, particularly on the more creative and technically diverse pieces. 

One expects by this stage - the electronic files which where created for the items production have been archived off. Add to this a digital image of the final item in various poses. These can be filed by item code, date, title etc and can be useful for referencing at a glance using a content management system.
It’s funny, often through pure coincidence, how concepts and creative ideas often emulate something that may have been executed months or even years ago. This doesn’t mean that it’s not still a great concept because it has been done before but it is prudent as a marketer to be able to refer back to a previous piece and see how it was executed, how effective it was and it’s ROI before leaping down that path again.

STEP 6. Sensible quantity ordering of existing and new stock items

The best way to avoid obsolescence and reduce waste is to be more accurate with your stock ordering.

Engage with other key stakeholders (ie sales, marketing, production) regularly to determine up to date quantity requirements. Don’t just assume past quantities are still valid on existing stock items.

Sure, unit cost and quantity are linked but unless the stock item you are printing is a generic piece, which is likely to have longevity and not require any amendments (due to changes in your business, product or even errors), it is not advisable to print more than 12 months stock, maximum! Six months stock of such an item is standard however each item should be reviewed on a case by case basis taking into account production lead times, unit cost, projected quantity usage.

Ideally the value of each item created should have a unit cost associated and this should be captured not only against your budget but also in your warehouse logistics system and reports along with at least:

• Version date (i.e. the date the item was produced or amended)
• Expiry date of item (this may be actual or expected and monitored regularly).
• Unit cost, unit of measure (single, bundle of 25 etc), quantity on hand, value of stock
• Reorder trigger quantity (based on leadtime and projected usage and monitored regularly).

In the case of promotional items and complex printed pieces (books, point of sale items) resist the urge to look just at unit cost of an item and think you might need 2,000 items when you only need 1500, because sometimes making these items obsolete responsibly can be cost ineffective.

If using a database to determine print quantity (ie for a direct mail piece) – ensure you have cleaned your data and have your mailhouse dedupe and run it against the various Australia Post AMAS programs to determine valid and accurate addresses before determining the final quantity for your print run. This means you need to do your data preparation before you order any preprinted base stock.

Of course, always allow “overs” which is usually 5- 10% of the total print quantity depending on complexity and number of processes required to produce and despatch the piece (embellishments, hand work, fulfilment etc). Check with your suppliers what overs they require or recommend.

Don’t forget samples – check with all the principle stakeholders (agency, supplier, marketer, customers) if they require samples, but be cautious as on high cost complex items this can add up. Make sure you allocate a couple of extra samples on items that you may wish to enter for that award later.

Your proposed usage quantity plus overs, plus samples will give you a final quantity on which to base your estimate request and eventual order.

STEP 7. Set up and Repeat

Be vigilant with your spring cleaning.

Set up an obsolescence process and action this every 3, 6 or at a maximum, 12 months, depending on your inventory holding. 

The more regularly you do it the easier and less time consuming it gets.

Now, simply repeat Steps 1 to 6 (or Steps 3 to 5 if you’ve set up your stock items well) and watch your logistics costs reduce because you are not paying for unnecessary space and your print costs reduce because ordering has become more responsible and accountable.

So, put on that apron, don your rubber gloves, get out that broom and bucket and get to it!

If you would like to know more about setting up an Obsolesence Process please contact us and if you would like to know more about preparing data for variable digital printing contact your supplier or leave a comment here and I’ll write an article providing tips and pitfalls.

The author acknowledges that no actual cleaning products have been used or housework performed during the creation of this blog. Furthermore, she acknowledges that she has never been responsible (or will be) for any tantrum throwing child being subjected upon shopping centre patrons.

Firstly I want to be very clear of what we are talking about when we refer to content strategy. Because often content is interpreted as media content such as programming and films. But in fact content has a much broader definition.

Content strategy basically is the development or procurement of brand related content (anything that represents the brand experience – advertising, public relations video, text, music, software, etc) that is then used or made available to consumers to engage them in the brand experience and encourages them to share those experiences with others.

In the past 12 months we have had increasing numbers of marketers approach us to discuss how they should restructure their marketing department and their supplier roster to embrace and implement a content strategy for their brands.

The first issue is having them clearly articulate their understanding of a content strategy and how they may see that evolving. From this we can then begin to develop a clear understanding of their current state and propose a future state that can deliver this content strategy vision.

Often this vision is not fully formed. This is understandable as the process requires a complete transformation of the role of marketing from the traditional broadcast / publishing approach to brand management to a test and learn approach.

In this process, it requires the marketers themselves to rethink not only their role in the process, but also how this impacts on the way they work with internal stakeholders and external suppliers.

There have been many different metaphors proposed for the roles of the marketer in this process.

The Royal Court

There is a monarch sitting on the throne, surrounded by courtiers and advisors on how to run their kingdom. They take advice, consider the options and then make proclamations.

I have known several CMOs that embody this metaphor. But largely it is, like a monarchy ruler, largely outdated and ceremonial. It places marketing at a distance from their subjects, the consumer and has a patriarchal overtones that are more reminiscent of the broadcast / publishing model.

i.e. Here we are, smugly superior in the castle, dispatching proclamations to our subjects, the consumer, hoping they will not revolt.

The Army General

Military metaphors abound in marketing of old. Target audiences and Campaigns the most obvious. And that is the trouble with being the General, your mission is to defeat your enemy with all the resources you have at your disposal.

But now, through social media, the enemy, your consumer and customers are fighting back. It is a battle and the problem is that with so many choices the worst thing that can happen is they no longer even fight back, they simply ignore you completely.

The Football Coach

Second only to military metaphors in marketing are the sporting metaphors. And not just marketing, these metaphors are still used in business.

Kicking goals is the role of everyone in sales and marketing. But who is the team we are trying to beat? It is not our customers, they are in the stands, waiting to see who the winner is. They cheer on the side they support. So it must be the competitor, or better phrased, competitors, because there are many more than ever before.

In this scenario, marketing communications is a performance between the various brands with the consumer looking on. But the fact is most marketing is developed for the consumer and not the competitor.

The Orchestra Conductor

This was proposed last year in AdAge in regards to the way a marketer should consider how they manage and work with the growing number of agencies and suppliers on the brand roster.

There is the rarified air of the concert hall, the marketers lays out the marketing plan in the form of the strategy. In most cases it is a tried and tested classical favourite guaranteed to draw the audience, the consumer. As the conductor it is the marketers role to ensure the various agencies work in harmony to maximise the experience of the performance. And at the end the audience applauds in relation to their level of delight and politely leaves.

As a metaphor it is more focused on the maximisation of the performance, which is the context it was delivered in the article. But it is still largely a one way performance and lacks the dynamics of the modern market place.

The Circus Ringmaster

Sure, circuses are largely old hat and for children. But circuses like Circus de Soleil and a the like have and are constantly reinventing the circus experience in response to the audience demand.

The circus ringmaster has a role to manage the event, but they are not responsible for developing each and every performance (content). That is the role of the individual artists (content providers). The ringmaster chooses the mix of performances, schedules the performances and does so in response to delivering the audience a brand experience that they all share.

Ideally it will be entertaining, informative and surprising. The audience will gasp, and cheer and applaud and interact throughout. And while the ringmaster is not centre stage, as the focus is on the performers, the ringmaster is just off to the right listening to what resonates and what does not. While as a metaphor for marketers, the ringmaster is not perfect, it does capture the dynamics and interactions. They measure success through customer feedback and the door takings.

What it does provide is a vision for the role of the marketer in this new paradigm. One that reflects the role of the marketer and the relationship with suppliers, agencies and most importantly the customer.

In a conversation I had with Shawn Callahan, co-Founder of Anecdote, he suggested a further exploration of the marketing metaphor to that of:

The Social Activist

Here the marketer is stimulating the crowd with content messages and looking for the patterns and opportunities in the crowd activity to maximise the impact and effectiveness of the action with interventions and co-ordination.

What do you think? Is there a metaphor that is even better at defining this role? Let me know by leaving an example and your thoughts as a comment here.

So we all know LinkedIn is great for getting a job, snooping on who has just changed jobs and essentially feeling like a connected member of the professional class.

As of November 2012 there were +175 million users on LinkedIn up 58 million from 2011 combining to generate 5 billion searches over the course of the year. Surely they are not all looking for a new job?

Like any Social Media platform LinkedIn takes a little commitment but once up and running it can open up a world of networking opportunity. So here are ’5 (Very) Basic Tips to help you grow your LinkedIn network’.

1. Build Connections

The ‘People You May Know’ feature is a great place to start – any self-respecting LinkedIn veteran is forever scouring this nifty little tab for fresh connections.

Another handy way to build up a pool of potential connections is to ‘make friends with the popular kid’ – those users with 500+ connections. Are they actively engaging with all 500-plus connections? Almost certainly not. However connecting to them provides you with the opportunity to scour their connections and you can connect with anyone of them as you have a second degree connection.

Depending on your industry and objectives for LinkedIn one new connection a day is a good target. LinkedIn allows you to send 3,000 invitations so you should not run out…

2. Be Personable

Even if it someone that you do not know directly, always send a personalised invitation to connect. The standard ‘I would like to add you to my LinkedIn network’ invitation is fine but hardly screams ‘This could be the start of a beautiful friendship’.

Particularly powerful when approaching those you do not know personally is to include in your invitation mention of joint connections, how you believe you can assist each other or how much you have appreciated their posts.

You may not be invited around for a BBQ (do you want to go anyway?) but the personal touch does reflect a genuine desire to connect as opposed to a ‘numbers game’.

3. Stay Consistent

Every time you login to LinkedIn you will generally notice the same faces active – about 1/3rd of members access the site daily – these are the ‘Super Engagers’. They simply love the site for its ability to connect with their chosen network and build their ‘personal brand’.

The general rule-of-thumb is three updates a day. If you can find the time on Facebook to share photos of your sushi lunch then you can probably afford the time to build your professional profile with engaging content.

4. Be Authentic

Following on from the above point – make sure your personal brand is authentic.

If people have connected with you then it is for a reason – justify that decision. There are those users in every network (you know who they are) that take the quantity over quality approach to LinkedIn. Any chance to get their name up to the top they take it – if there is a post on the ‘Mating Habits of Atlantic Salmon’ they repost to their network. All well and good if you work in the fisheries department but relatively useless (and potentially damaging to your brand profile) if your network consists of Telecommunications Executives who wouldn’t know a Salmon from a Shark.

If you repost something make a personal comment about why people should take time out of their busy schedules to read – they will not thank you for wasting their time but they will if the post is of value.

5. Be A Team Player

This is an oldie but a goodie.

LinkedIn groups are increasingly popular forums to engage with peers, thought-leaders and the opinionated. As above, less is more, limit your participation to three to five groups that you can actively participate in by adding value, posting comment and asking questions.

The LinkedIn Group search feature is pretty handy in helping find forums that will interest you and in which you can again build that personal profile. Another short-hand search option is by filtering searches to find out which groups your connections belong to.

So there you go – simple but effective. By building your network on LinkedIn now, you can always draw on it if and when you need it later to get that new job. Unfortunately too many marketers neglect their own personal brand marketing until it is too late.

How reflective of your skills, experience and network is your current LinkedIn profile?

Perhaps a good place to start is to connect with the TrinityP3 consultants you know:

• Anita Zanesco
• Anton Buchner
• Chris Sewell
• Clive Duncan
• Darren Woolley
• Georgia Suttie
• Jodi Randall
• Les Margulis
• Mahesh Enjeti
• Nathan Hodges
• Nick Hand
• Pam O’Connor
• Paul Kent
• Shirley Kirkwood

Advertisers, especially retail advertisers, have had in-house advertising before John Wannamaker was a boy. Usually these in-house facilities are company owned but occasionally they are implanted into the organisation from external suppliers.

The concept of the in-house advertising production facility has become more attractive to a broader range of advertisers in recent years because of:

1. Low cost production technology such as computers, ringers and software
2. The increased speed to market compared to most external suppliers such as agencies
3. The diversification of requirements within marketing and across the organisation

You see, with the fragmentation of media and the move to a more content driven marketing strategy, advertisers are looking for more cost effective and time efficient ways to meet their marketing communication needs.

In-house or out-house? Getting either wrong can drop you in it big time.

Growth in-house

Recent in-house facilities we have reviewed provide services to marketing and beyond within the organisation including:

1. Print production including advertising print and collateral
2. Video production especially rich web content
3. SEO and search marketing services
4. Customer & data analytics
5. Social media management
6. Event management
7. Sales and consumer promotions
8. Copywriting and editorial
9. Internet asset development
10. Mobile phone apps

But these in-house facilities are not always seen for the positives they deliver to the organisation or their marketing stakeholders. Often we are asked to investigate and assess the current arrangements and provide a business case or recommendations for change.

How it goes wrong

The reason is that often these facilities can appear to become a cancer within the organisation, consuming resources, head count and budget and becoming difficult and costly to manage.

The problem invariably stems from the way the in-house facility was established. In most cases the original concept was to provide a limited number of services as a cost effective alternative to using external suppliers.

One or more people were employed, usually externally with an agency or design company background, and immediately the demand on the facility grew. The convenience of having the people doing the work on site is appealing, but not as appealing as the fact the service is funded from an internal budget. The people in the team are eager to please, initially, as they see this as justifying their position and securing their tenure.

The growth is usually organic, with no stated strategy or scope and process is devised on the run. Soon there is a need to manage the process with multiple stakeholders across the company now accessing the services due to the convenience and apparent lack of cost. Either one of the team in the facility steps up or a production person externally is now hired.

If it has not happened already, the original facility owner, usually marketing, demands a new funding process as their budget is paying for all the other stakeholders. So now the facility has multiple owners. Marketing still have the bulk of the work but now they no longer feel they are getting the attention they need, with other stakeholders taking priority.

I guess you can see where this is headed or have experienced this yourself at some stage.

Where it went wrong

The problem is that the facility is not another department or business unit, it is a supplier. This is why external implants rarely have this issue, because they are implemented on a commercial basis. But the problem with the built from the ground out model is that usually at no time was there a clear definition of the purpose, the people or the process.

In-house strategy

What is the purpose of the in-house facility? What is the scope of the work to be undertaken? How much work will there be? What are the potential growth plans? How will ROI be determined? What are the key indicators for success? And how will failure of the process be managed?

These are some of the questions that should have been discussed and defined up front before the first dollar was invested. If not, then like a cancer, it can quickly grow out of control. You need to treat this as you would any commercial arrangement and have a very clear business strategy and business model for the facility you are implementing. The reason this is often overlooked is that the starting process is usually in response to a short term or tactical need, rather than a longer term strategic requirement.

If it hasn’t been undertaken in the past, then the starting point is to retrospectively develop a business plan for the facility with the input of all stakeholders, but not the facility employees themselves, who are often too conflicted with maintaining the status quo.

In-house structure

Interlinked with strategy and purpose is structure and people. Who are the stakeholder users and what are their needs and requirements? Who will be able to interface with the facility and who can not? What specialist resources are required and how many? How will they be structured? How will they be managed?

Because these facilities often grow organically based on company need and internal demand, it appears that the number of heads increases uncontrollably. But often there is no clear justification of the roles and responsibilities of these extra resources. That is because as it grows, increased numbers of stakeholders using the facility are not visible to the current users. Having a clearly articulated structure, with contact points and roles and responsibilities is essential.

In-house process

This is not so much the processes of doing the work. After all you would recruit and do recruit people experienced and skilled in the production type. The processes here are more focused on the management of the facility.

How will the organisation keep track of the number and types of jobs being undertaken to manage workflow and define resource requirements? How will the resources be paid for and how will these be valued? How will you ensure the in-house facility is running more cost effectively than an external supplier option?

While many production people will focus on the workflow to satisfy the immediate needs of the internal user, they often overlook the large requirement of managing the workflow process to ensure the strategic requirements. This is because those strategic requirements were often never defined as success criteria and also because an angry colleague who is waiting for their job is more immediate than the larger issue of delivering a high value, low cost service. But by managing the immediate needs of the stakeholders, they are avoiding the longer term issues which, as we see, rises up eventually.

In-house or outsourced?

The desire to build an in-house production facility is a business decision and should always be based on a sound business plan. The key objectives are either cost reduction, speed to market, greater effectiveness or all three. Convenience is often mentioned by users, but this is too subjective to use as a success criteria.

Once you have made the decision, it is worth looking at suppliers who provide these services implanted into your organisation as primarily it becomes a commercial transaction that is easily assessed and does not have the issues of breaching head counts.

If you decide to build the facility yourself then you need a business plan based on the strategy , structure and processes to ensure that at any time you can assess how well it is performing against your strategic requirements.

We are often called upon to review current in-house facilities to determine how well they are performing against non-existent success criteria. We have therefore become adept at retrospectively developing those strategic criteria through working with the stakeholder users and then measuring the performance against this. Often this issue is that inefficiency has been allowed to develop within the in-house facility because cost and time efficiency were not articulated clearly as a measure of success.

What are your views on having these services in-house or not? Leave a comment with your thoughts.

On November 23 last year I spoke at the AIMIA V21 Digital Summit in Melbourne. The topic I was invited to talk on was “The future of specialist digital agencies”. In a time when everything is digital, what is the purpose or role of a specialist digital agency?

Preparing the talk was interesting as it involved a review of all of the trends we had noticed in the past 2 – 3 years leading us to the current market. But more importantly, it was considering where the future trends are heading, especially overseas in some of the more technically advanced markets, particularly the USA.

The Digital Agency

The big issue is that marketers are generally still viewing digital agencies as simply operating in an extension of the traditional market. That is that digital agencies are often engaged as a ‘digital’ version of their creative agency. This is because for those marketers, digital is seen simply as another media, alongside television, press, radio and OOH.

In these cases, the digital agency is simply a specialist ‘media/channel’ agency like having a television agency or a radio agency or the like. That may seem ridiculous, but it is largely because for these marketers, they see the solution to their creative agency not ‘getting’ digital, is simply to appoint a specialist.

The types of services required at this level is developing display banners, web-landing pages, websites and setting up Facebook brand pages. The primary purpose is to develop communication concepts and publish or broadcast these out into the media hoping to hit the audience. It is a disruption strategy. Some try to extend this into an engagement strategy by calling it storytelling. i.e.. telling the story of the brand / service / company / product.

The fact is that any creative agency worth considering can operate at this level. After all, almost anyone can and do come up with a digital creative idea. Creative agencies have been creating messages in the form of advertisements for more than 100 years. All they need to be able to do this in the digital media is have the production expertise. We have seen many traditional creative agencies either recruiting or acquiring these skills over the past five years.

But this is an incredibly limited marketing view of the opportunities available through technology. And this is where the distinction between a digital agency and a technology agency becomes important.

The Technology Agency

The fact is digital technology provides marketers with much more than simply a way of gaining attention and awareness. You can engage with your audience in a meaningful way moving beyond simply storytelling into providing the audience with utility or usefulness. Technology allows you to capture data on consumer behaviour and it can facilitate your customers telling stories about their experience of the brand and sharing it with others.

But also digital technology, in a business context, is more than just communications. Within a business, digital technology is also driving inventory systems, payroll systems, financial systems, customer database systems and the like. The same technology platform is used to manage the business and not just run the marketing communications.

It is best demonstrated when we look at the implementation of e-commerce in a large organisation. The IT side of the business usually engages one of the big IT consulting firms who usually get the technology right but forget about brand and consumer experience. On the other side you have communication digital agencies who will get the brand expression right and perhaps the customer experience, but often overlook the integration of the financial system, the inventory system, the stock and distribution system, all of which are required to make the e-commerce platform function seamlessly.

This is where a technology agency is required. Someone that can bridge the gap between marketing on one side, responsible for the consumer and IT on the other responsible for the system integrity and security.

Digital agency versus Technology agency

In November 2011 I wrote a post about the need to get strategic business alignment around your digital agencies. This was around the time that a major global consumer goods brand approached TrinityP3 to assist in selecting a ‘digital’ agency. The discussion was around what was required of a digital agency that the marketers roster of creative agencies could not provide.

The fact was that the client had a number of ‘digital’ agencies – some part of a creative agency and some specialists. But there were conflicts between the various agencies and it was not surprising as most of the agencies on the roster, including a sales promotion / retail activation agency saw themselves as ‘digital’.

The problem was not the requirement for a digital agency. They had more than enough of those pumping out digital concepts and ideas. What they really needed was a technology agency that could pull it all together under their global digital guidelines, which were managed locally by IT. But the IT department was understaffed for the continually growing task and also they were not engaged by the marketing department.

By bringing IT into the process, TrintyP3 managed a tender process to select a technology agency with the capabilities to work with marketing and all of their current roster of agencies and IT to ensure the implementation was compliant and met the integrity of the global technology guidelines.

Although all of the rostered agencies put up their hands for the role, they failed on the first step, which was the technology capability to work with IT across all of the platforms the company currently used. In the end, marketing and IT agreed on a suitable technology partner and two years later this agency is successfully managing the ‘digital’ agencies, marketing and IT.

The future of digital agencies?

To talk about digital as ‘new media’ is a misnomer. All agencies will and by now do have digital as some part or all of their offering. So to simply be a digital specialist is to be like every other agency. However, many of the digital specialist agencies have either come from a technology background or built a solid foundation as technology companies. They are uniquely positioned to take this role. And therefore the future of the digital specialist is to be a technology agency. A much broader remit than simply digital communications and one that cannot be easily faked with a few select hirings or buying another digital agency.

A couple of weeks ago I was reading an article about why Apple decided not to enter the ‘Netbook’ market; you know – those tiny, ultra portable and inexpensive laptops that threatened to take over the personal computing universe, but ultimately disappeared before they barely got started once the iPad and its like entered the market.

It turns out that Apple had already committed to the iPad, but more pertinently, Apple prefers profit over revenue. Through fierce competition, the profit margin on netbooks became so low, that Apple would have to have played the market share game along with every other manufacturer.

But that is something Apple doesn’t do. They are a company that would rather make $10bn from 10% of the market, than make $1bn from having 90% of the market.

So that got me thinking; why do so many agencies prefer revenue over profits?

Nothing Breeds Success Like Success

With a few exceptions, most large advertisers like to be serviced by agencies that service other, similarly large sized advertisers.

New business success in a competitive pitch depends on many factors, but price will be the biggest determinant if capability and fit considerations are equal or thereabouts.

Agencies “buying” a high profile client has been going on since deregulation. Not saying it happens in all cases, but it never ceases to amaze me the number of quick fire wins in succession agencies often experience after news of that initial big win hits the trade forums.

Improve Staff Morale/Agency Reputation

If it is true that success breeds success, so it is also true that a couple of quick client losses in succession can see remaining clients become nervous, and staff become worried.

I defy any agency to come out and say they have never dropped their pants to buy a client to try and stem the tide when faced with this scenario.

Short Term Business View/Focus

One of the great dichotomies of the modern business world is that investors are advised to think long term, but business managers generally think in the short term.

Global Agency management tends to ask for around 20% growth year on year – whether market conditions warrant that or not. In emerging markets this might be fine, but in mature markets like Australia, or North America, or Western Europe this can be a tough ask. The rise of digital media has largely been at the expense of traditional channels, and for an Agency to “sell more widgets” under most current remuneration structures requires more people, and therefore more clients – there are few economies of scale to be had.

More clients generally mean pinching them from someone else, i.e. increasing market share in a market that is barely (if at all) growing. So, the Agency (again) often buys clients cheaply, which for a while fulfils the parent company’s expectations. Then, when things sour (usually the profitable clients scaling back activity & spend and the ‘bought’ – and so unprofitable  - clients scaling up) growth slows or goes backwards, and the incumbent agency management get shown the door. New management comes in, waste 12 months spending money and shaping things the way they want them, and the whole process starts again, all from the same perilous base.

Overheads Become Too Excessive

Many friends come to me for advice on how to budget better. They tell me: “My first job out of Uni paid $30,000 a year, and I had more money left over at the end of the month than I do now, earning 5, 6 or 7 times that!” It’s true – over the years, not withstanding the mortgage and kids, we tend to raise our lifestyle to match our increase in income. It’s also too easy for business to fall into the same trap: a couple of extra Account Directors who only get ¾ utilised; a hip and trendy (read: expensive) new office fit-out to attract the good talent; an investment in two new (senior) digital people of whom “we’re not quite sure yet how to monetise what they offer, but it’s bound to be a goldmine when we do”. And the list goes on.

The bottom line (pardon the pun) is that the beast needs feeding, and chasing cheap revenue is often the only way to stop going backwards.

Improve Standing in The “League Tables” in Various Industry Journals

An agency’s ranking in these probably depends more on the agency CEO having a good PR machine, or a regular golf outing with the editor of said publication. But I imagine there do need to be some revenue wins along the way to lend the whole thing some modicum of credibility – and the bigger the better I guess!!

Unfortunately though, in the long run, agencies and advertisers alike suffer when these scenarios play out. And I know there are more reasons – I just didn’t have time to write them all down!!

I’d be interested to hear why you think agencies go down this path, and what can be done to fix the problem?