Research Priorities Are All Wrong

I got an email today from the Marketing Research Association spelling out the "top 6 issues for protecting the profession". Included were:

1. Increasing difficulty of reaching consumers via cell phones
2. Consumer fears of behavior tracking
3. Stage and federal government interest in shady incentive practices used to entice medical professionals
4. Unpopularity of "robocalls" and automated dialing
5. Public backlash to "push-polls"
6. Data security and breach protocols

Wrong.

While each of these dynamics is a threat to the future of the research industry, the bigger threat is the increasing irrelevance of research to senior management. More and more companies have outsourced their strategic marketing research functions to suppliers. The suppliers have been consolidating, often being acquired by bigger agency or marketing services holding companies. Not surprisingly, there is a serious degradation of objectivity that occurs in the process. And the more junior marketers now left client-side to direct the research program within their companies are not generally as politically senior/influential as one needs to be to push through the right research agenda - especially in times of immense cost-cutting pressure. (see Rebuilding Trust in Research as a Measurement Tool)

Sure, there are many executional threats facing the research industry today. But unless the way research is conceived in an appropriate strategic/financial context and prioritized for the value it potentially holds, the methodological threats will be but cubes floating in an ocean of icebergs.

It's time the research profession re-rises to the occasion. I hope they do.

Trying to "Justify" Superbowl Spending?

"...as a responsible employer of more than 290,000 employees and contractors world-wide, there is a time to justify such an ad spend and a time to step back."

This quote was provided by the director of advertising at FedEx, in response to a question about why they would not be advertising on this year's Superbowl - the first time in 12 years they would be absent from the annual ad-fest.

The implication from his statement seems to be that, up until now, the Superbowl ads were "justified" by something other than sound economics. Sure, there was the fabulous reach into an attractive target demo, but the price is high. So maybe the premium was being "justified" by some "softer" benefits like employee morale, channel partner collaboration, or even that most elusive of all... "brand preference". And in these days of extreme bottom-line focus, these non-economic "justifications" just weren't going to cut it. It would send the wrong message to people losing jobs and benefits.

The sad truth here is that each and every one of the "softer" benefits can, in fact, be economically measured to a reasonable degree. There are practical, credible ways to calculate the ROI of employee morale, partner collaboration, and brand preference. But they require some techniques that few marketers have yet investigated, let alone perfected.

I don't have any idea if Superbowl advertising is a sound economic decision for FedEx, and I'm not questioning their judgment. It might have been a superb use of shareholder funds, or it may have been a terrible waste. I just cringe when I hear how such important marketing decisions are still, in this age of measurement enlightenment, being made on the basis of "justifications" that suggest something less than a robust economic framework was applied.

We, the marketing industry, can do better. We can measure each and every one of those softer elements in ways that our finance partners will embrace. Those 290,000 employees and contractors need us to do better. For their sake, let's try to ramp up our measurement game in 2009, shall we?

Trading GRPs for Clicks?

Television networks are making their prime-time programming available in full-form via their websites. And not just the latest episodes of “Desperate Housewives”. CBS and ABC have both announced that they are now streaming from deep inside their programming vaults, bring back favorites like “The Love Boat” and “Twin Peaks”.

Hulu (joint venture between NBC and Fox) attracts more than 2.5 million unique viewers (distinct cookies) monthly, who stream content an average of more than 20 times each! That’s a bigger, more engaged audience than many cable stations draw in a month’s time. And anyone who knows their way around a Bass diffusion curve will tell you that adoption of online viewing is on a trajectory to achieve substantial penetration very rapidly.

All this is causing pre-revolution heartburn in the media departments of major ad agencies today. They’re trying to figure out which metrics best equate clicks (or streams) to GRiPs (gross rating points), so they can compare the costs of advertising online to advertising on TV. Apples-to-apples.

Wrong mission.

Online content streaming is, by its very nature, an active participation medium, while television is passive. As such, the metrics should reflect the degree to which advertisers actively engage the consumer: streams launched; ads clicked; games played; surveys completed; dialogue offered; etc. Selecting passive metrics encourages the content owners to use the computer to stream like they broadcast, thereby replacing one screen with another. In time, that will teach consumers to use it as a passive medium like TV.

If we (the marketers) want to capture the true potential of an active medium, we have to demand performance against active metrics. We have to design ads that give the multi-tasking consumer of today something else to do while they’re watching the show – enter contests on what will happen next; decide who’s telling the truth; test their show knowledge against other fans; shop for that cute skirt – you get the idea.

Effectiveness in this new realm is a function of the actual (active) behavior generated versus the expected amount. And the expected amount is that degree of behavior shift necessary to make the business case for spending the money show a clear and attractive return. Efficiency is then how much more positive behavior we’re generating per dollar spent than we did last month/quarter/year.

Sure, we need to have some sense of which content is attracting people who “look” like customers or prospects, but that’s just the basis upon which we decide where to test and experiment. The real decisions on where to place our big bets will come once we learn what execution tactics are most impactful.

Until then, be careful what you measure, or you will surely achieve it..

TiVo to the Rescue?

Hot on the heals of the Google/Nielsen partnership, TiVo has entered the measurement fray with its announcement that it will begin providing advertisers with data on the viewing (and skipping) habits of consumers using TiVo’s panel of 20,000 set-top boxes. This has the potential to be far more illuminating than the Nielsen data as TiVo can provide insight into who is skipping ads (both on the demographic/lifestyle segment level and on the individual-addressable level) and which ones they are skipping. The result could be a wealth of information on ad performance, sliced and diced on many dimensions.

Even more interesting, TiVo will offer advertisers the ability to learn (on a blind basis) the viewing habits of their actual customers. By providing TiVo with a customer file, marketers can get insight into exactly how many (and which types) of customers are skipping their ads, which should help both fine-tune message execution and enhance negotiations with networks.

TiVo still can’t tell us who is watching the ads – only who isn’t. But with its jump on the interactive feature options, TiVo may be faster to offer advertisers the back-end direct response element of the engagement chain.

This is a promising frontier for advertisers seeking to understand the actual payback of their advertising investments. It’s not in itself a magic bullet, but another step forward in getting the objective insight we need to draw credible conclusions.


Technorati Profile

Google to Dominate Dashboards?

Having conquered the worlds of web search and analytics, is Google about to corner the market on marketing dashboards?

Hardly.

What Google is doing is coordinating online ad display data with offline (TV) ad exposures. Google is partnering with Nielsen to take data directly from Nielsen’s set-top-box panel of 3,000 households nationwide and mash it up with Google analytics data to find correlations between on- and off-line exposure. The premise is, I’m sure, to help marketers integrate this data with their own sales information and find statistical correlation between the two as a means of assessing the impact of the advertising at a high level. By using data only from the set-top box, Google is able to present offline ad exposure data with the same certainty as it does online – e.g., we know that this ad was actually shown. Unfortunately, we don’t know if the ad (online or off) was actually seen, never mind absorbed.

However, with the evolution of interactive features in set-top boxes, it won’t be long before we begin to get sample data of people “clicking” on TV ads, much like we do online ads. So we’ll get the front end of the engagement spectrum (shown) and the back end (responded). But we won’t get anything from the middle to give us any diagnostic or predictive insights to enhance the performance of our marketing campaigns.

A full marketing dashboard integrates far more than just enhanced ratings data and looks deeper than just summary correlations between ads shown and sales to dissect the actual cause of sales. Presuming that sales were driven by advertising in the Google dashboard model would potentially ignore the influence of a great many other variables like trade promotions, channel incentives, and sales force initiatives.

Drawing conclusions about advertising’s effect solely on the basis of looking at sales and ratings would quickly undermine the credibility of the marketing organization. So while the Google dashboard may be a welcome enhancement, it’s not by any stretch a panacea for measuring marketing effectiveness.

It seems to me that Google has created better tools. But through their lens of selling advertising, they’re perpetuating a few big mistakes.