One of the best presentation I have seen for ages. Came out of Brand Science Institute. I think there is a lot to learn from this, the clear things we think we are all doing.
Can a brand ever create a digital strategy?
It's a big question really and something much of the "client side" marketing community look upon with horror.
You can hear the board meetings "We need a digital strategy, what's the role of digital?", eyes on marketing .. a tentative nod and then the fun begins. The reality is that for any marketing team to create a "digital strategy" is nonsense. Its like saying we need to review how we are using plastic or "Bob? Where is the role of paper report within the marketing function I asked for?". Doesn't have quite the ring to it does it.
We all see digital as a transmission method (internet, web, email, radio, TV ... watches), yet we keep on trying to give it a strategic objective. Most companies will have a very clear idea of what they need to achieve, how they create and execute a plan and fingers crossed measure it. Whether its above-the-line, promotions, PR, on pack or focus groups for customer input, the roles are clear and robust. We should then be asking "How can digital help the bit I am doing / or not". In essence digital needs to be slave to the function and should never sit as a strategic objective.
Many companies have used digital to develop or launch new products or services, driven some great awareness, gor customer feedback or sold more product but all of these were locked onto an existing area (NPD, advertising, insight and sales) and any digital thinking should ultimately be coming out of those teams, not some dude on the top the floor with "Digital Strategy" stuck on their door.
If you try and tell most people that if all goes well there will be no digital strategy, just digital helping to deliver the existing strategy, they look at you like you are crazy. Time to decentralize it and get everyone thinking.
Free newspaper model
I have just read a brilliant analysis by Peter Kirwan on implications of the Evening Standard going free. I have directly copied the basic figures across, but I would recommend you go and have a read of his analysis of where it could go next.
Will be interesting on how they capitalise on the huge readership gains they have made and use this to really innovate into other revenue areas.
iPad + Velcro
iPad + Velcro from Jesse Rosten on Vimeo.
2010 Internet Trends
Latest market update from Mary Meeker. Good to see some solid facts
Good Chrome Fast
Found this great video via Brainpickings.org, how fast is Google Chrome fast? the kids liked it
Get your feet wet

The digital media market. Two things that really affect our perspective.
1. It grows like mad
2. It continues to change shape.
It’s always interesting to see how people react to these 2 factors. I spend a lot of my time trying to help companies relax and adapt to how they approach digital. Interestingly there are those who are intrigued, some in denial, some rip off their clothes and dive straight in and there are those who get a bit redder and angrier and say through gritted teeth “Just tell me the rules”.
I really believe in that old saying “Better a good plan today, than a perfect plan tomorrow” and invariably businesses need to get stuck in, make a few mistakes, learn from it and be conscious that they are learning. 5 year plans don’t work in digital. Rupert Murdoch’s quote still resonates “The world is changing very fast. Big will not beat small anymore. It will be the fast beating the slow.”
Companies that start to crack it are the ones where a whole management team is engaged, willing, excited (perhaps a bit worried) but with their sleeves rolled up and leading from the front. The market is littered with companies who have gone backwards due to hiring a “Director of Digital” – who is given responsibility to solve “the problem”, invariably not given the seniority and usually fairly technical (as execs have already assumed technology know how is the key). The execs waiting outside for the answer
There are so many good business leaders who continue to delegate their future direction to digital technologists and then wonder why things are even more confusing. To be honest it’s a cop out, uninspiring and not necessary.
Come on, take your socks off.
We're not for everyone
“We’re not for everyone”. How often do you hear that? I don’t enough.
I read it recently on the Droga5 site in their about us.
So many organisations (and people) will chase and chase money, “customer-always-right-ing”, being what they think people want vs understanding who they are and how they are different. It usually results in a long period of self analysis at some point trying to define and articulate who they are.
It’s important and often over looked to define yourself by what you don’t do as well as what you do do, especially if you are trying to express your differences. Tis is isn't just the realm of the niche, high end ior creative either, it applies to all of us and is invraibaly where people get draggd into commodity.
Are you for everyone? If not it’s a great starting point.
Location, Location ... app

Anyone that has kids will tell you that as soon as you find out you are expecting a baby, it suddenly seems like every other person is pushing a pram and it definitely wasn't like that the day before. I kind of feel like that with Foursquare.
A good friend flagged them up a month ago and I thought nothing about it and then yesterday and today it seems like all I could see (no Apples for me) was Foursquare. All the circles seemed to cross.
For anyone that is yet to discover the business, it’s a location based review site? Social networking site? Game? Type thingy – it is probably best to read yourself vs my dumbed down version. The interesting thing is that it is growing like crazy and reportedly getting a person “checking in” at locations every second. One of those was me and I think it’s rather good.
Foursquare isn’t the only game / review site. A study of the most innovative apps (which also came out yesterday) placed 4 in the top 20, with Gowalla, Buzzd and Rummble all showing tremendous growth. For me the excitement comes from the fact that you have this amazing network affect, of people reviewing predominantly commercial premises (bars, restaurants etc). You sense a revenue model can’t be far behind.
I then read a very insightful article by Maya Baratz about how Newspapers should be engaging in the app economy (or potentially can become structural to the app economy). With a wonderful line of, “Rather than trying to control its profits by curtailing the spread of its content, the news industry should be redefining a means to fuel that profit off of such a spread”.
I then read Metro in Canada has done a deal with Foursquare. and another pram passes the window.
It feels like a good move. Helping to build The Timeout of Timeout’s and really get their audience behind it. For the technology business they potentially get additional boost of speed to market, which is so critical for technology. We all have know the paper have online audiences in their millions !
Which is where I came to my final thought. How polarised the view is between the technology market and media market when they look at their audiences.
Media loves to bag elephants. Lets be honest there was never anything sexy about classified and for most it was only ever a stage to get to the big game accounts, Execs were keen to go out entertaining and secure the big client again vs making lots of small sales. Oddly enough Google (in the technology corner) loved it the other way round and wanted the simple scalable small business and almost looked uncomfortable dealing with big accounts. No surprise that most papers were eaten from the classified end where all the “joiners” were and the rising stars were out on safari looking for the “brand” money.
There is an opportunity with businesses like Foursquare to really work with publishers and get involved with their large online audiences and brands that many readers still have affection and respect for. I think more importantly there is also a real opportunity for publishers to learn something about not “doing the deal” and getting some money out of smaller businesses and really having to think about what people want. Heaven forbid. “Get me editorial on the phone”
Is SeeSaw the final piece for UK VOD market

SeeSaw (Previously Project Kangaroo) have announced they have bagged their first big advertisers and ready for their Feb roll out. Obviously there are still deals in the pipeline to carry the large broadcaster's content. I think the insight here is the prices and sell throughs that pre-roll are getting in long form, produced content (see previous post) and the appeal for something like SeeSaw ad it can generate them more money. If they can get it right, SeeSaw has the ability to extend the online footprint of many of the TV stations existing online audiences and that has to be appealing.
The 4OD and YouTube deal really showed the importance of this and suddenly looks as though it may crack the age old conundrum of "How will YouTube make its money". Interestingly it could end up being a similar strategy as it was for their search product. Natural being the audience driver and Adwords being the money makeing model that sits on the top.
I am sure there will be a nervousness by many of the stations to dvert attention away from their core online platform, but I think it will start to make them think about how they can extend their audiences and work together. What is the channel and what is the platform? SKY knows this only too well, with SKY homes and SKY channels. SKY on SKY, ITV on SKY, Channel 4 on SKY .... you get the picture.
SeeSaw is a platform not a content provider and operates in the commercial space - that's what's new and that is why, whichever way, things are about to change.
Value of content

The NY Times announcing that it is moving to a paid for content / subscription model is a bold move and probably about time. Will it work? I have no idea. One thing it will answer is what is the value of their content and if anything start to bottom out the answer of what is the value to written content online. I used to think the old adage of "content is king" had lost its relevancy. The majority of the biggest sites in the UK don't have editors or even create so called content - application was king, relevancy was king, context was king ... content wasn't really up there.
I have changed my view. I recently spoke to a natioinal TV station who gave an insight into the usage of their video-on-demand service (super big), the sell through levels of the advertising (it was all sold) and the yields being achieved (I reckon they must have been getting yields 4 - 5 times that off your common gardenal natioinal newspaper site). The point being they were nailing it. The reason being it was great content. TV shows that people wanted to watch again. The thing that was raised eyebrows was the amount of archive footage that was generating plays and carrying these valaubale ads. From the ARCHIVE.
Janey L Robinson - Chief Executive of Ny Times, was using the iTunes micro payment model as proof that perhaps the market was ready to pay for content. I'll be honest I think this is perhaps a stretch too far. The nature of the contrent is very different, but it made me think of the archive word again.
My thinking is, would the creator of content archive it and would someone then come along and pay for that content. I think that this is the model at the moment, in markets where it works. Music, video, financial even porn. Succesful paid for models. Perhaps they are selling the freshness of the content of the stories - but will people pay for that? Especially with the explosion of free media services, national funded broadcasters and wire services.
The saying of "Good strategy is about sacrifice" stands here. The papers really need to think about the type of content people may pay for and for now I kind of like "The Archive Test". Fingers crossed they need a break.
Digital and Regional

“They make a shed load of money. No one sees them coming. Low cost base. Less churn of good people” – was the longer response.
I recently read a book called Blue Ocean Strategy. In a nutshell the authors look at how you can grow a business by nailing what is called your “Value innovation”. Innovating to increase value to your customers while also innovating within your own business model to reduce costs.
If you can have one proposition that does both. BINGO!!! Change the rules vs. compete within a finite market.
Anyone that has been involved in an online unit within an agency or publishing business will at some point have been “thrown in” as value on a pitch or deal. Crass, but if anything it solves the big issue of “How do we charge for our digital thinking?” or “Are we willing to have the conversation with the client about how we need to charge for our digital work”.
Interactive digital work (I’m not talking digital radio or TV) is labour intensive and can’t be charged on historic execution percentages. If positioned correctly it can be a higher value proposition as well higher margin for the agency. It also provides a counter balance to the commoditisation of print, TV or radio buying (planning traditionally be paid as % of what was bought).
Media agencies have been worried about the commoditisation of the industry for years. It is seen as real threat to their pricing. Finally a non commoditised, higher value, product comes along in online media …… and it’s used to plump up the commoditised side of the business. Something has gone wrong.
So, back to the start. As I read my book, I wondered how the agency world has really innovated with its own value model and there it was …. “Digital and Regional” – 2 sides of the same value coin.
It begs the question – why are the agencies based in central London? Most advertisers aren’t the media owners are, as they need to be near the buyers. But why the agencies? If we started again would we choose central London? In the 80s – when media was probably taking about 4% on the gross spend and people in the industry were driving read Ferraris, it made sense. How many big (offline) accounts are now on sub 1.5%? How many have moved out of central London?
You sense that moving out of town would never be seen as an “innovative” agency move, yet I sense the time is to be honest about what we are and what we do? Treat our high value products correctly and treat the lower value products accordingly and both will flourish.
An anthropological introduction to YouTube
Came across this on We Are Social's site. Is well worth the time to watch.
What price for your Middle East digital media?

Photo - Retro Traveler
So back to digital media in Dubai, UAE and across the region. My Mum always told me never to ask someone about their religion, their politics or how much they earned. Not sure how much of that stuck. I find no one ever asks about people's numbers and spend a life guessing. When asking in Dubai what the size of the digital media market in the GCC was, the view ranged from US$25 million to US$50 million for 2009 and closer to $US70 million for 2009. Interestingly when you hear the agency billing numbers and main publisher numbers I'm inclined to think the latter is more accurate. It may be an idea to ask people though - I find they do tend to tell you.
The big eye opener was the yields and sell throughs. Many publishers were saying average yields of between US$30-US$40 CPM weren't uncommon and 90%+ sell through was regularly being achieved!! Figures to dream of. This seems to be in part to the lack of direct response money that is being placed.
The age old question of how do you set your pricing? In the world of direct response - it's what ever someone is willing to pay to achieve the objective they have set - cost per .... you decide. The market is forced to price round the business model. There must be a balnce between how robust is the business model vs is the publisher over priced. I remember back in 2000 the agency had a client called petspyjamas.com, who always needed to push prices down and found that their media wasn't really working. Business model or publisher.
Famously Google took this all the way, letting the market price its media. Conversley, take magazines. You buy into the brand, the audience, the environment. People aren't maent to physically interact. So yields stay high. As a market it appears (and please correct me if I have got this wrong) - the % of "brand" money or non response money in the GCC is still relatively high (well over 50%). This is probably closer to 10% in the UK. Result is yields stay high in the high non response markets.
Google are growing like mad, the performance networks are entering the market and perhaps the cat will be out of the bag soon. The medium is only thought to be 2% of total media spend and perhaps the right pricing will mean a growth in online spend up to the15%+ seen across Europe and the US. The worry is, this is money straight to search and the reduction in yields will kill any category growth for the publishers.
Middle East agency debate

I recently attended the agency debate in Dubai's Media and Marketing show. The session was moderated by Dr. Lance de Masi, president of The American University in Dubai and IAA UAE Chapter President.
The panel included Raja Fares Trad, CEO Leo Burnett Group MENA; Joseph Ghossoub, Chairman & CEO MENACOM Group; Ramzi Raad, CEO TBWA RAAD; Alain Khouri, Chairman & CEO Impact/BBDO; Edmond Moutran, Chairman & CEO Memac Ogilvy and Roy Haddad, Chairman & CEO JWT.
It was reminiscent of a scene from The Godfather when the heads of the families are brought together. These guys were experienced, relaxed and refreshingly opinionated. Most had built up their businesses and been bought by a network and interestingly all realised that things were changing very quickly.
"There are no real partnerships" - this was in response to Lance de Masi asking about the partnership between client, agency and media. The point being that "partnership" is a term used when things are going well and there is no real need to truly invest in the partnership, or more clearly there is no risk to that investment. When times are tough - the partnership disappears and everyone will fight for themselves, or leverage what they can. Not personal, just business and to be honest it's true.
"Body Leasing" - Chairman & CEO of JWT Roy Haddad couldn't really be clearer. "We have found ourselves in the body leasing business. Selling full time equivalents to clients". The distinction was body selling vs talent selling. Do advertisers ask about the person on the business, interrogate what kind of body they are getting? Which ties in the final point, which really nailed the oveall feeling. For agencies to remain fresh and exciting, with motivated empowered staff, the body leasing model needs to change.
"Creating big ideas" - This was how the agencies defined their skill, value, and role. The point was made that they are producing ideas but not getting paid for the affect their work has on the advertiser's business . If anything, encouraging them to sell more bodies (see above if you think I have gone mad !!). On a simple level, when agencies could get paid on the number of times an ad was aired or printed, through to becoming involved commercially.
I came away thinking that things need to change. Agencies are wanting to help solve business problems and not just comms challenges and for many agencies that is going to mean a rethink. Rethink on people, the "partnership", the way they charge and how brave they want to be. A previous post already started to look at this and how it is starting to happen within media agencies.
In Dubai and across the UAE they don't have form for adhering to the rules and aren't too bothered to challenge how things are done. Something is going to have change with these large agencies and businesses that service the comms industry. A braver more emmergent market such as the UAE may have a better "why can't we" attitude to tackle this.
New site and back to business

Photo - The Truth About
The new site is finally up. I have so say thanks to Sheila and Lucy for helping put it together. I have to admit I now feel like some kind of Born Again Wordpress Fan. Just brilliant.
This means no more delays on getting blogging again. There is a load to update from my recent trip to Dubai. The purpose of which was to try and further my understanding of the Middle East digital media market, attend the MMS event and generally try and clear through some London myopia and get a fresh perspective. Was a great trip and I sense the first of many.
Absolute fantasy

Football starts on Saturday and for me that means fantasy football. I'm a crap fan and gave up years ago trying to pretend to be the "real fan". I do however love fantasy football which has the additional benefit or providing some key football knowledge and boozer currency. For many publishers, they have a fairly large fantasy football programme. The Telegraph, The Sun, Metro, all generate major traffic figures but are converseley the big commercial white elephant when it comes to ad money. Odd when you think of the passion and community of fantasy football and even the "shared moment" of 100,000s or millions even, checking their scores on a Sunday evening or Monday morning. It's probably the first example of a real mass online social community.
So I come to Absolute Radio, who I contine to be amazed at by their linking of online into their brand and radio station. For example the swapping of registered information for the chance to pay off the January credit cards was enviously simple and appeared successful. The last couple of weeks the DJs have been talking about their Absolute Fantasy Fotball teams, who they have picked, who they haven't, laughing at some poor sod's misguided selection based on a loyalty to Burnely. I love it, its what I do, what my mates do, the DJs appear human and like me. I understand exactly what they are talking about. I don't want to over egg it but there is a connection there. Digital is a great leveller and when media companies use it well, it can really connect the media "celebs" to the audience. So, brace yourself for Saturday and "Come on Burnley !!"
Publicis & Razorfish

So, Publicis have won the bidding and managed to get their hands on Razorfish. Publicis haven't been shy on acquiring large digital businesses over the past few years and I'm sure share holders and the Parisian city boys, will be chuffed that billings for Publicis are now up to 25% as promised.
Couple of observations. I'm a big believer in "partnerships" or that good relations come about when you are working on something real with said partners vs the theoretical outline of "how we could work together?".
It would appear that Microsoft and Publicis have achived this and the relationship goes well beyond the transaction. Publicis. like WPP, have been keen to get closer to technology companies (as the technology guys have been keen to understand the ad men). The recent Razorfish deals involves potential ad money and media trading withinthe Publicis network, I am sure Publicis will be looking to work closer with Microsoft's development people as technology becomes more important to the whole comms product. Razorfish remains the agency for Microsoft - all looks pretty cool for both parties.
As with any large network acquisition, the press releases talk about the strategic fit and how it will add value to other assets across the conmpany. The reality is invariably that once the money men get their hands on it, its all about getting a return from what was bought and ensuring the network doesn't fiddle or distract the new addition. I suppose the point is how do you get your 25% digital to be talking to your 75% vs just a portfolio of companies that focus on their own PnL.
Circle of events

I read a few things this morning that seem to be oddly linked and all worth a mention. I started off my day reading a bit more of Nick Davies' rather good book called Flat Earth News The book is all about the state of journalism and the media industry in this country and how one factor is how PR is acting as a major catalyst in creating a culture of churnalism and shoddy reporting
The second was that Twitter has launched its Twitter 101 guide for how people and businesses can get involved with Twitter, whihc looked pretty good. I read about this on a Brand Republic piece that introduced it as a guide for the "clueless". A little harsh I thought.
I then read another piece posted by Brand Republic on a rather thin survey undertaken by price comparison site www.top10-broadband.co.uk on how broadband were suppliers were doing on their "Tweets". Of which Brand Republic decided to report on it - getting exposure and creating some great contextual ads down the bottom for Top 10 Broadband.
Ha! The circle is complete. God bless the clueless
Money in interaction
Digg announced back in June that it was going to try and prioritise its ads based on whether people liked them or not and it seems that Techcrunch seem to have unearthed one of the fist screen shots of the trial.
It must be said this is something Google nailed back in 2002 or so when it moved from a CPM (cost per thousand) sales model to a CPC (cost per click) model. Many people think Google sells clicks (albeit clicks that do stuff). The reality is that that is just the way the business trades. Google realised years ago it doesn't have clicks to sell, it has searches. It just so happened that selling clicks was the best way to monetise the searches.
In blunt terms paid for rankings are based on the costs per click you are willing to pay x the average click through you get.
£1 CPC @ 1% click though would mean for every thousand searches you would generate Google £10, if however someone else was playing only £0.70 but got a 2% click though rate - that makes Google £14 for every thousand searches, lets call that a CPM. They get priority and are seen as more valuable advertiser. Genius really.
So - we now now know that:
1. Google sells on a click but values on a search
2. Ad interaction makes Google more money
3. Ad interaction creates efficiencies for an advertiser
This opens up all sorts of questions about what makes some click? A more favourable brand? Someone having a more favourable view of that brand at that moment in time? Could it be?!?!?
So Digg's new model look good. As usual though, you get the top of the mountain and realise there are Google footprints up there already.
Who is looking over your shoulder?

As the media industry continues to change shape, many businesses find themselves starting to question where they are sitting on the value change. Are you still relevant to the people who buy from you? Are you more relevant to a new and different group of people? Do you still need your existing suppliers?
As the purses tighten and people look for higher ground, one thing you can be sure of is that many organisatioins are going to be looking to move closer to the money and if that means moving across someone else, then tough. Areas where I think you will see this are: (beware, may not be pleasant reading)
1. Ad networks bolstering their client direct proposition
These guys are smart and have nailed their proposition. If it doesn't work you don't pay. They have the technology, they have the hook onto the advertisers' site, they have the skills to trade the right media. Don't be fooled in thinking this is about finding the right advertiser to fit their unsold. They'll trade what suits and what works. To be honest a fairly compelling offering and something I think agencies need to argue hard against to prove their value. Ad networks see this. They have seen how Google can move past the media agencies as well as service the small businesses. Agencies will all talk about having to have central tracking, hence the danger or dealing direct, but this can't go on forever.
2. Agencies start to forward buy
In many ways the counter to the above point. Ad networks only really appeared because media owners didn't want to admit they weren't selling all their inventory and didn't want surplus unsold to affect yield. So they gave it to the ad networks to repackage. Agencies got lulled in the wonders of CPA and CPC buying (when times were busy and buyers were only too happy to have prepackaged, definite delivered deals). Agencies lost ground on the technical side of mass optimisation across multiple sites and tend to use licensed off the shelf technology with no competitive advantage. By not taking a risk the ad networks have taken all the margin (20%-30% on gross vs a 8% for an agency). Agencies still have the respect and ear of their clients and I think it won't be long before some agencies start to forward buy with certain media owners. Get a small group and start to buy up the excess. Prices will mitigate risk. Risk and reward can be shared with an open minded client and pressure can be applied on the media owner. It needs a different level of trading with some serious underwriting and planning - but there is money to be made.
3. Publishers go for consumer direct money
"They already do!" I can hear you saying. The do indeed, many publishers will have a commercial partnership arm, or product arm or customer direct. What ever they call it, it tends to be inbedded deals, almost affiliate plus and to be honest many see this as backfill, playing second fiddle to selling ads to agencies. The reality is for many large publishers the penny is starting to drop that there are too many people in the boat and by the time everyone has taken a cut, there isn't too much left for them. They know their readers, viewers, listeners, surfers (all of the above) buy and consume, thats the whole point of advertsiing with them. "So how about we try and start to sell direct to them". The key is that this needs to be marketed and managed correctly and with focus and not necessarily "Yahoo Beef Burgers", but the right structure will work. Customer money can no longer be the poor cousin, no longer every advertiser and their dog. For years media owners have been talking about the relationship their audience has with their brand, surely this is true realisation of that relationship. Share of wallet not share of spend.
What time is it?

Have just read Charlie Gower's Time as context piece, winner of Neil Perkin's Think Tank - Hall of Fame where I discovered the original blog - thanks Neil.
It's what we need - a bit of applied common sense. We seem to have forgotten about the value of time of day in people's lives. I recently asked a couple of large publishers what % of their online inventory had a time of day, or even day of week stipulation on it? They reckoned about 10%. Thats a bit rubbish really.
Imagine when buying TV or radio saying "you aren't allowed to choose when the ad will run" - blimey! It would be chaos. Ask any old died in the wool (with red wine) press buyer or seller about advertisers on a Thursday and Friday and they'll tell you about retail money. Ask a planner about promoting films and they'll tell you about Fridays, recruitment - beginning of the week, credit cards companies - end of the month - common sense actions that reflect consumer movement and purchase behaviour.
Radio even puts a premium rate on its day parts and calls it .... wait for it .... in my best Brian Blessed voice "Drrrive Tiiiiime !!!" or .... "The Breaaaakfassst Shoowwww"
I get a bit disheartened when there is talk about online advertising not working when we don't seem to apply the same discipline and thus give it an equal chance we would other media. Unfortunately we perceive The Incredible Hulk jumping through the screen as innovation vs a little bit of "where are the audience and what is their mindset"













