Michael Baer's Stratecution Stories

"Strategy is overrated. We have a strategic plan. It's called doing things". – Herb Kelleher

Mobile isn’t just ANOTHER screen…*

When the dawn of mobile media occurred over 10 years ago, the ad industry dubbed mobile phones the “third screen”. There was the TV, computers, and, now, phones. The mobile screen was simply another outlet on which to engage with consumers.

Things have moved full-tilt since then, as the mass adoption of the smartphone has seismically changed all of media, marketing, and information access for consumers and brands alike. Mobile is now most often the first place people search, look things up, and access info. In addition, the reasons, contexts, and ways that people use the mobile screen have evolved to be vastly different than those of other screens.

With all these changes in the media screen eco-system, why are most marketers still approaching mobile as just another screen, and adopting old models of advertising and engagement? This is destined to fail – because it clashes with the fundamental user behaviors and expectations on this newest of screens.

You see, in my opinion, mobile isn’t just a screen:

  1. Mobile is a behavior

People aren’t doing typical web browsing activities on mobile – meaning they aren’t open to clicking away, exploring links or general “serendipity”. Their time is constrained; meaning long copy, elaborate design, and multiple steps are anathema. And, there are many more distractions and complexities due to the real world context – so KISS.

  1. Mobile is an expectation

You expect immediate answers from your smart phone. Who directed that film? How late is this store open? What is the phone number for the restaurant?

You expect the web to be easy and smooth – sites need to load fast, information has to be accessible and readable, and pages need to be designed for size and utility.

And now, consumers have similar expectations of brands on these devices. So why does your mobile site take so long to load? Why is the information I need hard to find? And why is it so hard to find the ‘x’ to close your irrelevant ad that’s interrupting my task?

  1. Mobile is a transaction and tactical

People use mobile to solve and complete specific tasks. And because of this, mobile hates interruption. Which I find ironic, because most advertising on mobile is highly interruptive. If you don’t think that this type of tone-deaf marketing isn’t why a majority of millennials have installed ad-blockers, then you’re as out of touch as your marketing.

  1. Mobile demands relevance

When I see, say, a contact lens ad on TV or the web, I ignore it. But if receive a mobile ad for contact lenses, it feels like an invasion. Due to the intimacy of the device and the amount of personal information and activity that happens on it, there’s an expectation of relevance and individualization. So when marketers choose ‘mass’ over ‘relevance’, they take a big risk of getting it wrong – and earning the enmity of those they are aiming to influence.

The flip side of this danger is the opportunity it presents. Consumers actively seek out relevance and are willing to pay for it with their personal information and data. For example, 61% of smartphone users say they’re more likely to buy from companies whose mobile sites or apps customize information to their location (Google/Ipsos, 2015) and 76% of people who opt in to location sharing do so to receive more meaningful content (Salesforce, 2014 Mobile Behavior report). It’s pretty clear that consumers will share their information for relevant value-added offers and information – that respect their time, preferences and actions.

Marketers have finally hailed the ascendance of the mobile screen. So, let’s treat it more than just another screen.

*Originally published in MediaPost’s Marketing Daily 9.13.16

The ‘Reverse’ Job Description: A Company’s Responsibility to Employees*

reversejob description tabhuman resource

There’s a “war for talent” out there. It’s an increasingly competitive landscape for recruiting and retaining talented employees, and companies talk the talk about how they are focusing on acquiring the best of the best. They call their HR people “Talent Directors”. Job description after job description describes their searches for “rock stars”, “gurus” and “ninjas”. And each job spec is chock full of the myriad incredible feats and accomplishments that each talented new hire has to achieve to be successful.

But so many new hires don’t stick – the data shows that almost half are gone within 18 months. And it’s not about skills – only 11% fail due to lack of skill, with the other 89% due to “attitudinal reasons”. With the high investment in time and money in recruiting, wouldn’t it makes sense for companies to make more of an effort to enhance stickiness and raise long-term success? The way I see it, every open role should have not just a job description, clearly iterating what is expected of the new employee, but would also have a “Reverse Job description”. That is, what are the required tasks of the company to ensure the success of the new employee.

It makes sense, doesn’t it? Success is a collaborative thing, especially in today’s interconnected, matrixed, ‘new normal’ organizations. So I say that every critical role to be filled should have an equally important role for the organization and the leaders. Here’s what it would be made up of:

Build an on-ramp. Coming into a new organization is always hard – but nowadays, you’re expected to get moving at light-speed, stat. So it’s important to provide the tools, resources, and support to enable the new hire to merge into the fast lane as smoothly as possible. How can you provide support during the early days? Who and what are the right resources for each type of problem and opportunity? Where can he or she find the tools they might need? Anything that keeps a new employee feeling new and un-integrated keep him or her puttering along on the shoulder of the road.

Provide a pit crew. The most seasoned and successful race car drivers know they have a pit crew awaiting them whenever they need re-fueling, or if the dashboard is filling with warning lights. Well so should the greatest rock-star employee. A company should make sure there will be regular get-togethers to review the road behind and the road ahead. And expecting there will be some blow-outs and oil leaks is a pretty good idea, as well, since there will be.

Plan for some speed bumps. As I mentioned above, every journey has bumps in the road. Especially at work. In the best of circumstance, with as many knowns as possible, there are surprises that wreak momentary havoc on existing teams. But for the new employee, everything’s new and unknown – new partners, new clients, new dynamics, new culture. Do them a favor and set the expectations for some bumpy moments. Expecting perfection is never a good idea; but in these situations, it’s an absolute mistake.

Implement an instant network. I don’t care what level the candidate is, they’ll need some advisors and mentors. Sounding boards for problems and opportunities. Folks to look to when building their thinking. Or when the going gets tough. New employees don’t have instant credibility, respect or trust – so it’s important to provide a few internal contacts where they won’t have to immediately earn it. Each reverse job description should allocate several of these partners and comrades.

Provide a core of complementors. Generally, when hiring someone for your team, you are looking for one or two key skills. The skills and experience that are critical for the success the company is looking for. However, when placing this person into the organization and onto a team, there are likely some complementary skills that are required – skills that might not be immediately native to the new hire. So ensure you have embedded the complementary partners needed to help get past the initial growing pains.

Give some early cheers. No matter how talented and experienced the new employee is, the new situation will feel a bit alien. And without a sense of belonging, the new hire may find the honeymoon wearing off quickly. A little recognition can go a long way towards making new employees feel at home and part of an organization. Which leads to more success and longer tenure.

What do you think? Does this seem like too much to ask from a company? Should an employee’s success be all up to them?

*Originally published in TalentZoo 9/2/15

Meet the new model. Same as the old model.*

It’s fair to say that the fact that the advertising and marketing world has gone through a complete revolution is a given. Everyone now accepts that old models are through. “Digital disruption”. “Media fragmentation”. “Consumer in control”. “Push marketing is dead”. These are the ways our industry has been speaking of the new normal. Business as usual is kaput.

So if the old model is dead, what is the new model? Well, I think I’ve seen an indication of what the market thinks. Game of War. The digital game (yes, the one with Kate Upton). You may expect that I’d be speaking of a wonderful case study and demonstration of how to leverage the liquidity of media, of the new cross-channel consumer, about access to and leveraging of the reams of data we have on each consumer and their individualized path.

But as the French say, “plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose”. Because this example is really just the old model, in all its moldy glory. And on steroids.

I discovered this example because I play a solitaire game on my phone. I’m not proud of it – but I find it a relaxing way to kill a few moments in-between (let’s not get into the psychology of it…). The app I use recently had an “update”, where once you’ve downloaded it, you now get ads between new solitaire hands. An unwanted interruption. Irrelevance. Not connected to the game, the user experience, the context or anything about the player. But that’s another story, as well.

About six months ago, one of the interruptive ads I began getting was for the Game of War. And six months later, that I’m still getting these ads. By the hundreds. Yes, lots of different ads, different visuals, different scenarios, different calls to action. But the same game and the same campaign. They also appear in Facebook and in digital and mobile banners. It still boggles my mind.

I wonder what the strategy that spawned this campaign looked like. “Bombard annoy interrupt badger consumers as often as possible and with a frequency unmitigated by any half-reasonable notion”? That’s what it looks like in the real world. And with all the varied, available approaches for leveraging advanced targeting, who could their target be? I’ve never downloaded a video game or displayed any interest to do so before. I guess bored solitaire players represent a large part of their target.

And how could they be leveraging campaign performance data? I’ve never displayed any interest in their ads or in playing the game. I’ve never clicked, watched, or viewed additional content. I’ve never liked, posted or shared anything on social media. In fact, I’ve never even played any online games such as these. But I keep getting Game of War message interruptions every day, dozens of times. I am not kidding when I say that I have seen a Game of War ad at least 1,000 times.

Clearly data, an assumed key component of the new marketing model, plays no role in their campaign. How could it? Data is supposed to help find the right people, optimize the effort over the course of the campaign, deliver more and more relevancy, timeliness and value over time. Move me closer to conversion, across platform, time and action. No, no and no.

But the campaign keeps on going. So, against all odds, it must be working. So the question is – is this the new model? Take the old interruption model, and simply apply it to modern channels, at enormous scale and insane frequency. Rinse and repeat.

Am I wrong? Is this an okay strategy? Is it okay to seek results by any means necessary? Perhaps this is a game of war we are playing.

*This post was originally posted in Troyanos’ Groups “Gamechangers” newsletter 7/25/15.

Guest Post: 8 Leadership Challenges You Can Solve With the Leadership Matrix

20150419 Lead Inside the Box Book Cover20150419 Headshot - Mike Figliuolo

Mike Figliuolo and his Thoughtleaders blog has been a blogging hero of mine for a while. One of the highlights of my blogging career took place last year when I wrote a guest column in his blog. And now, I’m happy to say, Mike’s written a guest post on my site. Mike recently co-authored Lead Inside the Box: How Smart Leaders Guide Their Teams to Exceptional Results (you can get your copy by clicking here). You can learn more about Mike and the book at the end of the post. Here’s Mike:

The phrase “think outside the box” makes me physically ill.  It’s trite and isn’t at all practical.  But inside the box?  That’s where great leaders go to get more out of their teams.  You can too with a simple assessment tool that provides insights as to how to most effectively lead the unique members of your team.

Preface: I’m an idiot.  My friend and fellow thoughtLEADERS instructor Victor Prince hoodwinked me into co-authoring a new book: Lead Inside the Box – How Smart Leaders Guide Their Teams to Exceptional Results.  The premise is you need to evaluate the amount of output you get from a team member and compare that to the amount of time and energy you have to invest in them to get it.  We call that second piece “leadership capital.”

The result of those comparisons is the Leadership Matrix (or “the box” for short).  Within that matrix, we define behavioral archetypes from Slackers to Rising Stars and everything in between.  The real insight lies in practical advice on how to lead those folks to improve their performance.  By understanding the behaviors your team members will demonstrate and how you invest (or don’t invest) your time and effort into them, you’ll get a clearer picture of the 8 archetypical behaviors that can show up in the box.  With that understanding, you can begin leading differently which will improve your performance.  Those archetypes are as follows:

Exemplars can be categorized based upon their career aspirations. Some Exemplars want their great performance to provide them a stepping stone to larger roles and responsibilities. These are the “Rising Stars.” Other Exemplars are content remaining in their current roles. They’re experts and they’re satisfied with delivering outstanding results without much interference from their boss. These individuals are the “Domain Masters.”

Detractors are defined by the root cause of their performance issues. Some don’t have the skills they need to do their job. These individuals are the “Square Pegs.” We call Detractors who have the skills to do the job but they lack the will to do it the “Slackers.”

High Cost Producers break into subtypes based on the kinds of costs they incur. Some get results but at the high cost of damaging team morale and destroying the goodwill you and your team have accrued with others. These individuals are the “Steamrollers.” High Cost Producers who get results but require an inordinate amount of hand-holding from their leader to get them done are the “Squeaky Wheels.”

Passenger subtypes are determined by the kind of output they produce. Some only work to get their paycheck. They expend the bare minimum amount of effort required to keep getting paid. These are the behaviors of your “Stowaways.” Other Passengers exert a great deal of energy but they focus on tasks they want to do, not tasks you need them to do. We refer to Passengers behaving this way as “Joyriders.”

To make it easy for you to evaluate your team, we built an easy (and slick!) assessment online.  You can use it to categorize your team member’s behavior and get practical advice on how to lead them. The better you understand how much leadership capital you’re investing in someone and the results you’re getting from those investments, the more effectively you’ll be able to lead them.

– Mike Figliuolo is the co-author of Lead Inside the Box: How Smart Leaders Guide Their Teams to Exceptional Results and the author of One Piece of Paper: The Simple Approach to Powerful, Personal Leadership. He’s the managing director of thoughtLEADERS, LLC – a leadership development training firm. An Honor Graduate from West Point, he served in the U.S. Army as a combat arms officer. Before founding his own company, he was an assistant professor at Duke University, a consultant at McKinsey & Co., and an executive at Capital One and Scotts Miracle-Gro. He regularly writes about leadership on the thoughtLEADERS Blog.

Disintegrating “Integration”*

disintegrationintegrationintegrated marketing

There are lots of buzzwords and ism’s thrown around in advertising. But none are used with such ubiquity as Integration. If I had a nickel for every company that says it’s an “integrated agency”, every campaign that is “fully integrated”, every creative or strategist who “thinks integratedly”, I’d be filthy rich. To be honest, this makes sense. The digitized and mobilized marketing landscape has become so fragmented, complex and chaotic, that marketers say cross-channel integration is their top priority, according to an eMarketer 2014 study. So using the word “integrated” is like a promise of understanding all the chaos. It attempts to say, “don’t worry, we’re thinking about all that complex and inter-connected stuff.”

The thing is, people have been using this term for so long and so often that it’s been rendered virtually meaningless. It’s gotten to where it’s hard to define what integration really is. Well, I’m here to tell you what being “integrated” isn’t:

  • It’s not matching luggage: Many simply believe that as long as you make the brand and message look exactly the same everywhere it appears, then that’s integrated. In this case, it’s about executional elements – color, fonts, logo, a visual cue. While this can help connect a brand visually across platforms, it’s a pretty superficial approach. Sure, it may telegraph to people that “here’s that brand again”, but it provides no message, no context, no value. And it doesn’t even try to leverage the distinctive properties of each individual medium.
  • It’s not hand-offs or trickle-downs: There persists this faulty myth in advertising that creativity is the result of one or two geniuses developing brilliance on their own and then sharing it with the world. So agencies still think that an integrated idea starts in one camp or vertical (usually the almighty AOR), and then gets handed off to other disciplines to flow this brilliance out. But this is the old way of thinking – creativity is rarely the work of a single artist, but instead the result of many and often disparate people, thinking cross-channel from the start.

    And this scenario can result in conflict – with each different group/agency pushing in different directions according to separate agendas, goals, priorities. While each may have the best intentions for the brand, true integration isn’t achieved since the entire team isn’t working together, off the same concepts or goals.

  • It’s not just adaptation: Similar to the above, there’s a belief or expectation that an idea begins as a TV commercial. Or a website. Or a print ad. And then gets adapted into other forms of communication. Turning the TV commercial into a banner ad, per se. This is clearly sub-optimal, since people use and behave on different platforms differently – so simply applying an idea from one into another won’t be effective. An integrated idea needs to live above platforms and media – and needs to be expressed within the realities of each individual medium.
  • It’s not about a laundry list of platforms: When agencies say they’re integrated, they generally end up talking about channels and platforms. “We take ideas and express them in mobile, in social, in content marketing…” But integration isn’t about the output; it’s about the input. And just because you have capabilities in multiple platforms or channels, doesn’t mean that you should utilize them all. Sometimes integration is knowing which channels you shouldn’t be utilizing for a specific situation.
  • And calling it “Omni-channel” doesn’t make it any more integrated: One of the latest and greatest buzzwords in marketing is omni-channel. “We’re not only integrated, we’re omni-channel.” But this is just another way of saying the same exact thing.

Here are a few things that Integration is about, in my opinion:

  • It’s about collaboration, irrespective of agencies, holding companies and agendas. (I like Bill Koenigsberg’s idea of “the Agency of Collaboration model”).
  • It’s about taking a consumer perspective – and caring more about take-away than input.
  • It’s about iteration. It matters less where your idea started than where it can end up.
  • It’s about letting go of ownership. Get over yourselves. Period.
  • It’s about solving problems, not pushing executions. Be thinking about measurable objectives at all times, and pull together data across channels for an integrated view.
  • It’s about innovation (another overused word…). Be open to new approaches, even if they are from outside your domain.

Integration is a powerful tool and important concept. Let’s all make sure we’re using the term equally powerfully.

* Originally published in MediaPost’s Marketing Daily on 6/8/15

5 Ways You’re Doing Mobile Wrong*

bad mobilestreetfight mag 2danger toxic There’s no denying we’re deep into the age of Mobility. Mobile phones are universal, and smart phone penetration has neared 70% of all mobile devices. More smart phones have been sold than desktops for years now. Online time on phones passed that of desktop over a year ago. And mobility has spawned tablets, phablets, and, now, “wearables”. It’s a constantly evolving and growing space for consumers and brands. And, finally, marketers have dove into mobile in a big way.

But here’s the thing: mobile marketing requires new ideas, new approaches and new use cases. What worked before with other media types won’t necessarily work on this completely different, more personal platform. So, if you’re like most marketers, you’re likely getting mobile wrong. Here are 5 reasons.

1) You’re treating the mobile screen as just another screen.
Yes, the phone has a screen. And people are viewing lots of the same things that they view on other screens, like email, search and video. But that doesn’t mean your brand can act exactly as it has on the TV or PC screen. Because consumer behavior, and their expectations, are fundamentally different on the mobile screen. The phone is a highly personal and unique device, and not simply an extension of the desktop that you happen to carry with you.

But so many marketers are simply using the approaches, images, and videos they are using in other channels and just applying across all mobile placements. That’s a recipe for failure (or at least weak performance). For best results, you have to design and optimize for the mobile screen and the mobile user experience, taking into account context, environment and user location.

2) You’re impeding people from doing what they want.
Interrupting consumers with advertising in exchange for free content in “lean-back” media became quid pro quo long ago. Plus, irrelevance and annoyance in these media can be easily ignored. But the interruption-based ad model is DOA on mobile. Interrupting someone from accessing the information or activities they want on the phone – e.g., interrupting access to the weather report; stopping someone before they can check the game score; disrupting an entertaining video from playing – is not ignorable. It’s deplorable. Instead, your brand needs to figure out how it can add to those experiences, not simply take advantage of them.

3) You’re selling, not adding value.
I’ve heard the smartphone called a “companion”, because it’s always by your side, constantly helping you. But for some reason, brands don’t feel like they need to follow suit. Marketers seem to view mobile just as a handset to “ping”, and forget there is a person holding it. But Brands do have an opportunity to participate in the “companion” model. When they go beyond simply selling, and provide value beyond their own products and services, they can gain trust and long-term loyalty.

4) You are focused on awareness and acquisition, but not on loyalty.
Marketers see the enormous scale of mobile and think about the top of the funnel. It’s easy now to buy hundreds of millions of aggregated impressions. But where mobile is most effective is in driving deeper engagement, conversions and loyalty of existing leads and customers. The ability to reach those who already have your app, those you have data on, and customers who can take an immediate action on your brand’s site or app allows marketers to grow their relationship with existing customers and to make them feel more personally connected to the brand. Two approaches that successfully do this are push notifications and location-aware/geo-fenced notifications, which have proven to be extremely good at driving leads down the funnel and increase usage, sales and loyalty of existing customers.

5) You’ve gone gaga over in-store beacons, but not about driving consumers to the store.
It’s been said that marketing loves it buzzwords and fads, and iBeacons are among the newest and buzziest. And there’s nothing wrong with that – iBeacon and BLE are great new ways to engage with and gain data on your customers in store. But don’t disregard technology and approaches that help drive your customers into your store in the first place, like geo-fenced notifications. These can be particularly valuable in targeting your customers, even at your competitor’s locations, and giving them reasons to come visit your location.

Mobile usage and mobile marketing have matured and grown over the past few years. For Consumers, it’s basically a mobile-first world, with mobile phone no longer the “third-screen”. So it’s time for marketers to shed the old approach, as well. As more and more money and activity moves into the mobile advertising ecosystem, marketers must move beyond the old status quo TV and digital models and start to think like consumers – mobile-first.

* Originally published in Street Fight e-magazine on April 14, 2015

An Impression is Anything But…*

invisible manfootprint sandbullshit scale

What is an “impression”? If you’re speaking English, an impression is an indelible mark left on someone. It’s pressed into something, leaving behind a visible trace or effect. An impression is not miss-able or forget-able – when something leaves an impression, it means it was remarkable, memorable, compelling.

But when people are speaking media, an impression is anything but. A media impression is rarely seen or noticed or remembered. It is overwhelmingly likely to be ignored, or perhaps not even there in the first place. When you consider that 1) most ad impressions are avoided and ignored; 2) display ad/banner impressions are clicked by 1 in 10,000 people; and 3) there are estimates that up to 75% of all digital “impressions” are fraudulent or unviewable, you wonder how the hell this term became the currency for media planning and buying in the first place.

Why has this happened? I think there are a few reasons:

  • The media world is resistant to change. Impressions have been the buying scale for a long time, so change is difficult. And changing would require re-setting all pricing and value benchmarks. And demand new thinking and ideas about the role of media.
  • Using the mis-named “impressions” as currency allows for the illusion of scale. This helps make media folks and clients feel comfortable they are “reaching” lots of people – despite the fact that most people won’t be very “impressed”.
  • Using this definition of impressions as the currency allows CPMs to continue to seem low and affordable. Because inventory is loaded with cheap stuff, overall pricing seems cheap. But it’s like filling your Sumatran coffee order with wood shavings to keep prices low.

But why does no one call bullsh*t? Why do agencies and clients buy millions of impressions when we know most of them won’t make one? Why do they purchase huge quantities of something they know is filled up with crap? Why do they not seem to be bothered by the reportedly huge percentage of fraudulent and non-viewable inventory?

And, importantly, why do most people balk at higher prices for higher quality? For paying a higher CPM for inventory that delivers higher engagement, actions and true “impressions”? Why can’t people start seeing media just as they see their micro-brews, their mixed greens, their grass-fed beef – i.e., that non-watered down quality does leave an impression. And is worth the premium.

I’m dying for someone to illuminate me. And for someone to help me come up with the right new media label for this new kind of approach. Where true engagement is pursued. Where actual, relevant content is delivered to real people. And real impressions are created. I’m thinking maybe “True Impressions”. What do you think?

* Originally published in MediaPost’s Marketing Daily 4/9/15

The Tyranny of ‘Scale’ – How scale keeps us playing by old rules*

caution tyrannymass media words old rules of marketing are dead

There it was, in HuffPo, in a listicle called “10 Tricks to appear smart during meetings”. Along with a recommendation to “Pace around the room” and to “Nod continuously while pretending to take notes” was number 6 on the list. This trick read, “Ask ‘Will this scale?’ no matter what it is”. And, it’s true – say this and people will think you are smart. But, unfortunately, it only perpetuates a fallacy.

You see, there’s an on-going illusion about scale. In Digital and mobile advertising, marketers, sellers and buyers are all participating in this illusion day in and out. That is, there’s a desire and demand for more and more impressions, more eyeballs and views, more tonnage reaching your target. But does this tonnage really reach the target? Is this scale actually useful, valuable or even real?

Firstly, let’s remember that the impressions represent only opportunities to view, not actual views. And these opportunities need to be discounted by the fact (or at least taken with the following gazillion grains of salt) that it’s been estimated that 75-85% of these impressions are deemed either fraudulent, unsafe, or unviewable, according to Julie Fleischer of Kraft. What’s left of that scale now?

In addition, let’s consider the exceptionally low (and dropping) click rate on desktop and mobile display ads. When you consider that “banner blindness” has driven click-throughs to less than 1/10th of 1%, it suggests that the message that is being scaled is not even being seen – or at least not being engaged with. Is this the kind of scale brands want?

The thing about this tyranny of scale is it relies on and adheres to the old model of Interruption. That is, gain access to as many consumers as you can and interrupt them with your message. A certain number will ignore you – others might notice you. But even those that ignore you might receive enough information to remember your message. This model worked for years and years – but should have died along with the digital revolution more than 10 years ago. Because consumers no longer simply ignore irrelevant ads (as they used to); they actively dislike them. And that has a negative splash-back effect on the brands.

I think that’s a key problem with scale – it generally trades out relevance to achieve mass. Instead, I’d rather address a smaller universe, but with content, context and consumer relevancy that drives conversion rates into the double-digits.

What is scalable are the many problems with scale:

You can buy scale, but you can’t buy engagement. Any publisher will sell you scale. You can aggregate readers, app users, game players, anything. The problem is that you’ll end up with a hodge-podge of disparate people, likely not prepared or interested in your ad. Scale, by definition, puts a premium on mass – and de-emphasizes relevance. In fact, a drive for scale essentially aggregates irrelevance. And irrelevance is the kryptonite of the digital era.

Not only that, but the modern media consumer is often engaged in his content or platform for a tactical, tangible purpose. Interrupt them at your peril.

Scale breeds irrelevance, which breeds loathing. The price brands pay for irrelevance is no longer avoidance, it’s animosity. Antipathy. And vocal dissension. I believe that it should be much more important to be relevant to some than irrelevant to many.

When people ask, “will it scale”, they are actively rejecting newer approaches and models. They are seeking the comfort of the past, and the seeming confidence of BIG numbers and lines on flow charts. But I have seen that ground-up or mid-to-low funnel approaches can also deliver big results.

Scale discounts the importance of value and impact. Especially when it comes to mobile advertising, the opportunity and role of advertising is increasingly one of adding value to the consumer. This added-value is likely not achievable when the goal is scale.


There’s a gigantic opportunity in today’s media world to drive new kinds of brand engagements. Leveraging new levels of data to deliver customized content, finding new ways to hyper-target customers, and partnering with publishers and consumers to create new kinds of value – it would seem we’re in a new, golden age of advertising. However, so much is still being evaluated and judged by that old model – “does it scale”?

Let’s always remember that just because something reaches a lot of people doesn’t make it good. At the end of the day, my belief is that relevance and ideas trump scale. Anyday.

* Originally posted in MediaPost’s Marketing Daily on 12/9/14

Right-sizing Big Data*

robotdata funneltoolshands

The ad business is driven by sound bytes and buzzwords. And I don’t have to tell you that one of the buzzes of the moment is “Big Data”. You can’t swing a cat without knocking into a half-dozen “experts” touting its intrinsic value and huge ROI potential. The run up in ad tech investment and VC funding in the area might be creating the next tech bubble. And marketers and agencies are all shouting, “Big Data is the answer!” But I don’t know if they even know what the question is.

The thing is that “big data” is a tool – and like any tool, it has uses and limitations. Firstly, it’s helpful in certain tasks – but not for all of them. Second of all, it functions like the proverbial hammer, i.e. “if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail”. People need other tools to complete complex jobs. And finally, and most importantly –like all tools, it requires a human hand, and heart, to guide it.

Limitations of Big Data
The benefit of Big Data is to leverage computational power to process quickly and nimbly huge amounts of data to make it accessible to people. It allows us to begin to divine insights and understanding around information that is available but too plentiful and dispersed for human perception, shining a light on that which was not visible. And it can automate actions that were difficult, time-consuming or even impossible just a few years ago.

But Big Data seems to assume that all data is great – and that more data is better. But bigger is not always better – just ask the 74% of brands, according to a World Federation of Advertisers study, who are saying that they are overwhelmed by big data and unprepared to take advantage of it. And always consider the Einstein quote, “everything that can be counted does not necessarily count; everything that counts cannot necessarily be counted”. Just because you can now measure something doesn’t mean you should.

In addition, Big Data tends to be a tactical tool, rather a strategic one. Because data-based ad technology is allowing us to automate around measurable actions, behaviors, activities and realities, it’s a great tool for optimization – creative versioning, ad placements, a/b testing, etc. But don’t expect it to start giving you high level strategic answers, compelling messaging ideas or brand platforms.

One other issue is that once a KPI/data point is selected, people start optimizing towards them vs. towards overall success. While this has always been the case (think of brands that developed ads to “beat the copy test” vs. to inspire or engage) – this becomes even more of a worry once robots and data scientists take the wheel.

Bottom Line: Ensure you’ve appropriately assessed the data you’re collecting, wisely chosen KPI’s, and properly identified the role of Big Data in your marketing efforts.

Small data is just critical
While the aggregation of Big Data is important, small data remains just as important. Think of outside information, anecdotes, industry intelligence, or analogies – these are things that can help color opinion, drive creative thought, and inform the data more than more reams of it ever could. In fact, relying on current data alone would have put you in tech stocks in 1999, in real estate in 2007, and in Bieber albums in 2013. That’s why the small data of experience, a finger on the pulse, and a surprising a-ha can provide the insights and additional dimensions needed to make better, more complex decisions.

And while data enriches understanding, it doesn’t substitute for instinct, insight, or human touch. Machines can’t make a gut decision.

Bottom Line: Make sure you are not run by data alone – but are keeping eyes and ears open for insight, ideas and inspiration outside of your data sets.

Human element necessary
In well-defined, predictable situations, Big Data can help drive the best way forward. But what category or domain is well-defined and predictable today? Most face uncharted territory and rocky, ever-changing realities. No amount of data alone can drive future strategy or big ideas. In fact, in uncharted territory, data derived from past examples or activity can give a false sense of confidence. That’s why I like the concept of “sensemaking”, proposed by Christian Madsbjerg and Mikkel Rasmussen in The Moment of Clarity.

Sensemaking requires “the ability to lead open-ended discovery, to sense both soft and hard data, to use your judgment skills, to connect the dots, and to see the big picture in a vast ocean of sometimes conflicting data.” This requires a combination of data and soft, human skills and thought.

But more importantly, data is unlikely to “stir the soul”, create inspiration, or drive creative breakthroughs. And that’s what leads to the innovation and disruption necessary for significant success today. Big data can help shine the light, but humans create the new ideas that emerge.

Bottom Line: Don’t expect your robots to find you the answers. Instead, leverage the data-driven insights to inform your creative mind.

* originally posted in TalentZoo 4/9/2014

The myth of “I prefer their early work”

I prefer their early workfact or mythearly work book

I was talking with someone I know about a band that I love. He’s into music, too – but, to be honest, he’s a bit of a musical know-it-all. He’s a “I saw the them before anyone knew them” type of guy. And after I mentioned said band, he told me the classic saw, “I prefer their early work”.

Now, I have to admit that I’ve said it myself. And I’ve probably repeated all the same, standard rationale – they put their whole lives up to that point into it their first work; they were raw-er; it was from the heart back then; it was before they were “in the business”, so it was for the art of it. Okay, I get all that. But upon further thought, it should rarely be true. Because, first of all, any good band, artist, writer, and basic human learns more as they go along. They learn about themselves, the world, their craft. Anyone worth his or her salt gets better. The more they play together, know each other better, play with and develop their sound more, they should almost certainly improve. They make mistakes, they learn from trying, they find what works best. And, over time, they come in contact with additional resources – other artists, producers, etc. – that drive further adaptation and evolution. If they don’t, then they’re probably not truly special. Right?

But the more I thought about it, I also started to think that saying “I prefer their early work” also says some not-so-nice-things about the person who is saying it. And, about the person he or she is saying it to.

It suggests “I know more than you”.  Because it usually is said in response to someone saying he or she likes something, it’s kinda like saying “I used to like them, too – but I learned additional stuff that caused me to stop liking them. I guess you haven’t learned it, yet.” Which is smug (and here’s what I feel about smugness).

It says “I’m more discerning”. This person is saying that he has made a distinction in their work – he can probe deeper and critically dissect the better (earlier) from the less good. If you like all of it, then I suppose you don’t have the faculties to make the distinction.

It suggests “I’m more of a leading edge person than you”. This person is consciously pushing beyond what’s popular or well known to find what they like (a good thing) – and is letting you know in a way to place you with the pack, the average, the non-explorers.

It says “you’re lazy for still liking them”. Similarly, this person is always looking for what’s new. And you? You’re still sticking to them, despite their clearly disappointing later work? You’re obviously are lazy.

So, after all this thought, I’ve decided that I’m not going to say “I prefer their earlier work” ever again. Perhaps what I’ll say if I really am disappointed with the path someone or something has taken after early promise is “I really like some of their work. I’m interested in seeing where they’re headed.” What do you think?

%d bloggers like this: