Sunday, April 10, 2016

the future of the ad industry: totally f-ed?

Why advertising is doomed, in three damning charts.

To quote from the beautiful Spring Awakening, "There's a moment you know, you're f*ed". 
Have we reached that point?

That the industry, the world!, is changing is old news. The rise of digital specialists, digital agencies, specialist agencies, specialist specialists, integrated teams, trading desks, et al, et al, et al, are our reaction to this formerly new ones-and-zeroes world. But have we evolved quickly enough? A few things in the news have made me seriously doubt it.

You're F-ed, poof point #1:
Ad blocking use doubled from 2013 to 2014, and grew by another fifty percent in 2015.  Apple and Samsung made headlines this year after allowing and pre-installing adblockers on their mobile operating systems. Estimated revenue losses to ad blocking are in the billions. (Adobe/Pagefair).
Image from MIT Technology Review

With ad revenues moving switfly from traditional media to online, ad blockers will probably not kill advertising altogether, but there should be implications about consumer protection and interest that the industry must contend with.

You're F-ed, poof point #2:
I saw this video a few weeks ago and was startled by its implications, that advertising as I know it is basically f*ed. Mr. Galloway is an extremely engaging speaker who might have jumped to a few conclusions. The counterpoint to Facebook and Google are other publishers, not agency networks. We will never have the revenue that media publishers do, that has never been the case. But at the same time, the threat exists that if readership is more or less split between Google/YouTube, Facebook and Netflix (only somehwat too simplistic, see this), they can start to take on agency roles and then take those fees as well.

A clear sign that these publishers are ready to take our lunch? Read on.

You're F-ed, poof point #1:
As someone who has worked in the industry for almost ten years, this Adweek headline was depressing but also resonated with me.

"Fifty-four percent of people who left advertising said a major reason they changed industries was because they felt there was little opportunity for advancement, compared to a 45 percent global average." (Adweek) More of the findings were released at another forum: 50% wanted more challenging work, and 46% were unsatisfied with the level of senior management. (LinkedIn)

The continued move of creative talent from agencies to tech is so notable that recent coverage has talked about how agencies are "fighting back". (The answer is, not with much.)

Advertising is hard, it isn't for everybody. I've always loved the feel of our industry, "the tinkerers", as Mr. Schenck called us. The question that remains is whether this industry is still the right home for us. Maybe like everything in this crazy digital world, we need to rethink, disrupt ourselves and maybe find new applications for these skills.


Tuesday, March 29, 2016

Honest bucks

As publishers find new means of diversifying revenue streams, there could be room for a consolidation model that serves both publishers and consumers. 

My ad agency self and consumer self sometimes clash, and oddly enough frequently about advertising. At work I subject myself to all the ads that Facebook, The Straits Times, Rappler, etc. want to throw at me, but at home I'm all about ad blocking. A few sites have now told me that I have to enable cookies to use their properties which really bugs me (consumer self), and only if I really want to see the content do I turn my ad blocker off. But my agency self, and begrudgingly even a little bit of my consumer self, understands the business side of things and how the publishers need to keep the lights on to keep producing the content I love to read.

Recently I clicked an Entertainment Weekly link. When I got to the site, which I visit frequently, a pop-up informed me that I had reached my free article limit for the month. I considered paying because I visit regularly, and the pricing seemed reasonable. What ultimately stopped me was the larger implication of potentially having to move into a paid model for more and more of the sites I frequently visit.

Because, first of all, isn’t the internet supposed to be free? (Consumer self.) But if publishers all have their way, am I going to have to enter into subscriptions with several of them, which might seem affordable on their own, but will add up overall? Not only is that going to potentially end up quite expensive, but it will be tough to keep track of.

Existing Monetization Models

There are a couple of monetization methods that exist at present. (The list below skips a few ad streams such as affiliate marketing, native advertising, etc, but wanted to keep the list topline. This is also covering larger content publishers and not bloggers.)

(1) Direct Subscriptions: 
Consumers pay the publisher a fee to access content. Payment for access + experience.
/ Ads: None
/ Payment required: Yes
/ Content access: Unlimited
/ e.g. Netflix

(2) Freemium, no ads upon payment 
Consumers can access an initial batch of content, but must pay a fee to upgrade usage. Payment for access.
/ Ads: Eliminated when users move to the paid model
/ Payment required: None initially, but option to pay for extra features or no ads
/ Content access: Unlimited access upon payment
/ e.g. Spotify

(3) Freemium, ads remain even with payment
Consumers can access an initial batch of content, but must pay a fee to upgrade usage
/ Ads: Present all throughout
/ Payment required: None initially, but option to pay for extra features or no ads
/ Content access: Unlimited access upon payment
/ e.g. Hulu, New York Times 

On Freemium models with ads: Once a user is paying for access, will they still want to see ads? This seems like a double-charge, once for access and again for agreeing to ad exposure. When you compare it to traditional newspapers or magazines, you are also in effect charged twice, but on digital it somehow doesn’t seem to make as much sense. I signed up for Hulu then agreed to pay for the premium tier only to be served with ads throughout the shows. That was a real deal breaker and caused me to cancel my subscription.

 (4) Ad Supported
Content is free, Ads abound
/ Ads: Present all throughout
/ Payment required: None initially, but option to pay for extra features or no ads
/ Content access: Unlimited access upon payment
/ e.g. Buzzfeed, Pop Sugar, almost everyone else. 

The new cable?

Consortium models, like cable networks, may be the next step for publishers. There could be the equivalent of TV cable companies that charge just one fee for a whole range of channels. Digital publishers could enter into these consolidated arrangements, in order to make it easier for consumers to pay. This might even create new opportunities to offer new trial channels or sites that could be charged for later on. Publishers would still be able to choose to eliminate or keep advertisements on their sites, as they do currently.

I don't know how many publishers would sacrifice their independent revenue generation, but it might be easier for users to comprehend and manage because at the end of the day the consumer should win out.

Can we all just get along?

I can understand both sides of the argument. Consumers don't want to pay, don't want to be intruded on or tracked. Publishers need to keep the lights on. Advertisers are happy to pay for eyeballs. In our former media ecosystsem everyone knew the rules of engagement - ads were a part of any content experience.

Two parting thoughts.

First - Go native? Monocle is a publisher I support. They oversee the entire reader experience, even the ads. To be included in their publication advertisers must allow Monocle to shape their promotional material. It's the very best native advertising. Consumers may complain that native ads aren't obvious enough about, but when materials are obviousy, intrusive and flashy, they also bring out the ad blockers. Native content is of course costly on the advertiser front - can they really afford to craft a unique set of advertising material for each publisher? But maybe that's the digital evolution that is supposed to happen. Save the buys for consumers who are in-market and for any awareness efforts, craft along with publishers. (Cue: Post on new media planning.)

Second - Is it realistic to think that the media evolution is that we transpose our exact model into the new digital? This is what we're trying to do, after all. Ads existed above-the-line so they must exist in slightly enhanced versions online. Ads are capsules of promotional material; yes, we're now doing content as well, but ads themselves must still exist to fuel the entire content and marketing ecosystem.

Perhaps the new disruption is a world where ads no longer exist and an entirely newer, more subtle and useful form or marketing will prevail.


Sunday, March 20, 2016

Where do we go from here?

What is the future of our ad industry?

"The house that advertising built was consumer packaged goods. They taught that detergents and soaps could be wrapped in emotion. You were a better mom, you were more American, you were a more elegant European if you used a certain type of hand soap. This is the house that advertising built. Last year [in] the house that advertising built, almost 90% of all CPG brands lost share, and two thirds lost revenue. Why? Because advertising sucks. And if you're wealthy you can opt out of advertising. We are now downloading "Modern Family" and paying two bucks for it from iTunes soley so that we can avoid the advertising. Advertising is becoming a tax only poor people pay."

Good talk by Scott Galloway, NYU Stern professor and founder of L2.


"For posterity" overdrive

I've always been a documenter. Even as a kid using film, I always had a camera with me. I spent so much money getting photos printed and resized and giving them away and even taking orders from friends. I had, at one point, boxes and boxes of photos that my mom begged me to sort through and put into albums. Even then, I tried to be selective. Because of the limitations of the analog film roll you could only take twenty-four or thirty-six shots at a time. Now we can easily take dozens of photos of a meal, hundreds of any birthday party or night out, and thousands on vacation.

My tendency to document went into overdrive with digital cameras and then phone cameras. It sometimes bugs me that I'm now one of the cliche people who take photos of their food and extensively of concerts and museum visits or even plane rides. Which is weird because I've always had this side to me. (Side note: "Seflies" before they were called selfies, with Broadway celebrities and in front of beatiful paintings because there were no other tourists around to ask to take my photo? Been doing that since the aught's. And sort of not embarrased about it?) Granted, none of my old almbus include photos of dishes or drinks or coffee, but now I find myself both going into posterity overview, and questioning the habit at the same time.

I've been thinking about this through a concert lens. I've seen three this past month.

Most recently I've gotten to fulfill a music dream. Before I discovered Janet and Mariah the music of my childhood consisted of Disney musicals, and my parents' tape and then CD collection. We had a classic Broadway selection —  Les Miz, Phantom, Miss Saigon, etc. — lyrics I memorized before I knew they were about identity theft, severe mental illness and prostitution. We had several volumes from a Classic Experience series. There was a lot of jazz, the Marsalises being my favorite. And then we had a revered pair of John Williams CDs. Because we were trained in many of the movie classics, he was a favorite and beloved in our house.

I've seen promotions for the live verison of some of those very albums — John Williams plays his famous music scores with the Boston Pops Orchestra. This has been on the bucket list. When it was advertised that that a symphonic concert was coming to Singapore featuring his music, I was over 100% board. I booked tickets and couldn't wait.

The concert opened with the chilling and masterful two-note Jaws signature. Then they launched into the classic Star Wars theme which I was finally hearing live. It was glorious. They played music from Jurassic Park, Superman, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and more Star Wars. They even did three pieces from Harry Potter. I hadn't particularly noted the score but was thrilled by the live verison (cue Hedwig's Theme). I found my eyes darting across the stage, watching for which instruments were playing, the violins leading one moment, then the brass section, or the wind pipes, and then everybody! The same troupe could go from the scary beach to 1920s Japan and then to a galaxy far, far way, and the in the next number Isla Nublar.

This has been a delightful concert month. The Stars (an all-time favorite) and Bon Iver have also been to Singapore in the last few weeks and I gotten to see them both.

At concerts now, I am always compelled to take my phone out and start shooting. I leave with pages and pages of photos on my phone, most of which I never look at again. The funny thing is, I get really annoyed when people in front of me keep taking photos and videos. The worst are the people with selfie sticks or Go Pro's, who hold their cameras up in the air obstructing your view. And ruining your own photos.


I have stores of photos of different concerts. They're all pretty crappy because I'm never in the front row. However when I find one that is different enough or better-composed I can edit them enough to share on Facebook or Instragram. But the whole haul is really tough to sort through becuase they all look the same. I've taken some videos too, most of which I've never re-watched.

A few dynamics and motiavtions that could be going on.
// Susataining an emerging Attention Deficit Disorder? In which real focus on the action is not possible.
// An addiction to capturing a moment and saving it for posterity because it is a unique live moment?
// An over-obsession with capturing a compelling-enough image to share? #blessed

This relates to a previous piece on the post-digital. The term might be limited and too conceptual, but I wonder what the emerging reality will be once we've settled in to all this technology. Will the rate of innovation ever slow down again? One reaction seems to have been the re-emergence of the heightened, live, physical, visceral experience that will never happen again. Which has always been the appeal of live theater and music. However there is this weird dynamic now where we'll go to a live concert rather than stay home and stare at a screen, only to obstruct our own experience and use a screen to live-document it.

This is on my mind because I think we have to be mindful of the behavior created through what is only going to be an increasing attachment to technology. It's always in our hands now, and soon it will be all throughout our homes, cars, washing machines, clothes, offices, cities. I wonder if we'll ever find a way of being that we can hold on to that has nothing to do with technology?

In the meantime here is to managing concert clicks and camera use.

Saturday, March 5, 2016

Film to Television

Changing tastes based on social media behavior

This was Oscar week. Leo finally won. Most of the skits referenced the absence of any African-American nominees in major categories by being all about African-Americans. There was a big emphasis on not asking ladies who they were wearing, though as Chris Rock mentioned in his monologue maybe guys would be asked the question too if they weren't all wearing the same thing. There was a Girl Scout cookie feature.

In recent years I've watched the Oscars with more and more detachment. I still see the show every year out of tradition, having done it ever since I was a kid. But the habit has moved from being a huge family practice to one of more detached monitoring.

We were a huge movie family, a passion passed down to us from our father. We were schooled in all the necessary trilogies, many of the classics, a lot of musicals and a healthy dose of Disney. Even when I was too young to see the nominated movies, my older sister followed industry news and I caught the bug. We knew the actors, directors and films nomintaed every year. For a long time I watched the ceremony looking forward mostly to seeing how the year's Disney offering would be represented, usually a major variety number, and one year with extra pride as it featured our very own Lea Salonga. On Oscar mornings (because of the time difference) we would all gather to watch the red carpet interviews and then track the winners. One of dad's best gifts was a movie journal which included a listing of all the historical top category Oscar winners, with spaces for upcoming years. Every year I would diligently fill in the blanks as awards were given out. We even started printing out the New York Times Oscar ballots as a family challenge. (I was terrible at picking winners.)

Over the years however our interest in film has waned and television programs have become a bigger passion point. We all still watch movies, but starting with the (pirated) DVD revolution going to the cinema became less appealing and was suddenly saved for major blockbusters. We started joking with a way to review movies by deciding if they were worth going to the theater for, "pang DVD lang" ("DVD at home will do"), or worse, "pang treadmill". Huge movies still get me excited - Avatar was one of the most captivating theater experiences I've had in recent-ish years. The family waited for me to come home last year from Singapore so we could all watch Star Wars: The Force Awakens together.

But when we Skype on Sunday nights, what always comes up are updates on what TV we've been watching. I have a few programs in common with my sibilngs and parents, and those are always hot topics. Recent debates in our family have included whether you're on Team Mama Pope or on Team Papa Pope, which house you fall under whether Stark, Targaryan, Lannister, or worst of all Greyjoy, etc. When Heroes was new and still good out my sister, brother and I would crowd around the computer together to see the latest episodes. We watched quite a few seasons of Top Chef that way also. There was one weekend where my younger sister and I, who shared a room and TV at the time, watched The OC all night until three or four in the morning, went to bed, and resumed the season as soon as we woke up and all throughout the day. She and I have also done this thing where we "trade" TV pilots to try and get the other person watching a favorite show. I succeeded in hitching her to Mad Men, while I didn't take as well to her offering (Band of Brothers). Reacting to major TV moments and trading recommendations continues to be a running thread on our family Whatsapp.

After I moved away from home I became a 100% cord cutter relying on streaming and digital options completely, and becoming my own content programmer. That habit continues to this day. I follow maybe 20+ shows at a time, with varying degrees of attentiveness. Some shows like Mad Men are watched strictly mobile-free, while other programs are on while I monitor e-mail and Facebook, cook, clean, etc.

Even among wider social circles, in person and on social media, TV watercooler moments seem to have become the buzzier topic than film. I'm looking for stats to validate this. But even by virtue of the number of hours in a given TV season, and the length of time a season runs, compared to the 90-120 movie minutes, there is more to react to on TV. I still watch movies, but I would give up movies forever over TV, any day.

Outside of my own personal behavior, I can't validate for sure that TV has overtaken film. It certainly isn't an apples-to-apples situation. But the preoccupation with television has grown for sure. It is now a strong writers medium, and attracts even movie talent, while catapulting fresh new faces to fame, whereas TV used to feel like the poor man's silver screen. I remember, going back to when I was a kid watching award shows, the Golden Globes seemed like such an awkward ceremony becuase the TV actors were just so clearly on a lower fame and cultural acceptance level compared to the movie stars. But watching the Globes now, I cheer even more for the TV categories than for the film ones.

I plan to look in to this, but it seems plausible that we can use some of the new behaviors created by new social and digital habits that have impacted the preference for television.

  • Through the social media feed, audiences have been taught to consume more content, in smaller chunks. Although digital takes "byte-size" to a new extreme, with Vine videos for example now down to six seconds, this theme fits with television versus film. TV is cut into episodes that build the story over time, instead of investing in one single longer-form piece of content.
  • Social has also taught us to express and appreciate a depth of personality. Digital celebrities have built their fame on their personas, while today's actors and actresses, even musicians and models, are forced to show theirs through personal content feeds. Films have still been able to create iconic characters, but nowhere near the same way that television characters are not just established but tested against so many different situations. I'm sure there are arguments that TV's episodic nature doesn't necessarily lead to more character depth, but if I think about the evolution of someone like Walter on Fringe, Tyrion on Game of Thornes, even Lady Mary in Downton Abbey, there is potentially more to a character when there are more hours of potential screen time to get to know - and become attached to - them.
  • Not just social but the whole digital space is catered to exploring and going deeper in to our passion areas. Whether you're intersted in knitting, citizen science, sous vide recipes, YouTube musicals, or almost literally whatever, you can find communities and spaces online to explore and express those interest areas. TV plays on this by potentially adding complexity with every episode. It's always a case-to-case basis - there are crap shows just as there are crap films. But based on the medium potenial, this is better achieved with TV. 

I still enjoy movies and haven't given up on film, that isn't the point. (As I write this I'm listening to my Movie Themes playlist which features scores from Star Wars, Jurassic Park, Little Women, Mighty Ducks... more of my chidlhood favorites that make anything feel epic.) But it is interesting to note how alive the medium has become and how our tastes and preferences are evolving in a way that I think is more affected by our growing exposure to social and digital media. As these habits evolve, it will be intersting to see any the new dimensions and levels of craft in television, but also whether, as we leave the confines of the programming schedule and even potentially geographic boundaries of IP contracts, what new channels and formats will be created.


Thursday, February 11, 2016

The new normal

I saw a media plan recently with YouTube as the only paid channel, to fully support a new content launch. It was a web film, the digital version of a luxuriously lengthy 90-second spot.

The transformation is now complete. YouTube is the new broadcast media, Netflix the new cable. Congratulations, marketing. We've found a way to completely transplant our exact same activities and strategies into the new media, no need to worry about interactivity, participation, people in-market, micro-moments or any of that sort of crap.

This type of thing obviously depresses me a little. Like we've found a comfort zone where we do just enough to be able to tick the boxes and feel like we're being integrated. A few pieces of extra content here, a few blogger engagement initiatives there and done! The old advertorial and press release, reincarnated.

I don't hope for the end of the old-school campaign, I really don't. But amdist the planning for a mountain of a content spike, have we done the due diligence of checking how well our website is performing, how we're going to compete in search, what usage occasions we'd like to become part of, whether there is an opportunity here for loyalty? Are we considering pushing play on anything personalized, automated, smart?

In this abundantly awesome digital world where we can forge new connections without having to lean solely on emotion to build relationships, why do we insist on thinking about contained, isolated campaigns?

Clearly the old guard is still in the driver's seat. Am I allowed to use two idioms? I don't know if I can even really claim to be a member of the new generation. But I still can't wait to see what the new world of marketing looks like.


Monday, February 1, 2016

death of the singular brand space

Is embracing diversity brand suicide?

Axe has been in the news for their new campaign, “Find Your Magic”. I don’t know if this will change the overall brand direction, or whether it is just a one-time blip to appease/attract alternative user segments.

Axe is known for its unapologetic depiction of masculinity (and chauvinism?), tapping in to lust and the desire. The “Axe Effect” has inspired young men across the globe with the lure of becoming savvier ladies men. This extensive reivew of Axe’s historical print work reminds us of the brand’s single-minded focus on being able to score under a range of circumstances. The brand often shows an aspirational image or situation and only once in awhile does its advertising actually acknowledge that its communication persona is different from its end-users, many of whom could be absolutely average guys.

There has always been a gap between how Axe presents itself with its ladykiller brand persona, and its end-users. With “Find Your Magic” Axe is now embracing and depicting their consumers – big nose, big hair, overzealous, geeky, disabled, and even cross-dresser or homosexual. Especially the latter two were surprising for a brand that has been so single-minded in the past.

The brand now even acknowledges that guys can be particular and finicky with their hair. A guy spending time "doing his hair” is just not part of the traditional idea of alpha masculinity. In Axe's accompanying “Instagroom” video series guys are shown blowdyring, meticulously combing, and styling with a range of products. Not even one all-purpose man hair balm, but an actual range of men's grooming products for all sorts of different styles. I'm not disputing that men have been metro for awhile now, but that a brand like Axe would suddenly claim this behavior and actively portray it seems far-off from their usual route.

A common advertising discussion is whether your target consumers want to see themselves in communication efforts, or someone more aspirational. Axe has always played squarely on the latter approach, a clear focus on portraying hyper masculinity. This move is an interesting one to embrace their audience as both consumer and communication focus.


As a non-target and general consumer I appreciate Axe’s new point of view. I will find it distasteful only if Axe goes back to the tired ladykiller when it launches its next body spray campaign (this one is for hair grooming). It would seem that consumers, or at least Axe’s audience, have matured (in mindset if not in age) and can more consciously call the BS on their former position. But as films and television have evolved to accommodate more complicated characters, and diversity debates are now bringing minorities to the forefront it seems only right and also fantastic that brands are willing to evolve.

As a planner, however, I wonder what it means when big brands that have worked so hard to craft single-minded spaces expand their position to account for complexity and diversity. Classic strategies laud Apple for becoming synonymous with design, Coca-cola with happiness, Volvo with safety, Axe for ladykilling.

Advertising strategies are made of focused audience portraits, singlular insights and single-minded propositions. What room is there within that framework for diversity?

This leaves me with more questions than opinions: How can brands truly embrace diversity while maintaining brand identity? Is diversity something that only established brands can truly claim? What happens to the single-minded focus when brands want and need to be congizant of a wider definition of people? Will this type of thinking lead to to a more in-depth psycographic study in order to find characteristics that appeal to a wider audience? Will ‘having a diversity POV’ become an integral part of the masterbrand narrative? Will depicting the consumer in the ad become more important to audiences? Is there really room for diversity in the brand persona? Will this change the strategic planning discipline?

So much to consider and what a gloriously mad time to be in advertising.


Sunday, January 31, 2016

Are you smarter than your tea kettle?

So you think you're smarter than your furniture?
This Smarter iKettle 2.0 Wifi Kettle was a featured product on's homepage. It certainly provides a service but just becuase you can enable this type of technology, does it really mean you should?

Its features include

  • "Remote boil your iKettle from anywhere in the home.
  • Water Level sensor shows you exactly how much water is in the iKettle on the App
  • Make night feeds easier, remotely boil and be notified once the water reaches your desired temperature
  • Select any temperature between 20-100c to get the best taste from your chosen tea
  • Wake Up mode and home mode allow you to schedule your kettle at a time to suit you."

Just because you can, does it mean you should?

We will discover in the near future that there is a fine line between the concept of a "smart" house or "smart" life and what is actually a lazy technology-enabled life, e.g. use your app instead of your eyes to check "how much water is in the Kettle".

This is distinctly different from the current crop of digital-first businesses such as Uber and Airbnb that provide services that literally were not available before, i.e. personal drivers or a worldwide database of more affordable travel accommodation. However many of the new smart devices use technology to do what humans used to and still do absolutely fine in an analog way. Sure you can be a little smarter about something, i.e. "exactly how much water is in the kettle" vs. approximately how much water is in the kettle. But it begs the quetsion, is any of that necessary?

One day we will need someone to help us figure out how to manage technology in the home. Sure, some things will make life better and easier. But do we really want to be completely app- and phone-dependent? If you lose your phone will that mean you won't be able to enter your house, turn your lights on or, as the case may be, heat up water for your tea? And in the case that you are still able to enter, will your mouth suddently reject water that is generally hot and not the exact "temperature between 20-100c to get the best taste from your chosen tea"? Or in a slightly more paranoid but completely realistic scenario, do we really want to create more openings for hackers to enter our homes and spy on our babies, blow up our tea kettles or turn our rooms an unchangeable pink? (Baby monitor streaming, smart kettles, smart lightblubs.) Or lock us out of our homes and worse, let intruders or thieves inside? (Smart door locks.)

I might be in the digital practice from the marekting side, but the booming technology side is all-in-all, alongside occasionally being useful, baffling, ridiculous and terrifying.


Tuesday, January 26, 2016

switching lanes

I give myself nine months at every new job, the length of time I stayed at my first company. 

I don’t tell myself to quit after nine, but I give myself this mental out in case things don’t work out. I don’t know if it is me too jaded or maybe just being prudent to go in thinking that there will inevitably be parts of the new experience that won't work. And just in case the negatives outweigh the positives, I allow myself to go.

Nine is a meaningful number because that first company was one I had reservations about, but grew to really enjoy and see great potential in. I didn’t quit but had to leave because the company closed.  
I was halfhearted the job at first. I wanted to work in advertising but with no experience, no agency was willing to take me. While I got offers from other non-agencies, the only job I was willing to take was at MTV Philippines. It was a short-term contract, the department was PR, and I figured it was still within the marketing communications sphere and it couldn’t hurt to get at least get some job experience. 

I don’t think we practiced PR in any sophisticated way. We would write press releases about new shows and events, and a big part of my scope was printing, packaging and labeling them to go out to our Excel sheet of media contacts every month. Work wasn’t particularly demanding, and I read my first fiction book in four years on the job. I even started to go to the gym almost every day.

It wasn't challening but it was extremely fun, the perfect first job for a fresh graduate. We had events almost every week and part of our work was to manage press at these concerts and parties. I don’t think I did much managing, but I did enjoy the copious amounts of alcohol served. I was also super young and felt cool because we had minor celebrities in our midst and I never got hangovers. 

Halfway through my contract I started calling agencies again. The parties were fantastic but like a real millennial I was worried about career growth. Somehow the digital team found out I was looking for work and invited me to join instead of leaving for an agency. I wasn’t clear on what they did exactly, but I liked the idea. My contract was renewed and converted to the digital team. 

Immediately they tasked me with creating content for our website. I started to take photos and videos at our events and interview the artists that would come to our studio. I started making (passable) webpages that went up on our site using manual WYSIWYG because the CMS was shite. I worked with our marketing and content teams to come up with integrated initiatives - we had the channel, the VJs, local content and the website. We even had media partners for additional amplification. I found myself thinking through-channels with an emphasis of course on digital. I managed our community which was, pre-Facebook, an email fan list. I loved it. It was dynamic and two-way and media-rich. I was sold.

I would have stayed longer, but by some twist of fate MTV decided to close. I was too young and junior to understand why we weren’t profitable enough to renew the license locally. But nine months after starting at a company that I was lukewarm about at first, I left with a strong affinity and a new digital orientation.

I still wanted to get into advertising but I took my digital aspiration with me. As I was looking for a new job the agency I had interned at called. The role was in accounts, which I wasn’t keen on. But it was advertising and I finally had an opening. So I took it. And I told myself to stay for at least nine months, at least as long as MTV, to give it a real shot.

I stayed with that agency for seven years.

Seven years.

I only lasted in accounts for six months, but I asked to take a new task to launch and grow our digital services. I was eventually invited to make the career switch into planning, still with a digital slant. I got to set up my own planning team. If you count my time under the same agency brand, but moving to a different market, I stayed for eight.

Today it doesn’t even seem to be possible to stay at one place for that long. 

In my last two jobs I've only stayed for 12mos+. One that ended because of changes in global alignment, and the next because of value misalignment. 

This week I started yet again at another new place. 
I'm telling myself - nine months.

I've gotten so jaded and my new employers probably don't know that a couple of times each day I've had "fight or flee" moments, when things don't seem like they make sense, or when I'm taken aback by what seem like weird processes.

I'm pre-judging of course, and reminding myself to get a hold on the situation before I make a real call. I'm keeping in mind that nowhere is perfect and that what to keep in mind is potential. Inhale, exhale. 

It has been four days. 

And if I ever stop counting I'll know that I've found a new home. 

I don't know if I'll make it to seven years again, or eight, but not to be counting the days, weeks or months that I've managed not to leave would be a good start.

I'll let you know how I'm feeling in nine months......


Friday, December 11, 2015


  • Streaming is the new cable.
  • Gifs are the new flipbooks
  • Afterbuzz is the new formalist reading.
  • Gamification is the new CRM.

Tuesday, December 8, 2015

Remarketing Overkill

Do you ever get the feeling that brands are stalking you? Like no matter where you go online, certain websites are following you? I've noticed this before, especially with travel or shopping sites, but the ads die down eventually.

Recently, one brand has been so relentless that I couldn't help but notice how unforgivingly present it is everywhere I go online. Narrative Clip is EVERYWHERE. I clicked on one of their sponsored ads on Facebook because I find the idea of personal surveillance interesting. However at a current price tag of over $200 it isn't something I'm ready to buy. I can remember going to the site only once but with the pervasiveness of the Narrative Clip ads that followed, I'm trying to recall if I maybe visited it maybe a million more times. In any case, ever since, the ads have trailed me all over the web and social.

I saw the ad many, many times before I started to take screen caps every time I saw it again. These were all taken within a few days:



Too much?

Remarketing is a common practice in digital advertising. The rationale stems from traditional media buying which recommends a minimum frequency required for an ad to reach saliency. We are less likely to remember an ad, or want to buy something it is selling, if we see it only once. But at, say, six to ten times later, you are much more likely to remember it and possibly even be ready to buy it.

Digital advertising has expounded on this thinking. A consumer who is exposed to an ad and doesn't click is may not be interested, whereas someone who clicks through to the website is hypothetically more keen on the brand or product. That said, one-time exposure to the content may not be enough to persuade him or her to sign up, buy, subscribe or register. However given their level of interest (versus someone who had never visited the site at all) exposing them to additional calls-to-action even after they leave the site might entice them to come back and ultimately convert.

Most of the media campaigns I've worked on that included remarketing as a tactic showed higher click-through rates for remarketed ads. So if someone had visited your website before, they are more likely to click, re-explore and convert. This leads to better efficiencies and happier agencies and clients.

Narrative Clip's remarketing efforts, on the other hand, seem extremely wasteful. I had already decided, based on the initial website review (and price point) that I was not going to buy. Yet continued to hit me at an illogically high rate and wasted media dollars. The case made me think of ways that marketers and end up mis-using remarketing.

Here are a few things they and other marketers can consider when creating and reviewing remarketing plans:
  • Remarket based on the customer's journey. Level of interest should dictate how much to remarket, if at all. Do you want to remarket to everyone who visits the site, or just those who click through to an inner page? Are there certain calls-to-action that register deeper interest, e.g. A "Buy Now" button? In Narrative Clip's case, I did scroll all the way down the page to see the price, but as that was what turned me off, may not be the right filter to gauge whether or not to remarket.
  • Remarket with alternative messaging. The same ad that drew a customer to the site is probably not be the best way to get them to re-examine the product. How about an offer? This doesn't have to be a price-off, and can even be an existing mechanic such as free shipping. Other slants can include press reviews, awards, testimonials, additional features.
  • Activate frequency capping. When a customer has seen the ad X times and not clicked, they are probably not interested!

When we have these remarketing conversations at work, I have to remind myself to park my consumer self who still finds this level of "stalking" quite unsettling. It is an accepted part of the landscape though and brands need to go easy on the new capabilities so as not to alarm consumers and freak them out unnecessarily.


Monday, November 23, 2015

Multi-Funnel Digital Strategy

Have been thinking about a through-funnel marketing approach, and tried to have this ready in time for the YMMA Summit last year. Couldn't get the framework done in a simple enough way to present, but fleshed it out earlier this year. Happy to finally be able to share.


Real-Time Marketing

I was asked to give a talk earlier this year on Real-Time Marketing. It is definitely a valid concern for many marketers, but I think it is more of a characteristic of the space rather than something to really strategize around. That said, it is an important consideration and can be cut up into many frames of thinking.


Tuesday, November 3, 2015

"Have perfected the ‘looking busy’ look"
"No longer worry about looking smart"
"Look forward to doctor or dentist appointments"

After many years as a disgruntled employee who has felt in turns or simultaneously overworked and underpaid, I now find myself a manager fearful of being quit on myself. Call it karma? For all the times I served a supervisor with a competitive offer or a resignation letter.

It hasn't happened yet but I guess it is only a matter of time. Good thing there are guides like this one that help me look out for the signs of unhappy employees. These are three of my favorite entries from the list. Noted with thanks.


Sunday, October 18, 2015

problem-definition via ---- pics

The way you frame a question affects the quality of the solution.

In marketing we can sometimes focus too much on the answer without making sure we're doing our due diligence in defining the problem. Trying to get more people to keep X chocolate bar top-of-mind could be answered in an ifninite number of ways vs. trying to get people to see the same bar as something to buy for everyday occasion instead of only on holidays as previous marketing efforts had focused on.

Here is a masterclass in proper problem-identification.

Context and need: The pending re-authorization of the Patriot Act, which gave the US government vast access to citizens' private data, without needing to disclose the level of surveillance. Snowden sought to spread awareness about this by sharing government data with journalists. It was widely covered in the news, but John Oliver highlights how most/many Americans were still ignorant of the issues at play, and therefore remianed indifferent to the law's re-authorization.

Solution: Highlight the implications of US government surveillance using an issue that Americans are deeply passionate about.

PS/ Obviously I love this show. Mabuhay, John Oliver!

Saturday, September 5, 2015


Despite new viewing habits, television content still sticks to old formats

Wet Hot American summer was released in one eight-episode go, the whole series immediately available to binge on. Netflix releases all their original content this way, starting with House of Cards in 2013. Un-Real, though aired on Lifetime, released the show's first four episodes onilne along with the on-air season premiere. 
I watched the first four episodes of Wet Hot in one shot, stopping only to find and view the original film. I am a TV binge-r, and habitually watch shows straight. I remember when my sister and I first binged on an entire season of The OC. We were sharing a room and even if she hadn't seen much of the show prior she started watching when I put the DVDs in. At the end of every episode we couldn't stop the machine from automatically playing the next one. We had started in the afternoon, stopped only to eat dinner and then continued to watch straight until 4 am the next morning. When we woke up we just resumed watching until we were flat out of episodes.

Straight shot viewing seems to be part of the engagement model. It is tough to watch one episode at a time, and unless I am deathly afraid to be spoiled (e.g. Game of Thonres), I prefer to hoard episodes. What is the reason behind this behavior? It could be loneliness or feeling like you just need to finish a show that you've already invested in.

Given this mode of viewing that studios feed by releasing entire seasons at once, it makes me wonder if episode specs will be maintained as viewer habits shift. Wet Hot still shows opening and closing credits, and the episodes fit the half-hour format. At 28 minutes per episode, they don't need to leave time for ads but still fit within that standard timeslot. House of Cards fits within the hour-long time slot. These are the two typical episode lengths aligned with how programming is planned and scheduled. However when people are watching television online and often practically as a mini-series, will episode lengths eventually change beyond these uniform durations? To mini-clip shorts or even feature length episodes?

Entertainment formats are platform-driven. Except for cable shows, most television programs run for 22 or 44 minutes, leaving time for ads, as standard lengths that can be programmed into a pre-determined time slots. To signify the start of an episode there is often a summary of relevant events in previous episodes ("Previously on..."), which you might have forgotten if you're watching on a weekly basis. Many shows also have opening and closing credits that we associate with the start and end - which have to be in the show material itself becuase there is no external webpage that could include that information.

This reminds me of the intermissions that were once standard in movies. I remember seeing this when we were kids watching classic films on laser disc. As someone who usually has to leave the theater to go to the bathroom (thanks, RunPee), I wouldn't mind if more movies had an offical break. But on the other hand, why cut the action and lose momentum? It turns out that they used to need this time to change reels. "In cinema’s early days, intermissions were necessary to allow projectionists to change out film reels. When the French silent film The Loves of Queen Elizabeth opened in New York in 1912, it consisted of four whole reels and an individual intermission accompanied each." (The Outtake) Intermissions were a necessary, platform-driven spec.

I suppose that when the technology evolved there was suddenly no need to stop a film to change the reel, and this is one platform spec that has been changed.

Movies have always had a much freer rein on length and duration. To qualify as a film a material must be at least ninety minutes long, but they can go to LOTR lengths of three hours and counting. Will television programming eventually evolve this way as well?

While there are online-only content networks like Netflix, Hulu and Amazon, most television programming is still tied to linear and ad-driven programming schedules. We still have "late night" TV, shows are still scheduled during a supposed "prime" time, morning programming is largely news-led and "daytime TV" consists of soap opears. Episode lengths are determined by the number of ads that will be run. It is still one timeline being mapped out by networks, with content and cost per hour, per minute, per second. In advertising time determines cost, a 15s material costs much less than a 30s vs. a 60s or, the ultimate TV luxury, the 90-second commercial.

As someone who views shows often by the season, hasn't seen a TV ad on TV in years, never watches the morning news and views late night shows at any hour of the day, I wonder what changes lie ahead for this particular platform. As we move online where units of time become less as we select our own non-time lines, I wonder what innovations we will see in entertainment formatting.

© be your digital best / digital marketing philippines

This site uses cookies from Google to deliver its services - Click here for information.

Blogger Template Created by pipdig