Each month we publish a digest of the 3 key topics that got our group talking. Each month we publish a digest of the 3 key topics that got our group talking, plus the 5 most read stories by the group.

We hope you enjoy what the group had to say….

How the #?@!! should we manage social media?

Social media is the dominant conversation topic in digital and the platform that’s threatening to turn media consumption charts upside down. It was also the hottest issue on Media Minds this month.
Multiple discussions saw group members discuss: where corporate responsibility for social media lies; how to measure success; Facebook’s latest moves to wow the ad industry, and Google’s attempt to get everyone Buzz-ing.
The Group agreed that serious social media efforts should be an issue for top management, however there was less unanimity on the subject of metrics. Responding to the suggestion that offline dinosaurs were attempting to foist old-school online metrics onto social media, most agreed that the aims of a campaign would determine the appropriate measures. The problem is that many companies don’t have clarity around what they were trying to achieve.
The power of social media might cause marketers to allocate more of their brand budgets to digital, but real progress will come when social media activity can be correlated strongly with total sales data. Some argued that simply using online sales information risked underplaying the role of social media.
The arrival of Google Buzz was distinctly underwhelming, while the power of Facebook for “well optimised DR display” was praised.
However, the initiative that attracted the warmest response was Facebook’s tie up with Nielsen, providing the research giant with first access to data from 400m profile pages.

MediaSense thinks: At a very basic “push” level, social represents an amazingly efficient display medium, as many products have already discovered. At a more sophisticated “pull” level, it presents brands with an opportunity to develop and nourish influential communities, using engagement and referral metrics. Ultimately, the success of both levels can be measured by conversion metrics, and will increasingly need to be managed together.

Pitch invasion

The outcome of the UK’s biggest-ever media pitch started a global debate about the future of standalone digital agencies. In winning the COI (the UK Government’s central marketing services management and procurement agency) account, WPP’s successful M4C collective cast doubt on the more conventional separation of offline and digital specialists.
Media Minds members agreed that the appointment confirmed the need to tie digital thinking into a “total communications” approach, but a range of voices said this was a challenge,whether the expertise lay within different organisations or within different departments. The integration of Media Contacts within Havas’s MPG was singled out for praise.
Protests by agencies in the US and Belgium at client behaviour in pitch processes also caused comment. Attempts by the 4As in the US to protect the “ideas” offered by pitching agencies were largely disparaged. The ideas presented at pitches were rarely used: one member argued that since “the best campaigns are collaborative, as a sense of joint ownership is required to turn a good idea into a great idea – [this is] partly why they are also so rare”.
Members also noted the “virtual strike” by Belgian agencies to protest at aggressive behaviour by clients – specifically, extra-long pitch lists that cost agencies a fortune with little chance of success.
Perhaps fortuitously given these gripes, the ANA in the US also reported that the number of media pitches is likely to fall in 2010. Clients are no longer looking for the same level of savings as they were in 2009, putting incumbents in the box seat.

MediaSense thinks: 2009 was an unusual year- we estimate pitch activity globally rose by 40% over 2008. In 2010, activity will recede, and smart clients will invest more time in managing existing rosters professionally and productively. As processes and data analysis become more embedded, we also expect more international pitches to result in greater retention in the future.

Too many platforms, not enough revenue

The impact of technology on our media habits was a hot topic as media thinkers weigh up the likely impact of new Web TV services such as SeeSaw in the UK, HBO GO in the US and the possible arrival of Project Canvas in the UK.
For some it is a case of too much choice and not enough content – and a failure to confront the biggest issue, the simplification of TV broadcast rights which currently means a channel can broadcast a show but cannot make it available for on-demand viewing.
The demise of Joost Mk 1, bankruptcy claims for Veoh and the continued unprofitability of five year old YouTube were all a cited by group members as evidence that revenues will be difficult to secure in the long tail.
Apple once again made waves this month with the first sight of what the iPad might mean for magazines. Videos of how Wired Magazine and Penguin Books are visualising the new platform wowed those who clicked through.
Apple’s plans to reinvent mobile ads were less well received. One commentator noted that it’s “very dangerous when the ‘medium’ starts vetting the message – after all advertising doesn’t need necessarily to be as funky as the device in order to be effective. Some of the most tedious advertising of all time has proven to be great for sales – ask Unilever and Procter”.

MediaSense thinks: Web TV and Digital Publishing are great opportunities for media owners to extend the monetisation of their content, but will be most successful as collaborative marketplaces as opposed to standalone models. Apple is ahead of the curve, but won’t succeed if it takes an isolationist approach to advertising.

This month’s most read articles were:

1. Kognitio signs with Group M
2. ZO goes Global with branded entertainment
3. Sky buying Virgin TV
4. Mediacom Australia’s strategy shift
5. Unilever retains Mindshare

In a nutshell, this is MediaSense’s business mantra!

To see the story in Advertising Age click here

http://adage.com/cmostrategy/article?article_id=142261

The group is intended as a collaborative dialogue with those who have a genuine passion for the sector, and who strive for better media outcomes and positive change.

Members of Media Minds work for media owners, media and advertising agencies, brand owners, media consultancies and media regulators. The Group now numbers over 400 members from around the world.

At the end of our first month as a community, and as a way of saying “thank you” to our members, we produced a digest of the 3 key topics that got people talking, plus the 5 most read stories by the group.

We hope you enjoy what the group had to say….

MEASURE FOR MEASURE

The contentious issue of metrics created heated debate this month. Asked to comment on the notion that applying “old-media” metrics to digital channels was a retrograde step, group members argued for and against panel methodologies.

Others disagreed over whether media comparability is essential to encourage marketing directors to buy digital for brand messages. At the heart of the argument for comparability was the proposition that marketing directors struggled to relate CPAs and CPMs to GRPs and coverage numbers they were used to.

Those opposed to this point of view argued that digital is such a different place – with its niche target audiences and deeper engagement – that it needed its own bespoke measures. Conversely some argued that current digital measures were so performance-based that anything that didn’t deliver immediate results was “optimized” off the schedule by many advertisers.

Finally there was a call to recognise that all measures of reach and frequency were flawed and should be regarded as merely a proxy for media’s ability to change the way consumers actually behave. The question of what to measure and how to measure it has never been more pertinent.

MediaSense thinks : In the future, nearly all ads will be “served” in some way. Performance-based metrics will therefore overwhelm old survey-based metrics. The definition of “performance” will become more customised, and this is the real challenge and opportunity for practitioners and their clients.

THE AIRTIME SQUEEZE

Regulators in several markets are concerned about the long-term health of local broadcast media companies.In France, the government is calling for an online super-tax for redistributing media wealth. In Italy, pay channels have to cut in the amount of advertising minutage they offer from this month, as it is recognised that they have “less need of advertising funding”.

Meanwhile in the UK, media regulator Ofcom’s proposals to reform the CRR mechanism that controls how the market’s biggest commercial broadcaster ITV sells its airtime included – for the first time – the ability to limit the amount of time TV sales houses actually sell. This was backed by soon-to-depart C4 boss Andy Duncan, who argued that TV channels should be allowed to restrict supply in order to keep prices high.

Group members observed that such moves would fatally undermine the CRR mechanism as a whole and suggested that perhaps it was time to be rid of the whole thing.

MediaSense thinks: There has been a considerable shift in power away from advertising-only models to hybrid models, which regulators have been slow to appreciate. The CRR is not serving the long-term health of the UK TV industry and needs to go. The termination date should be set at January 1st 2012, to allow advertisers, agencies and ITV competitors to prepare.

ADVERTISING GOES GLOBILE

Battle is set for the mobile space as Google and Apple go head to head, with the former launching its first phone and the latter buying mobile ad network Quattro Wireless. Other acquisitions of note included the buy up of Ring Ring Media by Amobee.

The appeal of new technology for brands was highlighted in the UK by the fact that new VOD platform SeeSaw – which will carry content from the BBC – is supported by ads from Cadbury, Nivea and Sainsbury.

The big hype of the month, however, was the launch of the iPad, Apple’s attempt to create a new segment in the portable media space. Some group members sardonically noted Apple’s track record in helping the music business out of its digital malaise and were skeptical as to whether it would benefit the print industry but others were more positive about the benefits. Time – and sales – will tell.

MediaSense thinks: Mobile devices will soon start to devour the ad revenue cake. The drivers will be the combination of mass penetration with CRM analytics, but also the booming applications market. This is the next land-grab for agencies and technology companies.

MOST READ ARTICLES

1. Kantar lunches new media unit
2. Aviva appoints Zenith
3. EDF appoints MPG
4. COI appoints Group M
5. Aegis expands into China

GSMA Mobile Metrics will provide rich audience, planning and reporting information to help the marketing community realise the potential of this fast growing channel.

MediaSense was launched in April 2009 by Andy Pearch, ex-CEO of Billetts and Graham Brown, ex Group Development Director, Aegis plc and Managing Director, Carat International.

Andy Pearch commented: “We are delighted that Dominic is going to be working with us. He is a first-class relationship builder and commercial operator who understands the advertising and media business inside out. Having worked on both the media owner and media agency sides of the fence, he has a mature and in-depth perspective on the media sector that will be an ideal complement to our business.”

Dominic Stead commented: “I am very excited to be working with Media Sense. They have developed a new and potentially transformational approach to managing performance across communications channels for brand owners. It’s a great time to join them and I’m looking forward to helping them realise their potential.”

To see the story in Media Week, click here

Reading the Recession is an essential reference and information source for anyone making marketing investment decisions in 2010.

Among the findings :
- April 2009 was the low point of the downturn.
- All indicators have since improved, but still remain negative.
- Job vacancies in IT, Secretarial, Construction and Sales have fallen by over 50%.
- Job vacancies in Education, Health and Social Services have been the least affected.
- Government ad spend increased by 33% over the period.
- Supermarkets increased ad spend by 14% over the period.
- Motor manufacturers wiped 28% off ad budgets over the period.
- Retail, supermarkets, technology and FMCG hold the key to ad spend growth in 2010.
- Marketing spends should rise in 2010, but recovery will be patchy and anaemic.

For more information and a preview of the report, go to http://www.nielsenmedia.co.uk/recession/reading_the_recession.html

“2009 will leave many people in the media agency world bruised, scarred, exhausted and quite possibly downhearted. No year in living memory has witnessed such a plunge in ad spend levels. No year this decade has witnessed so many account reviews.

MediaSense is of course an active participant in change processes, but we feel an obligation and responsibility to express our concerns about the worrying trends we are observing in the media industry, which, if unchecked, will threaten its long-term health.

Bad pitch processes tend to fall into one of two categories : the poorly-organised and the cost-obsessed. (Some combine both.) Poor preparation is a serious mistake, which no process properly recovers from and can fracture old and new relationships. An excessive focus on cost not only undermines the client/agency relationship, but also the agency/media owner relationship.

Most process problems (eg. over-long timetables, process flip-flopping) can be anticipated and overcome with sufficient thinking and resourcing before the event, but it is evident in your article (23/10) on recent media reviews that several clients are insufficiently preparing/prepared for such rigorous processes.

There is also a small but growing band of clients which are putting cost savings at the centre of their process. This is inevitable in these economic times, and justified as long as the process is robust and consistent with this objective. But here again, the numerous tales of short-cutting and bad maths are indicative of poorly planned and managed processes.

The use of grids and spreadsheets to evaluate and compare buying ability is a practice which can completely dislocate performance from client objectives. If carried out in isolation, this woefully oversimplifies the negotiation process. Having selected a “winner”, everyone then scratches their heads questioning how these commitments can be put into the contract ! Worse still is the auctioning of buying rates to select the best “supplier”, which relegates the craft of media buying to the sport of online gambling.

Clients taking such cost-centric approaches risk eventually becoming commoditized themselves, as the inevitable quid pro quo is to accept undesired inventory and highly restrictive trading caveats. Many of these clients will still be buying rating points by the yard when their competitors have moved on to engage with their customers in far deeper and more profitable ways.

Agencies which are prepared to win business at any cost are also on the road to self-commoditization. By constantly shuffling their pack and dealing low cards to the media owners they are frittering their reputations away. Their client relationships will tend to become more brittle, loyal clients becoming fed up with subsidizing new business gains,.

There is another key player in the pitch process – the third party advisors. The style, content and outcome of any pitch process is very heavily influenced by the kind of company hired for the job. It is infuriating to see such ‘advisors’ actively encouraging agency churn, attempting to take the moral and trust high ground in this area, without taking any responsibility for the outcomes.

Proper pitch management involves setting out rules and boundaries at the start. It involves briefing clearly and transparently on expected outcomes and results. It involves a lot of planning and preparation, not recycled spreadsheets and template briefs. Some advisors however are clearly motivated to use the pitch process as a cross-selling exercise, or to exploit grid-filling tasks as a means of populating their own data pools.

Pitch management requires integrity but risks being commoditized itself by the actions of individuals and organizations which should know better.

So what’s the solution? A more ethical, responsible and mature approach is required from all parties.

Here are some suggestions for raising the bar of pitch management processes in 2010

1. Treat the cost of media as essential hygiene and put it in a box as quickly as possible.

2. Use auctions only to achieve transparency, not to encourage over-promising.

3. Brief consistently, thoroughly efficiently and specifically.

4. Ensure the process steering group provides good governance by providing regular internal and external communications to all stakeholder groups.

5. Don’t leave it late – a good process takes time: leaving it to the last quarter is very risky and clients who do so rarely achieve the desired result.

Date: 20th January 2010

Venue: Corney & Barrow, 12 New Street Square, EC4A 3BF

Aimed at: Members of Mediatel, and anyone with a keen interest in the future of the media industry

Date: 18th March 2010

Venue: Kings Place, 90 York Way, London, N1 9AG

Featuring Speakers from: Conde Nast, Google, CNBC, Telegraph Media Group, Sony Computer Entertainment, Spotify, Sky, AKQA, Cadburys, Nokia, PHD

Aimed at: Senior Executives responsible for media strategy at brand owners, media owners, media and advertising agencies

Annie Rickard, Chief Executive of Posterscope, thinks outdoor trading should move beyond a cost-per-panel basis if its value is to be recognised in the wider media landscape. Is she right ?

YES – Bob Wootton, Director of media & advertising, ISBA
Outdoor is a close-knit and consolidated industry sector, the main constituents of which now have sufficiently sophisticated inventory controls to trade in a different manner that is more consistent with other media channels.

In Postar, it has also invested in the audience research that could support a move from trading on a cost-per-panel basis to cost-per-thousand based on likelihood-to-see. In the modern media environment, cost-per-panel is a largely meaningless supplier-centric notion, whereas audience and relevance are the very reasons for considering out-of-home.

But OOH needs to go much further, as it continues to suffer from a mixed press, particularly related to transparency. Positive moves have been made recently. OOH media owners and specialists now need to develop these and foster far more transparent relationships with advertiser customers.

YES – Nick Parker, Commercial director UK, Kinetic
While knowledge of out-of-home, its audience and the quality of inventory have moved on dramatically, it is still traded as it always was: a commodity sold in two-week blocks, with panel price as its currency.

Our trading currency does need to change to a more audience-based solution reflecting OOH’s proven, growing ability to efficiently reach very attractive audiences. Price per panel should only be one element of any OOH negotiation model.

Each site type and location has an individual positioning and value. Whatever system we develop must not lose sight of this. Funda­mental to the success of a new trading model is the Postar methodology system.

But, vitally, there can’t be a “one-size-fits-all” solution. Changing environments, opportunities and client needs necessitate a carefully planned solution, centered on delivering quality and value for advertisers.

YES – Andy Pearch, Director, MediaSense
The out-of-home sector is mired in an anachronistic and often counter-­productive trading model. Cost-per-panel does not provide the advertiser with a context for value or effectiveness. The planning and buying process is clunky and inflexible, leading to wastage and over-spending. Industry transactions are highly opaque and there is a lack of competition.

A move to a more transparent cost-per-thousand model would benefit both players and advertisers: it would make the market more efficient, enable better comparison of value within and across formats, reward genuine quality, expose poor value and improve confidence among clients. Advertisers would start to buy more flexible and integrated outdoor campaigns. Specialists would deliver more tailored and effective schedules.

The result? An industry with less advertiser churn, lower entry costs, a longer tail of clients and reduced reliance on the few big spenders.

NO – Chris Locke, Trading director, Starcom MediaVest Group
More demographic information would be great, but in the current market no one’s going to pay more for it. Even if the media owners think they can sell on a cost-per-thousand basis, you’re still buying posters.

Plus, all media owners need to trade in the same way and you wouldn’t want to rewrite the rule book in the current market. In fact, it could be a Pandora’s Box if it proves agencies can do what ­clients wan­ted for less. Agencies might realise they don’t need to buy as many sites and can fulfil their briefs in half the number of panels.

This will increase the number of formats on which agencies have information, provide data from GPS tracking and allow better reporting and flexibility, but outdoor media owners won’t be allowed to charge more for it.

How­ever, if they show value, they may be able to take more media pounds and a bigger slice of the pie.