Can automated media planning match instinctive expertise?

This week I saw a tweet from @leorayman asking if Pointlogic client’s can comment on Chorus and if automated media planning can match instinctive expertise: http://twitter.com/leorayman/status/10728837860036608

I never compare Chorus with an expert; I compare an expert using Chorus with him not using Chorus. But let me use this blog to do both and work towards my point of view on the question raised in Leo’s tweet.

Chorus vs. Expert

Communication planning today is incredibly complex and needs to balance data and insights in one hand with creativity and ideas in the other. The communication planner is literally juggling  reach, cost, consumer insights, brand objectives, creative plans, media properties, quality of reach, engagement, historical knowledge from ROI modeling, competitive activity and so on – all factual information available through various data sources. At the same time the communication planner tries to include more creative thinking in how to optimize the chances for viral campaigns, to be noticed; to be talked about; to be different. I believe it is clear that automated planning will beat the expert when it comes to assuring that all factual information is accounted for while the expert will beat automated planning for being effectively different.

So who will come with a better media plan? Many clients opt for planning to be data driven and fact based and Chorus would better satisfy these clients. However, I believe that more clients should show strength in doing things differently and rely on human expertise to guide them through ideas that could potentially stand out.

There is also a practical issue. Most campaigns I know (and for which I have seen the planning with no automated optimization) are actual not that different. It’s mind blowing how much of communication planning is based on “copy the competitors and tweak through ideas & insights”. Chorus provides a zero-based optimization where competitive activity is an input but not a starting point. As such, practice shows that plans delivered by Chorus often show more differentiation based on brand objectives than planner’s output. To set the score: Chorus 1 – 1 Expert .

Expert & Chorus vs. Expert

Now look at the situation where we compare two experts, one using Chorus and one not. The obvious reason why the expert that uses Chorus has a better chance of providing optimal campaigns is that an advanced user understands how to benefit from the fact-based planning results from Chorus and merge it with the more qualitative ideas from himself and other experts; the best of both worlds.

Also there are two key reasons why the optimization feature in Chorus helps creativity (instead of just being perceived as a black box delivering a solution). Firstly, creative ideas can be entered into Chorus (with assumptions on performance) and as such they can be better supported which leads to more clients relying on such creativity. Secondly, a more important and subtle reason, is that I strongly believe creativity and innovation start with insights. The optimization feature – the automated planning – and the possibility to compare plans deliver a whole new area of insights currently not available to planners. To give some examples:

• How does communication plans change if my objective changes from increasing awareness to increasing loyalty? These analyses show which channels perform across the board and which are more niche in nature.
• What happens to the brand results if I remove television altogether? These analyses show which brands and categories can make a major shift towards digital.
• How would media plans change assuming different roles for the media? These analyses show the ability to focus certain channels on one task (perhaps leading to the ability to plan using cheaper formats like half or quarter page ads).
• At what price point will newspapers get 10% of the share and which media will then see spend decrease? This is very useful for negotiations both to know what happens with the 10% price reduction as well as which media is specifically competing with newspapers.

I could give many more examples where Chorus delivers insights that can drive innovations in planning however I’ll close with the updated score: Expert & Chorus 2 – 1 Expert.

Thanks,

Peter

The meaning of synergy

As you know, Pointlogic provides a portfolio of systems and methods to help clients allocate budgets across a number of media. Yesterday I was demonstrating one of our tools and, as in many such demos; I was asked how we deal with synergy. As this is such a significant area, I decided to write my thoughts on this topic.

I like to think of advertising and marketing communication as creating value for the brand with individuals. If John sees an ad on television then something is wired in his brain that leads to value creation, let’s say the value created is $1. If Jack sees an ad outdoors then again there is some value created, let’s say this value is .75 cents. The question behind synergy is what is the value added when Joe that sees the ad on both television as well as outdoor. If the value is $2 then there is a positive synergy, if the value is $1.75 then there is no synergy and with less value there is a negative synergy (or cannibalization).

Understanding synergy is crucial if the value created is only measured in sales (as in most marketing mix models). These models could show sales uplift that we can contribute towards TV, an uplift that we can contribute towards outdoor and an additional uplift that we can contribute towards the combination – the synergetic effect.

So far so good. However, in our research methods like Compose or M3 we look at synergy slightly different. This is because sales are not perceived as a result of advertising but instead as a result of perception changes. Think of it this way, perhaps someone is much more likely to buy a certain mobile provider if they (a) like the brand, (b) understand the pricing, and (c) believes the carrier provides excellent client services. If the TV ad delivers on likability of the brand and shows the pricing and promotions while the outdoor ad delivers a positive perception towards the client services than we’ll see a positive synergy of TV and outdoor towards sales (even if there is no synergy towards the underlying three attributes). Simply put, there is no need for synergy between the media TV and outdoor, instead there is a synergy between the underlying drivers of sales. If someone likes the brand and understands the price the value creation could be $1 and if someone believes the carrier provides excellent client services the value creation is .75 cents. However, if you’re successful on all three drivers the value creation could be $2 (independent on the media that delivered the perception).

I do believe there is synergy between media, for example, seeing a brand across multiple sources could help the perception of “big” (they’re everywhere so they must be big) and other attributes. But this kind of synergy is dwarfed by the much larger effect of different media having a different role to play.

For Pointlogic this means that we strongly endorse looking at synergy based on actual creative executions – synergy is so much more about the actual creative than it is about some mysterious effect of multiple media. For sales models we have to translate media executions to sales and then we include synergy. If Pointlogic is a part of the research design – as in Compose and M3 – we normally recommend including underlying attributes that lead to sales so that synergy can be looked at from the perspective of the roles of the different media.

Yesterday I compared synergy with the situation of a football (i.e. soccer) team. To optimize the chances of winning games you need defenders and strikers. Is this a synergetic effect between defenders and strikers? Probably not, it’s simply that you need both roles to win games!

Thanks,

Peter