MODERATOR

Antony Young, CEO, Mindshare, N.A. @AntonyYoung

PANELISTS

Shaina Boone, VP, Marketing Science, Critical Mass

Greg Corso, VP, Media Solutions, dunnhumby @gjcorso

Pete Stein, President, Eastern Region, Razorfish @pstein211

Randy Watson, VP of Consulting, Digital Impact & Innovation, Acxiom

Sandra Zoratti, VP of Marketing, Executive Briefings and Education, Ricoh @sandraz

See the video of the panel by clicking this link.

If Obama’s Presidential campaign in 2008 was defined by social media, then surely his successful 2012 re-election bid should be attributed to their use of data and micro-targeting.

Election night seemed to confound many of the pundits. Governor Romney appeared to put together a strong campaign with the polls leading into the final week suggesting a tight race. Romney won 60% of White voters. He in fact even won the independents vote. Yet he lost the key battleground States of Ohio, Florida, Virginia, New Hampshire, Iowa, Colorado and Nevada … handing the sitting President a second term.

How did Obama win?

First, he delivered a well-orchestrated campaign of largely negative advertising targeting Romney, which served the purpose of suppressing voter turnout by traditionally Republican supporters.

Second, he mobilized key voter blocks to register early and vote. 18-24 year olds; African Americans; Latinos and single women in the key swing States. Voter turnout for these four key demographics was about 70% thereby giving him the numbers he needed to push him over the edge.

At the heart of these two strategies, was micro-targeting.

Micro-targeting is the ability to dissect in this case, the voter population in to narrow segments and customize messaging to them, both in on-the-ground activities and in the media.

Micro-targeting isn’t a new idea in politics or marketing for that matter. Karl Rove expertly exploited this in the successful Bush campaign in 2000 and 2004. But it was the sophistication and the scale of how they executed this strategy that in the end, proved the knock-out punch for the Democrats.

The Obama camp in preparing for this election, established a huge Analytics group that comprised of behavioral scientists, data technologists and mathematicians. They worked tirelessly to gather and interpret data to inform every part of the campaign. They built up a voter file that included voter history, demographic profiles, but also collected numerous other data points around interests … for example, did they give to charitable organizations or which magazines did they read to help them better understand who they were and better identify the group of‘persuadables‘ to target.

That data was able to be drilled down to zip codes, individual households and in many cases individuals within those households.

However it is how they deployed this data in activating their campaign that translated the insight they garnered into killer tactics for the Obama campaign.

Volunteers canvassing door to door or calling constituents were able to access these profiles via an app accessed on an iPad, iPhone or Android mobile device to provide an instant transcript to help them steer their conversations. They were also able to input new data from their conversation back into the database real time.

The profiles informed their direct and email fundraising efforts. They used issues such Obama’s support for gay marriage or Romney’s missteps in his portrayal of women to directly target more liberal and professional women on their database, with messages that “Obama is for women,” using that opportunity to solicit contributions to his campaign.

Micro-targeting helped them to steer their broadcast buying approach. While both campaigns followed conventional wisdom to buy spots in Local Broadcast news programming, Obama’s team differentiated their schedule by adding networks like TV Land whose viewers they determined “were less political” and therefore more likely to be a persuadable.

Even the selection of celebrity fundraisers were informed by the data. The team identified women 40-49 as the highest contributors to their campaign. Obama’s analytics team in crunching the numbers uncovered that Sara Jessica Parker of Sex in the City fame popped as the most appealing celebrity to this demographic and called her up to ask if she would host a fundraiser dinner for Obama in New York. Web ads and emails from Michelle Obama were sent targeting this group asking them to “chip in whatever they can” with a chance to win an invitation, hotel and flights to New York to attend the event.

As mentioned earlier, encouraging early voting and a higher turnout of key target groups was critical in winning the swing states. They used classic micro-targeting online advertising to reach those groups. Obama’s team’s use of Facebook this time was also very clever, tapping into Facebook’s individual profile data. A million users downloaded the Obama 2012 app on Facebook. The app was able to identify their Facebook friends that fit favorable profiles located in key swing states, encouraging them to contact these friends to remind them to vote. Sources say one in five of those contacted this way were influenced positively by this contact.

Marketers need to take heed of how the Obama campaign transformed their marketing approach centered around data. They demonstrated incredible discipline to capture data across multiple sources and then to inform every element of the marketing – direct to consumer, on the ground efforts, unpaid and paid media. Their ability to dissect potential prospects into narrow segments or even at an individual level and develop specific relevant messaging created highly persuasive communications. And finally their approach to tap their committed fans was hugely powerful. The Obama campaign provides a compelling case for companies to build their marketing expertise around big data and micro-targeting. How ready is your organization to do the same?

 

By: Antony Young Published: in AdAge November 07, 2012

Mr. Obama’s skillful deployment of social media in 2008 caused marketers to sit up and take notice. So what can brands learn from this year’s massive, sophisticated presidential campaigns?

Focus on your swing voters
Both the Romney and Obama campaigns spent the bulk of their media dollars in the battleground states including Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, Florida, Wisconsin, Iowa and Nevada (sometimes to the despair of the states’ overwhelmed residents). And they trained much of their fire on the undecideds. That applied even to the individual TV shows they bought. Both campaigns largely avoided placements during cable news shows, for example, whose audiences were more likely to have already decided who they were voting for. Local news broadcasts, on the other hand, indexed highest for independents who were more likely to turn out on Election Day, according to Scarborough.Who are your swing voters? The real value of mass media, and where the economics really make sense, is in drawing new consumers into your brand.

Remember your ground game
The Obama campaign said it made 125 million voter contacts, more than twice the total reported by Republicans, with more field offices in key areas than the Romney campaign and more personal outreach. Marketers would do well to remember that activation, promotion and personal touches go a long way in locking in the benefits of media spending.

Video still works
While 2008 was considered by many “the Facebook Election,” TV — or, more precisely, video — reasserted its strategic importance in 2012. Mr. Obama had a challenging platform to sell given the performance of the economy, but he did in most cases outspend Romney in TV, in many cases 2 to 1. We also saw a heavy shift of dollars into online video. Hulu revealed that election spending on the online video site was up 700% from the last election.

Hyper-local is the new black
Part of the appeal of online video is the ability to hyper-target, that is, the ability to pinpoint media and commercial messaging within a narrow catchment area. In Blacksburg, Va., for example, there are 30,000 students residing at Virginia Tech. The Obama campaign’s Hulu buys targeted the schools’ zip code with “Gotta Vote” spots to encourage students to register and turn out.

Broadcast advertising, too, was tailored to local issues. In Ohio, Mr. Obama’s campaign targeted blue-collar women by promoting its track record on jobs, whereas in Florida, the Romney campaign sought Cuban-American voters with hard-hitting TV commercials claiming Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez supported Mr. Obama’s policies. We saw local radio play a role, too, in this localization.

Are we as marketers really taking opportunity of localizing our media and messaging? Despite a lot of talk about targeting, many marketers still emphasize efficiency in spending over relevance to different customer segments and markets.

Adaptive marketing is rising
I’ve written previously about adaptive marketing, but both candidates just demonstrated its value again as they reacted to voter polls and feedback in nearly real time. And although all marketers listen to consumer responses, it was the speed and consistency with which both the Romney and Obama campaigns were able to respond that impressed me.

On multiple occasions we saw Mr. Romney test a message or storyline in a campaign rally speech. If it got a reaction from the audience, video spots would quickly follow online. If there was strong response online or pickup by cable news networks, the ads would appear on broadcast TV … all within a matter of days, often adjusting further as the campaign progressed.

Adaptive marketing doesn’t always require massive spending and machinery, either. Both candidates also expertly tapped into their advocates to push out tweets during the debates to reinforce key punctuation points to the base or counter comments by their opponent.

Long-form content can persuade 
A good showing in the first debate jolted Mr. Romney out of the doldrums and into contention. While he didn’t win in the end, he closed the gap sharply. Brands, for their part, don’t have to win an election; all they need to do is improve market share. What can be learnt from this? First, all brands have the opportunity to re-invent — or at least drive re-consideration — and it can happen quickly if done well. Second, long-form branded video content is a medium that is underused. Sure, the mass reach of a presidential debate and the subsequent news coverage isn’t available to brands. But deeper content outside of ad units can change opinions.

Negative ads are a negative
Negative advertising was a feature of both candidates’ campaigns, subjecting each candidate’s brand to a beating. According to the Wesleyan Media Project, negative ads between June and October accounted for 62.9% of spots, compared to 39.7% in 2008. I suspect that turned off voters and contributed to the apparent decline in voter turnout from 2008. I hope we don’t see this as a trend for brands in 2013.

Presidential elections are not just a boost to the coffers of the media companies, but serve as a benchmark for brands. For me, the next election can’t come soon enough.

By: Daisy Whitney Published: October 23, 2012

Young media planners gunning for their first big job should follow the same advice that applies before a big new-business pitch, said Antony Young, CEO at Mindshare North America, in our latest Basics Q&A with a media agency leader.

He also identified the career mistake he sees too many people making — and four lessons of his own mistakes.

Advertising Age: How did you get your first job?

Antony Young: I started my career in New Zealand, and advertising found me, so I guess advertising does work. It was a well-written classified ad that got me intrigued about working in advertising. The ad sold the job well and it was obviously written by one of the copywriters and it explained what a media planner and buyer does and it did it in a way that pulled me in.

Ad Age: Had you planned to work in advertising?

Mr. Young: Before that, I hadn’t thought seriously about advertising, but I did remember walking past a building and seeing a whole bunch of luxury European cars and BMWs parked outside and I thought, “I don’t know what they do in that company but I wouldn’t mind getting a job there,” and it later turned out it was an ad agency.

Maybe if you live in New York or New Jersey advertising is more on your radar, but in New Zealand it wasn’t the first thing that came up. I sort of fell into the ad business, and I assumed everyone was similar, but now in college there are students who want to end up in advertising. I lecture a bit at Syracuse University at the Newhouse School of Public Communications and when I did my last lecture I said, “You probably don’t know what a media agency is,” but they all did.

Ad Age: How have people responded over the years when you say what you do for a living?

Mr. Young: After I’d been working in the business for a year, I was at a party and someone asked what do you do for a living. I said I worked in advertising, and he said, “You’re one of those unscrupulous people who sells products to people that they don’t need.” I said, “Yes, what do you do?” He said, “I’m a lawyer.”

Ad Age: Is the perception of advertising different now?

Mr. Young: A lot of people come in because they are attracted to the media business, because media is this cross section between pop culture and technology and business, and it’s constantly being talked about even at a young age. Media has become more accessible and it touches your regular life a lot more.

Ad Age: What advice would you give to media planners trying to get their first big job?

Mr. Young: I would give them the same advice I would give myself in preparing for a big pitch. I tell myself three things when we are pitching for an account. First, make sure you are super-prepared. Second, figure out what makes you different and interesting and spend time discussing what makes you stand out. Lastly, say something memorable in your interview.

For my first job, the media director at the time asked me what did I think made me right to be in media department, and I said, “I’m Chinese, I’ve got to be good with numbers.” He said, “That’s a bit of a silly response.” But at least they saw that it was a real response.

Ad Age: What mistakes have you made and what have you learned from them?

Mr. Young: When people talk about experience, it usually means you have made a lot of mistakes. I’ve made plenty in the past months, let alone my career. Here are four things I’ve learned that have come from mistakes. The first is: Don’t raise issues, present solutions. Everyone appreciates a problem solver. The second thing is: Don’t just present numbers, but offer an insight. The third is: Never reply to an annoying email immediately. Always save it in the drafts for a day. And never miss a deadline. No matter what, you will have underdelivered.

Ad Age: What mistakes do you see young media planners and buyers making?

Mr. Young: This is not just young people, but we see all people struggle to delegate. You almost think it’s a good thing to make yourself indispensable or irreplaceable. But don’t. I’ve been lucky about being promoted, in part because people realize there is someone who can take over. Develop your team. If you haven’t groomed someone to take over, that can limit you.

It’s rare these days to hear a positive story about the newspaper industry, but I recently learned of the Pembroke and Pembroke Docks Observer, a newspaper in South Wales that decided to bet its future on a hyperlocal strategy. It focused almost entirely on covering local news, local people and local events while soliciting community-generated content — a package not provided by the larger county or national titles. It was rewarded with a doubling of its circulation.

Its owners say their success comes down to remaining local, personal and relevant to their community. That idea has a lot of merit for national brands in the U.S.

We are programmed to play nationally. The national 30-second spot in an “American Idol” or an NFL game is king. While there is clearly an efficiency and value in maintaining a national presence, however, it’s become even more important to engage consumers in order to truly grow brands — or disrupt your competitors. It’s also becoming harder to do. Being relevant locally, as the Pembroke and Pembroke Docks Observer discovered, can be a powerful recipe for growing market share.

“There’s no such thing as a national customer,” a client once said to me. “Just lots of local ones.” And it takes insight into local tastes, local demographics, local issues and local competitors to be relevant and win the consumer. Organize national, act local is starting to get some traction. But the media are leading the way.

Media properties’ local targeting is increasingly offering more precision. Hyperlocal websites are providing local content and localized national advertising platforms by individual towns.

Google recently announced last month the ability to buy search by ZIP code, and again bet on local yesterday when it said it had agreed to buy Frommer’s, including 350 travel guides and a website covering more than 3,500 locations.

Addressable TV is beginning to scale. By end of year, we will be able to target by individual household in 22 million homes. And the large national radio groups have become highly effective on-the-ground local marketing partners on-air, off-air and online.

The question is whether major national and international marketers will invest the time and money to take advantage.

Some sophisticated marketers are moving in that direction. Walmart has introduced a Facebook app customizing marketing for each of its nearly 3,600 U.S. locations, including a dynamic social billboard that serves as an electronic circular with details of sales, special product deals and recipe suggestions. This is a smart local program to move the huge national chain closer to its community.

Nike has been creating city-specific epicenters to spark buzz and credibility for its brand. Its global online reality web competition series “The Chosen” was fueled by local grassroots skating and surfing events. In the U.K., Nike held a 15-day challenge for runners across 48 different post codes in London, using some nifty technology to measure and rank their performance.

The increasing ubiquity, not to mention portability, of mobile media will almost guarantee that all marketers will need a mobile media strategy. And central to that strategy is the ability to embrace location-based messaging and promotion.

National brands are experimenting there. L’Oreal promoted its Vichy line using timeRAZOR, a mobile app to promote and schedule one-on-one beauty consultations at Duane Reade locations in New York, an effort that led to a 150% increase in sales for that promotion.

Search is clearly another major opportunity, with the BIA/Kelsey Group that local searches on mobile phones will exceed local searches on desktop computers by 2015. Perhaps the iPhone’s Siri, which uses Yelp’s reviews, will start to offer brand recommendations in the not-too-distant future.

But ultimately most marketers will need a better payout to shift national dollars to local, posing a riddle for the media companies betting so much of their own money on a local strategy. Data will have to be the compass for media sellers and buyers alike. Mobile ad network xAd recently published data showing that locally-targeted mobile display ads deliver 5% to 8% click-through rates, compared to 0.6% for typical mobile display ads.

There’s no doubt that local will be an increasing play for national marketers. It’s what brands need to do to engage consumers and grow. However, it is going to be more challenging for marketers to execute and more costly and complex to orchestrate. But the possibilities are exciting.

The results are out for the Cannes Media Lions and appear to be a blow for the established media agency networks. Congratulations go to Manning GotliebOMD in London for winning the Grand Prix, to be sure, but fellow media shops didn’t fare so well when it came to picking up the silverware.

From more than 100 media trophies handed out last week in the Grand Audi of the Palais des Festivals, a paltry 22 went to media planning and buying agencies. An overwhelming 80% of the awards were picked up largely by creative agencies, with a smattering of digital or content specialists. Now, I’m not about to dis the festival. I admit I would have liked our agency to have done better. But what does it say if the agencies entrusted with media budgets of billions of dollars aren’t winning these awards?

Creative agencies are just more focused on trophies. Let’s face it: Creative agencies want to win awards more badly.

The reputations and careers of creatives are made at Cannes, with job offers often following success at the festival. A communications planner or media buyer primarily gets kudos from the agency and the satisfaction of a job well done. Rarely does winning a media award have a monetary impact to their monthly pay that correlates with the impact for creative professionals.

Perhaps it’s more clear that a media award is the result of many hands in the agency touching the campaign … planners, print buyers, broadcast negotiators, out-of-home staff, digital/social teams, the insights group, media partners and, of course, creative agencies. There’s a lot of credit that gets shared across the agency and beyond, so it’s hard for two to three individuals to truly claim it. We’re a little more altruistic at the media agencies.

Creative agencies are also much better storytellers — which comes in handy when they’re telling their own story in awards applications. Last year, I judged an awards show where the media jury was completely seduced by the case video and written submission for the Microsoft Bing/JayZ out-of-home campaign. Even though the campaign ran in New York City, none of the New Yorkers on the final panel could recall ever seeing it. No matter. And no excuses: If the media agencies want to win at Cannes, then we just have to want it more — certainly more than we want it now.

Cannes is still about ‘creative’ media awards. While media agencies see their principle role as media-investment advisers and distributors of messaging, Cannes is still really about how creative and inventive a marketer and their agencies can be. Take the Gold Lions awarded in media this year. Six of the clients were nonprofits or causes. That suggests that not only have big media budgets become irrelevant to winning, they are threatening to become a hindrance.

With the exception of Mediacom’s delightful campaign for Canon, I doubt if the total combined paid media budget for the other Gold campaigns was more than $300,000.

I wouldn’t want to take anything away from the terrific winning submissions. They were all worthy winners. But I would say the media award shows are in danger of become media’s equivalent of an haute couture fashion show, rather than ready to wear. Then again, no one is going to want to see a best use of data award!

The definition of “media” continues to broaden. Any campaign that smacked of conventional or heavily traditional media wasn’t even shortlisted — and rightly so. This year, new media ranged from an Antwerp movie theater full of bikers for Carlsberg to floating foam crosses promoting World Aids Day to a couple of polar bears watching the Super Bowl for Coca-Cola. Whatever the media idea or platform, YouTube, Facebook, Google and Twitter featured in almost every one of the best campaigns. Note to planners: if the campaign you’re planning isn’t social by design, then don’t bother entering next year.

The winning campaigns were, on the whole, quite inspirational. And if this is how the judges see the best that media has to offer, then fair game, that’s the bar we all need to aspire to. It’s incumbent on everyone working in media, whichever agency you work for, to come back next year with more groundbreaking media innovation.

Click here to view the winning 2012 Media Lion award submissions.