http://www.adweek.com/internet-week-blog/laura-desmond-wants-her-industry-deep-six-its-market-mix-132255
Starcom MediaVest Group CEO (and #57 on Forbes 100 most powerful Women in 2008) Laura Desmond believes that Marketing Mix Modeling, platform for measuring Advertising ROI is on it's death-bed, citing backward-looking focus and lack of ability to evaluate consumer attitudes as part of the reason it is becoming obsolete.
I think Marketing ROI as a concept won't go away (taking care to distinguish Mix Modeling as the device and Marketing ROI as the objective) for at last a couple of reasons:
-Elegance in evaluating Marketing Strategy was not the primary raison d'etre for the approach, it came about as a means for stakeholders outside the Marketing Department to understand how the dollars they were pumping into advertising was contributing to topline growth (and bottomline performance)- in other words the "business performance" focus she faulted. After all influencing consumer attitudes is not the end-goal of advertising, growing sales is (by influencing consumers positively), so successful advertising needs to demonstrate ability to drive both, not just any one of the two purposes.
-Today the approach does more than that and can simultaneously evaluate both business performance and consumer attitudes, depending upon how much effort you want to put in. I have already written in the past that consumer attitudes not only can but should be measured in marketing-mix models (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1411790)
Playboy Outsourcing Operations? Times must really be tough!!
Playboy Enterprises Inc. recentlly announced that they will be outsourcing most of their operations to American Media Inc. in a 5-year partnership deal.
Apparently it's not party time anymore at the company Hugh Hefner started (partly with money loaned by his mother). In fact they have seen their margins erode progressively over time. They netted out $2.3MM profits on revenues of $331MM in 2006 (0.7% margin), in 2007 they made $4.9MM in profits on $340MM in revenues (1.4% margin). To put their operating profitability in perspective, consider this- Playboy operating profits in '07 were $10MM, giving an operating margin of 2.9%. Bauer Consumer Media, publishers of FHM magazine had operating profits of £65.4MM during the 12 months to 31 March 2008 on revenues of £313.1MM- a 20.9% margin. So they do need a revamping of their operational strategy. Especially given the manual intensive nature of the publishing business, the economies of scale AMI can bring to the table may reeally unlock the profit potential at this controversial yet iconic brand. I guess they are hoping that AMI, which has a score of successful magazine titles in their portfolio can help them improve operational effectiveness.
Apparently it's not party time anymore at the company Hugh Hefner started (partly with money loaned by his mother). In fact they have seen their margins erode progressively over time. They netted out $2.3MM profits on revenues of $331MM in 2006 (0.7% margin), in 2007 they made $4.9MM in profits on $340MM in revenues (1.4% margin). To put their operating profitability in perspective, consider this- Playboy operating profits in '07 were $10MM, giving an operating margin of 2.9%. Bauer Consumer Media, publishers of FHM magazine had operating profits of £65.4MM during the 12 months to 31 March 2008 on revenues of £313.1MM- a 20.9% margin. So they do need a revamping of their operational strategy. Especially given the manual intensive nature of the publishing business, the economies of scale AMI can bring to the table may reeally unlock the profit potential at this controversial yet iconic brand. I guess they are hoping that AMI, which has a score of successful magazine titles in their portfolio can help them improve operational effectiveness.
2009 Retail Season Half-time: Black Friday '09
Black Friday '09 has come and gone and the experts are already making prognostications about the rest of the '09 Holiday Season and the health of the Retail Sector. Talk about opinions being divided- on Yahoo! Finance itself there were two articles posted a day apart taking opposing views- "Early indicators of Black Friday sales promising" and "Black Friday: D-Day for 'Deals' and a 'Dismal' Economy". I think both perspectives hold some water. The average American consumer has seen some benefit from economic pressures easing off over the last few months and have had some of their purchasing power replenished. They do not have enough to splurge across the board this Holiday season, so we will probably see them making a lot of trade-offs- a family vacation or new clothes for the family or that big flat screen TV we've been thinking off. Seeing the mad rush at Wal-Mart and at BestBuy, I think Retailing analyst Kristin Bentz (The Talented Blonde blog) is right, the two themes top of mind for the American consumer this Holiday season will be Value and Technology- retailers across all sectors that will get the perfect balance of value vs. profitability will come on top, and technology retail in general seems to be poised to do better than the rest- if the average consumer is going to splurge he or she wants to do it on something longer lasting like a computer or a new TV.
Review of "The Shift Index 2009: Industry Metrics and Perspectives” (Deloitte.com Article)
I came across this report from Deloitte “The Shift Index 2009: Industry Metrics and Perspectives” (published November 4, 2009) that takes a deep dive look at Corporate performance across a broad group of industries including Aerospace& Defense, Financial Services Consumer Products and Retail, Technology, Media, Telecommunications, and Automotive. In spite of the vague and cryptic nature of the content, I think there is some real value in going through this (that is if you have the patience to digest a 208-page manuscript- someone should talk to the authors about the need to be succinct when producing content for web-publishing).
The key theme of this rather lengthy report is that Return on Assets across public companies is down 75 percent and corporate performance metrics currently utilized across businesses may not be appropriate.
The report then proposes that there is a “Big Shift” in underlying economic and behavioral trends the convergence of which is the fundamental driver of this performance erosion. The report then goes on to dissect how this so-called Big Shift is playing out across these different industries.
The report further proposes a “Shift Index” to quantify this phenomenon along three dimensions (quantified by 3 other indices- I suppose they need to make it complicated to sound sophisticated!):
Foundation Index: As defined by the report “The Foundation Index reflects new possibilities and challenges for business as a result of new technology capability and public policy shifts.” Put simply this is the infrastructure that has redefined business processes including digital infrastructure, and asynchronous and integration of geographically disparate resources that optimizes productivity. This metric is apparently evaluated at economy-level and therefore not analyzed by industry. Not sure why this would not differ across industries in an economy?
Flow Index: Defined by the report as “the Flow Index, is characterized by the increasing flows of capital, talent, and knowledge across geographic and institutional boundaries.” Translation- this basically builds on the Foundation Index- which is a more static perspective of resources. The Flow Index emphasizes the fact that Knowledge, Technology and other resources are in a constant state of flux and emphasizes the ability to constantly tap into evolving reservoirs of these resources to replenish current resources (not surprisingly- in the spirit of complicating concepts in pursuit of sophistication the report looks at two additional metrics within the Flow Index- Inter-firm Knowledge Flows and Worker Passion metrics).
Impact Index: If the descriptions on the previous two metrics were a bit vague, this one borders the esoteric. “…the Impact Index reflects how well companies are exploiting foundational improvements in the digital infrastructure by creating and sharing knowledge— and what impacts those changes are having on markets, firms, and individuals.” From my humble view-point, I think this is basically a measure of how well companies leverage their abilities around the previous two indices to create competitive advantage- I can buy that.
All in all I think there is some very useful information in this report, as to the effort required to go through this article to get to that information- to tweak a quote from a well-known movie "the juice may be just about worth the squeeze". If you are looking for specific analysis for the industry vertical of your interest, I would recommend going through the corresponding section of the report- what I have summed up above should save you some time on the rest of the material.
Note: This is an independent and unsolicited review of publicly-available material and neither the writer of this commentary nor this website takes any credit or liability for the original material being reviewed in this commentary. Please use your judgment in considering this review.
The key theme of this rather lengthy report is that Return on Assets across public companies is down 75 percent and corporate performance metrics currently utilized across businesses may not be appropriate.
The report then proposes that there is a “Big Shift” in underlying economic and behavioral trends the convergence of which is the fundamental driver of this performance erosion. The report then goes on to dissect how this so-called Big Shift is playing out across these different industries.
The report further proposes a “Shift Index” to quantify this phenomenon along three dimensions (quantified by 3 other indices- I suppose they need to make it complicated to sound sophisticated!):
Foundation Index: As defined by the report “The Foundation Index reflects new possibilities and challenges for business as a result of new technology capability and public policy shifts.” Put simply this is the infrastructure that has redefined business processes including digital infrastructure, and asynchronous and integration of geographically disparate resources that optimizes productivity. This metric is apparently evaluated at economy-level and therefore not analyzed by industry. Not sure why this would not differ across industries in an economy?
Flow Index: Defined by the report as “the Flow Index, is characterized by the increasing flows of capital, talent, and knowledge across geographic and institutional boundaries.” Translation- this basically builds on the Foundation Index- which is a more static perspective of resources. The Flow Index emphasizes the fact that Knowledge, Technology and other resources are in a constant state of flux and emphasizes the ability to constantly tap into evolving reservoirs of these resources to replenish current resources (not surprisingly- in the spirit of complicating concepts in pursuit of sophistication the report looks at two additional metrics within the Flow Index- Inter-firm Knowledge Flows and Worker Passion metrics).
Impact Index: If the descriptions on the previous two metrics were a bit vague, this one borders the esoteric. “…the Impact Index reflects how well companies are exploiting foundational improvements in the digital infrastructure by creating and sharing knowledge— and what impacts those changes are having on markets, firms, and individuals.” From my humble view-point, I think this is basically a measure of how well companies leverage their abilities around the previous two indices to create competitive advantage- I can buy that.
All in all I think there is some very useful information in this report, as to the effort required to go through this article to get to that information- to tweak a quote from a well-known movie "the juice may be just about worth the squeeze". If you are looking for specific analysis for the industry vertical of your interest, I would recommend going through the corresponding section of the report- what I have summed up above should save you some time on the rest of the material.
Note: This is an independent and unsolicited review of publicly-available material and neither the writer of this commentary nor this website takes any credit or liability for the original material being reviewed in this commentary. Please use your judgment in considering this review.
Marketing Effectiveness Analytics Comes of Age
As Marketing Effectiveness Analytics comes of age, it seems to have been promoted from specialized firms to it's own practice area within Marketing Strategy dvisions of Crème de la Crème of the consulting world and from an esoteric existence within Market Research Departments to the Corporate Boardroom- almost a Cinderella story. Marketing Effectiveness Analytics today is the tool of choice while setting benchmarks and hurdle rates for assessing marketing campaign performance, setting new product marketing budgets and pricing strategy shifts.
Studies like Marketing ROI Analysis (a.k.a Marketing-Mix Modeling a.k.a Marketing Effectiveness Analysis), Marketing Spend and Advertising Optimization etc. were not mainstream services within the Marketing practice area of blue-chip firms like McKinsey, Accenture, Booz and Deloitte. Now these firms have dedicated sections to Marketing Effectiveness/Efficiency within their Marketing practice area. It's not as if they have created new and improved version of these analytics that have been practiced by niche firms for the last 20 years or so, they have just added their branding to them and this is causing C-level execs to take notice. So now that Marketing Effectiveness Analytics has established as a mainstay within the "must-haves" of Market Research tools, hopefully there will be more focus on standardizing this tool across industries so that the results can be normalized and used as benchmarks.
One potential outcome of marketing effectiveness becoming a standardized corporate practice is that GAAP could be amended to treat Marketing as a Capital expense (maybe a bit of a stretch but not impossible). This will have far-reaching effects on marketing budget management- for instance if marketing expenses could be capitalized and amortized over time instead of in the same revenue period, Corporate stakeholders would be less likely to slash marketing budgets every time costs need to be trimmed. Return hurdles set by Marketing Effectiveness analyses would ensure that marketing spending is efficient and productive thereby providing a check to a tendency to overspend and amortize over longer periods. Just a thought.
Studies like Marketing ROI Analysis (a.k.a Marketing-Mix Modeling a.k.a Marketing Effectiveness Analysis), Marketing Spend and Advertising Optimization etc. were not mainstream services within the Marketing practice area of blue-chip firms like McKinsey, Accenture, Booz and Deloitte. Now these firms have dedicated sections to Marketing Effectiveness/Efficiency within their Marketing practice area. It's not as if they have created new and improved version of these analytics that have been practiced by niche firms for the last 20 years or so, they have just added their branding to them and this is causing C-level execs to take notice. So now that Marketing Effectiveness Analytics has established as a mainstay within the "must-haves" of Market Research tools, hopefully there will be more focus on standardizing this tool across industries so that the results can be normalized and used as benchmarks.
One potential outcome of marketing effectiveness becoming a standardized corporate practice is that GAAP could be amended to treat Marketing as a Capital expense (maybe a bit of a stretch but not impossible). This will have far-reaching effects on marketing budget management- for instance if marketing expenses could be capitalized and amortized over time instead of in the same revenue period, Corporate stakeholders would be less likely to slash marketing budgets every time costs need to be trimmed. Return hurdles set by Marketing Effectiveness analyses would ensure that marketing spending is efficient and productive thereby providing a check to a tendency to overspend and amortize over longer periods. Just a thought.
Torture the Data long enough and it will confess to anything...
The core motivation for this Blog was to promote some rigor in business and economic analysis and research. In our posts we had talked about how research is becoming less and less exploratory and more and more confirmatory.
I was just reading an article on Yahoo! Real Estate from CNNMoney.com titled "Americans Tame Their Wanderlust". The article is pretty cool as it focuses on domestic migration patterns, which obviously has a strong bearing on regional shifts in Real Estate demand and pricing. What was not so cool was the lack of connectivity between the data presented and the corresponding insights developed. For instance the article's title is based on the following statement "Only about 2.4% of Americans moved from state to state in 2008, down from 2.5% the previous year". The author relies on U.S. Census Bureau population data, which is publicly available at the Census Bureau website. Now this is a 0.1% change- 307,000 absolute decline assuming a total U.S. population of 307 Million. This seems like a large number if the numbers aren't estimates but actuals, but it is impossible to measure this data with 100% accuracy, so the Census Bureau like most other folks in Business and Social research settles for 90% confidence (with a 10% probability that the estimates are wrong). A key metric in gauging how much importance to put into this change is the "standard deviation" of how this percentage varies year over year. So if this percentage varies +/-0.05% every year, there is only a weak possibility that there was actually a decline and for all purposes the change would be statistically "insignificant".
I am not saying that the article is inaccurate, all I am saying is that in my opinion enough data may not have been presented to justify the title. It is especially risky to base real estate investment decisions using just two data points as typically the gestation period for these investments to bear fruit is significantly longer than 2 years (if more folks had been mindful of this we probably wouldn't have had a real estate bubble).
A little rigor around analysis of Census Bureau would have yielded the author a few interesting nuggets around domestic migration trends in place. For example the chart below shows net migration trends by 4 U.S. regions.
The chart indicates that with the exception of 2002-2003, the South seems to significantly lead all other regions in migration. The West seems to have some cyclical pattern going on but seems to generally mean-reverting around an equilibrium balance. Over the past 10 years the exodus out of the Midwest has progressively abated. The exodus out of the Northeast seems to have peaked out in 2004-2005 and is progressively becoming less negative in net domestic migration.
Looking at this from a State level may have generated too much noise as there are several factors to be considered like the fact that Washington D.C. is at the confluence of three states and has a significant number of people that at one point in time or another lived in both D.C. and one of the neighboring states. So either analysis and insights should be limited to the granularity permitted by raw data or an appropriate statistical model should be leveraged that controls the influence of potentially confounding factors.
I was just reading an article on Yahoo! Real Estate from CNNMoney.com titled "Americans Tame Their Wanderlust". The article is pretty cool as it focuses on domestic migration patterns, which obviously has a strong bearing on regional shifts in Real Estate demand and pricing. What was not so cool was the lack of connectivity between the data presented and the corresponding insights developed. For instance the article's title is based on the following statement "Only about 2.4% of Americans moved from state to state in 2008, down from 2.5% the previous year". The author relies on U.S. Census Bureau population data, which is publicly available at the Census Bureau website. Now this is a 0.1% change- 307,000 absolute decline assuming a total U.S. population of 307 Million. This seems like a large number if the numbers aren't estimates but actuals, but it is impossible to measure this data with 100% accuracy, so the Census Bureau like most other folks in Business and Social research settles for 90% confidence (with a 10% probability that the estimates are wrong). A key metric in gauging how much importance to put into this change is the "standard deviation" of how this percentage varies year over year. So if this percentage varies +/-0.05% every year, there is only a weak possibility that there was actually a decline and for all purposes the change would be statistically "insignificant".
I am not saying that the article is inaccurate, all I am saying is that in my opinion enough data may not have been presented to justify the title. It is especially risky to base real estate investment decisions using just two data points as typically the gestation period for these investments to bear fruit is significantly longer than 2 years (if more folks had been mindful of this we probably wouldn't have had a real estate bubble).
A little rigor around analysis of Census Bureau would have yielded the author a few interesting nuggets around domestic migration trends in place. For example the chart below shows net migration trends by 4 U.S. regions.
The chart indicates that with the exception of 2002-2003, the South seems to significantly lead all other regions in migration. The West seems to have some cyclical pattern going on but seems to generally mean-reverting around an equilibrium balance. Over the past 10 years the exodus out of the Midwest has progressively abated. The exodus out of the Northeast seems to have peaked out in 2004-2005 and is progressively becoming less negative in net domestic migration.
Looking at this from a State level may have generated too much noise as there are several factors to be considered like the fact that Washington D.C. is at the confluence of three states and has a significant number of people that at one point in time or another lived in both D.C. and one of the neighboring states. So either analysis and insights should be limited to the granularity permitted by raw data or an appropriate statistical model should be leveraged that controls the influence of potentially confounding factors.
Eye on The U.S. Economy: September 2009 Employment Report
The Employment Situation Report comes out on Friday September 4th, 2009 at 8:30 A.M. Based on other reports that came out earlier this week, it may go either way vs. expectations. Consensus estimates an average decline of 200,000 in Nonfarm Payrolls.
Although the ISM Manufacturing Index came out on September 1st at a very strong at 52.9 vs. a Consensus of 50.5, the Inventories Index was weak, suggesting Manufacturers are drawing down existing Inventories, which doesn't help Employment. but production was up.
From a historical perspective, last month ISM Manufacturing Index had an upside surprise, ADP came in at -371K, Consensus estimates on Nonfarm Payroll were -300K and Actual came in at -247K. So if we see a repeat trend this month, we could actually come better than -200K.
So far I see a couple of positive factors supporting better than expected Employment and one negative factor (ADP).
Here's the reason I am honing into Employment this month- Personal Income usually lags Employment and leads Consumption, therefore it is logical that Employment trends in September and October could be a major influence on Holiday sales. If you look at the last ten years Retail Sales estimates from the Census Bureau (excluding Auto), the monthly SAAR (Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rate) correlation vs. the Month-over-Month Employment percent change peaks out at a 3-month lag. The correlation with monthly change in Seasonally Adjusted Retail Sales (ex-Auto) peaked at a 2-month lag. Unless we have significant improvement in Employment and Personal Income over the next two months, we are looking at another year of bleak Holiday sales.
Although the ISM Manufacturing Index came out on September 1st at a very strong at 52.9 vs. a Consensus of 50.5, the Inventories Index was weak, suggesting Manufacturers are drawing down existing Inventories, which doesn't help Employment. but production was up.
From a historical perspective, last month ISM Manufacturing Index had an upside surprise, ADP came in at -371K, Consensus estimates on Nonfarm Payroll were -300K and Actual came in at -247K. So if we see a repeat trend this month, we could actually come better than -200K.
So far I see a couple of positive factors supporting better than expected Employment and one negative factor (ADP).
Here's the reason I am honing into Employment this month- Personal Income usually lags Employment and leads Consumption, therefore it is logical that Employment trends in September and October could be a major influence on Holiday sales. If you look at the last ten years Retail Sales estimates from the Census Bureau (excluding Auto), the monthly SAAR (Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rate) correlation vs. the Month-over-Month Employment percent change peaks out at a 3-month lag. The correlation with monthly change in Seasonally Adjusted Retail Sales (ex-Auto) peaked at a 2-month lag. Unless we have significant improvement in Employment and Personal Income over the next two months, we are looking at another year of bleak Holiday sales.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)