Champagne Dreams on a Beer Bottle Budget

I’m reading Sam Ladner’s thesis.

It’s strong work, and quite possibly one of the best reading experiences I’ve had since “Reading Virtual Minds”.

On Page 149, there’s a quote in explaining the common occurrence for ‘fires’ to occur as a result of low-ball estimation:

Curt: Why do they have the fires?

Sam: Yes

Curt: There could be a million different reasons if you think about it, I mean, clients coming in with aggressive timelines period or everybody will come in with big dreams, right?…Like you never lose the champagne dream even if you’ve got a beer bottle budget, right? You always dream big but you might not be, like, okay…”

And I’m in awe.

What a gem.

And I ask myself: how can we optimize and predict dreams? How we do rationalize the denominator here?

What a fascinating business problem.

You can edit this ad by going editing the index.php file or opening /images/exampleAd.gif

Four Books, Simultaneously

I’ve been reading four books simultaneously these days.

Of course, I shouldn’t really say simultaneously. I can only read one at a time. More accurate language would be ‘jumping between four books’.

The first is Sam Ladner’s excellent thesis on the commodification of time in the new economy. It’s a pretty awesome read.

The second is Gladwell’s latest book. And it’s a manageable read because the chapters are well contained. It’s called “What the dog saw”, and that line is pulled from one of the Chapters on Caesar Milan. Fun!

The third is a seminal 500 page book about competition. And it’s a sobering read.

And the fourth is about mental structures in the new economy. And I haven’t decided if I’m going to admit that I even read it.

So many at the same time. Sometimes I get to a point in a book where I literally can’t stomach it. It’s either so dense or so depressing or so wrong that I need to put it down and change the channel. Instead of popping open the web browser and heading over to 4Chan, I suppose it’s easier to flip over to another book. Naturally I’m putting off the gratification of completing something. But, so be it.

But at least there’s apple sauce. Apple sauce to wash down all that awful, awful medicine.

And Sam’s thesis is not medicine. I’m actually really enjoying it.

Analytics and Inside Pool

You may or may not have been hearing about a debate going on in web analytics.

To most, it might seem like a lot of inside pool. And I suppose most of these things are.

I want to talk a little bit about some of that inside pool.

Over the course of my WAA Research Committee work last week, I stumbled upon a paper entitled “Assumptions, Explanations, and Prediction in Marketing Science: “It’s the Findings, Stupid, Not the Assumptions” by Eric W. K. Tsang.

In it, he replies to a debate that’s been going on for a long time, but what natural scientists had settled a hundred years ago. Richard Staelin back in 1998 said that there’d always be debates about whether analytical models needed to have realistic assumptions or not. Shugan came out in 2007 and argued that it wasn’t about the assumptions. I can remember reading that paper back then. It had an effect on me. Let’s fast forward to 2009.

I don’t quite know how it happened, but I ended up sitting at a table with the megastars of Marketing Science research at an informs conference. Dr. Lehmann was there – as was Dr. James Lattin. From what I gather – they’re pretty distinguished researchers. I didn’t know it at the time, and I doubt that it would have changed my behavior much. Maybe only outliers would ever dare sit with that group. That’s how I met Alex.

Two outliers at a table of high insiders.

Alex is an economist out France. I won’t go so far as to call him a French Economist, but, regardless, there it is. :) We got into a discussion about how irritated I was with stupid assumptions.  I understood that without invalid assumptions that the math wouldn’t work: but maybe there’s no value in the math that doesn’t work. That unless I could use the model to understand the world, or at very maximum: predict the future in some way – that wasn’t of any use to a practitioner or to a scientist. Alex explained to me that the Math unto itself could help science chip away at the edges of complexity – and if something adds understanding, then it is of value: but maybe not to a practitioner.

I still accept where Alex comes from. I think there’s a role for trying to understand complexity by way of deliberate simplification. How those assumptions get selected still bothered me, and I continued to want to shout down anybody who had selected, in my judgement, a stupid assumption for such little gained value.

Back to Tsang, in his paper, where he takes Shugan on. Apparently there’s an entire school of thought that dismisses my belief that science should have at least a goal in making accurate predictions about the future. Tsang carefully deconstructs Shugan’s 2007 arguement, and in the end concludes that “although Shugan (2007) rightly stresses that it is inappropriate to dismiss a model or a theory based only the realism of its assumptions, realism does matter, and it matters a great deal for model building and theory development.”

And I happen to agree with Tsang. He’s helped me immensely in being able to reconcile some of that inside pool.

A lot of the inside pool going on right now in Web Analytics is very similar to Tsang-Shugan and Christopher-Alex. There are huge disconnects between what many web analytics practitioners want analytics to be, what some of the industry titans want it to be, what customers of web analytics outputs want it to be, and even within the broader analytics community (data miners, revenue managers, and market researchers are in the same neighborhood) want it to be.

All this – within an industry that couldn’t possibly employ more than 50,000 people in total.

Inside pool is important because it’s about values and refining the definitions that are in use by a community.

What Canadians could learn at Summer Heights High

I watched all 8 episodes of Summer Heights High over the past week.

Trailer below

The series is from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), which made for a difficult user journey in finding it.

I first saw Summer Heights High on Air Canada flights during the month of September. They showed the first 2 episodes. I loved it.

So, I looked it up on iTunes. Couldn’t find it. Then I looked it up on the interwebs and tried to find a nice way of watching it online. Couldn’t find a good enough source. Then I did more digging and found that HBO had bought the North American rights. (I didn’t know that this paradigm still existed, it’s kind of quaint).

So then I looked it up on Amazon and HMV – and opted to go grab it in person.

When you consider the amount of friction: from discovery to consumption – it’s little wonder that most people would have just opted to use Bit Torrent. I’m not quite certain what motivated me to actually walk to the flagship store. And reflecting back on the experience – I suppose HBO is getting what it really deserves. (that is: a 99.999% conversion drop off rate).

In sum, there were multi-channel wins and channel fails.

Alright – about the show

Chris Lilley is the kind of writer that Canada wish it had and wished that it could keep him from leaving for Los Angeles to make 10 times more money to write scripts that never come to life.

The whole series is 8 episodes. It’s wonderfully plotted. Brilliant.

Lilley forces his audience to empathize with three unsympathetic archetypes in a junior/high school: the bully, the wealthy private school valley, and the delusional educator. All three characters exaggerate specific features of those archetypes.

What all three share is this type of incredible manipulation, which, especially by the eighth episode becomes truly epic and tragic.

There are several lines which are meme-worthy.

What can Canadian Producers and Broadcasters could learn?

1. Distribution channels

Selling to a closed distributor might not be the best way to go to maximize revenues. The viral quality of Summer Heights High could have made the iTunes channel very lucrative, especially internationally. This could have been a great series for the CBC and the Beeb. HBO doesn’t appear to be a good channel if they’re making it so hard for people to actually see the show.

2. Creative Freedom

It doesn’t appear as though there was much interference with Chris Lilley’s concept. So, we have a brilliant writer and actor who has more freedom than what he’d get in Hollywood, but at the cost of money. I wonder whether or not such a model might be key in retaining good writers and actors in Canada. What we lack in money we can make up in relative freedom. Clearly a much better product emerged here and Chris could have been well rewarded with a large cut of the International sales.

In all, it’s a really good series. You should watch it if you can find it!

Talent Supply in Web Analytics

Eric Peterson wrote yesterday about the coming revolution in web analytics.

It’s worth a read and it sparked off a lengthy twitter exchange.

I think we have a huge talent supply problem in the web analytics industry.

Web analysts are very specialized in terms of their understanding of the Internet, websites, tracking technologies and reporting methodologies. And necessarily so.

There really aren’t that many of them.

Sure, there are plenty of people who have Google Analytics on their blog. And I’m glad that they do. It’s great to have so many people interested in Web Analytics. But there’s a gap between the interpretation and the turning of that data into actionable insight. In fact, many of the things that look easy really aren’t: such as interpreting ‘time spent on site’.

It’s quite another thing to talk about the leap into statistical web analytics. It’s a different world.

Currently, 90% of web analysts are not asked heavy statistical questions. The industry just isn’t there yet.

To be sure: the demand is growing, and will continue to grow.

We already have a talent shortage in web analytics. Baseline web analytics.

The coming revolution, as Peterson puts it, will put unprecedented demand on the existing talent.

I welcome it. I don’t know how many people will really be able to respond to the challenge (immediately).

Markets have time lags.

The Strength of Weak Ties

A tight group of friends will tend to overlap in terms of product adoption and preferences. Like people clump alike.

I hypothesize that the social graph is partially-fractal. I use the word ‘hypothesize’ because I don’t have the technology to prove it. Moreover, at this point, I don’t think I could write the proof to prove that it’s partially-fractal.

By fractal, I mean that at the most basic level, the individual with a circle of friends, they’re all alike. If you zoom out, treating each group as though it’s a person, they’re all linked together in a similar way, and if you zoom out again, treating each groups of groups…the structure is the same. In other words, the further you zoom out, the same essential pattern bears out. (I could see Maven’s clumping together in some way, even though Mavens might organize in groups of acquaintances – and it’s that pattern that replicates.)

There are times when ‘forward to a friend’ actions are important: intensity plays are one example. If a group of people enjoy wines, frequent talking about wine (and brands) will bring ideas to the front of mind, and I hypothesize that you’ll have a higher intensity of use.

There are times when ‘forward to acquaintance’ actions are important. It might very well be that you’ve achieved 90% penetration within one set of social groups, and you need to leap out.

In a way, the same rules that should apply at the micro-level should be possible at the macro-level. I suspect that there’s a law in there: perhaps a predictable step-function, that could be used to predict market penetration. I wonder if it’s really been embedded all along in our traditional S curves.

The takeaway from all this is that it’s worth considering which behaviours you want to encourage at which times in your customer lifecycle.

Social Media Measurement

It’s been a busy week in the world of social media measurement, or social analytics, as I like to call it.

Anna O’Brien, Marketing Science analyst extraordinaire, wrote a very good post on the topic. Her primary point, enough with the phony people, is polarizing and necessary. The secondary point: social monitoring is not social measuring is also apt and important.

My interests like in the measurement side: content analytics and metric analytics. There’s a lot of utility there.

A few months ago Joseph Carrabis did a very interesting sentiment analysis on Zappos’ twitter stream. “Tone optimization” will no doubt end up being a major offering sooner rather than later. Let me explain.

Optimizing a web campaign can be very hard. It’s hard because our institutions make it hard. Social media marketing strategy can be built in such a way that it can be optimized. Every response can be improved. “Learning” is possible in an accelerated way.

To that end, tone is an important variable. It’s a vital variable in web copy just as it is in social media marketing. Language matters. (I’ve been reading “Language and Human Behavior” – sometimes the paragraphs drip with frustration). Sometimes what you say isn’t nearly as important as how you say it.

Knowing how many people are saying ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ things is one thing – but what about what your staff is putting out there. What’s the tone? What’s the effect? How can be it changed to improve the outcome and hit your goal?

This is the promise of social media measurement.

In sum, it’s been a busy week for social media measurement.

Adobe Buys Omniture

My initial feedback:

YO #OMNITURE I NO U JUST MERGED AND ALL N IMMA LET U FINISH BUT SPSS’S MERGER WAS THE BEST ONE THIS YEAR – Kanye West

So what does Adobe really get for its 1.8 billion?

A company in the top 5 of web analytics tools providers for one. A great client base for sure.

But there’s a black lining to that white cloud.  Even with a client list that most analytics companies dream about – Omniture is hemorrhaging money. Even with strong revenue growth, it hasn’t been able to make marginal profit on that growth. It should just confirm what all honest practitioners admit at a Web Analytics Wednesday: the software is frakencode that’s a time vampire to install and keep running with any degree of adequate accuracy.

Dissatisfaction is running high: and I don’t think I’m the causal variable of it. (I’m OCP at that!).

If Adobe really is competing in the same sandbox as IBM, Microsoft and Google – and this is somehow a measurability / analytics play: I think Adobe could have done better.

I just don’t see Omniture being able to innovate around Google at this point. I think new entrants just have too many advantages going for them.

In sum, I hope for sake of myself and my friends that Omniture is run better under Adobe. Adobe has a lot of heavy lifting to do to turn it around.

The Attention Economy and the Canadian Film and Television Industry

I had a great conversation with a producer of Canadian film and television.

Over the course of our discussion, which focused on the lack of money for the Canadian Film and Television Industry, I came to realize that there was a fundamental problem in monetization and a pretty hefty gap in motivators.

Success for a director or an artist is if a large audience sees their art and appreciates it. They don’t want commercialism to get in the way of their art – for instance – the mere notion that perhaps the protagonist could be drinking a Diet Doctor Pepper causes the blood to boil. Naturally, history is littered with studio and network executives actively messing with the creative arc of a series. Citizen Kane wouldn’t be 1/10th as good as it is if Orson didn’t keep the execs at bay. So, I can appreciate the fear.

Success for a broadcaster is the show making money. The show makes money if advertisers pay a lot money per ad unit. An advertiser makes money if the ads placed during that show generate high GRP / TRP AND the demand curve shifts to the right.

In film, anybody from Alliance Atlantis will tell you it’s about asses in theater seats and disks in home theaters. Again, more or less, it comes down to attention share.

Producers of Canadian content complain that networks don’t put any dollars behind getting eyeballs, and as a result, GRP / TRP from the advertisers is never forthcoming. Canadian networks complain that Canadian content doesn’t attract Canadian eyeballs. Without Canadian eyeballs, networks can’t make money.

And without proven advertiser dollars and track records – banks and private lenders won’t invest in Canadian productions.

Canadian productions are expensive. It costs around 300k to produce a single 44 minute episode of programming (easily), and economies of scale are fleeting. The very cheapest one could do a short 10 minute piece is around 56k, and that’s pushing the extreme lower limit. I’m talking about quality here – not webcam quality.

Where are all the Canadian Eyeballs at?

Enter the Attention Economy.

Producers are in a full scale war for attention. We consume more media than ever before, but it’s increasingly fragmented across multiple channels and screens. It’s harder to get a concentrated slice of a target market in a single medium. These days – you gotta go longitudinal: a mental shift that only the very young marketers are actively embracing.

Our conversation came to a head when the Producer said: “How do I get the content out there without commercial interference?” and I replied, “You’re competing with commercial interference for attention – and you can’t possibly outspend them.” In fact – commercial interests are wildly tearing at each to grab a slice of a fragmenting attention. The conversation, like any good Canadian conversation, resorts to regulation and citation of previous policy.

The back-stop is of course CanCon. CanCon is a regulation by the CRTC that mandates a minimum percentage of all broadcast content be Canadian. The common complaint, in Canadian Film and Television circles, is that the CRTC defines news and current affairs programming as being included under CanCon – something that is harder to get away with in broadcast radio.

The example in public policy they cite is the success of CanCon in developing the Canadian musical talent industry. Most local stations wouldn’t and couldn’t crowd their airwaves with Canadian ‘news talk’, and as a result, a plethora of great Canadian talent became supported and launched. The policy has been hailed as a wild success.

The common complaint is that Global and CTV count their 2 hour 5-7pm news broadcast as being Canadian content, along with the 11pm news broadcast, the 3 hours in the morning show news broadcast, and two current affairs programs at one hour a piece (W5 and 16 by something). They proceed to produce such shows as “Train 48″, “Da Kink”, “DeGrassi” and “Flashpoint”, and put them out to die at 8pm on Saturdays – reserving the best of prime time for American shows. Put simply, they’re incented to engage in that kind of behavior because when push comes to shove, Canadian eyeballs just aren’t on Canadian content.

The state of Canadian film is no better. Theater operators are fighting for attention too: and they need asses in seats – and the draw that goes along with it.

The problem is three-fold in my view.

The first is the classic blame game. Broadcasters blame Canadian content producers for not producing content that can compete directly with American content. And let’s face it – that is exactly what Canadian producers are up against. It’s hard to see how CanCon can be modified to avoid this un-escapable fact. To a certain extent, I invite the ultra-pro-market-anti-regulation people to advocate consistently on their position of no government interference. Taking that argument to the extreme would mean denying Canadian broadcasters exclusive re-broadcast rights as mandated by the CRTC. Trust me – it’s not something a network executive wants you to be advocating.

I believe that most network executives are good people who would absolutely love to have 80 hours of Canadian produced TV dramas and comedies broadcasting all the time. It would have to be every bit as good as what’s on the American networks, and frankly, how can Canadian producers compete with that?

Enter the next element of the blame game. Producers blame broadcasters for not getting behind them.

The first big problem is that everybody believes that they’re a victim of one sort or another. And when you’re a victim, you’re absolved of all responsibility for solving the problem.

Canadian expectations are the second problem. Canadians, and let’s really be honest here, have a massive element of “it’s not good enough for us” attitude with respect to Canadian produced content. It’s not surprising – they’ve been trained to think that way. Consider that the United States produces hundreds of pilots just looking for winners. In Canada, we hardly have the money to produce a handful of pilots. Less experimentation means lower actual quality, and those expectations have really become locked-in over the past forty years. Of course the material is mediocre by comparison. Canadian producers don’t have as much margin for error and as a result – commit loads of error. That error adds up into expectations of mediocrity.

The third is a lack of baseline innovation. 95% of the Canadian Film and Television Industry, I dare say, is just plain happy to complain about the lack of network and government support. 5% seem to be happy to try to innovate around the problem of economies of scale. I think that that’s sad.

Canadian producers continue to lose because they continue to lose attention market share. They can’t rely on the government or private enterprise to really solve their problems. CanCon won’t be modified because it benefits too many established groups. Broadcasters can’t step up to the plate because they’re subject to enhancing shareholder value. Producers  have to recognize who they’re competing against and adjust against it. They must take it on, head on, to have any chance.

The Attention Economy is ruthless.

Of Personas and Market Segments: A reply to Hamel

David Hamel wrote:

The issue behind it all is that the web isn’t static, it is constently changing.  Ever heard of AOL?  Of course you have.  Know anyone still using it? Probably not.  What about MySpace?  Also there is the inevitable the march of time.  Your persona for Bob has his age at 52.   In five years time, will Bob still be useful?  Probably the difference between 52 and 57 isn’t that large.  But what if your target demographic is 22?  There is a much larger difference between the interestes of a 22 year old and a 27 year old…In conclusion, use personas but don’t let them get stagnate, your personas represent people and people change.

Hamel rightly points out that personas come into being and are sometimes printed out on huge boards and laid out in the office. And then they’re taken down after the redesign and we forget about them. They don’t evolve. They don’t breathe.

I’d argue that the typical market segment, “male, 56-65, rural” is incredibly bland and not adequate at all. I think somewhere along the line, perhaps over the decades, we forgot why market segments are supposed to be powerful: like people talk and they are self-referential. This was demonstrated with the original Word of Mouth marketing studies focused on seed distribution. Word of mouth is critical. No company can possibly afford to pay for every conversion.

The segment should describe, instead, where rural older males are talking and how do you get them to refer you along. A person is so much more than just an age, gender, income bracket, number of kids and general DMA. Quantitative marketing science is capable of real contributions and advancement in that field.

If personas impart empathy in design, then segments should impart empathy in marketing.

And directly to Hamel’s point: they should be periodically revisited.

That might not sit well with the common “rip’em down and reinvent them from scratch” mentality that dominates the world – but I’m very comfortable with the notion of optimizing segments and personas over time as a program of ‘learning’.

I’d like to see more of that.