13 Conference Report #techonomy13

Smart Media: Waste Not, Want Not

1/1

  • From left, Jacqueline Leo, Samir Arora, Darren Clark, Konrad Feldman, Alison Lowery. (All photos by Asa Mathat)

    From left, Jacqueline Leo, Samir Arora, Darren Clark, Konrad Feldman, Alison Lowery. (All photos by Asa Mathat)

  • Konrad Feldman.

    Konrad Feldman.

  • Samir Arora.

    Samir Arora.

  • From left, Jacqueline Leo, Samir Arora, Darren Clark, Konrad Feldman, Alison Lowery.

    From left, Jacqueline Leo, Samir Arora, Darren Clark, Konrad Feldman, Alison Lowery.

Panelists

Samir Arora
Chairman and CEO, Glam Media, Inc.

Darren Clark
Chief Technology Officer, YP

Konrad Feldman
Co-founder and CEO, Quantcast

Alison Lowery
Chief Technology Officer, Simulmedia, Inc.

Moderator

Jacqueline Leo
Editor in Chief, The Fiscal Times


Marketers can customize messages to target audiences with once-unimaginable exactitude. But wary consumers may not see such customized content as a virtue. Media and delivery platforms are morphing quickly. As robust data-driven dialogues develop between brands and their constituencies, what does that mean for products, those who sell them and for those who consume?

Read the full transcript below. (Transcript by Realtime Transcription.)

Kirkpatrick:  Our next session, which is about the way that the combination of targeting and media and product development is all shifting in—before our eyes will be moderated by Jackie Leo. And thank you for Jackie filling in relatively last minute on this. She—you could say her bio, she’s the editor of “The Fiscal Times,” which she is, but she has a very eminent history in the media business. She has been the top editor at “Reader’s Digest, Family Circle,” and “Consumer Reports,” and a bunch of stuff on the Internet in more recent years.

So Jackie, take it away.

Leo:  Well, I’m sorry we’re not doing this by the pool, but you’ll have to forgive us. Here we all are. If you all had a product to sell and needed 70% of the universe of potential customers to buy your product in order to be successful, what do you think your investors would want to know? What were you smoking? That’s the flaw in the Obama care marketing plan, and here’s why.

According to the Center for Healthcare Research and Transformation in Ann Arbor, when you exclude Millennials with children who either qualify for Medicaid or who are covered by employer plans, and then exclude those on their parents’ coverage, the universe shrinks to 4 million people.

Now, everyone, including our president, is in the marketing game, and that’s probably everyone in this audience, whether we know it or not, and that’s certainly true for our four panelists.

From my left on, Samir Arora is CEO of Glam Media, which is the number-one women’s lifestyle media company, reaching 90 million unique visitors a month in the U.S. alone. His challenge is finding ways to target a mass-market audience.

Konrad Feldman—sorry. I made a mistake. Darren Clark is CTO of YP. Guess what that stands for. Formerly the Yellow Pages, the 127-year-old iconic print directory, and he’s rebuilding this brand on the Internet.

Konrad Feldman is CEO of Quantcast, which is a company that mines data, analyzes patterns and interprets consumer interests, and almost every web site that you know or know of, including my own, uses Quantcast as one of their beacons of what’s going on within our own audience.

And finally, Alison Lowery is CTO of Simulmedia, a company that knows more about you than you do. They find high-value TV audiences on undervalued inventory.

So targeted advertising, what used to be called one-to-one marketing, is now ubiquitous, and whether you’re marketing a product, an idea, or even getting someone to vote, it’s personal and it can be intrusive and it’s effective. But it has its down side, and our panel will be talking about the three competing power groups of today’s marketing, the brands, the consumer, and the media itself.

So I wanted to start with a question for Samir, because we just saw a story in “Adweek” that once again says I know that half of my advertising dollars work, but I don’t know which half, is an old adage.

So when you’re looking at targeting advertising, is it really working? And how is it working in terms of the consumers? And what are some of the conflicts that you see? What’s the best of it and maybe what’s the worst of it?

Arora:  That’s a really good question. I think if I step back, I spent about a decade at Apple, so I usually look at things from the consumer perspective first, and kind of stated and unstated needs. So the question is, you know, which part of advertising is desirable for us, all of us as consumers. And usually the quick answer is none, but then you go a little deeper and say that’s not really true. Mediums that understand how to do both contextual well-targeted things appeal both to men and women. So if you pick up a “Vogue” or a scuba diving magazine, it’s prepackaged for you very well, so you have an expectation of what it would be, both the content and the ads.

Same thing for prime time, same thing for Super Bowl and any event base, the form of the publishing has evolved over years, so the consumers know what to expect.

We on the Internet are a pretty young medium. What’s great about that is inherently, this medium, because it’s post-trend, post-television cable, is much, much smarter. So one example is it’s not that hard for a cable operator to have the technology to figure out if you’ve just purchased a car. Right after that, you’re probably not the best audience to target showing another car ad because all it’s going to do is invalidate what you do. It’s really very simple technologically-wise to do that.

So what I love about the technology part of our business is if you start from the premise that actually advertising is desirable when done well, and that’s a combination of context, who you are, which is personalization, the technology of the data itself, of what you are doing and where you’re doing it, but brought together in a way that anticipates and is smart, then people love it, and where it doesn’t, it becomes very intrusive.

So to answer your question in our scale, generally speaking, advertising, when you are communicating, like typing an e-mail, seems very intrusive, at least to me. So that’s not an area that I want advertising. It’s very creepy. That doesn’t work. And advertising when you’re in a context of a lifestyle or something you love, any passions, there, the combination works very well. So kind of the real problem that the Internet is helping solve, and there are players that do it well, and there are players who don’t do it well.

And I realize usually it’s when they don’t know the context of what you’re doing, that even if they can target a person, as we’ll hear from someone here, you’re the same person watching TV at prime time and middle of the night. The audience is not changing.

One of the CPM’s, 100, 1,000 times, something else changed. So there’s a whole system that created that context. Or the ads in the front of the magazine, versus the back of the magazine; there’s a lot of history to why that happened, that packaging. So I’m a very strong believer that if you package content and advertising or offer the consumer a choice to see something ad-free with a subscription, the consumer is in charge, then—and you do it well, smartly, intelligently, actually the payoffs are very high, because it’s inherently better for the consumer.

Leo:  But Alison, you were telling me a story earlier about Amazon, which I thought you might want to share with the audience, because they had a couple of problems.

Lowery:  They did. I was reading a brief article about the new book about Jeff Bezos in a business magazine. They were relaying a story that someone had gotten e-mail marketing on a product that they really didn’t want to be targeted on, and he—apparently, he has his own private e-mail address that anyone can address —

Leo:  You mean Jeff Bezos.

Lowery:  Yes. Jeff@amazon.com, in case someone’s interested in sending an e-mail.

He was quite taken aback by the feedback his marketing department had e-mail marketed someone for a sensitive product, and they had quite a bit of discussion about it. And it really impacted the way they were doing marketing; but back to your original question, I mean, if you think about what is targeted advertising, it is about increasing the relevance of the advertising to the consumer, regardless of where it’s on the Internet, magazines, billboards eventually, mobile or TV, and it’s about understanding what is relevant to that viewer or visitor or consumer.

And that has some really good possibilities, and it has some less good possibilities, depending on how invasive the targeting can be. And so the things that I think about a lot are how to preserve—how to facilitate that brand/consumer relationship, because the consumer—the brand is engaging you to build that relationship with the consumer, through your technologies or your web properties or your targeting capabilities or whatever, so how to facilitate that relationship in the best possible way and increase the relevance, the educational content for the end consumer.

Leo:  Okay, but let me ask a question to Darren, because I think you have a unique challenge. Stop me if I’m wrong, but your customers are small business owners in local areas; are they not?

Clark:  Correct.

Leo:  So you are carving out the universe in one area called small business owners; and then, how are you going to target them beyond what you already know that they have a small business in a regional area? How do you get where you want to go?

Clark:  For us, as a quick aside, we left AT&T. We were the last Yellow Pages that were part of the a phone company. We left last May through private equity transaction. And the interesting thing, when you leave the phone company, is we get to take a whole new look at our business, and one of the big things we realize is that we couldn’t keep pushing YP as a small business brand. We had to push as a brand for consumer.

When you try to sell a small business an advertising program, they start asking about Yelp and Google and those sorts of things. As much as we focus our sales company on the small business side, we’re really pushing our marketing message now towards the consumer, and we have an interesting thing in our business that not every marketer has. We have search traffic. We get to see display, you can access RTB, you can build rich profiles, you can build a point of view of who people are at a granular level.

Search tells you what people want, what they are trying to get done. So for us, the marketing force is really on the consumer side. And then we really try to marry those two things together of what you might see out in the advertised ecosystem and profile data, but marry that to search gives us a stronger, more effective way to not interrupt users, but actually remind them—to help them get things they are trying to accomplish done.

Leo:  So search works for you on that level, but now we get to Quantcast, which is looking at a lot of data from a lot of different points of view so try to come up with not only a profile of individuals, but of different sets of individuals and you have your finger on how many at any given point, the number of people that—and users that you’re looking at is enormous.

Feldman:  It is, yes, so we are measuring media consumption from most of the online population, and using sophisticated computer software to analyze this vast amount of data and create relevance for consumers to make advertising more targeted.

Advertising has always been targeted. People have to decide which newspaper to put an ad in, where to put a billboard and so on, but there’s a lot of waste in that process. And with digital media, we can make advertising much more relevant by being finer grain in how we deal with advertising. I think the opportunity is to create a much more relevant experience for consumers. You sort of mentioned advertising can be intrusive, and I think there’s two aspects to that:  One is advertising can be interruptive and, outside of search, I’ll argue advertising needs to be somewhat interruptive, either consciously or subconsciously to have impact.

The vast majority of the media that we consume is supported by advertising. It’s an enormous industry. So there’s going to be some level of interruption, but interruption’s much worse than the interruption is with content that you find irrelevant. When advertising is made relevant, two important things happen. It becomes useful, it becomes content for the consumer; but secondly, you need far less of it to create the economic exchange that is necessary for free access to media. So network television, it could be as much as 20 minutes of advertising every hour. And the reason for that is, for most people, it’s irrelevant. Because it’s irrelevant, marketers will only pay so much for it. Publishers need the income to support the programming, which is expensive, so they have to show more advertising and, as consumers, have to sit through more advertising.

Leo:  So then they go to Netflix, and there’s the end of the broadcasting.

Feldman:  You have a subscription model in certain cases that works, but it is worth remembering, for all the great services that have been provided under subscription models, the vast majority of media that we all consume is ad-supported.

Leo:  Let me ask—let’s take an interruption or a disruption of advertising that has yet to come, and let’s just talk about Twitter for a minute. I know we didn’t discuss this. How is that going to play? Here you have a very interesting IPO, did pretty well, all things considered, a company that hasn’t made any profit, hasn’t been nearly as successful in terms of its economics as Facebook or Google when they launched their IPOs. What’s going to happen to all these users who are used to a very clean experience, a very simple experience, when those ads start to appear in order for them to make money? Tell me what you all think. I’m sure you have talked about it endlessly.

Arora:  I think it’s very rare, if you start with a consumer promise, free, non-ad-supported, can you change it and survive, but there are exceptions to that. So the question is Facebook, that was not ad-supported, where you had your own feed, and suddenly you have ads for McDonald’s appearing in it.

So it’s not just Twitter’s issue. I think the real issue is you don’t launch the magazine or pilot without advertising, because you want the consumer experience to be in the package media. So Internet is especially—us in Silicon Valley tend to have a very strong effort of build the consumer base first, and then advertising will follow. And that is the current way almost every new Internet media company is being formed today, social media company.

So what Twitter’s trying to do has been done before, but it’s very, very rare that the consumer actually stands for it, but they do. So the question is when Twitter started sponsored tweets, that didn’t create intrusion for most users of Twitter. As it gets more intrusive, we’ll see whether it works or not, and Twitter will also find out the business models to do that; but my belief is the higher up in content you are, the more difficult it is to introduce advertising later. The higher up in communication you are, you have to find other ways to monetize, because generally people don’t want to be interrupted in communication.

The reason I say that, if you look at most social networks, like—networks. Twitter is not a social network from that regard, which have feeds and started from people connecting to people, traditionally, about 80% or 83% of it is just communication. The second usage, over 70% is photos, and those are actually the two hardest to advertise areas, because you are looking at a photo, you are not looking at the ad. So you look at even Instagram or Snapchat today or any of the big Asian companies of IM that are expanding, very difficult to monetize; but then you go into feeds, which is I think thanks to Twitter, who created feeds, and Facebook pivoted and created a feed based on Twitter, we’re now experiencing something very new, and what I would consider that as is no longer just social graph. It’s a people interest graph, so it’s a social interest graph, and a content interest graph that’s being created on top of it.

So by that I mean, when you look at something like a Pinterest, which is sitting on top of Facebook or Twitter, you’re actually connecting to people at an interest or passion level. Twitter is used that way, too, and Facebook is beginning to be used that way. And all of these have one thing in common, which is pretty amazing, which is the amount of time a consumer spends in the feed is somewhere between four to eight types more than consumer content in the feed itself. So actually the feed has become where you spend the time.

So that would be like saying the TV guide browser is eight times of all television viewership. Think of the power that social platforms have right now, where the amount of consumer time being spent in the pictures. So one example is Pinterest:  Every photo is repinned eight times.

So if you think about what’s happening, the actual relationship of the consumer to media is changing right now, and I have never seen anything like that. So from that regard, companies like Twitter that are feed-based are actually sitting in the ecosystem outside of content and almost like search was; where you go to Google, then you leave and you come back. I want a yoga retreat, you go back and forth.

So we have been trained to do something we never did in television media. It is a new use. Now I think feeds discovery and mobile discovery are actually the places of consumption, not just the places to find media.

Leo:  And you think you’re eclipsing surge?

Arora:  I think they’re an and. I think they are or serious app. So for a company like Glam, search has traditionally been a very low driver of traffic. So globally, we reach about 300 million consumers across all of the sites, and search this year declined to under 9%, not even 10%, because we’ve never focused on search.

For us, Facebook and Twitter and Pinterest and all of the feeds have been where we found people found things that is relevant to you; but if you take the notion that there’s a space of publishers and content providers, where you consume the content, so if you think about last week, Twitter turned on content consumption within their feed.

So this is a very big change. It is not a minor change. The use of Twitter is going to skyrocket, and some to the detriment, the negotiation between the publisher and Twitter is not clear. One example I leave with is when YouTube started, 80% of its usage was inside MySpace the first 18 months. Then YouTube became very big when MySpace went down. Somewhere between 20%-plus of YouTube usage is inside Facebook, but Facebook does not allow YouTube to run an ad in the video you’re watching hosted by YouTube inside Facebook. That’s a complete change of power.

So I think Twitter’s actually in a place where being in the feed means they are not only just a news feed. They actually have the potential of being a consumer feed, but I think Facebook is a whole different level.

Leo:  Got it. Anyone else want to comment on this?

Clark:  I think a lot of what Samir said about the value of the feed and how that’s analogous to search in some ways, I think that’s incredibly important point, because it’s an application that leads to content consumption. If you think about it. Search does something similar, but I think in the near term, they are going to keep mining the tonnage of their users. They will make money; but when you get into these different notions of social graph or even think of a commerce graph or commercial graph, as consumers start expressing affinities and relationships with brands and businesses, I think there’s a whole new set of opt-in marketing channels.

You see some of it out there, but it’s very immature right now. I think we’ll see that in the future where that becomes a pipe between the user and the brand, and you see offers and things between them.

Feldman:  I think anyone that has a large consumer base obviously needs to be very careful in terms of how they modify the service and they are not inundating their consumers with irrelevant information, whether it’s content or advertising; but equally, they’ve got a huge engaged audience worldwide, they have a lot of smart people, and they’ve got a couple billion dollars in the bank now that gives then a lot of opportunity to experiment and to find the right combination of services that will sort of support the consumer base and generate the revenue they need to grow.

Lowery:  Absolutely. And I think having that access to all of those relationships, they have to be very careful. I was reading an article not too long ago about Linked In had done some advertising, and they were taking benefit of the folks in a given person’s network that were engaged with an advertiser and they were showing images of those connections to a person in the context of advertising. And they got really fast negative feedback from that, and they had to take it off; but the strength of having access to all those relationships is really powerful, but where is what I call the creepiness boundary? Where is it that you cross that line as the owner of—and having the visibility of all those relationships, like the Twitter, like a Linked In, like a Facebook.

Leo:  Well, what Alison is saying, I think, the consumer is ultimately in charge, has been all along and that’s all of us, all of you. And with that in mind, it’s time for questions from the consumers. Yes, sir.

Bonchek:  Hi. Mark Bonchek with ORBIT. My question is about completely, if you look at what Nike is doing with digital sport, the Nike Plus running community, the Fuel Band, is that advertising, is it something else that they advertise on? What is it and are we going to see more of these owned engagement platforms or something like that?

Arora:  I think fundamentally, if you look at almost every CEO, CMO today, in the three buckets, the way they view reaching consumers, paid media is what we are talking about, advertising; but to a very large level, owned media and earned media, word of mouth has now become a platform for them to consider.

Now, some of this is not new. It’s just technology is new. I mean, if you look at companies like Nike, look at companies like Apple, Apple’s been doing evangelism and word of mouth for a very long time, so the platforms they are using to do those has changed and technology has entered the picture, but the format is—brands as publishers, I think that’s a pretty serious theme right now, and I look at it like a continuum.

So you’ve got pure content that’s either subscription or ad-supported, nothing to do with advertisers, then you start going into that plus ads; then you go into content with product mentions, and then you go into full advertorial.

So there’s a full range, and every brand is really playing with these in every combination to see if I’m a recipe database at Williams-Sonoma, have fantastic recipes, why does Williams-Sonoma have that and a publishing business? Actually the business coming from selling products. It’s building that to a relationship. So I think that’s right here, now, it’s a tremendous force of change, and there’s a lot of conversations going on between what’s the role of the new CMO. Is that, to the theme of this conference, do you need a technologist to be a CMO? And what is the role of the CIO? Do you need a marketer to be the CIO?

I think Mark Andreessen says it well:  Technology of software is eating media. That’s what he means in terms of what I think about it. There’s a fundamental shift happening right now in the use of technology for doing things and tasks and business processes we were used to, without technology. That’s a big change.

Leo:  Let me ask a question before we go on. Does that mean that we all have to hire data scientists in order to have a company? I mean, are we in the business now of having to figure out—

Feldman:  Increasingly, most businesses that deal with large amounts of data will have data scientists, absolutely.

Leo:  Even small amounts. From everything we’re talking about here, it’s all going to be about parsing the data and figuring out the target.

Lowery:  And bringing together different data sets and sources. So we’ve been bringing together Internet-based data for a while. Now we are bringing together the interaction of a viewer with their television set and what content they’re consuming. You have all of the off-line data that we’re bringing together; and too, we’re going to be bringing together the data collected through our apps on our phone, and our geo-based data from our phone or from our car. And it’s going to be informing not only who we are in terms of what we consume as it relates to content, but where we are and how long we’ve been there and how fast it took us to get there, et cetera.

Leo:  Who our friends are.

Lowery:  So bringing all that data together is no small feat, because it’s very diverse.

Feldman:  That’s not restricted just to media and advertising, but I think that there is a reason that media and advertising has been so pioneering in terms of the use of big data and the application of data scientists. And there’s a very clear feedback loop in terms of the benefit that you are getting from developing an algorithmic process, applying it to a particular business. You see results and those results can then fund additional developments and research. If it’s not coincidental that so much of the sort of fundamental research and development and software tools that have been released to open source for big data have come out of companies in the advertising—

Leo:  That means you two have to start paying your guys even more.

Arora:  I think one of the beliefs we share as a technologist—I’m not a media media person—was when the data gets really large, it’s very difficult to make any sense of it. That completely got disprove this had year, because of the NSA findings. If a government can actually look at data that’s—impossible amounts of data and make sense of it, that means companies will actually have ways to be able to use it very smartly, so I think it’s not just hiring data scientists. It’s actually the entire stack of data, which is hiring companies, who hires scientists and the differentiation will still be for a brand or a content platform, what’s your point of view?

So Apple’s point of view is fundamentally different than Amazon, but both of them have cloud services and that comes across very clearly. So Glam’s point of view would be to use that data, because our DNA is completely different.

So I think as this stack evolves, it’s really interesting to see which large corporation rise, but I do believe it is a skilled business. This is not a niche business for data, which is very hard. You have to have large amounts of data and large amounts of consumers to actually make meaningful sense of it; but the point of view is not talked about a lot, which I think is why this data is really interesting to have.

Leo:  No doubt about it. Questions?

Dominguez:  My name is Carlos Dominguez, with Cisco. And my question’s more as a consumer. When I’m hearing you talk, I’m kind of having this balancing act in my brain, which I call a value exchange. On one end, what value am I retrieving from your application, your ad, whatever it is, on one end.

The second one is on privacy. I’m balancing and making a decision, worried about things like that. So two questions, number one, is there at least, in my humble opinion, every Ts and Cs for contracts on, when you subscribe to service, has 50 pages—does anyone read them, by the way?

So back to one of the questions that he mentioned, simplification might be an interesting strategy in doing that. And then secondly, as a question, besides simplification, are you kind of approaching generations differently? Because I know what I do versus what my kids do is very radically different.

Clark:  Simplification, right now the entire thing is in disarray between the regulatory and legislative side is versus those of us in the industry, the publishers, so I agree that there needs to be a big push for simplicity, but between the DAA and the guys who are pushing the privacy—Consumer Protection Privacy Act, there’s no kind of center of gravity to where that’s moving forward. It’s hang wished for a year and a half, but I think simplicity is key.

We were talking about the fact some point, just like people—you mentioned Prizm. People woke up. We all suspected the NSA was doing that for years. It was a joke; but until we saw the smoking gun and the Snowden stuff, that’s when people woke up. So it will be interesting what American consumers can understand what data they are generating, what’s happening with it, where it’s going. It will be interesting.

On the second piece, the Millennials are much more likely to share. They will share a lot of stuff, but I think there’s a survey out a couple weeks ago that showed even them, they’re starting to get mindful of location data and when they want to let that out and when they don’t want to let it out, so until consumers really wrap their head around it or there’s a big event in the press, I think people are just going to stumble forward in the current construct.

Leo:  Are you seeing any changes from the data you collect, generationally?

Feldman:  There’s obviously different patterns of usage, different types of media that people like to consume, different combinations and devices and things like that. Also I think there are—certainly differences in terms of how people may share content, I don’t think that because people sharing more information, it really changes their perceptions of privacy. There are still things that people would react badly to if you were to do.

And I think that’s the case with any technology. How it is used can have very different implications and outcomes, and what we have to do is—as an industry is develop the right processes and standards and the right communication to your point. You are seeing a trend towards the challenge with things like terms and conditions is sort of balancing readability for someone who is not a lawyer with also making sure you haven’t left ambiguity for an agreement that’s legal and you are beginning to see both of them there, some explanations of what the document contains in pointing out key sections.

You see it a lot now where people are changing policies, providing clear, simplified explanations of how that happens, but still a balancing act between sort of the desire to make it easy to consume and understand and making sure it’s specific enough and doesn’t contain ambiguity. I don’t think it’s solved yet.

Lowery:  And about having a default opt-in or default opt-out, so when entering into these relationships, are you entering in, assuming you relationship is with the first party, whatever that means, and that you get to actively decide, or not. And the example that I gave around Linked In, they had said oh, no, you opted in. It was a default opt-in, and I think that’s going to make a huge difference as well, in terms of simplicity.

And as it relates to the different generations, I know I feel way different about the information that’s being shared than some of my younger counterparts. I’m always thinking about how far—just because you have the data doesn’t mean you should do anything with it. Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.

So how much benefit does the consumer get from being better informed, knowing what all the choices are, being better educated and developing a clear relationship or a stronger relationship with a brand that they want to build that relationship with. And I think that’s going to change a bit with the generations as well.

Arora:  Just a short comment. I think that trust between a consumer and in this case a media company, there is not only—varies not only by subgroups and generations, but also varies greatly within the same industry between companies. An example of that is I want Netflix to give me a better recommendation after I saw “Breaking Bad”. I have no problems with privacy, and most generations feel that way.

Any time my PowerPoint on Microsoft crashes, which it does a lot, I always say don’t send them the data; but just think about those two relationships I have as a consumer in my head. Apple asks me every single time I’m in a map application, do you want to share this. That’s a very high order; they decided privacy was important.

So my sense is, it’s about trust and it’s about long-term trust as a media owner, and then it really does vary by generation, even subgroups; women versus men, versus age and gender, of course, and what people want. There’s a word; that is very simple. It’s beyond a word, something is creepy. So you don’t want to be there.

And then there’s a big range that you want to really allow the consumer to participate in building trust with you, and I’m a simple—my simple belief is companies either care or they don’t care. If you care, your whole DNA of the company cares and you work on this very hard and other companies don’t care. And you know it, as a consumer. You don’t want to share anything with them.

Leo:  One last question, I think, if we could. Yes. Right there.

Spikeletler:  John Spikeletler, with Dell. And my question is going to tie together the last three concepts, because one of the things we’ve been working on in our foresight group is focusing on where consumers see value, and one of the things I think it’s facing the advertising industry is you can have all the big data in the world and all the analytics in it; but if you can’t get to the consumer, it’s worthless, and so we’re either facing governmental regulation on required opt-in, or the fact of the matter of the work being done in security space with big data and AI is basically increasing the ability of spam filters to effectively preclude you from being able to get to the consumer at some point, which then brings up the two things we have been seeing.

Rasmus talks a great deal about the serendipity economy, the fact that the value of something is a function of the time, place, who I’m with, what I’m doing, the last thing I did, which is a whole lot of information I need to share, and Seth Golden talks about permission marketing. So does the nature of advertising have to shift your point — and Fukuyama wrote the book “Trust”—does advertising have to shift first to gain trust and then get permission to become the trusted advisor I will give my information to, so you will only give me a message when it fits what I need right this moment.

Clark:  It will be a grind, not a shift. I don’t think one will stop and other will start, but they are going to grind against each other, just like traditional media has with emerging media and online media; but eventually, I think we’ll get there.

I think the question about Nike and their experiences, when you start to see the framing of the brand come together with mobile and social and technology, you end up with someone having an experience instead. And they didn’t—they might have bought a product, but you are giving them something bigger and you end up getting more out of the brand. That’s the future—no longer going to be transactional. It will be about loyalty and pulling people into your world.

Leo:  Anyone else to finish up? Thank you all very much. Thank you.

Kirkpatrick:  Thank you, Jackie.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,