Don’t Do It Just Because You Can

Don’t do it just because you can. No kidding. … Any geek with moderate coding skills or any overzealous marketer with access to some data can do real damage to real human beings without any superpowers to speak of. Largely, we wouldn’t go so far as calling them permanent damages, but I must say that some marketing messages and practices are really annoying and invasive. Enough to classify them as “junk mail” or “spam.” Yeah, I said that, knowing full-well that those words are forbidden in the industry in which I built my career.

Don’t do it just because you can. No kidding. By the way, I could have gone with Ben Parker’s “With great power comes great responsibility” line, but I didn’t, as it has become an over-quoted cliché. Plus, I’m not much of a fan of “Spiderman.” Actually, I’m kidding this time. (Not the “Spiderman” part, as I’m more of a fan of “Thor.”) But the real reason is any geek with moderate coding skills or any overzealous marketer with access to some data can do real damage to real human beings without any superpowers to speak of. Largely, we wouldn’t go so far as calling them permanent damages, but I must say that some marketing messages and practices are really annoying and invasive. Enough to classify them as “junk mail” or “spam.” Yeah, I said that, knowing full-well that those words are forbidden in the industry in which I built my career.

All jokes aside, I received a call from my mother a few years ago asking me if this “urgent” letter that says her car warranty will expire if she does not act “right now” (along with a few exclamation marks) is something to which she must respond immediately. Many of us by now are impervious to such fake urgencies or outrageous claims (like “You’ve just won $10,000,000!!!”). But I then realized that there still are plenty of folks who would spend their hard-earned dollars based on such misleading messages. What really made me mad, other than the fact that my own mother was involved in that case, was that someone must have actually targeted her based on her age, ethnicity, housing value and, of course, the make and model of her automobile. I’ve been doing this job for too long to be unaware of potential data variables and techniques that must have played a part so that my mother to receive a series of such letters. Basically, some jerk must have created a segment that could be named as “old and gullible.” Without a doubt, this is a classic example of what should not be done just because one can.

One might dismiss it as an isolated case of a questionable practice done by questionable individuals with questionable moral integrity, but can we honestly say that? I, who knows the ins and outs of direct marketing practices quite well, fell into traps more than a few times, where supposedly a one-time order mysteriously turns into a continuity program without my consent, followed by an extremely cumbersome canceling process. Further, when I receive calls or emails from shady merchants with dubious offers, I can very well assume my information changed hands in very suspicious ways, if not through outright illegal routes.

Even without the criminal elements, as data become more ubiquitous and targeting techniques become more precise, an accumulation of seemingly inoffensive actions by innocuous data geeks can cause a big ripple in the offline (i.e., “real”) world. I am sure many of my fellow marketers remember the news about this reputable retail chain a few years ago; that they accurately predicted pregnancy in households based on their product purchase patterns and sent customized marketing messages featuring pregnancy-related products accordingly. Subsequently it became a big controversy, as such a targeted message was the way one particular head of household found out his teenage daughter was indeed pregnant. An unintended consequence? You bet.

I actually saw the presentation of the instigating statisticians in a predictive analytics conference before the whole incident hit the wire. At the time, the presenters were unaware of the consequences of their actions, so they proudly shared employed methodologies with the audience. But when I heard about what they were actually trying to predict, I immediately turned my head to look at the lead statistician in my then-analytical team sitting next to me, and saw that she had a concerned look that I must have had on my face, as well. And our concern was definitely not about the techniques, as we knew how to do the same when provided with similar sets of data. It was about the human consequences that such a prediction could bring, not just to the eventual targets, but also to the predictors and their fellow analysts in the industry who would all be lumped together as evil scientists by the outsiders. In predictive analytics, there is a price for being wrong; and at times, there is a price to pay for being right, too. Like I said, we shouldn’t do things just because we can.

Analysts do not have superpowers individually, but when technology and ample amounts of data are conjoined, the results can be quite influential and powerful, much like the way bombs can be built with common materials available at any hardware store. Ironically, I have been evangelizing that the data and technology should be wielded together to make big and dumb data smaller and smarter all this time. But providing answers to decision-makers in ready-to-be used formats, hence “humanizing” the data, may have its downside, too. Simply, “easy to use” can easily be “easy to abuse.” After all, humans are fallible creatures with ample amounts of greed and ambition. Even without any obvious bad intentions, it is sometimes very difficult to contemplate all angles, especially about those sensitive and squeamish humans.

I talked about the social consequences of the data business last month (refer to “How to Be a Good Data Scientist“), and that is why I emphasized that anyone who is about to get into this data field must possess deep understandings of both technology and human nature. That little sensor in your stomach that tells you “Oh, I have a bad feeling about this” may not come to everyone naturally, but we all need to be equipped with those safeguards like angels on our shoulders.

Hindsight is always 20/20, but apparently, those smart analysts who did that pregnancy prediction only thought about the techniques and the bottom line, but did not consider all the human factors. And they should have. Or, if not them, their manager should have. Or their partners in the marketing department should have. Or their public relations people should have. Heck, “someone” in their organization should have, alright? Just like we do not casually approach a woman on the street who “seems” pregnant and say “You must be pregnant.” Only socially inept people would do that.

People consider certain matters extremely private, in case some data geeks didn’t realize that. If I might add, the same goes for ailments such as erectile dysfunction or constipation, or any other personal business related to body parts that are considered private. Unless you are a doctor in an examining room, don’t say things like “You look old, so you must have hard time having sex, right?” It is already bad enough that we can’t even watch golf tournaments on TV without those commercials that assume that golf fans need help in that department. (By the way, having “two” bathtubs “outside” the house at dusk don’t make any sense either, when the effect of the drug can last for hours for heaven’s sake. Maybe the man lost interest because the tubs were too damn heavy?)

While it may vary from culture to culture, we all have some understanding of social boundaries in casual settings. When you are talking to a complete stranger on a plane ride, for example, you know exactly how much information that you would feel comfortable sharing with that person. And when someone crosses the line, we call that person inappropriate, or “creepy.” Unfortunately, that creepy line is set differently for each person who we encounter (I am sure people like George Clooney or Scarlett Johansson have a really high threshold for what might be considered creepy), but I think we can all agree that such a shady area can be loosely defined at the least. Therefore, when we deal with large amounts of data affecting a great many people, imagine a rather large common area of such creepiness/shadiness, and do not ever cross it. In other words, when in doubt, don’t go for it.

Now, as a lifelong database marketer, I am not advocating some over-the-top privacy zealots either, as most of them do not understand the nature of data work and can’t tell the difference between informed (and mutually beneficial) messages and Big Brother-like nosiness. This targeting business is never about looking up an individual’s record one at a time, but more about finding correlations between users and products and doing some good match-making in mass numbers. In other words, we don’t care what questionable sites anyone visits, and honest data players would not steal or abuse information with bad intent. I heard about waiters who steal credit card numbers from their customers with some swiping devices, but would you condemn the entire restaurant industry for that? Yes, there are thieves in any part of the society, but not all data players are hackers, just like not all waiters are thieves. Statistically speaking, much like flying being the safest from of travel, I can even argue that handing over your physical credit card to a stranger is even more dangerous than entering the credit card number on a website. It looks much worse when things go wrong, as incidents like that affect a great many all at once, just like when a plane crashes.

Years back, I used to frequent a Japanese Restaurant near my office. The owner, who doubled as the head sushi chef, was not a nosy type. So he waited for more than a year to ask me what I did for living. He had never heard anything about database marketing, direct marketing or CRM (no “Big Data” on the horizon at that time). So I had to find a simple way to explain what I do. As a sushi chef with some local reputation, I presumed that he would know personal preferences of many frequently visiting customers (or “high-value customers,” as marketers call them). He may know exactly who likes what kind of fish and types of cuts, who doesn’t like raw shellfish, who is allergic to what, who has less of a tolerance for wasabi or who would indulge in exotic fish roes. When I asked this question, his answer was a simple “yes.” Any diligent sushi chef would care for his or her customers that much. And I said, “Now imagine that you can provide such customized services to millions of people, with the help of computers and collected data.” He immediately understood the benefits of using data and analytics, and murmured “Ah so …”

Now let’s turn the table for a second here. From the customer’s point of view, yes, it is very convenient for me that my favorite sushi chef knows exactly how I like my sushi. Same goes for the local coffee barista who knows how you take your coffee every morning. Such knowledge is clearly mutually beneficial. But what if those business owners or service providers start asking about my personal finances or about my grown daughter in a “creepy” way? I wouldn’t care if they carried the best yellowtail in town or served the best cup of coffee in the world. I would cease all my interaction with them immediately. Sorry, they’ve just crossed that creepy line.

Years ago, I had more than a few chances to sit closely with Lester Wunderman, widely known as “The Father of Direct Marketing,” as the venture called I-Behavior in which I participated as one of the founders actually originated from an idea on a napkin from Lester and his friends. Having previously worked in an agency that still bears his name, and having only seen him behind a podium until I was introduced to him on one cool autumn afternoon in 1999, meeting him at a small round table and exchanging ideas with the master was like an unknown guitar enthusiast having a jam session with Eric Clapton. What was most amazing was that, at the beginning of the dot.com boom, he was completely unfazed about all those new ideas that were flying around at that time, and he was precisely pointing out why most of them would not succeed at all. I do not need to quote the early 21st century history to point out that his prediction was indeed accurate. When everyone was chasing the latest bit of technology for quick bucks, he was at least a decade ahead of all of those young bucks, already thinking about the human side of the equation. Now, I would not reveal his age out of respect, but let’s just say that almost all of the people in his age group would describe occupations of their offspring as “Oh, she just works on a computer all the time …” I can only wish that I will remain that sharp when I am his age.

One day, Wunderman very casually shared a draft of the “Consumer Bill of Rights for Online Engagement” with a small group of people who happened to be in his office. I was one of the lucky souls who heard about his idea firsthand, and I remember feeling that he was spot-on with every point, as usual. I read it again recently just as this Big Data hype is reaching its peak, just like the dot.com boom was moving with a force that could change the world back then. In many ways, such tidal waves do end up changing the world. But lest we forget, such shifts inevitably affect living, breathing human beings along the way. And for any movement guided by technology to sustain its velocity, people who are at the helm of the enabling technology must stay sensitive toward the needs of the rest of the human collective. In short, there is not much to gain by annoying and frustrating the masses.

Allow me to share Lester Wunderman’s “Consumer Bill of Rights for Online Engagement” verbatim, as it appeared in the second edition of his book “Being Direct”:

  1. Tell me clearly who you are and why you are contacting me.
  2. Tell me clearly what you are—or are not—going to do with the information I give.
  3. Don’t pretend that you know me personally. You don’t know me; you know some things about me.
  4. Don’t assume that we have a relationship.
  5. Don’t assume that I want to have a relationship with you.
  6. Make it easy for me to say “yes” and “no.”
  7. When I say “no,” accept that I mean not this, not now.
  8. Help me budget not only my money, but also my TIME.
  9. My time is valuable, don’t waste it.
  10. Make my shopping experience easier.
  11. Don’t communicate with me just because you can.
  12. If you do all of that, maybe we will then have the basis for a relationship!

So, after more than 15 years of the so-called digital revolution, how many of these are we violating almost routinely? Based on the look of my inboxes and sites that I visit, quite a lot and all the time. As I mentioned in my earlier article “The Future of Online is Offline,” I really get offended when even seasoned marketers use terms like “online person.” I do not become an online person simply because I happen to stumble onto some stupid website and forget to uncheck some pre-checked boxes. I am not some casual object at which some email division of a company can shoot to meet their top-down sales projections.

Oh, and good luck with that kind of mindless mass emailing; your base will soon be saturated and you will learn that irrelevant messages are bad for the senders, too. Proof? How is it that the conversion rate of a typical campaign did not increase dramatically during the past 40 years or so? Forget about open or click-through rate, but pay attention to the good-old conversion rate. You know, the one that measures actual sales. Don’t we have superior databases and technologies now? Why is anyone still bragging about mailing “more” in this century? Have you heard about “targeted” or “personalized” messages? Aren’t there lots and lots of toolsets for that?

As the technology advances, it becomes that much easier and faster to offend people. If the majority of data handlers continue to abuse their power, stemming from the data in their custody, the communication channels will soon run dry. Or worse, if abusive practices continue, the whole channel could be shut down by some legislation, as we have witnessed in the downfall of the outbound telemarketing channel. Unfortunately, a few bad apples will make things a lot worse a lot faster, but I see that even reputable companies do things just because they can. All the time, repeatedly.

Furthermore, in this day and age of abundant data, not offending someone or not violating rules aren’t good enough. In fact, to paraphrase comedian Chris Rock, only losers brag about doing things that they are supposed to do in the first place. The direct marketing industry has long been bragging about the self-governing nature of its tightly knit (and often incestuous) network, but as tools get cheaper and sharper by the day, we all need to be even more careful wielding this data weaponry. Because someday soon, we as consumers will be seeing messages everywhere around us, maybe through our retina directly, not just in our inboxes. Personal touch? Yes, in the creepiest way, if done wrong.

Visionaries like Lester Wunderman were concerned about the abusive nature of online communication from the very beginning. We should all read his words again, and think twice about social and human consequences of our actions. Google from its inception encapsulated a similar idea by simply stating its organizational objective as “Don’t be evil.” That does not mean that it will stop pursuing profit or cease to collect data. I think it means that Google will always try to be mindful about the influences of its actions on real people, who may not be in positions to control the data, but instead are on the side of being the subject of data collection.

I am not saying all of this out of some romantic altruism; rather, I am emphasizing the human side of the data business to preserve the forward-momentum of the Big Data movement, while I do not even care for its name. Because I still believe, even from a consumer’s point of view, that a great amount of efficiency could be achieved by using data and technology properly. No one can deny that modern life in general is much more convenient thanks to them. We do not get lost on streets often, we can translate foreign languages on the fly, we can talk to people on the other side of the globe while looking at their faces. We are much better informed about products and services that we care about, we can look up and order anything we want while walking on the street. And heck, we get suggestions before we even think about what we need.

But we can think of many negative effects of data, as well. It goes without saying that the data handlers must protect the data from falling into the wrong hands, which may have criminal intentions. Absolutely. That is like banks having to protect their vaults. Going a few steps further, if marketers want to retain the privilege of having ample amounts of consumer information and use such knowledge for their benefit, do not ever cross that creepy line. If the Consumer’s Bill of Rights is too much for you to retain, just remember this one line: “Don’t be creepy.”

Why Model?

Why model? Uh, because someone is ridiculously good looking, like Derek Zoolander? No, seriously, why model when we have so much data around? The short answer is because we will never know the whole truth. That would be the philosophical answer. Physicists construct models to make new quantum field theories more attractive theoretically and more testable physically. If a scientist already knows the secrets of the universe, well, then that person is on a first-name basis with God Almighty, and he or she doesn’t need any models to describe things like particles or strings. And the rest of us should just hope the scientist isn’t one of those evil beings in “Star Trek.”

Why model? Uh, because someone is ridiculously good looking, like Derek Zoolander? No, seriously, why model when we have so much data around?

The short answer is because we will never know the whole truth. That would be the philosophical answer. Physicists construct models to make new quantum field theories more attractive theoretically and more testable physically. If a scientist already knows the secrets of the universe, well, then that person is on a first-name basis with God Almighty, and he or she doesn’t need any models to describe things like particles or strings. And the rest of us should just hope the scientist isn’t one of those evil beings in “Star Trek.”

Another answer to “why model?” is because we don’t really know the future, not even the immediate future. If some object is moving toward a certain direction at a certain velocity, we can safely guess where it will end up in one hour. Then again, nothing in this universe is just one-dimensional like that, and there could be a snowstorm brewing up on its path, messing up the whole trajectory. And that weather “forecast” that predicted the snowstorm is a result of some serious modeling, isn’t it?

What does all this mean for the marketers who are not necessarily masters of mathematics, statistics or theoretical physics? Plenty, actually. And the use of models in marketing goes way back to the days of punch cards and mainframes. If you are too young to know what those things are, well, congratulations on your youth, and let’s just say that it was around the time when humans first stepped on the moon using a crude rocket ship equipped with less computing power than an inexpensive passenger car of the modern days.

Anyhow, in that ancient time, some smart folks in the publishing industry figured that they would save tons of money if they could correctly “guess” who the potential buyers were “before” they dropped any expensive mail pieces. Even with basic regression models—and they only had one or two chances to get it right with glacially slow tools before the all-too-important Christmas season came around every year—they could safely cut the mail quantity by 80 percent to 90 percent. The savings added up really fast by not talking to everyone.

Fast-forward to the 21st Century. There is still a beauty of knowing who the potential buyers are before we start engaging anyone. As I wrote in my previous columns, analytics should answer:

1. To whom you should be talking; and
2. What you should offer once you’ve decided to engage someone.

At least the first part will be taken care of by knowing who is more likely to respond to you.

But in the days when the cost of contacting a person through various channels is dropping rapidly, deciding to whom to talk can’t be the only reason for all this statistical work. Of course not. There are plenty more reasons why being a statistician (or a data scientist, nowadays) is one of the best career choices in this century.

Here is a quick list of benefits of employing statistical models in marketing. Basically, models are constructed to:

  • Reduce cost by contacting prospects more wisely
  • Increase targeting accuracy
  • Maintain consistent results
  • Reveal hidden patterns in data
  • Automate marketing procedures by being more repeatable
  • Expand the prospect universe while minimizing the risk
  • Fill in the gaps and summarize complex data into an easy-to-use format—A must in the age of Big Data
  • Stay relevant to your customers and prospects

We talked enough about the first point, so let’s jump to the second one. It is hard to argue about the “targeting accuracy” part, though there still are plenty of non-believers in this day and age. Why are statistical models more accurate than someone’s gut feeling or sheer guesswork? Let’s just say that in my years of dealing with lots of smart people, I have not met anyone who can think about more than two to three variables at the same time, not to mention potential interactions among them. Maybe some are very experienced in using RFM and demographic data. Maybe they have been reasonably successful with choices of variables handed down to them by their predecessors. But can they really go head-to-head against carefully constructed statistical models?

What is a statistical model, and how is it built? In short, a model is a mathematical expression of “differences” between dichotomous groups. Too much of a mouthful? Just imagine two groups of people who do not overlap. They may be buyers vs. non-buyers; responders vs. non-responders; credit-worthy vs. not-credit-worthy; loyal customers vs. attrition-bound, etc. The first step in modeling is to define the target, and that is the most important step of all. If the target is hanging in the wrong place, you will be shooting at the wrong place, no matter how good your rifle is.

And the target should be expressed in mathematical terms, as computers can’t read our minds, not just yet. Defining the target is a job in itself:

  • If you’re going after frequent flyers, how frequent is frequent enough for you? Five times a year or 10 times a year? Or somewhere in between? Or should it remain continuous?
  • What if the target is too small or too large? What then?
  • If you are looking for more valuable prospects, how would you express that? In terms of average spending, lifetime spending or sheer number of transactions?
  • What if there is an inverse relationship between frequency and dollar spending (i.e., high spenders shopping infrequently)?
  • And what would be the borderline number to be “valuable” in all this?

Once the target is set, after much pondering, then the job is to select the variables that describe the “differences” between the two groups. For example, I know how much marketers love to use income variables in various situations. But if that popular variable does not explain the differences between the two groups (target and non-target), the mathematics will mercilessly throw it out. This rigorous exercise of examining hundreds or even thousands of variables is one of the most critical steps, during which many variables go through various types of transformations. Statisticians have different preferences in terms of ideal numbers of variables in a model, while non-statisticians like us don’t need to be too concerned, as long as the resultant model works. Who cares if a cat is white or black, as long as it catches mice?

Not all selected variables are equally important in model algorithms, either. More powerful variables will be assigned with higher weight, and the sum of these weighted values is what we call model score. Now, non-statisticians who have been slightly allergic to math since the third grade only need to know that the higher the score, the more likely the record in question is to be like the target. To make the matter even simpler, let’s just say that you want higher scores over lower scores. If you are a salesperson, just call the high-score prospects first. And would you care how many variables are packed into that score, for as long as you get the good “Glengarry Glen Ross” leads on top?

So, let me ask again. Does this sound like something a rudimentary selection rule with two to three variables can beat when it comes to identifying the right target? Maybe someone can get lucky once or twice, but not consistently.

That leads to the next point, “consistency.” Because models do not rely on a few popular variables, they are far less volatile than simple selection rules or queries. In this age of Big Data, there are more transaction and behavioral data in the mix than ever, and they are far more volatile than demographic and geo-demographic data. Put simply, people’s purchasing behavior and preferences change much faster than family composition or their income, and that volatility factor calls for more statistical work. Plus, all facets of marketing are now more about measurable results (ah, that dreaded ROI, or “Roy,” the way I call it), and the businesses call for consistent hitters over one-hit wonders.

“Revealing hidden patterns in data” is my favorite. When marketers are presented with thousands of variables, I see a majority of them just sticking to a few popular ones all the time. Some basic recency and frequency data are there, and among hundreds of demographic variables, the list often stops after income, age, gender, presence of children, and some regional variables. But seriously, do you think that the difference between a luxury car buyer and an SUV buyer is just income and age? You see, these variables are just the ones that human minds are accustomed to. Mathematics do not have such preconceived notions. Sticking to a few popular variables is like children repeatedly using three favorite colors out of a whole box of crayons.

I once saw a neighborhood-level U.S. Census variable called “% Households with Septic Tanks” in a model built for a high-end furniture catalog. Really, the variable was “percentage of houses with septic tanks in the neighborhood.” Then I realized it made a lot of sense. That variable was revealing how far away that neighborhood was located in comparison to populous city centers. As the percentage of septic tanks increased, the further away the residents were from the city center. And maybe those folks who live in scarcely populated areas were more likely to shop for furniture through catalogs than the folks who live closer to commercial areas.

This is where we all have that “aha” moment. But you and I will never pick that variable in anything that we do, not in million years, no matter how effective it may be in finding the target prospects. The word “septic” may scare some people off at “hello.” In any case, modeling procedures reveal hidden connections like that all of the time, and that is a very important function in data-rich environments. Otherwise, we will not know what to throw out without fear, and the databases will continuously become larger and more unusable.

Moving on to the next points, “Repeatable” and “Expandable” are somewhat related. Let’s say a marketer has been using a very innovative selection logic that she came across almost by accident. In pursuing special types of wealthy people, she stumbled upon a piece of data called “owner of swimming pool.” Now, she may have even had a few good runs with it, too. But eventually, that success will lead to the question of:

1. Having to repeat that success again and again; and
2. Having to expand that universe, when the “known” universe of swimming pool owners become depleted or saturated.

Ah, the chagrin of a one-hit-wonder begins.

Use of statistical models, with help of multiple variables and scalable scoring, would avoid all of those issues. You want to expand the prospect universe? No trouble. Just dial down the scores on the scale a little further. We can even measure the risk of reaching into the lower-scoring groups. And you don’t have to worry about coverage issues related to a few variables, as those won’t be the only ones in the model. Want to automate the selection process? No problem there, as using a score, which is a summary of key predictors, is far simpler than having to carry a long list of data variables into any automated system.

Now, that leads to the next point, “Filling in the gaps and summarizing the complex data into an easy-to-use format.” In the age of ubiquitous and “Big” data, this is the single-most important point, way beyond the previous examples for traditional 1-to-1 marketing applications. We are definitely going through massive data overloads everywhere, and someone better refine the data and provide some usable answers.

As I mentioned earlier, we build models because we will never know the whole truth. I believe that the Big Data movement should be all about:

1. Filtering the noise from valuable information; and
2. Filling the gaps.

“Gaps,” you say? Believe me, there are plenty of gaps in any dataset, big or small.

When information continues to get piled on, the resultant database may look big. And they are physically large. But in marketing, as I repeatedly emphasized in my previous columns, the data must be realigned to “buyer-centric” formats, with every data point describing each individual, as marketing is all about people.

Sure, you may have tons of mobile phone-related data. In fact, it could be quite huge in size. But let me turn that upside down for you (more like sideways-up, in practice). Now, try to describe everyone in your footprint in terms of certain activities. Say, “every smart phone owner who used more than 80 percent of his or her monthly data allowance on the average for the past 12 months, regardless of the carrier.” Hey, don’t blame me for asking these questions just because it’s inconvenient for data handlers to answer them. Some marketers would certainly benefit from information like that, and no one cares about just bits and pieces of data, other than for some interesting tidbits at a party.

Here’s the main trouble when you start asking buyer-related questions like that. Once we try to look at the world from the “buyer-centric” point of view, we will realize there are tons of missing data (i.e., a whole bunch of people with not much information). It may be that you will never get this kind of data from all carriers. Maybe not everyone is tracked this way. In terms of individuals, you may end up with less than 10 percent in the database with mobile information attached to them. In fact, many interesting variables may have less than 1 percent coverage. Holes are everywhere in so-called Big Data.

Models can fill in those blanks for you. For all those data compilers who sell age and income data for every household in the country, do you believe that they really “know” everyone’s age and income? A good majority of the information is based on carefully constructed models. And there is nothing wrong with that.

If you don’t get to “know” something, we can get to a “likelihood” score—of “being like” that something. And in that world, every measurement is on a scale, with no missing values. For example, the higher the score of a model built for a telecommunication company, the more likely that the prospect is going to use a high-speed data plan, or the international long distance services, depending on the purpose of the model. Or the more likely the person will buy sports packages via cable or satellite. Or the person is more likely to subscribe to premium movie channels. Etc., etc. With scores like these, a marketer can initiate the conversation with—not just talking to—a particular prospect with customized product packages in his hand.

And that leads us to the final point in all this, “Staying relevant to your customers and prospects.” That is what Big Data should be all about—at least for us marketers. We know plenty about a lot of people. And they are asking us why we are still so random about marketing messages. With all these data that are literally floating around, marketers can do so much better. But not without statistical models that fill in the gaps and turn pieces of data into marketing-ready answers.

So, why model? Because a big pile of information doesn’t provide answers on its own, and that pile has more holes than Swiss cheese if you look closely. That’s my final answer.

Who’s Your Scapegoat?

I find it interesting that machines and procedures often become scapegoats for “human” errors. Remember the time when the word “mainframe” was a dirty word? As if those pieces of hardware were contaminated by some failure-inducing agents. Yeah, sure. All your worries will disappear along with those darn mainframes. Or did they?

I find it interesting that machines and procedures often become scapegoats for “human” errors. Remember the time when the word “mainframe” was a dirty word? As if those pieces of hardware were contaminated by some failure-inducing agents. Yeah, sure. All your worries will disappear along with those darn mainframes. Or did they? I don’t know what specific hardware is running behind those intangible “clouds” nowadays, but in the age when anyone can run any operating system on any type of hardware, the fact that such distinctions made so much mayhem in organizations is just ridiculous. I mean really, when most of computing and storage are taken care of in the big cloud, how is the screen that you’re looking at any different than a dummy terminal from the old days? Well, of course they are in (or near) retina display now, but I mean conceptually. The machines were just doing the work that they were designed to do. Someone started blaming the hardware for their own shortcomings, and soon, another dirty word was created.

In some circles of marketers, you don’t want to utter “CRM” either. I wasn’t a big fan of that word even when it was indeed popular. For a while, everything was CRM this or CRM that. Companies spent seven-figure sums on some automated CRM solution packages, or hired a whole bunch of specialists whose titles included the word CRM. Evidently, not every company broke even on that investment, and the very concept “CRM” became the scapegoat in many places. When the procedure itself is the bad guy, I guess fewer heads will roll—unless, of course, one’s title includes that dirty word. But really, how is that “Customer Relationship Management” could be all that bad? Delivering the right products and offers to the right person through the right channel can’t be that wrong, can it? Isn’t that the whole premise of one-to-one marketing, after all?

Now, if someone overinvested on some it-can-walk-on-the-water automated system, or just poorly managed the whole thing, let’s get the record straight. Someone just messed it all up. But the concept of taking care of customers with data-based marketing and sales programs was never the problem. If an unqualified driver creates a major car accident, is that the car’s fault? It would be easier to blame the internal combustion engine for human errors, but it just ain’t fair. Fair or not, however, over-investment or blind investment on anything will inevitably call for a scapegoat. If not now, in the near future. My prediction? The next scapegoat will be “Big Data” if that concept doesn’t create steady revenue streams for investors soon. But more on that later.

I’ve seen some folks who think “analytics” is bad, too. That one is tricky, as the word “analytics” doesn’t mean just one thing. It could be about knowing what is going on around us (like having a dashboard in a car). Or it could be about describing the target (where are the customers and what do they look like?). Or it could be about predicting the future (who is going to buy what and where?). So, when I hear that “analytics” didn’t work out for them, I am immediately thinking someone screwed things up dearly after overspending on that thing called “analytics,” and then started blaming everything else but themselves. But come on, if you bought a $30,000 grand piano for your kids to play chopsticks on it, is that the piano’s fault?

In the field of predictive analytics for marketing, the main goals come down to these two:

  1. To whom should you be talking, and
  2. If you decided to talk to someone, what are you going to offer? (Please don’t tell me “the same thing for everyone”.)

And that’s really it. Sure, we can talk about products and channels too, but those are all part of No. 2.

No. 1 is relatively simple. Let’s say you have an opportunity to talk to 1 million people, and let’s assume it will cost about $1 to talk to each of them. Now, if you can figure out who is more likely to respond to your offer “before” you start talking to them, you can obviously save a lot of money. Even with a rudimentary model with some clunky data, we can safely cut that list down to 1/10 without giving up much opportunity and save you $900,000. Even if your cost is a fraction of that figure, there still is a thing called “opportunity cost,” and you really don’t want to annoy people by over-communicating (as in “You’re spamming me!”). This has been the No. 1 reason why marketers have been employing predictive models, going back to the punchcard age of the ’60s. Of course, there have been carpet-bombers like AOL, but we can agree that such a practice calls for a really deep pocket.

No. 2 gets more interesting. In the age of ubiquitous data and communication channels, it must become the center of attention. Analytics are no longer about marketers deciding to whom to talk, as marketers are no longer the sole dictators of the communication. Now that it is driven by the person behind the screen in real-time, marketers don’t even get to decide whether they should talk to them or not. Yes, in traditional direct marketing or email channels, “selection” may still matter, but the age of “marketers ranking the list of prospects” is being rapidly replaced by “marketers having to match the right product and offer to the person behind the screen in real-time.” If someone is giving you about half a second for you to respond, then you’d best find the most suitable offer in that time, too. It’s all about the buyers now, not the marketers or the channels. And analytics drive such personalization. Without the analytics, everyone who lands on some website or passes by some screen will get the same offer. That is so “1984,” isn’t it?

Furthermore, the analytics that truly drive personalization at this level are not some simple segmentation techniques either. By design, segmentation techniques put millions of people in the same bucket, if a few commonalities are found among them. And such common variables could be as basic as age, income, region and number of children—hardly the whole picture of a person. The trouble with that type of simplistic approach is also very simple: Nobody is one-dimensional. Just because a few million other people in the same segment to which I happen to be assigned are more “likely” to be into outdoor sports, should I be getting camping equipment offers whenever I go to ESPN.com? No siree. Someone can be a green product user, avid golfer, gun owner, children’s product buyer, foreign traveler, frequent family restaurant visitor and conservative investor, all at the same time. And no, he may not even have multiple personalities; and no, don’t label him with this “one” segment name, no matter how cute that name may be.

To deal with this reality, marketers must embrace analytics even more. Yes, we can estimate the likelihood measures of all these human characteristics, and start customizing our products and offers accordingly. Once complex data variables are summarized into the form of “personas” based on model scores, one doesn’t have to be a math genius to know this particular guy would appreciate the discount offer for cruise tickets more than a 10 percent-off coupon for home theater systems.

Often people are afraid of the unknowns. But that’s OK. We all watch TV without really understanding how HD quality pictures show up on it. Let’s embrace the analytics that way, too. Let’s not worry about all the complex techniques and mystiques behind it. Making it easy for the users should be the job of analysts and data scientists, anyway. The only thing that the technical folks would want from the marketers is asking the right questions. That still is the human element in all this, and no one can provide a right answer to a wrong question. Then again, is that how analytics became a dirty word?

Making Your Video Go Viral

Having your video go viral is every direct marketer’s dream. Imagine your video sales message, reaching your best prospects with them loving it and sharing it with their tribes. Then friends of friends share it, and within days you have hundreds of thousands—maybe even millions of views. You sell a boatload of products and you’re hearing ka-ching, ka-ching, ka-ching

Having your video go viral is every direct marketer’s dream. Imagine your video sales message, reaching your best prospects with them loving it and sharing it with their tribes. Then friends of friends share it, and within days you have hundreds of thousands—maybe even millions of views. You sell a boatload of products and you’re hearing ka-ching, ka-ching, ka-ching all the way to the bank. Well, here are five ideas about creating videos that will be watched and perhaps shared.

But first, let’s make this very clear (and you already know this even if the boss or client doesn’t get it):

You can’t MAKE your video go viral.

Only the audience will decide if your video is worthy enough to go viral. For the most part, it’s out of your control.

So clear your brain of this fantasy and come back to reality. You may have to clear the boss’s brain or your client’s brain, too. Your odds of getting struck by lightning may be higher than having your video watched by the masses.

But there are two things you can do to encourage more people to watch your video, and maybe, just maybe, it will be a success for you on a down to earth scale.

Part one, discussed in today’s video, revolves around how you stimulate emotion for your online video, along with introducing you to the amygdala (a-mig’-de-lah)—the lizard brain.

Part two, in our next blog, revolves around how you influence the opportunity for your video to go viral through shared, paid and earned media, to create a ripple effect for distribution of your online video.

(If the video isn’t just above this line, click here to view it.)

Addendum to our last blog about video viewing on tablets:
The recently released “Adobe 2012 Mobile Consumer” report reveals a bit about the preferred activity of U.S. Tablet users by age. The percentages below reflect the percentage that cites “view videos” as the “most common tablet activity.”

Age 18-29 5.4%
Age 30-49 6.4%
Age 50-64 14.3%

It’s clear that an older age demographic—Baby Boomers, who grew up with television—use their tablets to watch online video at a much higher rate than people under the age of 50. And it’s clear, too, that as consumers discover the ease of video viewing on tablets, more and more will be there to watch your video, too.