Think of Food Nutrition Labels. Now, There’s Audience Data Labeling

This summer — this “nutritional” label for commercially available audience data, which vendors, agencies, advertisers and publishers can use to understand the sourcing of targeting data and how it is prepared for market — is ready for marketplace use.

Last fall, I reported briefly on an industry initiative related to “data labeling” a bid to provide transparency of data sourcing for audience data used in digital and mobile marketing. DataLabel.org is an initiative of the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) and the IAB Tech Lab. (At the time of inception, the Data & Marketing Association now the Data Marketing Analytics division of the Association of National Advertisers was also at the table.)

This summer this “nutritional” label for commercially available audience data, which vendors, agencies, advertisers and publishers can use to understand the sourcing of targeting data and how it is prepared for market is ready for marketplace use.  (From a June 27 IAB Tech Lab press release🙂

“Data transparency is a table-stakes requirement to ensure responsible and effective use of audience data and companies that provide consistent access to detailed information about their data will attract more business,” said Dennis Buchheim, EVP and general manager at IAB Tech Lab. “Taking part in the corresponding compliance program will further differentiate an organization, affirming their full commitment to the highest standards.”

Transparency in Data Sourcing Matters

I remember hearing IAB CEO Randall Rothenberg admonishing the ad tech ecosystem in early 2017 to get out of the “fake anything” business, and arguably the effects of fraud, brand safety, and other concerns have led many advertising and marketing professionals to scour their data sourcing, permissions, stacking, integrating, and statistical analyzing to make sure that an otherwise reputable company is not engaged with anything untoward on the data front.

DataLabel.org supports this objective, in part, and goes further.  While it does not assign a quality score to any particular data source, it does enable apples-to-apples comparisons in important areas, (Opens as a PDF) which inform where media dollars based on audience data are committed:

Data Labeling label
Source: DataLabel.org

Yes, it’s an agnostic nutritional data label for data sourcing. Through IAB et al, dozens of companies were part of a working group that led to the Data Transparency Standard, Version 1.0 (a PDF download] led by Meredith Digital, Lotame Solutions and Pandora, among its supporting cast.

Does ‘Table-Stakes’ Mean Traction? You Look Good Dressed, in Responsible Data

According to the IAB, “completion of the program requires an annual business audit to confirm that the information provided within the labelling is reliable, that the organization has the necessary systems, processes, and personnel in place to sustain consistent label completion at scale, and that a label can be produced for all in-market segments available. Engagements typically range between [two to five] months, depending upon the size and complexity of the company’s business.”

So now that’s the Data Label is available to the data-driven marketing marketplace, is there real traction to see its use?  From the data provider side, at least, I’d say so.  While some may be taking a wait-and-see approach, some data marketing companies are moving forward with data labeling and transparency certification.

“The digital ecosystem tends to focus on areas like inventory and traffic,” said Chris Hemick, senior product marketing manager, Alliant, whose company is now in the onboarding process. “Alliant is an advocate for bringing the same level of focus to the data marketplace. We firmly believe that IAB’s efforts to spotlight data provider practices around audience creation will be a positive for the entire industry.”

Another data provider, Audience Acuity, echoes these sentiments. “The concept of the Data Transparency Label was introduced in the fourth quarter of last year, after it was developed by the ANA’s Data Marketing Analytics (DMA) division, the IAB Tech Lab, the Coalition for Innovative Media Measurement (CIMM), and the Advertising Research Foundation (ARF),” said Riad Shalaby, CMO of Audience Acuity. “We are aligned with their perspective on this important topic, and we are delighted to be one of the first major data companies in the United States to provide this level of transparency.”

There are many things we, as data marketing professionals, need to concern ourselves with in best practices, ethics, and even legal compliance. Brand safety, ad measurement, piracy, privacy and security, and fake anything are among them. Proper data governance is related to all of these concerns. The more we spotlight our roles as stewards of and for data integrity, the better we can achieve marketplace confidence and trust in the very information that helps make brand-consumer engagement succeed.

Dare to Scare: What If ‘They’ Closed the Internet?

But what if “they” — starting with policymakers in this country — took the extreme step of mimicking Europe, eschewing third-party data collection and use, destroying all of the free content such data transfers pay for, and effectively put today’s open Web behind pay walls and data walls?

The fragmentation of the Internet is marching along.

Europe went all “opt-in” — effectively halting a significant part of the Internet’s financing mechanism all in the name of privacy, without fairly considering the social and economic ramifications on competition, diversity, and democracy. (Or worse, they considered these aspects — and shut it down, anyway.)

China (and most despotic countries) bar access to much Western content. Will Hong Kong be next? Meanwhile, many of these “closed” countries are active players in using digital channels to stoke up social division and to meddle in free nations’ democratic processes.

And then there’s the rest of the global Internet — and the organic, disruptive, and innovative way it is built, maintained, and paid for. Simply allowing data to flow to responsible uses, and enable such exchanges to finance news, apps, games, email, social platforms, video, niche content, and so many other content and conveniences it would be impossible to list them all.

But what if “they” — starting with policymakers in this country — took the extreme step of mimicking Europe, eschewing third-party data collection and use, destroying all of the free content such data transfers pay for, and effectively put today’s open Web behind pay walls and data walls?

Sound very elitist? It is. Sound anti-progressive? It’s that, too. Anti-commercial? You bet. Anti-competitive? Very much so. Anti-consumer? Oh yes, it’s that, too. The deleterious effects may be already underway.

And if we’re not careful, it may just happen in the country that is most responsible for building the Global Information Economy as we know it. What a travesty it would be to throw such leadership away.

A recent study — just looking at the app world — gives a glimpse of what’s at stake. Looking at just nine top-used mobile apps, consumers state they would value access to such content at approximately $173 billion per year — content that is free to them today, thanks to ad financing. Wow! Further, current ad revenue for these apps is a tiny fraction of these assigned values. So, net, there is a huge economic dividend to consumers (and the economy) because these funds stay in consumer pockets, or are spent elsewhere.

As we march forth on privacy-first, we must consider what could happen if such responsible data uses were shut down by short-sighted public policy. What if the result were a “dumb” Internet? There’s still time for U.S. leadership, pragmatism, and a sensible way forward.

Thankful for Being ‘Reasonable’ With Data-Driven Marketing

Marketers were given an early Thanksgiving: a recognition by the Federal Trade Commission that “data” is indeed the fuel of the digital economy, and that most consumers are pragmatic toward how data, and data-driven marketing, finances the online content they rely upon and enjoy.

Marketers were given an early Thanksgiving: a recognition by the Federal Trade Commission that “data” is indeed the fuel of the digital economy, and that most consumers are pragmatic toward how data, and data-driven marketing, finances the online content they rely upon and enjoy.

Some might call such a view logical. Some factual. Some realistic. Let’s call it all of these and “reasonable,” as well.

On Nov. 9, the FTC, in comments to the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration regarding the Administration’s approach to consumer privacy said:

“The FTC supports a balanced approach to privacy that weighs the risks of data misuse with the benefits of data to innovation and competition. Striking this balance correctly is essential to protecting consumers and promoting competition and innovation, both within the U.S. and globally.”

The comments articulate how the FTC has pursued enforcement action in its existing privacy enforcement, a bright line of various consumer harms: financial injury, personal injury, reputational injury and unwanted intrusion, the latter incorporating the sanctity of their homes and intimate lives.

A Succinct Recognition of Responsible Data Usage

The comments call out the benefits of responsible data flows in our economy (note: footnotes are omitted in excerpts):

“In addition to considering the risks identified above, any approach to privacy must also consider how consumer data fuels innovation and competition. The digital economy has benefited consumers in many ways, saving individuals’ time and money, creating new opportunities, and conferring broad social and environmental benefits. For example, recent innovations have enabled:

  • Better predictions about and planning for severe weather events, including updated flood warnings, real-time evacuation routes, and improved emergency responses and measures, that can allow people to plan for and avoid dangerous conditions.
  • Improved consumer fraud detection in the financial and banking sector, as institutions can obtain insights into consumers’ purchasing and behavior patterns that will allow them to proactively identify and immediately stop fraudulent transactions when they are discovered.
  • Free or substantially discounted services, including free communications technologies (email, VoIP, etc.), inexpensive and widely available financial products, and low-cost entertainment.
  • Safer, more comfortable homes, as IoT [Internet of Things] devices detect flooding in basements, monitor energy use, identify maintenance issues, and remotely control devices, such as lights and ovens.
  • Better health and wellness, as a variety of diagnostics, screening apps and wearables enable richer health inputs, remote diagnosis by medical professionals, and virtual consultations.
  • More convenient shopping, as retail stores track both sales and inventory in real-time via shopping data to optimize product inventory in each store.
  • More relevant online experiences, as retailers provide customized offers and video services recommend new shows.
  • Easier-to-find parking, as cities deploy smart sensors to provide residents with real-time data about available parking spots.
  • Increased connectivity, as consumers can get immediate answers to questions by asking their digital voice assistants and can remotely operate devices, such as lights and door locks, with a voice command or single touch on a phone.

“Privacy standards that give short shrift to the benefits of data-driven practices may negatively affect innovation and competition. Moreover, regulation can unreasonably impede market entry or expansion by existing companies; the benefits of privacy regulation should be weighed against these potential costs to competition.”

While we may believe the FTC is stating the obvious here, such matter-of-factness about marketplace observations cannot be taken for granted. An entirely new Internet regulation and regimen emanating from Europe  with its own U.S. fan base among some academics and privacy fundamentalists would take direct aim at these social and economic outcomes through cumbersome, inflexible, rigid consent schemes. These must be resisted not because privacy protections are not worth pursuing (they are), and not because consent is important (it is) but because, as the FTC comments also show, effective privacy enforcement is already soundly in place in America. And where new regulations are enacted, they ought to be flexible, measured and a balanced approach. “Reasonable” is the concept in play here.

A Risk-Based Approach

Thankfully, “a risk-based approach is in the FTC’s institutional DNA,” the FTC reports. For example, in this important area of consumer control, the commission writes (again, footnotes omitted):

“The FTC has long encouraged a balanced approach to control. Giving consumers the ability to exercise meaningful control over the collection and use of data about them is beneficial in some cases. However, certain controls can be costly to implement and may have unintended consequences. For example, if consumers were opted out of online advertisements by default (with the choice of opting in), the likely result would include the loss of advertising-funded online content.”

This is a pivotal moment. In effect, this is a recognition of two decades of responsible data collection and use at work in the Internet economy, and perhaps another 100 years of similar data use in the offline economy. In both cases, advertisers and marketers have implemented effective self-regulation conduct codes (disclosure, my professional relationships supports such codes), that are backed by enforcement and accountability that can refer companies to government agencies. The FTC actually used the NTIA comments to call out enforcement cases where private firms purportedly failed to follow self-regulatory codes of conduct.

As we debate public policy for privacy and security in the next Congress, and state legislatures, too and among ourselves as citizens and industry participants it’s wise to understand and appreciate what responsible data collection and use has brought forth in our economy, and how reasonable, risk-based approaches to policy making can best serve us all.

While I say “thank you” to the FTC for recognizing this I’m also thankful for an industry of practitioners who recognize and understand how and why data stewardship matters.

Golden Nuggets: Advertising’s ‘Data’ Wave Has Arrived

When I look at the world of advertising, by way of my career path through the Direct Marketing Association and Harte Hanks and now with the Digital Advertising Alliance—I confess I’ve been a “direct response” snob by training. (As a PR guy, I tend to enjoy Kool-Aid.)

When I look at the world of advertising, by way of my career path through the Direct Marketing Association and Harte Hanks and now with the Digital Advertising Alliance—I confess I’ve been a “direct response” snob by training. (As a PR guy, I tend to enjoy Kool-Aid.)

Always a victim of brand czars and image advertising, the world of direct response long has been relegated to “below the line” and ironically “unmeasured media”—even though direct-response marketers (no matter what the medium) always had the secret sauce in sight: relentless testing, true measurability and accountability, all to figure out which advertising messages and campaigns actually produced. The result might be a sale, a lead, traffic—always a defined objective, with a return on investment obsession. What’s not sexy about advertising that works?

It seems like for 20-plus years—with the rise of database marketing, customer relationship management, inbound marketing, agency holding companies gobbling up digital and direct agencies, marketing automation, customer centricity, brand interaction, personas and analytics—we might be able to say to ourselves, data-driven advertising has arrived! All marketing is now integrated! We are now welcomed in the C-suite!

That does not take anything away from brilliant creative—we all love brilliant creative—but if the offer, the strategy, the audience are not on target, what good is brilliant creative?

Recently at the Direct Marketing Club of New York January luncheon, Bruce Biegel, senior managing director, The Winterberry Group, presented his annual media roundup of the prior year with projections for 2015. As Targeting Marketing reported, it’s a data lover’s dream. Every trend behind follow-the-money seems to point to responsible data collection, data sharing and data use at its core.

Bruce didn’t hold back. Direct and digital spending is forecast to grow 7.3 percent this year—compared to 1.5 percent growth for measured media (image advertising) categories. The former will feed GDP growth, he forecasts, while the latter will lag.

This is not a rub-your-face-in-it post (I’ve been on the other side a few times, too). It’s simply a recognition that whatever our biases and opinions about what’s hot and what’s not on Madison Avenue, Silicon Valley and data centers everywhere, it’s that advertising technology, the data sharing that fuels such technology, and the strategic insights and marketing executions made possible by analytics, are now a top priority for most every Chief Marketing Officer. DMA and even The White House previously have documented these trends.

We’re in the limelight—as much as digital and now data disruption has been uncomfortable for many, and with so many data silos still to break through and smart people yet to hire to make sense of it all. Ladies and gentleman, the glow feels good.

Happy Data Innovation Day this week (January 22).

Security, Cowardly New World | Privacy, Brave New World

What kind of world have we become? To see Sony, theater owners and distributors initially cower over release of “The Interview,” in the face of a cyberterrorist threat was—and is—unnerving. Clearly, businesses feared that Sony’s victimhood would be exported to others. Yes, the movie eventually was released online and in limited theaters, but the initial fear expressed was disconcerting, to say the least.

What kind of world have we become? To see Sony, theater owners and distributors initially cower over release of “The Interview,” in the face of a cyberterrorist threat was—and is—unnerving. Clearly, businesses feared that Sony’s victimhood would be exported to others. Yes, the movie eventually was released online and in limited theaters, but the initial fear expressed was disconcerting, to say the least.

This incident shows how incapable company leaders must feel they are to thwart cyberattacks. Is data anywhere ever really secure in the face of determined malfeasance? I doubt most of the cinema owners were genuinely worried that theatergoers would be physically at risk of terrorism. Rather, it’s the data—proprietary, internal, sensitive, privileged, confidential and otherwise private—being unscrupulously stolen and, once out of the bottle, splayed across gossip pages by “news” media as if they scooped the story. Intellectual property, too, was compromised. Hollywood, actors and all, seemed frightened.

As cybersecurity—or lack of such security—plays out on the international stage, privacy—and Americans’ attitudes about it—is taking a more mature, nuanced posture.

A new Pew Research Center survey on privacy in found that many opinion leaders now realize that our online selves are public, social sharing is currency for being known (online), even if views are mixed over whether or not a privacy rights infrastructure will emerge during the next decade. Consumers will offer personal details in exchange for convenience quite readily.

As The Los Angeles Times reported, “‘Lack of concern about privacy stems from complacency because most people’s life experiences teach them that revealing their private information allows commercial (and public) organizations to make their lives easier (by targeting their needs), whereas the detrimental cases tend to be very serious but relatively rare,’ Bob Briscoe, chief researcher in networking and infrastructure for British Telecom, wrote in his response.”

To me, this is a signal that privacy is a fluid, dynamic state of mind. Our marketing lives are an ever-constant bartering of data—I give you this information about me, you will give me that product, service or convenience—and the only answer to “real” privacy is to never engage in a convenience or transaction. Not many people choose to be Rip Van Winkle. They might yearn for solitude, but it’s not pragmatic or practical.

Furthermore, I believe this “conversation” shows that there is danger in the rigidity of would-be privacy laws and regulations. Yes, privacy (and security) baselines are necessary—but we must not squelch responsible data collection and use, innovation and convenience, especially as consumers become more comfortable and more demanding. In the world of marketing data, self-regulation has served us well for the better part of 50 years. Outlaw fraud. Outlaw data theft. But let information flow where it may to serve consumers better. The White House said as much earlier this year in its Big Data report.

Now if only creative expression was allowed the same latitude. Some people may fret over today’s perceived loss of privacy, but it is security—is the Sony theft the costliest breach in history?—that has made business leaders run for the hills.

A happy, prosperous and free New Year to all.

Will There Be a ‘Snowden Effect’ on Marketing Data?

I didn’t even want to write this headline or blog post, given the fault-filled linkages some people make between marketing and something completely different from marketing. But it never seems to fail: Whenever some big news event captures the media’s attention, politicians’ attention surely follows. And when it has to do with consumer privacy, the results for the private sector—and use of marketing information in particular—are rarely favorable

I didn’t even want to write this headline or blog post, given the fault-filled linkages some people make between marketing and something completely different from marketing.

But it never seems to fail: Whenever some big news event captures the media’s attention, politicians’ attention surely follows. And when it has to do with consumer privacy, the results for the private sector—and use of marketing information in particular—are rarely favorable. This is true even when the responsible use of marketing data has NOTHING to do with the scenarios presented in the news.

U.S. legislative history is strewn with such evidence, linking (erroneously) marketing with some sensational occurrence other than marketing. Here are just three of them:

  • An actress is murdered in Los Angeles (1989). It turns out the murderer hired a private investigator to get her address from the state motor vehicle department, and then stalked and killed her. A bevy of state and federal anti-stalking laws are passed—but Congress passes an additional one, the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (1994). Would you believe, state motor vehicle registration and license data is curtailed for marketing purposes (data that had been worth millions to the states, never mind losing the beneficial impact to automotive and insurance marketers and consumers), even though such data had nothing to do with the crime?
  • A child is kidnapped and killed, again in California (1993). A grieving father goes on a publicity rampage against presence of children in marketing databases—even though the horrible crime had nothing to with marketing, and even with state law enforcement officials testifying in public hearings following the crime that perpetrators of crimes against children most often stalk their victims physically (from an era prior to social media). Nonetheless, California and national media go after compilers of marketing data related to children. The stage is set later that decade for new privacy restrictions for children’s marketing data online.
  • Judge Robert Bork is nominated by President Reagan for the U.S. Supreme Court (1987). An enterprising reporter manages to publish a list of video titles rented by the nominee (all of them benign, by the way). A concerned Congress—no doubt thinking of its members’ own video rental history—passes the Video Privacy Protection Act (1988), shutting down marketing access to video titles from customer rentals/purchases.

And this summer, we have the National Security Administration revelations from Edward Snowden regarding public surveillance of U.S. citizens in the name of anti-terrorism. Now, we can only guess on what potential debilitating effects may be ahead for marketers, but you can bet some politicians or regulators are drumming beats for a response.

Privacy law in America should be about protecting individual liberty from abuse of information by the public sector—and leave the private sector alone, except in cases where there are demonstrable or probable harms from data misuse or errors. Such is the case with personal financial, credit and health data, for example, where the U.S. government wisely has taken a sector, pragmatic approach.

But Snowden’s government surveillance revelations could very well have a “chilling” effect on more broad marketing data collection and use, too. Politicians, in the name of protecting consumer privacy, may very well rush to curb data-driven marketing activity, rather than tackling the much-harder and real culprit, that is, spying on innocent Americans (and government acquiescence of such activity).

Concurrent to the NSA revelations, the Federal Trade Commission increasingly is vocal on “data brokers” and marketing activity—and trying to link data collection for marketing purposes to non-marketing purposes. Yet, it is dishonest, disingenuous and spurious to do so—and doing so fans fear and hypotheticals, instead of rational thought. There is no relationship between responsible data collection for marketing purposes—which only delivers benefits to the economy, and tax revenue, too—and data used for insurance and premiums, hiring purposes, and certainly the federal government’s activities to monitor internet and telecommunications in order to profile or detect would-be terrorists.

Marketers—for 40 years—have operated under a successful self-regulation code of notice, consumer choice, security and enforcement—and central to this is the use of marketing data for marketing purposes only. That’s as true online as offline. Where would we be without consumer trust in this process?

It may be very appropriate here to legislate what government may access—and how they may access—when it comes to personally identifiable information for surveillance or anti-terrorist purposes. But don’t even utter the word “marketing” in the same sentence. Let marketers continue with self-regulation: We offer consumers notice and opt-out, we focus strictly on marketing purposes only—and everyone benefits in the process.

Creeping Up Fast: DMA13 and Making Plans for Chicago

August 6 marked the mid-point of summer—so now we’re closer to summer’s end than summer’s beginning. It’s as if all the back-to-school advertising wasn’t enough to have us looking forward (except perhaps for schoolchildren). In the world of data-driven marketing, my mailbox reminded me this past week, too, that fall is just around the corner: I received a DMA2013 conference brochure mailer

The other day (August 6) marked the mid-point of summer—so now we’re closer to summer’s end than summer’s beginning.

It’s as if all the back-to-school advertising wasn’t enough to have us looking forward (except perhaps for schoolchildren). In the world of data-driven marketing, my mailbox reminded me this past week, too, that fall is just around the corner: I received a DMA2013 conference brochure mailer (October 12-17, McCormick Place West, Chicago). We’re eight weeks out from DMA2013, which means it’s time to start getting very serious, rather than spontaneous, in making our must-attend conference experience the best it can be. (Yes, I’m already registered—and you should be, too.)

For me, this is when I review the print brochure to dog-ear my go-to sessions based on the session titles, speakers and descriptions, and start the online process at MyDMA2013 (by Vivastream) to pinpoint an attempt at an “aspirational” schedule. I call this aspirational—let’s face it, when we get on site, business conversations inevitably happen, and diversions of all kinds are bound to take place.

However, there are some absolutes in my DMA13 calendar—and I’m hopeful you’ll agree.

1. Give Back
The first item isn’t even about DMA. It’s Marketing EDGE (formerly Direct Marketing Educational Foundation) and its Annual Awards Dinner (separate ticket required). This event has always been a go-to, but it’s also evolved to become the first, best networking opportunity for all of us as we gather at the DMA conference each year. These are the VIPs, roughly 400 leaders and future leaders in our business, and here is an organization where our proceeds bring the best and brightest into our field. What a powerful combination, and an affirmation of the future of data-driven, integrated marketing. Even if you don’t attend the conference, you can sponsor a professor’s attendance and make a donation at the aforementioned link.

2. What’s Next?
On Wednesday, Oct. 16, the day after the exhibit hall closes—I tell my clients that’s when the real learning begins. What do I mean by that somewhat on-its-face silly statement? That’s when the conference attendees—folks who are real serious about learning—are in the session rooms early, taking notes, and becoming better marketing professionals during the last half-day of sessions, and the post-conference workshops and day-and-a-half certifications. On that final day of the main conference, DMA13’s Main Conference Keynote panel at 11 am (all times Central), will feature “What’s NeXt: A Look through the Lens” with Direct Marketing Hall of Famer Rance Crain of Advertising Age interviewing BlueKai and foursquare execs Omar Tawakol and Steven Rosenblatt.

3. Stand Up
I’m a member of DMA for many reasons—but certainly advocacy is one of them. A lot of my clients literally are focused day-to-day on campaign development and implementation in an omnichannel world, and often don’t dwell on the policy implications that affect it. DMA13 offers marketing execs a chance to listen in, catch up and make sure that policy—legal, ethical, best practice—is aligned with our strategy and execution, and that innovation is fostered across all media channels that customers use. Hence, I will be attending DMA President & CEO Linda Woolley’s address “Listen to the Data” (Monday, Oct. 14, 8:45 a.m.) and Spotlight Session on Privacy: “Top 5 Privacy Issues … Revealed” moderated by Ginger Conlon, editor-in-chief of DMNews, with panelists from DMA (Jerry Cerasale), Eloqua (Dennis Dayman) and LoyaltyOne (Bryan Pearson). Responsible data collection and use is clearly under threat from Washington and elsewhere—we need to stand up for ourselves.

4. Inspired and a Party, Too
What’s the best proof point about data-driven marketing’s success—worldwide? If I had the chance to grab a policymaker and make them sit down and see what data-driven marketing can do—I would make him or her attend what I’m hopeful all DMA2013 delegates will attend: the 2013 DMA International ECHO Awards Gala, “Data-Driven Marketing’s Most Important Night” (separate registration required—and well worth it, Tuesday, Oct. 15, 6:30 pm to whenever). I’ve seen a sneak peak of what’s in store for this year’s gala, and this will be not only a Chicago-size party, with a DJ and Comedian Jake Johansen as host, but also truly a celebration of courageous brands, innovative agencies and the marketing strategies, creative executions and outstanding results that leave me—and many others—inspired. Left-brain, data-driven marketing combined with right-brain creative genius—what a combination for brands in both consumer and business-to-business marketing.

That’s enough for now—with more to come. Feel free to post your DMA13 “would be” favorites for blog readers below … and by all means, get yourself and your colleagues registered if you haven’t already. Get a game plan together, the conference is coming fast!