The other day I was chatting to a Digital Grand Fromage (they exist now) in one of the big four ad networks who told me that one problem with today's brand marketers (aka clients) is they don’t like data.  Huh?  Don’t like data?  How can this be I thought?  The marketing industry is utterly obsessed with the stuff; be it GRPs, TRPs, OTS, RPC or the myriad of consumer segmentation schemes, such as TGI. Or the insights garnered from quantitative or qualitative market research about, for instance, awareness and recall. Surely, the marketing business is awash with metrics and measurement.  In fact, I think what this highly-esteemed DGF was talking about was a fear of the type of data produced on the web, by machines, apps, devices and other web wizadry.  Not ‘proper’ media and marketing information like BARB.  At a superficial level this fear of online data is the understandable anxiety felt by brand marketers who, when trying to invest their media megabucks, are interrupted by someone suggesting the use of a webby analytics package.  A kind of ‘dashboard-itis'.  Such dashboards promise to offer huge amounts of business-critical, C-Suite-level insights into ROI delivery.  In reality, they make people want to rush into a dark room and apply wet flannelling to their throbbing brows. Indeed, ongoing exposure to...

However, the fear goes beyond presentational matters.  Today’s networked media environment is chucking out data about consumers that goes right to the heart of many of the assumptions that have driven the marketing industry in the past.

Out Of The Lab

Previously, a lot of marketing data has in fact been a theoretical version of the world that allows brand executives to test their ideas and assumptions.  Which means that like a scientist in a pristine, controlled laboratory, not only can almost nothing go (badly) wrong, but the nature of the experiments can be designed within parameters that are brand-friendly.  

However, the digital data being collected today about consumers (aka people) is of a different type altogether.  In the brand laboratories it was normal, and encouraged, to ask consumers what they wanted, because they were seen as rational individuals who could be popped into an appropriate segment and then analysed over time.  In networked media, the data being gathered about people is recording what they are actually doing.  Be it browsing, buying, watching, commenting, choosing, liking as well as who they know and, increasingly, where they are.

And what is now becoming evident is that comparing the laboratory findings with the digital bits and bytes is like comparing zebras and camels. They’ve both got four legs and like eating grass but the similarities end there.  And it's a stark distinction that is being recognised in a wide range of different places, as the amount of this 'new' data grows.

Word Is Spreading

At James Governor’s most splendid MonkiGras bashola earlier this year (imagine being in GitHub where the entry-level IQ is about 152) Matt LeMay from bit.ly, the URL shortner, brilliantly explained the gulf between the links that people publish themselves, that are mostly erudite, witty and eloquent, and those they actually click on, that are mainly gossipy, fun and frivolous.  Memorably, LeMay described this as kitteh vs chickin; the tension between our egos that want to be seen as adorable and gorgeous and our earthy desires to be entertained and tittilated.  This apparently innocent gap is, in fact, the yawning precipice upon which brand marketeers now teeter.

However, it’s not just Silicon Valley types who have noticed such discrepancies.  Monkchips also points to a paper from the Bank of England, no less, that notes how the type of data available online is, ‘collected as a by-product of normal activity, rather than requiring individuals or firms to respond to survey questions after the event’.  The BofE then explains the benefits of this stating that, ‘this can avoid problems associated with non-response or inaccurate responses. And it also means that information is continually collected on a wider range of issues, rather than just on a few pre-determined questions. As a result, search data can help analyse issues that arise unexpectedly.’

Elsewhere, one of Coke’s top marketing executives, the splendid Jonathan Mildenhall, in a video describing the direction in which the giant brand’s marketing must head, doesn’t pull his punches about 'right' and 'wrong' data. Talking about current research techniques he states that, ‘qualitiative testing is an increasingly outmoded and irrelevant tool’, and with regard to TV commercials, adds that, ‘we must avoid qualitative testing of scripts altogether’.  Indeed, Mildenhall goes as far as calling such techniques, 'the enemy'.  He describes the need to move towards, 'interactive feedback and online consumer dialogue tools', and 'conversational and real-time testing', because, 'working directly with consumers is exciting.'

Changing Face Of Marketing Research

Similar concerns are expressed by the Vice-Chairman of Ogilvy Group, Rory Sutherland, who comments that, 'the other failing of marketing is that it is over-dependent on conventional market research as its sole source of wisdom about human behavior.  It has thus denied itself access to many valuable insights which come from understanding unvoiced, subconscious influences on decision-making.  As David Ogilvy once said, 'The trouble with research is that people don’t think what they feel, they don’t say what they think and they don’t do what they say'.

Sutherland isn't talking about digital data directly but he points to a failing of big brands that the firehose of online bits and bytes is addressing.  Historically, brand marketeers have assumed that if they take the time out to ask innocent bystanders how their wonderful plans for a brand extension of toothpaste can be improved, the least people can do is answer them in an enthusiastic and factual manner.  However, this is a partial view at best.  Much like waterboarding, the average brand research session leaves people happy to spout any old nonsense in order to satisfy the crazies who are demanding real opinion and insight about the rational use of toiletries.

'The reliance on attitudinal data we once had in market research is fading and being replaced by behavioral data,' says Professor Girish Punj from the University of Connecticut School of Business in Storrs.  'What people are buying online and their interactions with call centers. The new phenomenon people are calling 'big data' is 80 or 90 percent of the behavioral kind. This means that some of the attitudinal stuff on which marketing research is based is no longer sufficient for companies to make good decisions based on what their customers do,' he adds.

The Dangers Of Make-Believe

'Big Data' is taking over from 'Social' as the buzzword du jour.  However, just like social, big data means entirely different things to different people.  There isn't a single version or guidebook.

For marketeers, one implication is that the windows of their hermetically-sealed brand laboratories - where control is everything - are cracking.  The result is that a glorious range of street-level cultures, aromas, communities and flavours are wafting into these highly-scrubbed, clinical environments.  The challenge is that these new influences aren't easily bottled and segmented demographically, psychographically or into any other spreadsheet-friendly format.  

However, make no mistake, these exotic new sensations are all raw data about actual, not reported, consumer behaviour.  Brands that abandon their laboratories for the hubbub of the street will benefit from an instant connection with consumers.  Those that don't will increasingly find themselves in a world of make-believe.

...should, ‘not carry on’.  The individual’s intervention developed into an impressive and heartfelt, ten-minute diatribe about everything that was wrong with the web and its procession of shiny baubles.  However, far from derailing matters the passionate outburst served to draw from others their genuine concerns, fears and frustrations.

Another notable moment came when, in front of an audience of about one hundred, a Grand Fromage commented, ‘this is all very well, but how will it help us sell more toilet bleach?’. The GF’s bristling disquiet was palpable, and was followed by a drain-blocking rant that left the room in silence.  In the subsequent coffee break, one of the other attendees sidled over to me and whispered, ‘sorry about that, at least you've seen what we’re dealing with’.  However, the intervention created a great point of focus for the rest of the day, as people unpicked the GF's forthright opinions.

On another occasion in a session for a Government department, the atmosphere remained icy-cold, until one individual explained that she had recently divorced her husband after finding his social networking page was, er, very social indeed.  The room then immediately warmed up as others piled in with anecdotes about how digital bits, bobs and bytes had affected their lives personally and professionally.

Then there was the time that a senior member of a creative team announced to the room that, in his opinion, the web was like a dog who had learned to walk – 'interesting but ultimately pointless'.  The individual's colleagues then piled in and the tone was set for a feisty and provocative day.

The best sessions tend to have a good bit of such grit in them.  I suspect this is because digital and networked media has proliferated to such a degree that it affects almost every aspect of people’s lives.  As a result, understanding its complexities requires an overview of the opportunities but also of the frustrations and anxieties it creates.  Of course, I may well be wrong on that but I’m sure someone will put me right soon!

Last week I was chatting to a Grand Fromage in private equity and he asked me what I do. I explained that my professional role is helping companies with challenges, in all their guises, arising from the ongoing march of networked media.  The GF in question said he found the area exciting and clearly had a sophisticated view so his next questions were very interesting. He asked, 'when will it end?', and will there be a, ‘Y2K moment’?  By which I think he meant will all this techy stuff just stop and leave us sitting around wondering why on earth we’d spent half of our lives typing updates into Twitter.  I know exactly what he means.  I frequently find myself wondering if technology has, finally, hit some plateau and that everything will just calm down a bit; whether Silicon Valley will lay off the macchiatos for a while so we can all take a breath. These questions may be down to the basic human desire for a stable, predictable world.  As they say, no one really likes change.  But change, it would appear, is what we've got. Furthermore, the type of change that can seemingly arrive from nowhere.  Strange new digital gubbins build up a head-of-steam under the radar and then evidently pop-up fully-formed, driving people into odd new Alice-In-Wonderland behaviours.  For example, normal folk become determined to be ‘Mayor’ of their local coffee shop.  But not really - only virtually!  Others start having conversations with, rather than on, their phones.  Or, more fundamentally, strange...

...new politically-driven movements emerge such as Anonymous, Wikileaks or The Pirate Party.  Outfits that seem to operate beyond normal conventions, staying one step ahead of the world’s most heavily-resourced investigative powers.

So, when will it end?

In fact, we’ve lived with this apparently rapid change for a good few years now.  I remember trying to describe Wikipedia to a corporate audience in 2005 - and watching arms cross and eyebrows collectively rise and fall.  And as we stand today there’s no doubt these changes are continuing.  Just look at the myriad of activity in the connected TV space as linear broadcast signals blend with broadband and devices and media stack, mesh and merge.  The result is that the big daddy of media, TV, is being sucked into the networked media ocean, where it will have to fight for its position in commercial food chains as they are brutally realigned.

Or if connected TV doesn’t grab you, how about Bre Pettis' Makerbot and the 3D printing revolution?  Or Linked Data, Dwolla, geo-caching, windows that are also computer screens, Shoemocracy, Kickstarter, SecondMarket, Hadoop, Streeviolence, DuckDuckGo, phone wallets, networked pepper plants, virtual currencies, web apps like Untapped, Twitch.TV or the vast open source coding platform GitHub that's now being used by the UK Government.  Many weird names, many new things.  It never ends.

But perhaps that the point.  Maybe the goalposts have moved for good and our sensibilities about change haven’t quite acclimatised.  In the face of a blizzard of new gizmos, gadgets and online wizadry, it’s very easy to forget that the greatest shift is that large parts of the world’s population have been joined together for the first time - without anyone in total control.  And that process is a continuing, indeed, accelerating one that has created a new status quo.  

So, is asking, 'when will it end?', the wrong question?

Maybe this never-ending stream of new digital oddities is simply the result of a generational shift. Now anyone in the world with access to a connected screen can code, curate, commune or collaborate around their own ideas, passions and beliefs - however peripheral.  All because they want to change something - or just to tinker. Nothing is an outlier if someone, somewhere finds it interesting.  

Governments, corporates and media may wish to put the blinkers back on - but it’s probably too late.  It looks like the shackles are off for good.  In which case, waiting for things to settle down could mean a long wait.  Perhaps the new status quo is people doing stuff they’re into – which is a pretty low barrier to entry.

What if what we are seeing is a kind of cultural big bang where people, for the first time, are expressing their own version of the desires, concerns, cares and hopes that we all share?  Why would we want that to end?  Maybe that's the question we should really be asking.

...is generally easier said than done.

How Did We Get Here?

Firstly, it’s worth reminding ourselves how quickly this global conversation has evolved.  Only five years ago, the sight of their customers spilling out onto the open web and talking about their lives and more importantly their views on products and services came as a shock to big brands.  Such people were, initially, dismissed as mad or irrelevant.  For example, six years ago, the BBC noted that, 'there is a perception that bloggers are sad, joyless people in their underwear who sit in front of their computers all day'.  The idea that people could collaboratively write an online encyclopedia was thought to be - at best - bizarre.  Social networks were seen as outposts of the brain dead, depraved and even the dangerous. And Tweeters were initially open to ridicule by the great and the good.

However, that gradually changed over time.  The blogosphere became a professional space for informed and often erudite discourse, Wikipedia became an online Britannica, social networks grew into multi-gazillion dollar businesses and Twitter developed into a global information network of such standing that many of the world’s most influential people signed up.  

Social Experiments

During that time, many different experiments were conducted by corporations trying to lever their brands into the conversation and to gain some valuable relevancy and buzz.  Many of these approaches were greeted with the sound of silence, others were attacked as irrelevant or worse, and a few have been judged as credible and gathered that elusive – and commercially valuable – social currency. 

However, the global conversation remains a tricky area for big brands where the gap between success and humiliating public failure is small.  For many, the resulting high-wire act can just seem too risky to make it worthwhile.  The DNA of the marketing industry is about command-and-control, reach-and-frequency and the delivery of big concepts, not a chat over the garden fence with whoever might happen to show up on the day.

What's The Problem?

So why is it so difficult for brands to take part in conversational spaces that are becoming such a normal part of everyday life?

Part of the difficulty is that the online conversational environment itself is changing so quickly.  For a good while, conversations were in nerdy forums or restricted to comments on the bottom of blog posts.  However, slowly the conversation broke out of these niche areas thanks to, among other innovations, Facebook’s newsfeed, Twitter’s growth and YouTube’s webcam culture.  The rise of the smart phone extended the reach of conversational spaces still further creating always-on, personalised digital grapevines.  Today, the global conversational environment remains in a state of rapid flux as networked media becomes more sophisticated and prevalent.  For example, many new devices have conversational features baked-in and new innovations allow people to use non-verbal ways of signaling to others – just as they do in real-life.

Additionally, it can be very difficult for a brand or corporation to identify what is and what is not a credible conversation for it to initiate or join.  It's just too easy to assume that because it seemed like a valid subject for an advertising or PR campaign it will also be credible in a conversational space.  'Of course people will want to chat about the effectiveness of our corporate social responsibility programme - they loved the TV ad!'  This particular aspect can be really challenging in a world where many share the view that you can only invest in what you can measure.  A view which can lead to brands initiating conversations about unique selling points, product extensions or category insights which for the general public carry all the allure of an invitation to an internal brand positioning meeting.  In reality, sometimes the best way to join a conversation isn’t to actually say anything at all but simply to help others speak and interact with one another - but that doesn't fit very well in a KPI.

Finally, there is the additional dimension of how a brand approaches and deals with people beyond an initial conversation and into more meaningful interaction with their online identities.  This aspect is - maybe - the one going through the greatest transformation currently as people’s online identities become an increasingly important part of their overall personas.  Which means there's more scope for brands to take that initial conversation with consumers (aka people) further.  However, there's also means there's more opportunity for them to get it horribly wrong - both at a micro and a macro level.

The Conversation Grows

Not that long ago I used to have conversations with marketing executives about whether social networks were just a fad, or not. No one talks about that today. The global conversation looks set to become bigger, more influential and more sophisticated which means it’s likely to maintain its allure for brands. However, whether people are listening to brands or care about what they say is maybe the real question - and the real challenge.

Want To Know More...?

One of the digital strategy sessions I run for clients looks at some of the issues involved for brands wanting to join the global conversation. It's usually a provocative subject and there’s no shortage of thorny issues that arise. The session is called ‘Brand Conversations – Is Anyone Listening? (And If So Do They Care?)’ and I’m doing one for the IPA on February 6th as part of its Energiser programme. If the ever-changing swirl of the global conversation and networked media is of interest to you, then sign-up and come along. Alternatively, drop me a line and we can organise a bespoke session for you and your team.

‘Fail-Fast’ is a software development mantra that has slowly permeated into other areas of the commercial world.  However, it doesn’t translate to mainstream marketing – yet.  The term is bandied around a good deal these days but basically refers to a project management style where, instead of excessive pre-planning, an idea is quickly put into practice and monitored closely.  The focus is on the continuous examination of performance and smart, speedy reaction to the marketplace.  In light of poor results, the aim is to iterate, change direction (sometimes euphemistically known as ‘pivoting’) or kill off the project altogether.  Thereby preventing long, drawn-out 'zombie' projects that suck up valuable resources before anyone notices they have joined the walking dead.  Crucially, to work effectively Fail-Fast requires an environment of constant, real-time feedback loops - which is exactly what you get when launching new initiatives, for example applications, onto the web or into purely digital media.  However, most brand marketing environments don’t look anything like this.  They remain approximations of what might be happening, in contrast to networked and digital media that show what is actually happening.  For instance, in the UK, the audience, cost and efficacy of TV advertising is determined by the British Audience Research Board (BARB) and its Television Measurement Service which is a panel composed of 5,100 homes.  Far from being a software-driven mirror of actual events, BARB's panel doesn’t measure...

...many aspects of today's TV environment.  Viewers' behaviour such as fast forwarding or rewinding live or recorded content goes unseen, leaving too many data blind spots for Fail-Fast to work.

Over time, this is all likely to change as an increasing range of media, including TV, is drawn into the networked world.  Such developments will extend the crucial data rich environments and live feedback loops that make Fail-Fast thrive.  Increasingly perfect market information will allow computing power to deliver different TV ads to different people depending upon their individual behaviour - just as occurs online today.  The long-held dreams of brand owners everywhere, such as personalised TV commercials and more complete audience information, can then become a reality.  (Not something everyone is happy about).

In the meantime many companies and brands are trying to work around the gaps.  For example, in categories where the point-of-sale is only a click away, TV commercials can be judged partly on their ability to drive online traffic and lifetime value.  A client of mine said he rejected any BARB-based audience figures and preferred to negotiate with media owners on the ability of the TV programme to deliver traffic to his website because that was his only retail outlet.  He wasn't quite operating a Fail-Fast approach but he had created a feedback loop based on his own data that meant he could Fail a little Faster.

Within the sphere of media and marketing, clients and brands are struggling to meet their long-term requirements for business value - be that sales, loyalty, differentiation or share – due to more fluid, unpredictable networked media environments.  Such concerns can make Fail-Fast can sound like an enticing, albeit contrarian, starting point.  However, to be really effective, the approach requires a near perfect level of data about the marketplace.  Until mainstream media is more fully drawn into the networked environment and greater levels of consumer activity are tracked in real-time, the required Big Data and essential feedback loops simply won't exist.  Which means, for the moment, outside of digital, Fail-Fast is more likely to just mean Fast-Fail.

...the YouTube logo changed recently and the dropping of the famous ‘Broadcast Yourself’ tagline is a big clue as to where it's headed.  In short, Google’s vast video channel is becoming a professional broadcasting service.  Indeed, with cash-to-burn, Mountain View has just spent $100m on original programming in the US to create one hundred new channels.  Messrs Brin & Page are also trialling live formats and even sports rights; supposedly the last bastions of proper, 'grown-up' broadcasters.  All of which will go some way to remedy the achilles heel of Google TV's first outing ie no one would give it any content

That's not to say that regular mainstream TV is about to disappear.  In networked media, progress is rarely binary (ironically).  However, the range of televisual choice looks set to explode as technology super-predators try to disrupt the cable TV industry by unbundling the five hundred channel packages that have kept the cash pumps primed for so long.  Just as happened in the music industry (RIP) when Steve Jobs spotted that people were fed up with the CD album format.

Furthemore, this isn’t just a US market matter.  Ofcom’s communications report in August of this year reported that one million connected TVs were sold in the UK last year, and any pre-Christmas trip to the electronics aisle will show you that ‘connected’ is soon going to be the only televisual option.  

In fact, YouTube has been operating a movie channel in the UK since 2010.  However, Web TV in the UK is not all about Google - far from it.  Netflix, the US monster that now has more subscribers than Comcast, will be arriving on UK shores in 2012, offering unlimited TV consumption for about five quid per month.  Then there's Sky's own online TV service, SkyGo, that books the UK's most successful TV business a ringside seat in the next big digitally-driven bust-up.  Not forgetting YouView, the connected son of Freeview that is still forecasting a launch next year.  Or Microsoft which is making TV programming available to UK residents via their XBox.  Along with a wide range of web-enabled televisions.  All of which offer different services and packages but share the common characteristic of serving up online video in a TV environment.  Meanwhile, Ofcom’s communications report this year noted that, ‘over four in ten (41%) homes are watching services such as BBC iPlayer, 4oD and ITV Player.’

As ever, when considering the bewildering speed of changes occurring as the world switches from broadcast to a network model, the real question to ask is – so what?  Brands can just switch their advertising spend to the most popular channels, right?  It’s just about eyeballs, eh?  John Lewis doesn’t care where I saw its teary ad as long as I see it, huh?  And so what if people end up choosing to tune into YouTube rather than ITV?  It’s just another channel for the negotiating teams at GroupM, Zenith and OMD to beat up on behalf of their clients, no?  

Maybe.  Maybe not.

The truth is that no one really knows what impact the disruption of the TV industry as it stands will have.  Other than that disruption of the status quo normally means a lot of, er, disruption.  For marketers and brands, the current priority remains staying on top of the change and, as ever, trying to understand what it means for the interaction of their brands with their consumers.  So what are the areas to focus on?

Clearly media planning is going to become even more complex that it is now.  For example, to what degree is my experience of watching the John Lewis ad on YouTube, a low-cost distribution channel, and burning through the pricey X-Factor ad break representative?  Or has the role of TV changed?  Do you need the big TV ‘event’ to generate the buzz, in the same way that you need TV ratings to unlock priceless shelf space at UK multiples?

Additionally, it's not clear that the big media investment houses, such as Mindshare, will be able to exert the same influence over the new television players, as they have done over little old ITV.  For Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple and IBM, TV advertising schekels aren't a vital source of existing revenue that keeps shareholders happy.  It's an opportunity for the future into which they can fire gazillions of dollars of free cash flow (aka spare dosh) to ensure they get a slice of the future pie.

Then there are the implications of the technology itself, offering new services and experiences. What will the effects be when apps are widely available on television?  When the majority of people’s TV viewing becomes personalised?  When conversational backchannels appear as part of every programme?  Or when the TV is connected to other devices in the home, that are used for complementary activities, including shopping?

No one really knows the answers to these questions but that doesn't stop us observing trends and shaping views.  As Ty Braswell notes: ‘For the $500+ billion global TV business, I think the messy roller coaster ride is just beginning.’ And, as of next year, the UK looks to be right on board for the ride.

‘Big Data’ is the phrase of the moment in tech circles which probably means it will be appearing on the to-do lists of marketing folk soon.  The expression refers mainly to the oceans of information being poured continuously onto the open web and social networks by ever more connected consumers (aka people).  This tsunami comes in the shape of comments, images, scans, tweets, likes, views, posts, videos and a kaleidoscope of other digital expressions.  However, whilst people's everyday lives are providing a big piece of the pie, the scope of Big Data goes much further.  Less obvious but just as vast are the intelligence flows that stem from our web browsing behaviour or location signals from smartphones.  Other component parts include corporations publishing market information , governments opening up public data for others to use, or vast social platforms that encourage smart developers to weave new applications and services.  The result is a share-and-compare economy where people, companies and organisations trade digital views, opinions and information in order to help make decisions - commercial or otherwise.  As ever, this creates challenges and opportunities for marketing and brand folk.  But there’s no shortage...

...of suppliers, including IBM, Adobe and Accenture bombarding the fabled C-Suite with offers of help. All of these technology giants are offering services that gather and make sense of the data being created within networked media oceans, thereby improving decisions about marketing strategy, and throwing light on the most famous dilemma in advertising.  

In reality, despite the buzz, it’s early days.  However, whilst still a distant rumble, there seems little doubt that Big Data will be one of the next mega-waves to crash onto the shores of the marketing industry creating a new set of difficulties to navigate, not to mention new super-competitors to battle.  This is because more and more media, including TV, is gradually becoming software driven and subsequently being drawn into the Big Data explosion.

Last week’s Campaign Magazine gave a taster of the impact this new wave of digital technology may have.  IBM, a $200bn top-predator from the technology sector, had a full-page advertisement promoting its survey of 1700 CMOs who describe their priorities being less about creativity and more about getting to grips with a world of Big Data.  Meanwhile, in the same edition, Claire Beale, the magazine's editor, commented that she found IBM's findings, 'depressing,' and that, 'creativity defies data'.  However, the reality is that this data-driven world is shaping up and will be the new reality sooner than might seem likely.  And while fantastic creative thinking is always going to be a vital aspect of brand strategy, Chairmen and shareholders are just as excited by data that helps work out where their money is going.

...big brands and the marketing industry.  Despite experiencing constant shifts in the environment in which they operate brands assume that such change is going to somehow be ringfenced – despite evidence to the contrary.  So, for instance, whilst it's now accepted that large parts of consumers’ media consumption and their resulting behaviour have changed for good, a belief endures that some aspects of the marketing mix will remain untouched.  For example, the current received wisdom is that software may radically change the way we consume news, go shopping, or keep in touch with friends, but TV will stay largely unchanged.  This complacent viewpoint ignores recent lessons about the way in which networked media undermines and reshapes whole industries, allowing powerful new players to get a foothold.

For a long time the music industry held a similarly relaxed outlook; that people will always want to listen to great music and musicians and that was that.  Which of course was true.  However, the assumption underlying this view was that the Big Labels owned and controlled the industry and could set their lawyers on any newcomers looking to upset their gilded apple cart.  The truth was that while people do indeed care about music, no one cares about the industry that runs it.  So when Napster appeared, unbundled the product and gave people what they wanted all hell broke loose.  Which created enough space for Steve Jobs to enter the market, build on what Sean Fanning had started, and eventually take control of the whole industry by developing a massive distribution platform that now sets market prices.

Likewise, the myopic view that big-changes-are-coming-everywhere-except-here, as described by Andreessen, was prevalent in the telecomms market.  However, then Skype came along and used the same technology as Fanning to route around a whole industry, allowing people to miss out the carriers’ networks completely.

Correspondingly complacent attitudes were held by phone handset manufacturers, most notably Nokia, which - again - assumed they were the natural gatekeepers to the marketplace.  But then Apple changed the game by offering genuine mobile web access through the iPhone. And Nokia began to smoulder.

Today, it seems that the Grand Fromages of the TV industry are in an all too familiar position.  They believe they are in control of a marketplace that will remain unaffected by the surge of networked media that is transforming the world around them.  So industry bodies such as BARB and Thinkbox, entirely missing or choosing to avoid the point, continue to publish data about how much people love the TV industry when in fact the figures only show how much people like watching great content on a big screen.  

In the same way that consumers continue to enjoy music, chat with friends and choose the latest cool phone, people will keep on relaxing in front of the TV with their favourite films, drama, sport and news.  However, in the deeper waters technology super-predators, attracted by the familiar scent of complacency, are circling the TV industry sizing up the juiciest of media prey, waiting for the tides of networked media to give them their first real bite.  Perhaps Ofcom's report in August that one million connected televisions were sold in the UK last year might prove to be the sea change for which they've been waiting.

As digital tectonic plates continue to shift and once separate media sectors merge onto a single global platform, the terrain for brands and marketing definitions remain in a state of flux.  Just take a few recent examples.  Last week Facebook indicated it’s no longer a social network but a 'platform', while Twitter reconfirmed it’s dropping the social tag in favour of a new guise as an 'information network'.  Leaving some questioning, if even Facebook and Twitter are dropping the label, what ‘social’ actually means in context of marketing; other than the constant buzz of a global bazaar.  Additionally, big technology players are constantly redefining themselves and their markets.  Amazon, the one-time online book shop, confirmed it is going into direct competition with Apple, the one-time desktop computing manufacturer, with the launch of the Fire tablet.  The reason being that both increasingly seek to extend their credentials as global media players offering music, TV and films.  Meanwhile, Google, the one-time search business, has bought Motorola, the one-time handset manufacturer, to bolster its own planned entry into the world's TV markets; whilst simultaneously becoming an alternative to a credit card provider by launching Google Wallet.  Elsewhere, Hulu, an online television service that was established by the US TV networks as a defensive strategy to see off Google’s YouTube, is being sold off because it success is undermining the revenue model of the owners' traditional businesses.  (Ironically, the possible buyers include Google, Amazon and Yahoo).  Even the idea of images and photographs is being redefined as demonstrated by the plight of Kodak, one of the...

...world’s best-known brands.  Today, the company continues its descent into an abyss that appeared when its main product was added as a feature on the iPhone.  A problem that was compounded by Facebook creating a distribution platform to which people will upload seventy billion images this year alone.

Welcome to the world of networked media, where definitions no longer apply.  Struggling CMOs, and increasingly CIOs, attempt to keep track of what’s happening, possibly hoping for a slowdown in the rate of change so they can pause for breath.  However, there’s no sign of that occurring as the speed at which all media is drawn onto a single digital platform continues.

Just consider TV.  Everyone still loves the goggle-box and there’s no doubt its popularity endures. However, as the variety of offerings within the TV ecosystem grows, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to talk about TV as a single entity.  In August, Ofcom reported that one million connected TVs were sold in the UK last year, with Samsung being the main innovator in the area.  Meanwhile, the new YouView platform is being prepared for a launch during 2012.  The service will supercede the hugely popular Freeview and make smartphone-style applications on TV sets the standard.  

As traditional definitions creak, many big brands seek solace in better media metrics. However, the very nature of such information is being redefined.  Media delivered over the web and through new digital channels is less about working out what people have done and more about what they are doing, or going to do.  Networked media means individuals are providing more real-time signals about their lives through their interaction online with one another and with digital media in its kaleidoscope of forms.  This tsunami of information, much of which is being collected and responded to in real-time bears no resemblance to the world of rearview-looking data panels such as BARB.  Technology companies are focusing on aggregated user behaviour patterns in the real-world to predict individuals next steps and guide their purchases.  And it's working.  Netflix, the US streaming video service, reports that sixty per cent of its sales are generated by algorithms while Amazon states that twenty to thirty per cent of its colossal revenues are driven in the same manner.

As the networked media world continues to drive this dizzying pace of change, brands become more important for individuals seeking value, quality and service.  However, for marketing folk trying to keep themselves in front of bargain-hungry consumers the job isn't made easier by definitions being in a constant state of flux.  Media-planning becomes less like the strategic battleground of old where the biggest guns win and more like a digital garden where traditional vines blend to create strange new fruit that quickly take grip blurring expectations and the best laid plans.  However, those who pay attention, avoid following the latest fads and resist lazy thinking will find these new species provide plenty of opportunity, even if they are a little hard to define.

Historically, different types of media were independent from one other and there weren’t really any links between them. However, as all media, including TV, gradually becomes networked onto a single digital platform, the links between them are becoming very real, very varied and very valuable. Today, consumers (aka people) can easily switch from one type of digital media to another, and equally easily to an e-commerce checkout. The result is that the consumer path-to-purchase, that for a long time used to look a fairly simple flowchart driven by Yes/No decisions, now resembles a bowl of spaghetti, such is the choice of routes through the new media ecosystem. Hyperlinks were the first example of valuable connections between different types of media giving consumers the opportunity to follow their own paths of interest. When reading a physical paper the only way to follow-up on an issue or offer was to rip out the article or coupon and file it away. As newspapers became networked this behaviour changed and people could immediately click-through an article or promotion to find out more.  Today, as increasing amounts of media becomes...

...networked the range of links is expanding rapidly as consumers appetite for joined-up experiences grows.

Beyond hyperlinks search has become one very significant way in which people create links between media. When watching a TV ad at home most people won’t worry about trying to spot the relevant URL, even if it is included. They will just bang some vaguely related keywords into a search engine in the hope of trying to quickly link what they have just seen to some sort of associated interactive experience - even if that's a competitor’s website.  Of course, many brands now recognise and seek to drive this behaviour.  The unique and memorable Aleksandr Orlov is partly there to usher TV viewers onto the web.

In recent years, social media has created a booming share-and-compare economy, where people share aspects of their lives online and compare what they are offered back.  This new sphere of traded opinion is now vast with Twitter alone delivering 350 billion tweets per day.  This megatrend means friends and family have become some of the most valuable links of all.  Should someone I know and trust post a video into their Facebook stream, I'm very likely to at least notice it, and in doing so am relying on them to help me find helpful links from the firehose of information coming my way.

Another major factor driving the variety and sophistication of links between media is the growing range of networked devices (aka groovyware) that people can access. Smartphones, for example, let people link media in innovative ways, such as QR codes. In many countries these little chequered squares have become everyday tools for people to take a quick snap-shot from a print media advertisement or outdoor poster and then jump directly to a website or online shopping basket. However, in other markets QR codes remain baffling, which may explain the appearance of more intuitive visual search tools such as Google Goggles.

Despite these huge trends driving media into a single networked ocean, many parts of the mainstream industry stubbornly hang onto their island mentality.  However, while the reluctance of traditional media to recognise the value of links with digital media is well-documented, there’s a good deal of reticence among Silicon Valley's tech-driven bucks to recognise the value of the old guard. Eric Schmidt famously commented that the day Google ran a television ad would be the day that hell freezes over, such was his scepticism of traditional media's value.  Then in February of last year, one day before Google ran its first Superbowl spot, the Mountain View boss tweeted that that chilly day had come. This year he has been explaining how effective that advertisement was, and that it drove huge amounts of consumers to try out Google services, particularly mobile devices, thereby immediately paying for itself through increased search activity.

Another example of technology players underestimating the power of links with traditional media is the evolution of Foursquare.  In its early days the location-based social network stood alone and could feel like a community of people involved in a strange mass-stalking experiment. However, as it has started to create links with other media its value has become clear. Today, the service is a helpful way for people to link promotions in traditional media with a physical retail experience. The service has even partnered with American Express so that a Foursquare check-in automatically adds discounts and promotions to a linked Amex account.

As investment pours into the networked TV ecosystem the ways to link television content with other media also becomes more varied. IntoNow, quickly snapped up by Yahoo, is a service that lets people point their iPad at a TV screen to find out more about the programme they are watching. The service then lets people ‘check-in’ to that show, share their comments with friends and even pick up points for registering their viewing of commercials, thereby linking TV commercials with the first steps along a brand's path-to-purchase.

Even more ambitious and far-reaching is Bluefin, developed by a team from MIT. This massive system tracks all US TV signals and monitors social media platforms to find out what people are saying about programmes in real-time. The ambition of Bluefin is justified as the links it creates are of enormous value for brands trying to rationalise their media investment in the US TV industry’s $60bn annual marketplace. It’s a service that makes BARB’s UK reporting panel of five thousand homes look like something from the dark ages.

Historically, the only links between media were those created by brands and creative agencies using integrated communications techniques, so that a message on one medium would enforce a message on another. However, despite their efforts, integrated campaigns rarely went much further than a tiny URL shown at the end of a TV spot. The reality was these links were only as strong as the connections between the different agencies working on the campaign (ie not strong at all).

Today, as all media is slowly drawn onto the web, very real and varied links between media are being created using increasingly sophisticated technology. Brands that fail to recognise the high-value of these connections risk consumers creating links on their behalf, often in unhelpful ways, or just being ignored. In the era of networked media, links mean business.

...that it sits on a single technological platform – the desktop and mobile web. Which means that the world of brands, marketing and media is becoming one vast ocean, not a series of loosely connected rivers.

However, the players within the marketing industry still sit in their individual bunkers, launching bombs at one another and decrying each others’ effectiveness. Meanwhile the world’s giant technology companies are building vast platforms that are changing the way consumers (aka people) lead their lives, make purchasing decisions and find brands and services they can trust.  

Megabrands remain concerned with the issues they’ve always prioritised. Namely, the consumer and their ability to reach them in effective ways. That means swimming in the new networked media waters that their customers increasingly occupy. Doing so requires a clear vision of what this new ocean looks like and effective radar to charter the new waters.

However, the marketing industry remains trapped in its siloes, like soldiers hiding in the jungle, unaware that the war has ended and the world has moved on.