Mayan Marketing

Screen Shot 2017-04-20 at 7.59.14 PM

“All you have to know is what it is.”

Said Richard Feynman, in his introduction to his famous Sir Douglas Robb Lectures on quantum electrodynamics at Auckland University in 1979.

Feynman’s brilliance in those lectures and his book on the same topic is stunning. He is able to simply explain a complicated topic using words non-physists can understand and create a desire to learn more about physics and science in general.

“All you have to know is what it is” refers to his belief that the non-physicist didn’t have to know the math to understand QED. It was more important to understand “why.” The math, or “tricks” as he refers to them, can be applied later once you wanted to engage in experimentation or to further explore the principles of science.

Mayans: Good at “What,” Not “Why”

To illustrate his quote, Feynman uses the example of Mayan astronomy, sadly mostly lost to us during the destruction of their writings in the Spanish conquest. The Mayans could calculate the position of Venus in the sky (morning or night) on any given day, via a series of computations, the results of which we can see today in the Dresden Codex.

While the calculations were very accurate, they Mayans couldn’t explain why Venus would be in a particular position. They had a good grasp of mathematics and knew such things as even though they counted in periods of 365 days, that a year was actually slightly longer and could make adjustments in their calendar and calculations.

They just didn’t know how the planets actually moved, as they didn’t get around to identifying what we now know of as Kepler’s laws of planetary motion, before they were murdered by the conquistadores.

For the Mayans’ purposes, the actual reason “why” Venus appeared in certain positions didn’t really matter that much. They could get the dates right, and for their cultural and religious purposes that was enough. It’s not like Venus is going to change its apparent behavior anyway. It’s a planet and doesn’t do anything in an arbitrary fashion.

Watch Feynman speak of Mayan–and digital marketing–priests:

Digital Marketing: Good (Maybe) at “What,” Not “Why”

When I think about modern digital advertising, I see a lot of the Mayan astronomer in us. Many detailed calculations and complicated equations involving things like multi-touch attribution models, fractional attribution, gradient boosting classification predictive algorithms, all running in and updated in real time on multi-tenant Hadoop clusters, powered by 30 petabytes of daily data.

All that is taken together and the output is: if you serve the following types of ads at these times, in this order, with this frequency, you’ll get what you want. A response, a click, a purchase or whatever you decide to optimize for.

The problem is that it is all very Mayan. We count all these observable things, which Feynman likens to counting nuts into a pot, and put them together based on a series of rules and develop law-like proclamations that say if we do these certain things, the thing we are trying to predict, will happen.

It all sounds scientific, but when you ask the Feynman question “why?” the answers are unsatisfying. There’s some vague explanation of how the regression model is so complicated and updated by-the-second that a human can’t possibly understand it. (But never mind that, the nuts will be counted into the right pots!) Sometimes you’ll be quizzed like a heretic. “Well, what’s your idea, smart guy?” You get branded as a non-believer.

Now that might not be a problem if the thing you’re trying to predict is like the position of Venus. It isn’t going to do anything odd tomorrow, the day after or for billions of years. The problem is that as marketers, we are trying to predict what humans will do.

And humans ain’t planets.

People: Hard to Quantify

If humans made decisions in a purely rational way and there were no other inputs to their decisions aside from our marketing–or at least no other variables that we couldn’t include in our models–we wouldn’t have a problem. We may not know exactly why they respond or not to our marketing efforts but, like the Mayans, we could predict the results quite well.

But there are problems.

The first problem is that much of what we do on a daily basis is automatic (Kahneman’s System 1 thinking) which we can’t even describe. The automatic functions that tell us that I like blue while you like green. In this case, I can’t even tell you why I prefer blue. I just do.

I pick up the Duracell batteries off the shelf maybe because my mom always bought them, maybe they met some internal heuristic of “first national brand that catches your eye” or maybe the size of the display was bigger. Who knows?

When I get home, intent on placing an online order for that pair of shoes I saw an ad for today at the bus stop–and need, because mine are a little ragged–my son surprises me with the news that he’s going to Philmont for a Boy Scout trip. Off we go to REI to pick up some needed gear for the high adventure trip. I’ve either forgotten about the shoes or maybe decided a new pair of hiking boots catch my fancy while I’m at the store–for a brand that I’ve never consciously seen an ad for.

How about this one? I wake up in a bad mood and just decide I’m not going to go to the ball game today. I never buy the ticket, never sit in the stands, and never eat the hot dogs and drink the beers that ads for have been carefully targeted toward me.

These are just a couple of simple examples of things we can never model, because humans make most of our decisions either irrationally or unconsciously, using decision criteria that are downright random.

In other words, you can’t quantify most of what we do. We can build overfit models that might provide a lift in response for a fleeting second, but we can’t include everything that influences the decision–including my bad mood. We’re fooling ourselves by telling ourselves that our equations can predict fickle human behavior.

Because It Wanted to Get to the Other Side

So we know why the chicken wanted to cross the road. So why did the human being decide to buy a new pickup truck? You could build some complicated Mayan counting model to try to predict it, or you could sit down and think about it for a minute. Possible reasons are (which could be combined):

  • My current truck broke down/is beat up/I’m bored with it
  • I had an accident and want to get a truck instead of a car
  • I wrecked my truck and need a new one
  • I just got a raise and want to treat myself
  • I just moved to a house in the country and need to transport hay bales
  • I bought a horse and want something to tow the trailer
  • I think the girls/guys will like me more as a truck owner
  • The neighbor guy just got one
  • I liked the color
  • They had a good deal
  • What the hell, why not?
  • Etc.

The interesting thing about all of these types of reasons is that they mostly can be derived from known data about individuals.

We have lists of people with the age and registration date of their current trucks and since we have statistics on how long trucks last, we can have an idea of when somebody might be in the market for a truck. We know when people change addresses. We can see when income changes or when nearby neighbors buy pickup trucks that result in influence on behavior.

The above happens when we start by asking “why” and don’t get too bogged down in the glamorous world of technology and counting. We can then take the reasons why we might buy something, apply it to people and then try to find them in various media, including digital media, and develop math that supports the underlying theory. Not the other way around.

That’s what I call “left to right” marketing or non-Mayan marketing.

More to come.

Takeaway: Stop counting the beans into pots. Find the people who are going to buy your products. Carefully select and segment them. THEN select channels to reach them. And win.

Posted in Marketing, Media, Philosophy | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Competitors? Meh.

Screen Shot 2017-04-20 at 10.18.02 AMI saw a post on LinkedIn today about the importance of doing combat with your competitors.

That’s misguided and wrong.

When you devote resources to something, you are by definition taking them away from something else. Every bit of time and attention you focus on your competitor means less focus on the customer.

Competitive focus is an internal exercise. It makes you feel good to rally the troops, maybe. But your customer doesn’t care if you beat the competition or put them out of business. They just want their problems solved.

Takeaway: Put down the sword. Get close to the customer. And win.

Posted in Customer Care, Leadership, Organization, Philosophy, Product Development, Sales | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

AdTech Beware: The Rise of the Sophisticated Buyer

Our “audience” is X million. For too long, that’s been the mantra of digital marketing providers, whether they be ad tech providers or publishers. Sprinkle in something about the unique quality of the audience and there you go: a sale.

I believe that gravy train is coming to an end. We are now seeing advertisers ask questions like:

  • How much of that is human?
  • How much is unique and de-duplicated from what I’m already reaching?
  • How can you prove it to me?
  • How do I know your data is correct?

The talk below from Gabe Leydon, CEO of Machine Zone, is interesting. Although I disagree with his statement that brand advertising will disappear, I do agree with him that the rise of the sophisticated buyer is coming.

As he says, the buyers (the advertisers) are the ones with the money, writing all the checks. Worth a watch.

Posted in Direct Response, Marketing, Media, Predictions | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

100% Of The Money

In digital advertising comes from the advertisers. That means advertisers ultimately call all the shots: where they buy, how they buy, and what technologies they use.

Aside | Posted on by | Leave a comment

Monday Morning Quarterbacking: The 8 am Meeting

Screen Shot 2017-04-10 at 11.23.03 AMHow’d your crack of dawn review go this morning? What did the rear echelon (senior management) put unnecessary scrutiny on? Did it help?

If it’s any consolation remember that no Monday morning quarterback ever threw an interception or missed a receiver. No Monday morning quarterback ever wore a Super Bowl ring either.


Aside | Posted on by | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Ad Fraud Crash Course

Screen Shot 2017-04-06 at 12.27.45 PMAccording to one recent study, as much as $16 billion will be stolen from advertisers in 2017. It could be more, as nobody really knows the size of the digital fraud problem. But we know that it’s a lucrative business and advertisers are being taken to the cleaners.

It’s relatively easy to educate yourself on advertising fraud. There’s a bunch of good videos from security experts and, yes ad fraud prevention vendors, about how it works and what you–as an advertiser or agency–might be able to do about it. At least you’ll know what kind of questions to ask of your agencies, vendors, publishers, and platforms.

So why does this great video from White Ops CEO Michael Tiffany only have 1,200 views? Or this one from Integral Ad Science’s Grzegorz Miaskiewicz have only 245? Isn’t anybody interested in solving the problem? About $80 billion will be spent in digital marketing this year. You’d think a few more people might be interested in what they’re actually buying.

If you’re doing any kind of digital marketing, I strongly suggest you take the time to watch these and others. Here’s an embed of Michael Tiffany’s talk. Watch it tonight when you get home. Ask good questions. And win.



Posted in fraud, Marketing, Media, Security | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ignore “Three Rights” At Your Campaign’s Peril

Screen Shot 2017-04-04 at 8.54.49 AMI believe in the old “40/40/20” rule of direct response marketing which states that 40% of the performance of a campaign is dependent on the the list, 40% on the offer, and 20% on everything else. I’ve proven it to myself in the breach when I made mistakes at list order or selection, or got the offer wrong.

You can also think of it as the “Three Rights” which you must do correctly to for successful digital performance marketing campaigns. If it helps, think of them as another Triumvirate. These are your Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus. Don’t get any of them wrong or “Et tu, Brute?”

The Digital Advertising “Three Rights”

Right Person – Right Site – Right Ad

The sequence is important. Start with the person you want to reach, not a proxy in an “audience.” Name, address, and physical location matter. Then decide where you’re going to show the ad. Again, location matters. You don’t see Tiffany ads in the rest rooms at truck stops along I-95, and you don’t see co-marketing promotions with Mercedes-Benz for CB radios.

Finally, “right ad” refers to the combination of offer, copy, and creative (in that order!) that catches the prospect’s eye and gets them to buy. Mess up any of the Three Rights in your campaigns, particularly your digital efforts, and you’ll see poor performance.

Takeaway: Use the Three Rights when you plan and execute your campaigns. Also use this format when you post-mortem* your campaigns. And win.

*You do debrief after every campaign, right? If not, use the Afterburner STEALTH debrief to do it correctly in only twenty minutes.

Posted in Communications, Direct Response, Marketing, Philosophy, planning, Tactics | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Are You Running These Ads? Why?

Weekend homework. Ask yourself, are you running any of the ads rated as 3 or lower by the Coalition for Better Ads? If so, why?

And if you’ve decided that running lousy ads makes sense, ask yourself whether you’re worried about ad blocking. Also, go to your digital marketing team and your advertising agency and see how many of those people are using ad blockers so they can get their work done.

We can do better folks. Let’s start on Monday.

Screen Shot 2017-03-24 at 10.00.13 AM

Posted in Leadership, Marketing | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Partner? Nope. Vendor!

One word that seems to have been banished from business is “vendor.” It has been replaced by the kinder, everybody-gets-a-medal term “partner.”

I hear this all the time in pitches to my clients. “We want to partner with you to help you unlock value in your business.” “As your partner, we’ll help you create amazing product experiences for your customers.” “We’ll partner with you to…”

What a bunch of nonsense. They want to make money, and there’s nothing wrong with that. But please, don’t fall for the “partner” schtick. They know it’s harder to fire a “partner” than to get rid of a vendor. And you tend not to look as closely at the faults of your partner (think of your significant other, true business partner, etc.)  And that’s the psychology of getting you to use the term “partner” to describe what is in reality a vendor relationship.

Takeaway: Unless your “partner” is only working on a percentage of the incremental value they create for you, they’re not. They’re a vendor. And that’s ok.

Aside | Posted on by | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Blockchain vs. Digital Fraud?

I’ve been speaking with many people over the past few years about using blockchain technology to mitigate fraud and increase advertiser confidence in online advertising.

It sounds like other people are thinking the same thing. I just noticed this video from MetaX, which explains how it might work:

I’m encouraged, even though I have questions about whether blockchain ledgers are fast enough for programmatic marketing or whether this might just add another layer of cruft and cost to the digital marketing environment.

Ordinarily, I’m not in favor of adding more advertising technology. But, in this case, I think this might help. As every advertiser should be able to tell you,  it is preferable to have confidence in the ad inventory at the impression level before buying to playing whack-a-mole with easily-gamed anti-fraud technologies grafted on during and after the buying process.

MetaX still looks to be a work in progress. I know other competitors and approaches will emerge. I hope that our industry will be able to find a way for blockchain to be used effectively.

I’m encouraging my friends and clients to consider testing technologies like this. Your agencies should be doing the same.

Takeaway: Look into using blockchain technology to verify the chain of custody of the impressions in which you serve your ads. Until then, buy only what you know. And win.
Posted in Marketing, Media | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment