"In the same way you can create 'SimCity,' you can create a
virtual marketplace," said Maury Giles, the head of GSD&M's
accountability and analytics department.
"Instead of spending $30 million on a campaign you're not sure is
going to work, you can try it and run it ... It's like a simulation of
what would happen if we spend this amount of money on this
message with this group of people."
Giles said Icosystem's software allows GSD&M to simulate a
population of thousands of consumers.
The space can simulate all kinds of market conditions, from a downturn to the latest scandal, and then let the virtual consumers interact. My question: are we that predictable?
8 comments:
This is a very interesting article... To the question, are we this predictable??? I would say yes and no. After reading the article, it seems like this new technology is great at predicting where your audience will be when you use a certain medium to adverise in. As it states, it helps "make better decisions on where to spend clients' money on media buying." Though this is not new news. Media buying agencies have been doing this science for years. All of this is pretty predictable on sheer numbers of where your target is. I have a really hard time thinking that a software program can predict whether that advertising will be effective though.
Last week, I heard the cheif creative officer at Euro RSCG talk about successful advertising. His speech makes me question whether a program can account for all the factors that go into making a purchase decision. For example, he made a great point about people in general, which was we are rarely rational beings. He gave the example of mad cow disease. It was mass panic and hysteria that in the end only led to two deaths! We are in general very irrational beings, and the same goes for why we choose to buy what we do.
Neverless, this is a great innovation to cut the cost of reserach before an ad launch. Due to increased competition and a cluttered market, agencies need to be sure they're getting the most bang for their buck. I would hope though that a computer simulator would never totally take over the traditional methods of focus groups and interviews.
The idea of being able to predict the success or failure of marketing campaigns is really not a new concept. Advertising agencies have been predicting potential outcomes and projecting figures for years. I think the point here is that even if a campaign is projected to do well, we have definitely seen situations where a campaign was expected to be effective and wasn't.
More importantly, some of the most successful advertising campaigns have been suprises. I think it would be very difficult to simulate situations like these. While our society is definitely predictable in many ways, the most exciting part of advertising watching to see if the creativeness behind the idea grabs audiences or completely flops. Sometimes reasons for these situations are due to factors even the most experienced advertisers couldn't predict, which will be the problem in trying to recreate consumer culture.
From a general perspective, I think that we, as consumers, are very predictable. However, on a more individual/situational level, I think that our actions can be very surprising. And a simulated marketplace will not be able to take advantage and exploit those opportunities. But, if as the article suggests, they “don't want to spend the money on focus groups just yet” then I think this virtual marketplace is a good option before putting together focus groups and spending money on launching a campaign. However, I think there will be problems if it eventually takes the place of focus groups altogether. The system allows for the company to set rules such as “This many of you like this product, and you have this many friends in your network, and you live in this type of city….What you haven't defined, and let it define for itself, is what behavior emerges." I just think this is getting really messy: it is generalizing an entire segment of the population, assuming they like the product, etc. Even if we are predictable consumers, I don’t think we are as predictable as this simulation is making us seem.
In a perfect marketplace, consumers are completely rational and therefore advertisers have an easy job- this is not so in the real world. Although this program, if working accurately, would save marketers a lot of time and money, I do not think that it will actually work in the long run. I agree with Brooke when she says that this program generalizes what the public wants. Each person wants something different from the ads they view, whether they respond to different appeals or are looking to be informed. The marketer cannot control how each consumer personally responds to a product or and advertisement so I do not think that this program will prove to be affective. Unless you can test the product on real people then you have no way of truly knowing how real people will respond.
Although I want to believe that we are totally independent and don't follow the crowd when it comes to advertising, I can't completely agree with this. As college-educated students who have been taught to analyze and critique media for the past 3-4 years, yes, we may be more independent in our thinking than the average, general public. I feel though that as a whole we very much think alike and end up liking the same types and genres of media, including advertising. With this being said, I do believe that this may be the new wave of how advertising is made.
Look at our television choices. We all can say we're sick of reality TV and it's getting really old, yet companies keep putting those shows on. Why? Ratings show that these shows do very well and that in general, the public keeps liking the same product over and over again. I look at Real World. It is in its 20th season right now yet for a good portion of our society, we're still enthralled by these people, yet it is the same concept as when the show started.
I think that this product will help advertisers because it streamlines the viewing audience and allows for money to be allocated to programming that satisfies a mass public. I believe that we can be very predictable when it comes to such media as advertising and that although some stray from the mass view, it is not enough to warrant producing a whole campaign for those people.
Although we are human beings who are very irrational we still want to see the core values in our media. We want to have violence, humor, action, etc. I think back to the Lule reading on the myths in news. We can look at most articles and find those myths within the text. This happens not because the writer necessarily finds this kind of story compelling, but because it is what sells and interests the public. I have to apply this to advertising and say then that we are predictable and want to see certain aspects within an ad and that this program will pick up on these and transform advertising.
Obviously the argument of whether or not we as consumers and as an audience are predictable is one that we have debated in one way or another several times over the course of the semester. I think in many ways, this program can't hurt companies all that much. Whether or not the program is accurate (and I believe that while not perfect, it would be accurate more often than not) it still gives companies a general idea of how an advertising campaign will be received. It is fast and cheap and allows companies to move on if they believe that a campaign won't work, instead of spending millions on a campaign that has no hope of being well received.
I would also like to respectfully disagree with Katie. I think it is the irrational consumer that is easier to reach because it is easier to play to their emotions. The rational consumer is able to see through advertising campaigns and know exactly what service a product provides and why they need that service.
To answer the question "Are we predictable," I would say it very bluntly, YES! The article touches up on word of mouth, although it stated that it is very difficult to track, and I think that is a value that's power is often times overlooked. I haven't had too many courses dealing with advertising, and only a couple of theory classes in the J-school, but from what I have grasped, I feel this method of advertising, or figuring out a focus group, is just like everything else. That being, a new way to market to the audience during this technological boom of the past 20 years, specifically with the rise of the internet.
I think that by doing this, advertisers not only save their money or whatnot, but they are still going to get a grasp of what people want or are looking for because the online world is what everyone takes part in. That is a focus group in itself, just a whole lot cheaper.
I guess because GSD&M said it it must be true, but if I were this reporter I might have asked GSD&M on what planet a four to six month set-up time is less expensive than a focus group. That to me sounds like an alternate reality—-one where ad agencies are altruistic and don’t bill in six-minute increments.
I’d also ask the folks at Idea City where the idea came from to create *bots* to talk to the avatars in Second Life. Since the minions in SL are nothing more than real people living virtually through made-up personas, I’m confused as to how creating a bot that could not possibly be as nuanced or thorough as a real interviewer is a good use of their clients’ money. I could see if they created a hungover, self-consciously hip, VW-driving ad exec avatar and went and quizzed the SLers in their natural habitat, but this bot thing sounds an awful lot like a way for GSD&M to legitimately bill for the work-time their creatives waste online each day anyway.
As far as predictability goes, I think for the purposes of a huge ad campaign, yes we are. If the extreme cases of huge failures and successes could be predicted, then there’d never be a failure and every campaign would be hitting home runs. So where I could see this being worthwhile is for testing and tweaking contributing factors that pay off in the matter of degrees. And in a massive campaign can translate to millions.
That said, I just don’t think there’s enough info in this piece to accurately judge GSD&M’s model. Particularly when you consider than ad agencies are essentially in the business of truth stretching.
Post a Comment