8 Burst results for "Melbourne Business School"

"melbourne business school" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

WNYC 93.9 FM

06:09 min | 4 months ago

"melbourne business school" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM

"Try to understand this ecosystem Better first, we will need a guide. Sure my name is Tim Huang H w A N G. My day job is I'm a research fellow at the Center for Security and emerging technology at Georgetown. And before that, Was previously global Head of public policy for a I in machine learning at global, long recently published a book called Subprime Attention, Crisis Advertising in the Time Bomb at the heart of the Internet. It's about how big tech monetize is our attention. When I started to do research, by very naturally started to talk to a couple friends who work at these big tech companies, and it was a little bit like talking to someone who works in national security or the intelligence community or something like that, because they would be like, Oh adds definitely work, but we can't tell you how or why, or give you any evidence for it. Google would plainly dispute that there is no evidence for whether online ads work. Tim Wong recognizes he is tilting at windmills here. Trillion dollar windmills. But in fact, he first grew skeptical about online advertising. While still working at Google. He began reading trade journals and going to conferences and I had this fascinating experience with one of these key notes at this conference was given by Nikola German who Basically is a big ad critic Nico Newman is a marketing professor at the Melbourne Business School in Australia, and he presented to really fascinating studies that his lab had done. The first one was looking into the quality of data used in the ad tech industry, basically demonstrating in many cases, it was incredibly accurate. And the second one was he took dead aim at the type cycle around a I that exists in ad tech right now, where people are saying, If you have this latest machine learn, and you have to say, I you'll be able to do targeting in a way that you never ever were able to do before. And Nico's lap, did some experiments that demonstrated that in many cases, machine learning was finding people who would have bought the product anyways. Bringing this message to an ad tech conference is a bit like bringing a safety pin to a balloon conference. I looked around being like way. So when people be angry, and it was just total dead air, no one responded. No one engaged with it. And it got me really interested in thinking about like, Is there a bubble here? Bubble like the dot com bubble or the subprime bubble or the tulip bubble. Because this is exactly the kind of behavior that occur in other financial bubbles where the red lights are flashing. But everybody in the street just refuses to take a look at the real data long began thinking about how bubbles happen. So the origins of every bubble come in this cap that occurs in a marketplace. On one hand, you have people who believe that an asset whether it's collateralized debt obligations or advertising inventory is extremely valuable. And then, on the other hand, what you have is declining asset value. So in the subprime mortgage crisis, we believed that mortgages were always going to just pay out regularly forever, right when it actually turned out that the package of mortgages were actually a terrible asset. They were toxic and about to go belly up. So how can one justify a parallel with digital advertising? I think the first piece is really the big question of do people ever see ads at all? So Google actually did a fascinating study not too long ago, which concluded that close to 60% of ads on the Internet are never ever even seen. The ad is delivered, but it just ends up in some dumb part of the page. Right. It's below the fold. It's along a sideline, but what about the precise targeting the digital ads are supposed to offer? 2019 study, this one done by three academic researchers addressed this question by measuring the impact of a user's cookies. Those remember are the tracking codes that most of us allowed to roam our computers and phones in exchange for all the free information we get from companies like Google and Facebook. This study found that when a user's cookies were unavailable, ad revenues on Lee dropped by about 4%. Why would cookies be so ineffective? Tim Wong argues that people pay a lot less attention to online ads and they used to people often forget that when banner ads were first launched on the Internet there, click through rate was like 50% completely mind bending right and it's just continued to fall and fall and fall and now it's like 500.12 point. 03%. Some estimates of click through rates are higher than what Hong sites here. That said precise measurement is hard because there are so many bots clicking on adds a whole other problem with the digital ad universe. But no matter how you measure it, click through rates have fallen a lot. As the novelty wears off habituation sets in, and an ad that might have once grabbed your attention becomes invisible or worse. Annoying. People increasingly don't want ads. So ad blocking, for example, is really, really increasing over time. And I think these factors not being able to see ads, the questions about the effectiveness of ads and the rise of things like ad blocking, bring into question whether this thing that we think is so valuable. Is actually worth as much as we think it is. But if there's such a big gap between the perceived and real value of digital advertising, why are Google and Facebook worth so much money? Look at it this way. There are a couple trillion reasons why Tim Wong might be wrong. He doesn't think so. His theory is that digital advertising is grotesquely overvalued because it is still so hard to measure and one reason it's hard to measure is that the marketplace is exceedingly opaque. So there's a fascinating incident that I always think about, which is one of the last times that Mark Zuckerberg was called up to Congress and one of the questions that he got from one of the senators was. How do you guys make money? How do you sustain a business model in which used to stump pay for your service and Mark's hacker? Berg was like.

Google Tim Wong Crisis Advertising Nico Newman Tim Huang H Facebook Mark Zuckerberg global Head Georgetown research fellow Center for Security Australia Melbourne Business School Nikola German Berg Lee
"melbourne business school" Discussed on KQED Radio

KQED Radio

06:48 min | 4 months ago

"melbourne business school" Discussed on KQED Radio

"G. My day job is I'm a research fellow at the Center for Security and emerging technology at Georgetown. And before that I was previously global head of public policy. For a I'm machine learning at global, long recently published a book called Subprime Attention, Crisis Advertising in the Time Bomb at the heart of the Internet. It's about how big tech monetize is our attention. When I started to do research, by very naturally started to talk to a couple friends who work at these big tech companies, and it was a little bit like talking to someone who works in national security or the intelligence community or something like that, because they would be like, Oh adds definitely work, but we can't tell you how or why, or give you any evidence for it. Google would plainly dispute that there is no evidence for whether online ads work. Tim Wong recognizes he is tilting at windmills here. Trillion dollar windmills. But in fact, he first grew skeptical about online advertising. While still working at Google. He began reading trade journals and going to conferences and I had this fascinating experience with one of these key notes at this conference was given by Nicholas Newman, who basically is a big ad critic. Nico Newman is a marketing professor at the Melbourne Business School in Australia. And he presented to really fascinating studies that his lab had done. The first one was looking into the quality of data used in the ad tech industry, basically demonstrating in many cases, it was incredibly accurate. And the second one was he took dead aim at the type cycle around a I that exists in ad tech right now, where people are saying, If you have this latest machine learn, and you have this AI, you'll be able to do targeting in a way that you never ever were able to do before. And Nico's lap, did some experiments that demonstrated that in many cases, machine learning was finding people who would have bought the product anyways. Bringing this message to an ad tech conference is a bit like bringing a safety pin to a balloon conference. I looked around being like way. So when people be angry, and it was just total dead air, no one responded. No one engaged with it. And it got me really interested in thinking about like, Is there a bubble here? Bubble like the dot com bubble or the subprime bubble or the tulip bubble, because this is exactly the kind of behavior that occur in other financial bubbles, where the red lights are flashing, But everybody in the street just refuses to take a look at the real data. Long began thinking about how bubbles happen. So the origins of every bubble come in this cap that occurs in a marketplace. On one hand, you have people who believe that an asset whether it's collateralized debt obligations or advertising inventory is extremely valuable. And then, on the other hand, what you have is declining asset value. So in the subprime mortgage crisis, we believe that mortgages were always going to just pay out regularly forever. Right when next you turned out that the package of mortgages were actually a terrible asset. They were toxic and about to go belly up. So how can one justify a parallel with digital advertising? I think the first piece is really the big question of do people ever see ads at all? So Google actually did a fascinating study not too long ago, which concluded that close to 60% of ads on the Internet are never ever even seen. The ad is delivered, but it just ends up in some dumb part of the page. Right. It's below the fold. It's along a sideline, but what about the precise targeting the digital ads are supposed to offer? 2019 study, this one done by three academic researchers addressed this question by measuring the impact of a user's cookies. Those remember are the tracking codes. Most of us allowed to roam our computers and phones in exchange for all the free information we get from companies like Google and Facebook. This study found that when a user's cookies were unavailable, ad revenues on Lee dropped by about 4%. Why would cookies be so ineffective? Tim Wong argues that people pay a lot less attention to online ads and they used to people often forget that when banner ads were first launched on the Internet there, click through rate was like 50% completely mind bending right and it's just continued to fall and fall and fall and now it's like 500.12 point. 03%. Some estimates of click through rates are higher than what Hong sites here. That said precise measurement is hard because there are so many bots clicking on adds a whole other problem with the digital ad universe. But no matter how you measure it, click through rates have fallen a lot. As the novelty wears off habituation sets in, and an ad that might have once grabbed your attention becomes invisible or worse, Annoying. People increasingly don't want ads. So ad Blocking, for example, is really, really increasing overtime. And I think these factors not being able to see ads the questions about the effectiveness of ads. And the rise of things like ad blocking, bring into question whether this thing that we think is so valuable is actually worth as much as we think it is. But if there's such a big gap between the perceived and real value of digital advertising Why are Google and Facebook worth so much money? Look at it this way. There are a couple trillion reasons why Tim Wong might be wrong. He doesn't think so. His theory is that digital advertising is grotesquely overvalued because it is still so hard to measure and one reason it's hard to measure is that the marketplace is exceedingly opaque. So there's a fascinating incident that I always think about, which is one of the last times that Mark Zuckerberg was called up to Congress and one of the questions that he got from one of the senators was. How do you guys make money? How do you sustain a business model in which used to stump tape your service and Mark's hacker? Berg was like Senator we run as and at the time. A lot of the chatter on Twitter was like, Ha ha! Look at the super Old senator, he doesn't know anything about the Internet. But it's true that even if you talk to people in the tech industry, and you're like, Okay, level with me, Joe Engineer how do ads work on the Internet? It's kind of a rumor like we know this is how the business model works, but no one can really explain how it works in detail. So when I say advertising a lot of people normally think of like mad men, right, but it really looks like what the NASDAQ looks like, which is largely automated system that moves millions and millions and billions of pieces of ad inventory on a daily basis. As Steve today, Ellis explained earlier. Most ad inventory is sold by auctions, which are run by algorithms operating at phenomenal speed. This is one contributor to the opacity of the industry..

Google Tim Wong Nico Newman Crisis Advertising Facebook global head research fellow Mark Zuckerberg Georgetown Center for Security Nicholas Newman Twitter Australia senator Melbourne Business School Long
"melbourne business school" Discussed on Heartland Newsfeed Radio Network

Heartland Newsfeed Radio Network

06:20 min | 4 months ago

"melbourne business school" Discussed on Heartland Newsfeed Radio Network

"How or why are you any evidence for it. Google would plainly dispute. There is no evidence for whether online ads work. Tim wong recognizes. He is tilting at windmills. Here trillion dollar windmills. But in fact he. i grew skeptical about online advertising. While still working at google he began reading trade journals and going to conferences. And i had this fascinating experience. Where one of these keynotes at this conference was given by nicole. Newman who basically is a big ad. Critic nico newman. Is a marketing professor at the melbourne business school in australia and he presented to really fascinating studies that his lab had done the first one was looking into the quality of data used in the tech industry basically demonstrating in many cases. It was incredibly inaccurate and the second one was he took dead. Aim at the hype cycle around a that exists in tech right now where people are saying if you have this latest machine learning. You have this. You'll targeting in a way that you never ever were able to do. Before and nico's lap did some experiments that demonstrated in many cases machine. Learning was finding people who would have bought the product anyways bringing this message to an ad tech conference is a bit like bringing a safety pin to a balloon conference that looked around being like ways so where people angry and it was just total dead air. No one responded no engaged with it and it got me really interested in thinking about like. Is there a bubble here. A bubble like the dot com bubble or the subprime bubble or the tulip bubble. Because this is exactly the kinds of behavior that occur in other financial bubbles where the red lights are flashing but everybody industry just refuses to take a look at the real data. Wong began thinking about how bubbles happen so the origins of every bubble come in this gap that occurs in a marketplace on one hand. You have people who believe that. An asset whether it's collateralized debt obligations or advertising inventory is extremely valuable and then on the other hand what you have is declining asset value so in the subprime mortgage crisis. We believed that mortgages bro is going to pay out regularly forever right. When next turned a package of mortgages were actually terrible asset there were toxic and about to go belly so how long justify parallel with digital advertising. I think the first piece is really the big question of do people ever see ads at all. So google actually did a fascinating study not too long ago which concluded that close to sixty percent of ads on the internet are never ever even seen the ad is delivered but it just ends up in some dumb part of the page. Just below the fold there it's alongside line. But what about the precise targeting. The digital ads are supposed to offer a two thousand and nineteen study this one done by three academic researchers addressed this question by measuring the impact of a users cookies. Those remember are the tracking codes most of us to roam our computers and phones in exchange for all the free information we get from companies like google and facebook. This study found that when users cookies were unavailable ad. Revenues only dropped by about four percent. Why would cookies be so ineffective. Tim wong argues that people pay a lot less attention to online ads and they used to. People often forget that when banner ads. Were i lost on the internet. There click through rate was fifty percent completely mind-bending right and it was just continue to fall and fall and fall and now it's like point zero one. Two point zero three percent. Some estimates of click through rates are higher than what hong sites here that said. Precise measurement is hard because there are so many bots clicking on adds a whole other problem with the digital ad universe but no matter how you measure it. Click through rates have fallen a lot as the novelty wears off habituation sets in and an ad that might have once grabbed your attention becomes invisible or worse annoying. People increasingly don't want ads. So ad blocking for example is really really increasing over time. And i think these factors not being able to see ads the questions about the effectiveness of ads and the rise of ad blocking bring into question whether thing that we think is so valuable is actually worth as much as we think it is but if there is such a big gap between the perceived and real value of digital advertising. Why are google and facebook worth so much money. Look at it this way. There are a couple trillion reasons. Why tim wong might be wrong. But he doesn't think so. His theory is that digital advertising is grotesquely overvalued because it is still so hard to measure and one reason it's hard to measure the marketplace is exceedingly opaque. So there's a fascinating incident. That i always think about which is one of the last times. That mark zuckerberg was called up to congress and one of the questions that he got from. One of the senators was well. How do you guys make money. Sustain a business model in which users don't pay for your service and mark zuckerberg was like senator. We run out and at the time. A lot of the chatter on twitter was like ha ha. Look at the super old senator. He doesn't know anything about the internet. But it's true that even if you talk to people in the tech industry and you're like okay level with me joe engineer. How do ads work on the internet. It's kind of a rumor like we know. This is how the business model works but no one can really explain how it works in detail so when i say advertising a lot of people normally think of madman right but it really looks like what the nasdaq looks like which is largely automated system moves millions and millions and billions of pieces of ad inventory on a daily basis as steve to dallas explained earlier. Most ad inventory is sold by auctions which are run by algorithms operating at phenomenal speed. This is one contributor to the obesity of the industry. for instance. It can be hard to figure out why certain ads and up on certain pages if you are a family-friendly brand like disney you don't want your ad popping up on a youtube video showing a terrorist beheading. This has been a.

Google Tim wong nico newman facebook senator mark zuckerberg melbourne business school australia nicole disney twitter youtube professor engineer dallas
"melbourne business school" Discussed on Freakonomics

Freakonomics

05:51 min | 4 months ago

"melbourne business school" Discussed on Freakonomics

"Ecosystem functions whether it's as effective as google says it is or as ineffective has researchers like steve dallas told us earlier about his research at ebay. Ebay believed that for every dollar. They're spending they're getting fifty cents of net profits and what we showed that on average. They're losing more than sixty cents on every dollar so okay. let's try to understand this ecosystem better. I we will need a guide. Sure my name is tim. Kwong h. w. a. n. g. My day job is. I'm a research fellow at the center for security and emerging technology at georgetown and before that i was previously global head of public policy for ai and machine learning at google one recently published a book subprime attention crisis advertising in the time bomb at the heart of the internet. It's about how big tech monetizes our attention. When i started to do research by very naturally started to talk to a couple of friends who work at these big tech companies and there was a little bit like talking to someone who works in national security or the intelligence community or something like that because they would be like oh adds definitely work. But we can't tell you how are y or give you any evidence for it. Google would plainly dispute that. There is no evidence for whether online ads work. Tim wong recognizes. He is tilting at windmills here. Trillion dollar windmills. But in fact he. i grew skeptical about online advertising. While still working at google he began reading trade journals and going to conferences and this fascinating experience. Where one of these keynotes at this conference was given by nicole. Newman who basically is a big ad. Critic nico newman. Is a marketing professor at the melbourne business school in australia and he presented to really fascinating studies that his lab had done the first one was looking into the quality of data used in the ad tech industry basically demonstrating in many cases. It was incredibly inaccurate and the second one was. He took dead. Aim at hype cycle around. Ai that exists in ad tech right now where people are saying if you have this latest machine learning you have this ai. You'll give the targeting in a way that you never ever were able to do before and nico's lap did. Some experiments have demonstrated that in many cases machine learning was finding people who would have bought the product anyway anyways bringing this message to an ad tech conference is a bit like bringing a safety pin to a balloon conference that looked around being like where so angry and it was just total dead air. No one responded no one engaged with it and it got me really interested in thinking about. Is there a bubble here. A bubble like the dot com bubble or the subprime bubble or the tulip bubble. Because this is exactly the kinds of behavior that occur in other financial bubbles where the red lights are flashing but everybody industry just refuses to take a look at the real data long began thinking about how bubbles happen so the origins of every bubble come in this gap that occurs in a marketplace. On one hand you have people who believe that. An asset whether it's collateralized debt obligations or advertising inventory is extremely valuable and on the other hand what you have is declining asset value so in the prime mortgage crisis believed that mortgages rose gonna just pay out regularly forever right. When next turned the package of mortgages were actually a terrible asset. There were toxic and about to go belly up. so how can wong justify a parallel with digital advertising. I think the first piece is really the big question of do people ever see ads at all. So google actually did a fascinating study not too long ago which concluded that close to sixty percent of ads on the internet are never ever even seen the ad is delivered but it just ends up in some dumb part of the page. Right is below the fold their sideline but what about the precise targeting. The digital ads are supposed to offer a two thousand nine thousand nine hundred study this one done by three academic researchers addressed this question by measuring the impact of users cookies. Those remember are the tracking codes. Most of us allowed to roam our computers and phones in exchange for all the free information we get from companies like google and facebook. This study found that when a user's cookies were unavailable ed revenues only dropped by about four percent. Why would cookies be so ineffective. Tim wong argues that people pay a lot less attention to online ads and they used to. People often forget that when banner ads first loss on the internet there click through rate was like fifty percent completely mind-bending and it's just continue to fall and fall and fall and now it's like point zero one. Two point zero three percent. Some estimates of click through rates are higher than what sites here that said precise measurement is hard because there are so many bots clicking on adds a whole other problem with the digital ad universe but no matter how you measure it click through rates have fallen a lot as the novelty wears off habituation sets in and an ad that might have once grabbed your attention becomes invisible or worse annoying. People increasingly don't want ads. So ad blocking for example is really really increasing over time. And i think these factors not being able to see ads the questions about the effectiveness of ads and the rise of things ad blocking bring into question whether his thing that we think is so valuable is actually worth as much as we think it is but if there is such a big gap between the perceived and real value of digital advertising. Why are google and facebook worth so.

google Tim wong nico newman ebay facebook Kwong h. w. a. n. g steve dallas melbourne business school australia research fellow nicole georgetown professor global head
"melbourne business school" Discussed on Marketing Today

Marketing Today

13:10 min | 1 year ago

"melbourne business school" Discussed on Marketing Today

"Today on the show got markets and he's an adjunct professor of marketing at the melbourne business school. He also also runs the mini m._b._a. Which is marketing program run by in collaboration with marketing week. He's also rates for marketing week on a regular basis column column and he's just funny as hell and you'll find that out in this conversation but today we talked about how he's actually incorporated marketing today into the mini m._b._a. Be a program they runs and today we're going to cover brand diagnosis something that we have not covered on this podcast and thanks to mark. We're gonna fill that the whole and fill out his his use of the podcast for the upcoming mini m._b._a. Series so i hope you enjoy this wide ranging being but funny and entertaining conversation with margarethen mark only introduce yourself for quick hi. My name is mark richardson. I'm an <unk> adjunct professor these days melvin business school down in australia and <hes> i work for a shit ton of brands on various different strategic egypt challenges will mark welcome to the show you. I'm good. It's been way way too long. I feel like it's been like two a years since i've had you on the show pretty much and i think you've kind of got famous on your podcast certainly has since we since we first did it. You know i mean. I should should probably tell you because you don't know the back story about what we're doing here for once can i can. I turn the table yanyan. Tell me so. I'm member so it's about four months. I did this mini m._b._a. In marketing which is a an online version of the n._b._a. Coast toll around the world and we do it online and we get like two thousand people doing it all over the world. It's it's it's been a great success but one of the things i wanted to do this year was to have okay <hes> a podcast for each of the twelve classes because my students tuning ill online. I looked around and i've check that all the different the thing podcasts i really wanted to use the same one and have one interview from each of the twelve episodes and i found this one. I really lights which is yours. I was like you know macintosh pretty good pretty good and then i thought cheese you know what i think i was on this and i didn't even remember. I'll be honest with them on this. So i look myself up. I was on this committee but my was very good but some very good and then so. I got eleven out of twelve so i find it. Levin called casts <unk> and truly is. I'll probably give you some great minute so i mean i i it really was the best podcast in the world on marketing hands down in terms of quality people the way you run it the topics you pick nick it was it was truly great. Allen truly rights and i felt so that's the one for me and then the reason is there. It was one topic that was missing which was diagnosis and doing research and i it's a very interesting point that even the best podcasts in the world and i've listened to every single kosovo yours now to find the eleven even the best podcast in the world on marketing manager lights on on research diagnosis. It's all about tactics and that's not a criticism of you. I think it's a function of the way marketing is gone. No i appreciate i appreciate that. Eh eh to hear you say. This is the best podcasts on marketing in the world. I mean at there's no higher praise. I think so thanks why it's true through. I would tell you if it was only number two. It's <hes> yeah in terms of the breadth and quality. I think you've got a crash so congratulations yeah. We'll thank you thank you. I'll i'll ride your coattails. As far as i can take it so but <hes> we'll so let's get into it. I mean i know to to your point and you reach back out about this diagnosis missing <hes>. Let's let's get into it. Let's assume for the moment that i'm a new brand leader. I just landed ended in the job. Where should i start. How do i diagnose what's going on brand so i think in kits the missing artists who've already said i think this about in an ideal place this about ten sources of insight that if you're walking into an existing existing brand which usually is the case you want to be looking. I don't do them in no particular order but i'll you know i think it's a great checklists and i don't expect the brand managers i just i would have to do all of these every time but these are kind of the stones you look on the to find out what have i got with. This brand yeah so i think he stopped relocation. Occasion brands come from certain place and you have to visit the physical place where the brand was born <hes> and the example zampa off the news with clients as i did in a very famous week i did the brand strategy worked for don perignon in france and then i had a day off work with the team i'm from mud to sean dawn to do their brand strategy and they are in the same group and there are actually only fifteen kilometers applause but if you if you visit haute vienne <hes> which is the home of don perignon anew visit shuttle design which is the spiritual home of moabit even though the pretty much nonni in champaign obviously but the same positive haas of champagne. They are stunningly different. You know you feel the heavy powerful almost foreboding that you get from the home of them perignon unused. It's a monkey. It's a monastery. I go to sour into chateau discotheque. I lost my trousers as and it's a it's an extreme example but illustrates the point you get such sense of lebron's just from visiting h- h q all increasingly where it was boone originally so he's out that lead to that his heritage i think americans have so many advantages when it comes to brand management and they did write the book nall cain on going backwards go forwards so i think studying the archives is always useful and always something that is is to be done early in the diagnoses then you get to found this. You have to spend time either with living dead. Founders dead found is much easier than living ones because they don't move around with an i prefer the dead ones because you can read about them and you don't have to manage them but i think the found is i use is always to some degree injected into the brand and then of course any second data so that's kind of like your initial sweep of material about the brands and then really it comes down to two major pieces of empirical research for me. I love loyalist research so the first thing you gotta do view it. A new brand manager with a new brand is you're gonna get out recruit some customers. You're gonna find out why they love the brad. You're gonna shut up and she's very hard for many marketers today and you just going to listen to the loyal customers who spend money on the brown telling you they love the brunt and it's the deadliest eddie <unk> cheapest easiest inside the bowl and rarely does it not give you the answer. What do i what people think and feel while here is right in front of hey. guy's already thinking feeling now. This is obviously very qualitative. Inside <unk> has no graffiti three months so at some point you we do today's survey of the hull mock it to the test and see where the gaps are. What drive is what the funnels look like console on but that comes relatively late in the process and i'd say the only time we strongly the diagnosis. I think is too good to mace. He's he's. Let's assume he's done all of this study irritates. You've done the quality of done the kwame you got a pretty good idea of how you want to position the brand how you wanna execute it leave kapit money for focus groups because the greatest piece of research on the planet's remains focus groups with your potential target target customers in the every new marketing plan and you get an hour and twenty minutes in a room with them in that's the most valuable our twenty minutes of all diagnosis 'cause you can check check. The site with poetry is correct. You can test your positioning versus other options. You can run through some tactical ideas. It's a brilliant william final tests that if you get ten percent of your budget in your back pocket just before you start driving this thing will improve another fifty percent literally literally with one or two hours of folks so for me that that's the that's the broad group <unk> out if i saw that taking place and you very rarely do i say this. This is proper first diagnosis and and it doesn't have to be that much you're to put in that first year. Go to get your hands around the printer that that's that's what we mean by appropriate diagnosis got got well and one thing i did not hear was social listening or scraping my digital data. My data lakes my digital data. It's a load of sheets allen. I mean let's be clear clearly so let's look at twitter as an example. I forgive me the stats on completely correct. I forget what i was reading last week but i love to. It's it's fantastic. It's a tiny echo chamber which has fifty percent of the population active on it. I know that fifteen percent. I think it was another ten to fifteen percent and doing eighty percent of the tweeting so you're getting the tip of the tips and i have to tell you. It's not getting any better. I look at campaigns have objectives set on you know social media objectives they. It's your point use social listening look. It's a decent secondary quality to what's good about social listening. You get it straight away. Mejia can be ongoing. It's cheap. It's hugely representative of the market so you can never use if the quantitative purposes. It's a quality to annex only taking insights from a tiny fraction of the market so yeah it has its place. I put it in in the second second. We data but you know it's the same old story. There's nothing wrong with it but it's nothing particularly good about it either but it predominates discussion now because it stages digitally everything right right well. It's refreshing to hear your approach to this and how you go about diagnosing. How you're you're teaching people. Frankly that's great. <hes> what. Why do you think so you mean. You can't beat me up a little bit which is fine as appreciated <hes>. Why do you think it's so hard to get c._m._o.'s and brain leaders in people behind the campaign to talk about this like the steps that they went through because it is like pulling teeth yeah no i. I can imagine you've tried. I think it's a fundamental ignorance of how to manage brands even at quite senior level so one of the things i do. I don't wanna start off teaching management at business school. We start working move. Attain museum is split up right management into three distinct slices. The i pod diagnosis the next part started the final tactics and i weight them equally. I say they're each about two thirds in your one of your time should be diagnosis. Strategy tactics never happens island. You look at even a decent brown manager. They've got facebook or instagram out all that a token to their agency before they even worked at what's in this friends and i call that tactic so we've become you know you'll you'll podcast. No fault of your rallied the victim of that. We've become a <unk> tactically obsessed discipline really. It isn't just tactics because you know within marketing tactics. We have things like price product distribution that we don't talk about anymore. We've become essentially a communications obsessed disciplined. Is it just because we don't talk radio going forbid promotions anymore. We talk about digital homes so we've been hijacked and you'll podcast. I think he's a brilliant reflection of marketing at the moment and as a result you've been hijacked to if you really ask i think some of them aren't could as you've had on you could probably split them into two camps. Half of them haven't really done much diagnosis so they can't talk about it and half of them living in the media which is will you wanted to learn about how i'm using tactics because that's marketing not the boring research and as we all know without without that time dacian of understanding in strategy tactics don't work all right well..

adjunct professor don perignon brand manager melbourne business school marketing manager mark richardson australia chateau discotheque kwame twitter Allen Levin macintosh facebook nick brown france lebron Mejia
"melbourne business school" Discussed on Marketing Today with Alan Hart

Marketing Today with Alan Hart

12:26 min | 1 year ago

"melbourne business school" Discussed on Marketing Today with Alan Hart

"Today on the show got markets and he's an adjunct professor of marketing at the Melbourne Business School. He also also runs the mini M._B._A. Which is marketing program run by in collaboration with marketing week? He's also rates for marketing week on a regular basis column column and he's just funny as Hell and you'll find that out in this conversation but today we talked about how he's actually incorporated marketing today into the mini M._B._a. be a program they runs and today we're going to cover brand diagnosis something that we have not covered on this podcast and thanks to mark. We're GONNA fill that. the whole and fill out his his use of the podcast for the upcoming mini M._B._a. Series so I hope you enjoy this wide ranging. thing but funny and entertaining conversation with Margarethen mark only introduce yourself for quick hi. My name is mark Richardson. I'm an <unk> adjunct professor these days Melvin Business School down in Australia and <hes> I work for a shit ton of brands on various different strategic Egypt Challenges Will Mark Welcome to the show you. I'm good. It's been way way too long. I feel like it's been like two. a years since I've had you on the show pretty much and I think you've kind of got famous on your podcast certainly has since we since we first did it. You know I mean I should should probably tell you because you don't know the back story about what we're doing here for once can I can. I turn the table Yanyan. Tell me so I'm member so It's about four months. I did this mini M._B._A. In marketing which is a an online version of the N._B._A. Coast toll around the world And we do it online and we get like two thousand people doing it all over the world. It's it's it's been a great success but one of the things I wanted to do this year was to have a <hes> a podcast for each of the twelve classes because my students at tuning ill online I looked around and I've check that all the different the thing podcasts I really wanted to use the same one and have one interview from each of the twelve episodes and I found this one. I really lights which is yours. I was like you know Macintosh pretty good pretty good and then I thought cheese on this and I didn't even remember I'll be honest with them on this. So I look myself up. I was on this committee but my was very good but some very good and then so I got eleven out of twelve so I find it Levin podcasts <unk> and truly is I'll probably give you some great minute so I mean but I I it really was the best podcast in the world on marketing hands down in terms of quality people the way you run it. The topics you pick nick it was it was truly great Allen truly rights and I felt so that's the one for me and then the reason is there it was one topic that was missing which was diagnosis and doing research and I it's a very interesting point that even the best podcasts in the world and I've listened to every single Kosovo yours now to find the eleven even the best podcast in the world on marketing manager lights on on research. diagnosis. It's all about tactics and that's not a criticism of you. I think it's a function of the way marketing is gone. No I appreciate I appreciate that Eh eh to hear you say this is the best podcasts on marketing in the world. I mean at there's no higher praise. I think so thanks why it's true through. I would tell you if it was only number two. It's <hes> yeah in terms of the breadth and quality. I think you've got a crash so congratulations yeah. We'll thank you thank you. I'll I'll ride your coattails as far as I can take it so but <hes> we'll so let's get into it. I mean I know to to your point and you reach back out about this diagnosis missing <hes>. Let's let's get into it. Let's assume for the moment that I'm a new brand leader. I just landed ended in the job. Where should I start? How do I diagnose? What's going on brand so I think in kits the missing artists who've already said I think this about in an ideal place this about ten sources of insight that if you're walking into an existing existing brand which usually is the case you want to be looking at. I don't do them in no particular order but I'll you know I think it's a great checklists and I don't expect the brand managers. I just I would have to do all of these every time but these are kind of the stones you look on the to find out what have I got with this brand yeah so I think he thought we location occasion brands come from certain place and you have to visit the physical place where the brand was born <hes> and the example ZAMPA off the news with clients as I did in a very famous week I did the brand strategy worked for Don Perignon in France and then I had a day off work with the team I'm from mud to Sean dawn to do their brand strategy and they are in the same group and there are actually only fifteen kilometers applause but if you if you visit Haute Vienne ed which is the home of Dome Perignon Anew Visit Shuttle Design which is the spiritual home of Moabit even though the pretty much only in champaign obviously but the same Haas of champagne. They are stunningly different. You know you feel the heavy powerful almost foreboding that you get from the home of them perignon unused. It's a monkey. It's a monastery I go to sour into chateau discotheque. I lost my trousers as and it's a it's an extreme example but illustrates the point you get such sense of Lebron's just from visiting H- h q all increasingly where it was boone originally so he gets out that lead to that his heritage I think Americans have so many advantages when it comes to brand management and they did write the book Nall Cain on going backwards. Go forwards so I think studying the archives is always useful and always something that is is to be done early in the diagnoses then you get to found this? You have to spend time either with living dead founders dead found is much easier than living ones because they don't move around with an I prefer the dead ones because you can read about them and you don't have to manage them but I think the found is I use is always to some degree injected into the brand and then of course any second data so that's kind of like your initial sweep of material about the brands and then really it comes down to two major pieces of empirical research for me? I love loyalist research so the first thing you gotta do view it. A new brand manager with a new brand is you're GONNA get out recruit some customers. You GonNa find out why they love the Brad. You're GONNA shut up and she's very hard for many marketers today and you just going to listen to the loyal customers who spend money on the Brown telling you they love the brunt and it's the deadliest Eddie <unk> cheapest easiest inside the bowl and rarely does it not give you the answer <unk>. What do I what people think and feel while here is right in front of a Hey let's stop the guy's already thinking feeling now. This is obviously very qualitative. Inside <unk> has no graffiti three months. so at some point you we do today's survey of the hull mock it to the test and see where the gaps are. What drive is what the funnels look like console on but that comes relatively late in the process and I'd say the only time we strongly the diagnosis I think is too good to mace? He's He's let's assume he's done all of this study irritates. You've done the quality of done the kwame you got a pretty good idea of how you want to position the brand how you WANNA execute it leave kapit money for focus groups because the greatest piece of research on the planet's remains focus groups with your potential target. target customers in the every new marketing plan and you get an hour and twenty minutes in a room with them. In that's the most valuable our twenty minutes of all diagnosis 'cause you can check check the site with poetry is correct. You can test your positioning versus other options. You can run through some tactical ideas. It's a brilliant William Final tests that if you get ten percent of your budget in your back pocket just before you start driving this thing will improve another fifty percent literally. literally with one or two hours of folks so for me that that's the that's the broad group <unk> out if I saw that taking place and you very rarely do I say this this is proper first diagnosis and and it doesn't have to be that much in year two but in that first year go to get your hands around the printer that that's that's what we mean by appropriate diagnosis got got well and one thing I did not hear was social listening or scraping my digital data my data lakes my digital data. It's a load of sheet island. Let's be clear clearly so let's look at twitter as an example. I forgive me the stats on completely correct. I forget what I was reading last week but I love to. It's it's fantastic It's a tiny echo chamber which has fifty percent of the population active on it. I know that fifteen percent I think it was another ten to fifteen percent and doing eighty percent of the tweeting so you're getting the tip of the tips and I have to tell you it's not getting any better I look at campaigns have objectives set on you know social media objectives they? It's your point use social listening look. It's a decent secondary quality to what's good about social listening you get it straight away. Mejia can be ongoing. It's cheap. It's hugely representative of the market so you can never use If the quantitative purposes it's a quality to annex only taking insights from a tiny fraction of the market so yeah it has its place I put it in in the second second. We data but you know it's the same old story. There's nothing wrong with it but it's nothing particularly good about it either but it predominates odd discussion now because it stages digitally everything right right well. It's refreshing to hear your approach to this and how you go about diagnosing. How you're you're teaching people frankly that's great <hes> what why do you think so you mean. You can't beat me up a little bit which is fine as appreciated <hes> why do you think it's so hard to get C._M._O.'s and brain leaders people behind the campaign to talk about this like the steps that they went through because it is like pulling teeth. yeah no I. I can imagine you've tried. I think it's a fundamental ignorance of how to manage brands even at quite senior level so one of the things I do. I pod diagnosis. The next part started the final tactics and I weight them equally. I say they're each about two thirds in your one of your time should be rallied the victim of that. We've become a <unk> tactically obsessed discipline really it isn't just tactics because.

adjunct professor brand manager mark Richardson Melbourne Business School Australia marketing manager Melvin Business School kwame Levin chateau discotheque twitter Macintosh nick C._M._O. Brad France Lebron Dome Perignon Brown
"melbourne business school" Discussed on Think: Business Futures

Think: Business Futures

07:42 min | 2 years ago

"melbourne business school" Discussed on Think: Business Futures

"This. The old see executive Coca-Cola that's used to famously say if you gave me choice between all the factories and all the plan and all the trucks that Coca Cola. Well, the name toke I would take the name Tokes Kriton an adjunct professor at the university of Melbourne business school. But it was kind of a nice thing to say, but it's also financially stupid things say because around about forty percent Tokes total mocking capitalisation in owning the coke brand. Name is the most valuable asset in the company. So what's the basis of your concern around brand valuation? Well, I think you have to draw a line between two different kinds of relations. So there are three main valuation from in the world, and they typically doing most of the brand valuation word when they do that word. There's two different ways. They can do it. They can either produced external league tables of brand value. And that's the top one hundred five hundred league table full tentative is they can work directly with the client to do some research and work with them directly. Put a value on the balance sheet mine Maine's concerns have been with that form arrive with them lottery coach, and that's the most famous approach. So when you see your list of the top one hundred most valuable brands, there are two main problems with those values that are stated down the first problem is if you look across those three firms, the valuations that have been placed against a brand vary enormously and buying warm Asli. I mean by tens of billions with the beam billions of dollars. Now, we all know that has to be some form of variation for all kinds of reasons, but not to the tune of a hundred billion dollars yet. It's a significant gap. What what do you recommend these brand valuations due to address the variances of for many years that we head to states in value in these league tables, actual prices paid when a brand has been acquired because then we'd have some form. You know, quote unquote of Jackson value in which the compare the estimated about them until that they'd be my two repeated complaints. There's no sense of uniform if you cross valuation come when we have a real example of physician, he shows up that these valuations every effect, you know, you give you an example across those three firms the companies doing the valuations are more likely to be three hundred four hundred percents over or under the value. Then they ought to be within the twenty percents to be. I know people three women lower respect for them. They do job when they work on a specific valuation for custom coins, some of these issues continue to concern me and in your analysis. Did you see bias towards overestimating the value of these organizations question? And yes, the answer is yes. Significant bias in over estimating value of the median valuation it somewhere around two hundred three hundred percent overstatement value. What do you say to the people who are insisting that accounts? Bring these assets onto the records all our nations. I think in theory. It's absolutely what they must do. And if you look at you know, what we know surely things, and what we are financially aware of we look at the actual valuation on companies these days, it's clear that the intentional asset propulsion is in growing. And it's in its relative value. It's a spectacular growth, you know, intangible assets, increasing companies value, and I think that's correct, by the way and cocoa unusual anymore. Most companies now from the tech friends right down to beat the Hebron. You know, that they would in many cases, most faces the most valuable asset in the companies is the brand of overnight Asian on. So in theory. I totally agree in practice. I think doing this with any level of certainty is is the challenge. And you know, I I don't think we're they it. So Stephen ULA talking about investors, and maybe manages being interested in value, relevant information. Is that what you would call it yet in general? I think there are a lot of people who believe that when they look at firms balance sheet what they sing is some sort of picture that represents what the foam is currently worth. But we know that if we look at the prices at which firm shares traded, and we look at what the balance sheet tells us what we sometimes call book value. We see that the gap between market value on the one hand and book value on the other appears to be getting wider and wider overtime, which is entirely consistent with the idea that book value that is the balance sheet doesn't do a very good job of actually telling us about what the firms value really is. Because it doesn't recognize many of the things that in. Fact are reflected in what people are prepared to pay for the foam Hsieh's. So this is a release on one corner. You've got the conservative forces the counts and the orders in the other corner. You've got the value relevance team. So investors, and manages and they are looking for two quite different sets of information. It would seem based on what you're saying. Then that's right. There's a tension as with many things it's hard to come up with a single solution that satisfies all kinds of different questions and accounting struggles in that respect, it is by definition, historically, conservative, and in many ways that stems from the accounting information was I used when when double entry accounting was developed through the middle ages and then into the hundreds typically what an investor wanted to know was how much money did you get for selling all the stuff I put on the ship that you sailed away from the hobble with. So very much around what we call the stewardship role of accounting, what has management done with the money, or as I said back in the in the iding, hundreds what is the ship's captain done with the money. In fact, how much money did he bring back? But now what we typically see is this tension between on the one hand the stewardship idea in accounting and on the other hand often termed value relevance that is the ability to use the financial statements as input into some sort of value. I should model. I guess one of the questions alyssa's might be thinking this point is okay. We have incomplete information from the accountants because they conservative because the regulators and the is daren't necessarily want to create for firms to be able to create these intangible assets. So there isn't even gap and in that gap. We have other providers coming along or other sorts information like clinical trial. Dada like dot around. The Heat's on websites like daughter around the state of L expiration. What's the problem? So first of all is it a problem for people using accounting information. Well, maybe it is because Olo there are other sources of information possibly what happens is that. We nevertheless place a great deal of attention on accounting results.

Coca-Cola Tokes Kriton coke adjunct professor university of Melbourne busine executive Maine Hebron Jackson Dada Stephen ULA Olo Hsieh alyssa one hand two hundred three hundred perc one hundred five hundred leagu hundred billion dollars forty percent
"melbourne business school" Discussed on Quirks and Quarks

Quirks and Quarks

02:02 min | 3 years ago

"melbourne business school" Discussed on Quirks and Quarks

"Rex welltested cern rex is the nickname that i used to refer to that very powerful popular familiar idea of males as being evolved be risk taking and competitive and these traits which supposedly enhance reproductive success back in are incensed will past being widened into a mile brain and fueled by testosterone and i really think it's a sort of appropriate s nickname for that very familiar idea for for two reasons one is that when you look up you see many more men than women in positions of power and status so it's a scientific story that seems to offer us an explanation of why those inequalities still exist but the second reason is it's over the apply on taranath source rex and really the book is about how that scientific idea was really forged in scientific ideas from the last century and those ideas have evolved in many different disciplines in in kind of really interesting fascinating wise and they left that old testosterone mix stories scientifically extinct why did you feel the need to write this book now i think the reason i was interested in writing this book was partly just through my academic research seeing how has scientific ideas which change ing but also i think this sort of growing interest in i was working at the melbourne business school while i was writing the balkan and i did become very interested in this kind of narrative around the benefits of gender diversity that were often framed in terms of women you know i think in a very very different ways to men have right complementary skills and perspectives and we need both in order to run good and profitable organisations and look i think they're you know of course i'm all for greater representation of of women in senior positions but i became interested in in how we still sort of persist in this idea of women and men being fundamentally different the attribution to testosterone as playing a really key role in an.

testosterone melbourne business school