The data dump

Image courtesy of cutangus

One of the great criticisms of the plannersphere is that it is data shy.

So here are three lovely charts for the data hungry amongst you to feast on.

First up, a chart on media fragmentation and proliferation, sent to me by Dan White at Millward Brown. The original source is unclear so if you know where it came from I can do due attributional diligence.

The image has degraded rather alot so if you like what you see download it here

Second a lovely bit'o'data from Daniel Joseph at TBWA/London. Make of this what you will.

By the way radio relates to all commerical radio and I suspect we should treat this stuff as directional only. It is nontheless interesting.

And finally something from the data meister himself, John Lowery, and stolen from his blog, almost nothing. It shows the number of customers for key brands, that do not have access to the internet at home. Looks like they are all Grey clients which is interesting because it is a very mass market bunch of brands - stops us all thinking everyone out their is Nathan Barley.

By the way you have got to love slide share - sheer planning heaven.


Totally Mexico.

Posted by: Paul H. Colman at March 2, 2007 12:02 PM

Richard, I noticed a certain Brand Republic piece yesterday that perhaps rather rashly suggested Mr. Sorrell has decided to look at the possibility that Grey and United are to merge. This would of course be rather amusing bearing in mind the recent 'partis pris'. Care to comment?

Posted by: Holycow at March 2, 2007 04:11 PM

Actually, if you don't mind, it's SIR Martin, Mr/Mrs/Ms/Miss//Lord/Other Holycow.

Posted by: john l at March 3, 2007 12:00 AM

What a simply enormous faux pas! I shall from this moment on crawl on my belly whilst whipping myself with semi-moist Bladderwrack that has been air-dried by having Morrissey lyrics chanted at it...

Would that be penance enough John? Oh please say it would be...

Posted by: Holycow at March 3, 2007 08:37 AM

Mr John Lowery,

I greet you. You have contacts detail of Sir Sorrell yes? Yes! I needing to speak to Sir firstly and foremostly. With speed.

You send me?


Posted by: Sarcum at March 3, 2007 09:18 AM

Holycow - Omnicom right?

At WPP we say look at our planners and weep.

Guy Murphy, John Lowery, Jon Steel and we still claim ownership of Mark Earls.

It doesn't matter which agency we are at in at WPP in Holding Company Celebrity Planning Death Match we win.

Posted by: Richard at March 3, 2007 10:26 AM

Right - gloves are off...

Posted by: Holycow at March 3, 2007 12:34 PM

Richard - I think you will find that if we were playing 'Holding Company Celebrity Planning Death Match' for real - you would lose.

And here's why:

1) Feldwick - worth several WPP'ers anyday.
2) If your claiming Earlsy - I am claiming Adam Morgan.
3) Steel WAS Omnicom at Goodby where Truth and Lies is mostly set - but - and here's the kicker - he is on LOAN to WPP currently from Omnicom (bear with me) because Sir Martin does't have any top drawer he can rely on! Ha!

Interestingly I see this rather like a TopTrumps game with a list of attributes such as Overall Strategy, Creativity, Insight, Impact on Business, Writing skills and Interestingness with scores as %s - (someone should do this for the Plannersphere - seriously!)

I think Feldwick would be a potentially unbeatable card when played except when coming up against Darth himself - which of course would be a special silver hologram card. Christ I am ranting...

Posted by: Holycow at March 4, 2007 08:20 PM

Steel was Omnicom for sure.
So was Lowery (AMV.BBDO)
And so was I (AMV.BBDO)
The operative word here is 'was'

And when it comes to top trumps, as the best pitch planner on earth, Steel beats Feldwick hands down as far as I am concerned.

Do you think if we go on about this long enough the IPA will hold a live version of Holding Company Celebrity Planning Death Match?

Posted by: Richard at March 4, 2007 08:52 PM

'Was' is as good as 'is' in Holding Company Celebrity Planning Death Match. And, I dont remember including 'pitch' as an attribute. I hate seeing you struggle so.

The IPA seems to want to do a 'live' version on anything you write about currently so it wouldn't suprise me :-) Also - doing a 'live' version of something that came to a natural conclusion seems rather like grown men doing Monty Python sketches in public - largely unedifying. See you there.

Posted by: Holycow at March 4, 2007 09:27 PM

slide 2 - good to see some people still focussing reach! how quaint.

Posted by: giles rhys jones at March 4, 2007 10:10 PM

The data you post on internet penetration amongst users of some mass market brands makes me think...

It seems that for some, digital has become the new TV.

Not in a good way.

But in a default, never-mind-if-it's-the-right-channel-for-the-brand-or-customer-let's-do-it-anyway kind of way.

It's the way some used to think of TV... and others still do.

The alternative to TV is not digital.

It's not a bi-polar world.

The alternative to TV is everything we can possibly imagine and think of.

(I'd like to see the back data. What has been happening to household penetration of internet access amongst these households? How quickly is it growing, if indeed it is?)

Posted by: Grumpy at March 5, 2007 09:05 AM

That thing on internet access at home is interesting. The UK average being 57% those brands are look quite typcal

It gets more interesting when you dig behind the average

One thing is it is growing like a train

Although you might assume there is a ceiling? (Maybe the over 65s will probably let this one pass...? Although its not stopped my mum). Speaking of which here are the figures for internet access by age (you have to follow another link on the UK gov page) in the last 3 months by age group. It's a slightly different data set, as it includes those accessing it out of home - but the average is only 3 points higher at 60% so we are talking about roughly the same people anyway:

16-24 83
25-44 79
45-54 68
55-64 52
65+ 15

Paints a rather different picture doesnt it?

(The last time I was briefed on a campaign for over 65s was in 1993 I think. It's not that they dont buy lots of stuff, it's just that few believe they change brand habits very much for a start).


ps dont even get me started on Omnicom vs WPP!!!!

Posted by: John Grant at March 6, 2007 02:08 AM

A different picture indeed (thx for the link, which I have yet to follow)

I think we'd need to see usage (even if only claimed) set against the penetration figures to get a real feel for how much it's a regular feature of people's media conusmption lives.

Mindful of Mr. Lowery's brands, it would also be good to have those broken down by male/female.

How gender affects people's relationship with this media is something I'd like to understand more...

Most of the webboblogosphere natter about digital2.0webbystuff comes chaps, and I don't see much consideration being given to the issue (if indeed it is one).

Would love to see some research (or indeed old fashioned data) on the matter if anybody has any...

Posted by: Grumpy at March 6, 2007 09:37 AM

I love John's parting comment - don't get me started... reminds me of my son who asks me things like 'don't ask me what happened at school today - go on - don't ask me...' Hmmmmm

Posted by: Holycow at March 6, 2007 09:38 AM

That should have read 'consumption', not 'conusmption'. Apologies for shoddy typo.

Posted by: Grumpy at March 6, 2007 09:38 AM

Personally, I am really NOT asking. No really. I'm not.

Posted by: Grumpy at March 6, 2007 09:39 AM

I was only kidding, I honestly dont have an opinion, there are good planning agencies in both groups.

On that data, I was wondering though; does it actually really matter too much? I think we're talking like this is poster sites. I for one think the internet is a crap medium, for mass media style advertising. None of us ever click on banners, expensive microsites are a big yawn and the 'hit viral' has to be seen as substitute for that email you once got saying; "attached a pic of someone with their head up their arse".

What interests me is the potential to integrate community or reviews or advice with retailing or in other ways sign people up to something with a life of its own offline/inline.

If you say 'what's great on the internet' I'd say amazon & wikipedia & stuff like that. But that does transform the way you look at brands? Suddenly management consultancy pipe dreams like mass customisation and co-creation are very accessible.

In terms of how it balances out branding, I think of internet as for 'we' strategies and ads as more for 'me' strategies. Just about all the interesting web phenomena from friends reunited and (early) napster through to all the web 2.0 stuff is about 'we'. Something sadly lacking in half a century of individualism consumerised in adverts.

The crucial thing for brands which are higher interest is that the internet is also where everyone makes up their minds. Brands like money supermarket, the buzz around certain trainers or brands of wine have certainly been built from that.

No data to support all this sorry. But isnt digital a fact of life these days. it's not about messaging 80% instead of 70% or 60%. It's about ideas that build businesses.

A long way from planning fmcg ad campaigns? P&G does about half the stuff I have ever blogged about in new media.

Anyway thx, at least I got to crack my knuckles and bang on a bit, without being kicked out of some bar.


Posted by: John Grant at March 6, 2007 10:18 PM

I'm not sure if there is such a hard and fast division between 'we' and 'me'.... unless I'm getting the wrong end of the stick.

Amazon is very 'me' - I can puruse my own interests unconstrained by the normal stock limitations of a bricks and mortar bookshop.

But there's also a very important 'we' element to it - which is course all about finding out what other people of similar interests thought of your purchase or what other books they're buying, reading and recommending.

It's both me and we - both individualism and community - which is why I personally love the whole brand experience of Amazon.

And I lose track of the number of times I have clicked and bought on the basis of reviews only to say to myself "oh my god, I have just been a victim of herd instinct behaviour - Mr. Earls really does have a point!"

i-Tunes also delivers 'me' and 'we'.

But there are businesses out there that are delivering purely 'me' experiences. Look at It's an extraordinary retailer site that puts information, choice and power firmly in the hands of the customer. There, it really is all about you, and your specific needs and wants. Give a test drive, it's worth a look.

I wonder whether it's the ability of this channel to be multi-layered that is the opportunity.

It's the plenitude of business and brand models that it opens up that I find exciting.

Oh, "The internet is also where everyone makes up their minds". Great headline. I love it.

Posted by: Grumpy at March 7, 2007 12:50 PM

You're not serious are you? Sounds like a game of 'mutual admiration society' for the benefit of the ego!

Your forgot to mention Saatchi planners. Lovemarks is the future.

Posted by: Brenda at March 19, 2007 08:14 AM