Defining RoDA: Return on #Digital Assets

Posted on August 12, 2014 by Content in Context

How do we measure the Return on Investment for digital assets? It’s a question that is starting to challenge digital marketers and IT managers alike, but there don’t appear to be too many guidelines. Whether your social media campaign is being expensed as direct marketing costs, or your hardware upgrade is being capitalised, how do you work out the #RoDA?

In most businesses, measuring the expected RoI of plant or equipment is usually quite easy: it’s normally a financial calculation that takes the initial acquisition price, amortized over the useful life of the asset, and then forecasts the “yield” in definable terms such as manufacturing output or capacity utilisation.

However, when we look at digital assets, many of those traditional calculations won’t apply, either because the usage value is harder to define, or the benchmarks have not been established. Also, while hardware costs may be easy to capture, how are digital assets such as websites, social media accounts, software (proprietary and 3rd party) and domain names being reported in the P&L, cash-flow analysis and balance sheet?

Sure, most hardware (servers, PCs and physical networks) can be treated as capex (e.g., if the purchase price is more than $1,000 and the useful life is 2-5 years). But how do you make sure you are getting value for money – is it based on some sort of productivity analysis, or is it simply treated as fixed overhead – regardless of your turnover or operating costs?

As we move to cloud hosting and #BYOD, many of these assets utilised in the course of doing business won’t actually appear on the company balance sheet. Yet they will have some sort of impact on the operating costs. Most software is sold under a licensing model, where the customer does not actually own the asset. (But, if the international accounting standards change the treatment of operating leases longer than 12 months, that 2-year cloud hosting fee might just became a balance sheet item.)

I was once involved in the acquisition of a publishing business that was converting legacy print products to digital content. Not only did they capitalise (and amortize) the servers and the conversion software, they also capitalised the data entry costs (using freelance editors) to avoid the expense hitting the P&L. Nowadays, that’s a bit like putting the HTML coding team on the balance sheet and not the payroll…

In some cases, the costs associated with maintaining an e-commerce website or registering a URL, will remain as overhead or operating expenses. But over time, businesses will want to have a better understanding of their RoI for different online sales and digital marketing channels, especially if they have been investing considerably in their design, build and maintenance. Measuring online visitor data, customer conversion rates and average yield per sale, etc. are becoming established metrics for many B2C sites. Having a good grasp of your #RoDA may just give you a competitive edge, or at least provide a benchmark on effective marketing costs.

Pricing for the Digital Age

Posted on April 29, 2014 by Content in Context

Understanding the 4 Ps of marketing (Product, Price, Place, Promotion) has traditionally been critical to commercial success.

Theory has it that if you produce the right product for your target market, at the right price, make it available in the right place, and give it the right promotion, the market will buy it.

The model has worked well for both goods and services. But how is the model holding up in the digital arena?

In the Digital Age, a combination of technology, different transaction models and new marketing tools means that the Product (content), Place (internet) and Promotion (social media) not only co-exist, they are so inter-twined that in some cases they are almost one and the same thing: for example, a Justin Bieber video clip on Vevo, an in-app purchase for Angry Birds, BBC news headlines on Twitter. The boundaries are blurred between the content, the means of production, and the point of distribution and promotion.

So, how do content providers approach Pricing? If that’s the main point of differentiation, how do they compete on price (even though we sort of know that competing on price alone is often a race to the bottom, where nobody wins)?

In fact, even though the price of digital content sold via services like iTunes and Google Play is set by the content owner, they generally have to price according to set price bands and at specific price points determined by the retail platform – and often for particular territories (thanks to the practice of geo-blocking). The alternatives are to sell direct (which means creating a separate sales and distribution infrastructure) or via 3rd party platforms (which may not have the market presence of iTunes or Google Play).

With so much content available for “free” (as long as customers are willing to submit certain personal information, or are prepared to tolerate advertising) the current wisdom suggests that you have to give (some) content away in order to attract customers who might be willing to pay for it (over time). But is that a long-term strategy for success?

In my experience, pricing in the Digital Age is all about the 4 As:

Actual Costs – what are the costs of design, development, production and distribution (plus overheads)?
Acquisition Costs – what does it take to get new customers (and not just “followers” and “likes”)?
Adhesion Costs – what makes content “sticky” (and what will it take to keep your customers once they start paying)? Is it frequent new content? Is it service quality? Is it establishing brand loyalty?
Alternative Costs – what choices do your customers have (both traditional and non-traditional competition)? What are the switching costs?

Finally, when competing on price, especially if it’s not a like-for-like comparison, where are the acceptable customer trade-offs between your product and a competing service (e.g., do you know the customer drivers and the purchase decision processes)? What do your customers think they are paying for? Just because you place a high degree of value on some aspect of your content (e.g., exclusivity) does the customer value it the same way?

Dawn of the neo-meta-banks

Posted on March 18, 2014 by Content in Context

Digital is redefining the way we interact with money. While online banking is nothing new, virtual currencies are getting big enough to attract the attention of regulators. Mobile phones are becoming payment gateways and POS terminals; meanwhile, stored value and pre-paid debit cards are more ubiquitous than cheque accounts. (In Hong Kong, the Octopus card originally introduced as a payment system for public transport, then extended to small purchases like coffee and newspapers, has now launched a dedicated mobile SIM card.)

Last year, Wired magazine predicted that tomorrow’s banks will resemble Facebook, Google or Apple. And of course, PayPal is owned by eBay, so it sort of makes sense that tech giants with huge customer bases conducting millions of online and mobile transactions would be the source of new banking services. For example, earlier this month, online banking start-up, Simple was sold to a Spanish bank for $130m, even though it is not really a “proper” bank – more a banking services provider – because it had managed to attract customers who don’t want to deal with a “traditional” bank.

But where are the non-traditional banks and virtual financial services providers of the future actually going to come from?

The answer could be the People’s Republic of China.

Last week, it was reported that local tech companies Alibaba and Tencent will be included in a pilot scheme to establish private banks in China. The news should not be that surprising – Alibaba, for example, has already been using its experience and knowledge as a trading and sourcing platform to provide small-scale loans and export financing to Chinese manufacturers, funding production to fulfil customer orders. A few years ago I had the opportunity to visit Alibaba’s headquarters in Hangzhou, where I met with a team working on credit analysis and risk management for this micro-financing business, drawing on data insights from the payment history and transactional activity of their SME clients. It was certainly impressive, and my colleagues and I were left in no doubt that there was every intention to take this expertise into a full-blown banking vehicle.

However, this being China, it’s not quite as straightforward as it seems. Just a few days after the private bank pilot was announced, the People’s Bank of China suspended a mobile payments system used by Alibaba and Tencent.

Radio comes of age in the social media era

Posted on February 25, 2014 by Content in Context

About a year ago, I posted a blog on “Steam Internet” which included some ideas about the importance of radio as a communications platform – even in the age of social media.

Among the individual responses I received, a former colleague recalled how he grew up with radio, and how it was a significant presence in his life as a source of news and entertainment – it kept him company while revising for exams, and allowed him to “share” songs with this friends (via personalised mixtapes). He commented that a pharmaceutical company in Indonesia uses radio as a mainstream outreach channel – because it is relatively cheap, it offers targeted demographics, and it provides access to a large-scale, mass market.

He went on: “Radio is probably still the most effective medium to reach out to large audiences – it is targeted, it is always ON, it is always entertaining, it has loyal followers, and it does not require the listener to have an expensive receiver. More importantly, radio traditionally reached a far larger percentage of the population than what the Internet does today, especially in large developing markets.”

Consumer interest in and demand for audio content is recognised by today’s media industry – hence the growth of podcasting, audio platforms like SoundCloud, streaming services such as Spotify and Pandora, and radio apps like TuneIn – not to mention the growth in Internet radio, digital stations and web-streaming broadcasts.

I tend to agree that radio, after more than 100 years, still offers “new” opportunities for reaching an audience, even Gen Y – but as with any content strategy, it pays to get the model right by:

1. Having great content (plus engaging presenters and skilled producers)
2. Enabling access (broadcasting via any platform, anywhere, any time)
3. Cultivating a strong programming culture (i.e., scheduling and curating a logical flow of information, and across multiple platforms)
4. Encouraging audience participation – radio thrives on giving people a voice, either through phone-in sections, community-made programming, or connecting via “traditional” media such as SMS and Twitter

Radio is also very local (despite global access/reach via apps like SoundCloud Radio) and is usually subject to broadcast regulation. I’ve been involved with a community radio station over the past 3 years, and it has made me aware that audience diversity can be a challenge for broadcasters (how to cater for smaller, minority audiences?), but at the same time many people feel unconnected to mainstream media, such that radio is actually their preferred platform to engage with the world.

Acknowledgment My thanks to Rudy J. Rahardjo for his input to this article.