citizenbay

Jeremy Jauncey on the Quantified Self and the rise of mobile health sector

 

You don't have to be weird to be wired

So sings Mark E Smith of the most British of bands, The Fall, in their 1982 song Totally Wired.

Maybe so, but for some, the idea of having your pulse, BMI and sleep patterns measured by wearable devices is very weird. They see it only for the techno-narcissists.

However, the rise of the wearable health device seems unstoppable. There are already a wide range of activity monitors and sleep monitors such as BodyMedia, Fitbit, Jawbone, Pebble, Sleepio and WakeMate.

According to this report,there will be more than 170m wearable health and fitness devices being used, which means more and more known brands will be moving into the sector.

Nike, Adidas, Motorola and others are already playing in this space. More will come.

According to a recent report from the McKinsey Global Institute (I know, pompous name, but the report is good), they estimate a 10-20% reduction by 2025 in chronic disease treatment through remote health monitoring.

So whilst at the Festival of Media, I cornered Jeremy Jauncey of TicTrac and interviewed him. His business helps aggregate all this health and fitness data into one place so to manage things better.

I asked him about the true value of all this self monitoring and why he thinks it is more than self-indulgence. Jeremy shares some practical benefits but also aims to put my mind at rest regarding the ownership of all this data.

After all, the stuff that we give to Facebook is one thing. But my BMI, pulse, heart rate? Well that is my digital DNA, and I am not too keen on others making money out of my DNA.

As concerns of personal privacy is heightened by the recent Prism revelations, control of our own digital DNA will surely be a major counterpoint to the rise of the self-monitoring movement.

So you might not be "weird to be wired", but you might be opening yourself up further to others leveraging your data for their benefit.

 

cbtv: Karen Nelson-Field & Phil Townsend - Most branded content needs viagra

 

 

"70% of marketing activity has low arousal"

So says Karen Nelson-Field of Ehrenberg-Bass Institute and Phil Townsend of Unruly Media, just after their presentation at the Festival of Media Global 2013. They had spoken at the event on what makes great branded video content. So I thought I would grab them and ask them a few more questions.

Putting aside Phil's big plug of Unruly Media's tools for analysing branded content (though why not!), I was fascinated by the results of their research on what are the triggers for the sharing of great branded content. Which is where the 'arousal' factor came in. Their research found that getting lots of people to view the content does not necessarily foster higher incidence of sharing of that content. Boring ads don't get shared, which is not surprising. But neither do mildly amusing bits of content. A small smile on the face of the viewer won't be enough to encourage them to share.

Karen and Phil suggested that high arousal in people will get the sharing button pushed. Before you start defining what 'high arousal' could mean, let me help. According to their research, there are 4 levels of emotion (Positive High, Positive Low, Negative High, Negative Low) across 4 emotional descriptors (Humour, Motivation, Temperament, Awe). In the Positive High Arousal state, we find Hilarity, Inspiration, Astonishment and Exhilaration.  So if your branded content is not hitting any of those states, then you will struggle to have the content shared.

Here is their research if you want to go beyond my interview with them.

Of course, this is only part of the story. Brand created content will always sit side by side with, and often out-shone by, user-generated content. And as comscore showcased in a great piece of research last year, business benefits can be secured by finding ways to combine the benefits of both sources of content.

In my interview with Karen and Phil, I also asked about the social motivation behind the sharing of content. Specifically, I wondered whether people share because they want to share (external good) or because they they want to be seen to be sharing (recognition). It seems a little more digging into their data will be required.  Looking forward to seeing what they come up with. And am off to have a dig around myself...

Same as it ever was? An interview with Michael Baker of dataxū on Big Data

Big Data. Aren't you just tired of hearing these two words? There seems to be 'Big Data' panels here, VP of Big Data there, and an Integrated Holistic Big Data Strategy hiding round the corner ready to pounce on you.

All it means is we have a lot of data. So much that us mere mortals cannot cope with it. Hence the need for  supersmart folk armed with complicated (and not so complicated) algorithms to help us make sense of it all.

However, as the great David Byrne once said...

same as it ever was, same as it ever was, same as it ever was

No matter how much information has existed, we have always struggled to cope, struggled to make sense of it all, struggled to find the right insight and struggled to act upon it.  It's just that we now have that much more. So our coping genes are hopelessly frayed.

Yet what is it about Big Data that we struggle with? Are we simply overloaded? Or is it the search for meaning from the mountains of 0s and 1s that threatens to engulf us? Or could it be search for someone to trust to help us make sense of the data?

Make no mistake about it. Companies who can help brands make sense of the torrential downpour of data will be incredibly successful in the near future. Some will help simplify the data, taking some stress away from clients. The work of visualisation specialists will become even more Others will seek meaning from the data to help improve a brand's short to long term decision making.

Media Agencies have for years been well placed to make sense of data on human behaviour and on the brand. So surely they are the first port of call for brands to help them?

Not so, according to Michael Baker. The founder of dataxū believes that the media agencies have neither the tools nor the talent to provide the expertise that brands need. In a world where people live at the 'speed of life', he posits that media agencies are not built to take action or proffer advice to clients under such circumstances.

I interviewed Michael at the 2013 Festival of Media Global. We talked at length about his belief in the power of data to assist businesses and about his view that brands will be shifting to a more data driven approach to marketing. For him, the future is quantitative.

However, he doesn't believe that such a future is soulless. The fear/hate/loathing for quantitative analysis is based, according to Michael, in part on an assumption that creativity and data analytics are two separate entities. He forcefully challenges such a separation, encouraging the industry to bring them closer together.

Michael is a passionate advocate for the value of smart data analytics as comes out in the interview, and one can't argue against the value that data brings to a business.

Whilst a key challenge for data analytics businesses will be to build trust amongst the clients in their systems and their outputs, I have one observation and one question that for me is fundamental to this discussion on Big Data.

Observation: data is all too often used to create marketing that focuses on the MEANS (more impressions, more interaction) not the END (more sales, increased trust). That needs to be challenged continually.

Question: Who watches the watchmen?

Who will be able to assess whether the algorithms and analytical tools are not producing skewed data? I have seen enough 'infallible' tools fall on their proverbial faces, leaving brands to rethink strategies and investments.

Which brings me to Sir John Hegarty. At the inaugural Advertising Week Europe event that took place earlier this year, I listened to a bunch of folk on a panel talking about data, including the co-founder of BBH.

In one single statement, Sir John Hegarty put the Big Data debate into a wider context:

Supermarkets had all the data in the world, but they were still selling horsemeat. Look for the broader view.

Data can help shape that broader view. It can help challenge the status quo. It can help inspire. However, if we do not challenge ourselves to focus on the End rather than the Means, Big Data will just end up fuelling past mistakes, rather than future glories.

 

Nick Vale: Media Agencies need to change...now

 

  

I recently headed off to the Festival of Media Global in Montreux to listen to a wide range of speakers, network and seek out inspiration.

Whilst there, the guys at CSquared kindly allowed me to sneak a few interviews with some of the speakers and delegates.

First up was Nick Vale. Nick is the global planning boss at the WPP media agency Maxus and owner of a magnificent beard. I thought it would be interesting to hear Nick's views on organisational change for media agencies. He holds much hope for the agencies, providing they become leaner and more focused on their strengths. He was less positive about the outlook for the big ad agency however.

I also quizzed him on where the threat to the media agency might come from. It was his response to this question that intrigued me the most. He saw clients being drawn to the boutique agencies that provide a specific service, with the management of this portfolio left - depending on the capabilities & resource - to the client (more on that one another time).

Which leaves the big agency network in a tricky place.

Does the media agency network continue to provide an ever wider patchwork of 'services' (from programme making & content management to product innovation and beyond) or does it focus on 'core strengths' and learn to collaborate with the boutique agencies that Nick speaks about?

Clients are simply not taken in by the promise of the myriad of services from some of the media agencies. After all, many clients still perceive the media agency as 'the guys who buy the ad space'.

So to Nick's valid point about getting leaner, I sense that some agencies (and their owners) will be looking to streamline their service offering by working out what they can do brilliantly and match that with client expectations and needs. Such streamlining though does not mean an inevitable slide back to a focus on 'the buy'. Change means a fresh look at defining what a media agency exists for. As Nick says, agencies could be looking to augment humanity rather than merely thinking about screens.

With regards to collaboration, the media agency has years of working side by side with the other agencies, so they should be in a good place to work with a portfolio of specialist agencies.

However, there is room for improvement. Decades of working with content companies/media owners has led to a skewed working relationship. Ideas generated by the media owner are still passed off by media agencies as their own. Access to clients is carefully guarded by the agency, which at times helps the client, at other times suffocates fresh thinking. Such a waste of what could be incredibly fruitful partnerships.

I would love to hear your views on what Nick had to say.

 Paul

Elegant Business: Pay your agency suppliers in a timely manner

I have been busy shaping up my work on what makes an Elegant Business (which started with my little chat at TEDx Porto on Elegant Business). Basically, a framework to help companies deal with the world they inhabit. A key part of this work is to shape up a variety of metrics to measure the level of Elegance in a Business.

One potential metric is something that reflects the relationship between a business and a supplier. A business could be dealing with lawyers, marketing services agencies, providers of parts or raw materials. The list is endless. So that makes matters a little tricky. How could I measure the Elegance of a Business when it comes to their dealings with different suppliers?

Here is one: the length of payment terms that businesses place on their suppliers. Seems ok to me (let me know what you think). Not a full reflection of the relationship at all, but one piece in the puzzle.

I do find it quite extraordinary that companies (usually large ones) dictate to the providers of goods or services when they will get paid. However it is how it is. And up til recently it was pretty straighforward. Supplier invoices. Client pays in NET30 days.

Now sometimes companies pay later than agreed. Over the (almost) 10 years running citizenbay I have both been a victim and culprit (not by plan, more by incompetence). I have had a couple of non-payers, but the vast majority of my clients have been utterly brilliant, incredibly fair, very elegant in that respect.

However, over the last few years the marketing services industry has seen a clear shift in the payment terms between clients and agencies, with terms of payment lengthening from NET30 days to NET45 days to NET60 days and climbing.

As Debbie Morrison of ISBA UK, in conversation on Twitter with me, said:

we've seen it develop over the last 2/3 yrs, it's led by the very top of co's CEO/board level not proc or marketing initiative.

Proctor & Gamble have announced that they are pushing the payment terms out to 75 days. The Chief Purchasing Officer offers this reasoning:

The working capital program will focus on moving to longer payables with our external business partners.  We completed months of external benchmarking in 2012, and realized that we were out of line compared to our competitive peer companies on payables.

So because others are getting tough, P&G are following suit. (Would be interesting to know how they drew up the benchmark list on that one!)

But according to Rick Hughes, the CPO of P&G,  they have the suppliers' interest at heart:

Our objective is to address this in a phased approach.  Rather than a simple “mandate” which we believe could be punishing for our small/midsize partners, we have developed a solution with pre-selected partner-banks that will enable us to offer a financial product called ‘Supply Chain Financing’ (SCF) that can create a win-win-win for our external partners, P&G, and the banks.  This approach not only will help mitigate some or all of the negative impact on the working capital of our external partners, but in many cases will create value, by enabling access to low cost capital for reinvestment.  

A big company trying to find a solution to help the small company is very laudable. Check out the wonderful Small Business Saturday work of Amex, for example. However, in the solution proposed by P&G, they have partnered up with 'pre-selected partner-banks' to offer a solution. But hold on a minute.

First, the P&G solution is one that aims to solve a problem that P&G have themselves created for their suppliers.

Second, 'pre-selected partner-banks'? Where do you start with that one? Are these 'partner-banks' the same banks who have drained economies of cash, and done little or nothing to support start-ups and small businesses with all that cash that governments had laid at their feet? Now they are going to help out suppliers, while P&G holds on to their cash for a longer time? Hmmmm, not convinced.

Mr Hughes then sums up with this:

This solution demonstrates P&G’s commitment to drive sustainable value through improved productivity for P&G and our business partners.

I have a feeling that some might disagree with that statement.

However, P&G is by no means the worst of the bunch (hence I guess their reference to the benchmarking). We are seeing NET90 days and even NET120 - AB-InBev is reported to have moved to this payment time-frame.

This of course has a wider impact. If the agencies are not getting paid until up to 4 months after invoicing, then spare a thought for their suppliers, especially the freelancers.

In this more fluid and flexible working world, many freelancers, consultants and small businesses can do without having to face even longer delays on payment - the impact on their cashflow will be expontially tough.

Clearly, large companies are making a massive contribution to the economy and they are right to consider all routes to ensure long term success for their business.

However, the marketing services industry also contributes considerably to brand health, and will be ever more important as companies navigate the world. So you would think that the last thing a business would want to do is penalise the very community who can inspire, create and generate incredible long term customer value and trust for businesses. Instead, you would think that companies would want to inspire the marketing services industry even more.

I came across this fascinating little piece on the potential role that the Big 4 Accounting firms are playing in this move to longer payment terms. Aside from walking the walk and moving their own payment terms to longer ones (yeah right), maybe the Big 4 are seeing themselves as the new source of innovative creative thinking for brands. From creative accounting to brand innovation.

I might be wrong. I might be being unfair on big brands, and the piece might have it wrong on the Big 4.  Yet, it does seem that extending the payment terms to suppliers beyond NET30 days to 4 months, seems inelegant to say the least. At worst, it will negatively impact on the long term health of the client's business and that of the agency suppliers.

That's not good business sense for anyone.

Elegant Business: WFA Purpose in Marketing Survey & the need to cherish people who work for you

I recently attended the World Federation of Advertisers 60th Anniversary conference in Brussels. Excellent insights from CMOs of some of the largest companies in the world.

The opening speech came from Karel de Gucht, the European Commissioner for Trade. Whilst the core of his speech focused around the American/EU free trade talks, I was struck by what he said early on in his speech.

Marketing and Politics have two things in common. Neither have the best reputation in the world. We believe in what we offer...but we won't get very far if we can't pursuade others too

Such a candid comment is very welcome. Doing something about the reputation is the challenge. Trust is at the heart of the problem. In Europe, politicians are the least trusted profession. According to the recent 2013 Readers Digest Trusted Brands Survey, whilst firefighters reach a 92% Trust level amongst those surveryed, 90% of people say their trust level in politicians is either 'very little or 'not at all'. Sadly, advertising fairs little better in the Readers Digest Trusted Brands survey over the years.

No right-minded person in the marketing industry thinks that building trust is not essential to building business success. However, we at times seem to be losing focus on how to increase trust.

The smart brands have long realised that trust is not built upon the shifting sands of the Brand Promise. It is built upon fact, upon Delivery of the Promise, upon incredible customer service, upon innovation that makes our lives easier, better, healthier or more enjoyable. It is also built upon the passions of those who work at the company. The wish to go that little bit further, to come up with ideas for the business, to put in a few extra hours, to make the customer feel special even when times are tough for the employee. Trust in our colleagues goes a long long way

Which leads me to a great piece of work that the WFA carried out with those clever folk at Edelman.

At the event, the wonderful Rory Sutherland (@rorysutherland) invigorated the conference with his quick fire tour de force speech on behavioural economics. A difficult act to follow as always. However, Will Gilroy (Director of Public Affairs of the WFA) and Martin Porter of Edelman (who stepped in at the last moment for a colleague) did so.

They presented the findings of a great piece of work by the WFA entitled Putting Purpose into Marketing.

I found much of this piece of research interesting, but none more so than how Marketers and people defined Purpose.

Off the top of their heads, Marketers defined Purpose as:

creating progammes to positively impact communities - 65%

protecting and improving the environment - 56%

ethical business activities 56%

helping to address global issues - 52%

listening to and acting upon customer needs - 40%

It is laudable to hear senior marketers wishing to commit to programmes that will respond positively to people's needs and impact positively on society as a whole. A number of great examples were shared at the event.

Some companies though, still have a long way to go. One could point to the terribly complicated choice architecture put in place by many companies to frustrate people in making a complaint. The use of the 'what we are doing is legal' PR strategy of Starbucks & Amazon in response to the scandal of their pitiful contribution to UK Corporation Tax, comes to mind too. Trust is not a PR exercise. It is the foundation upon which success is built. Always has been and will be ever more so in this hyper connected world.

Quite often when a company faces negative publicity, it is not the C-suite that deals with the brunt of the customer complaints, it is the shop floor assistant/call centre personnel/online community manager. They need all the support they can get, and need to feel that they are part of the business they work for. However, If companies place employee care so low down on the list of 'Purpose' then we are missing out a massive opportunity.

Meanwhile, when it comes to defining Purpose the marketers found this to be of much less importance:

Safeguarding and improving employee welfare - 18%

In the same survey, the public at large were also asked to define Purpose.

Listens to customer needs and feedback

High quality products or services

Treats employees well

So the general public see the treatment of employees as being critical.

As companies seek innovation and inspiration for future growth, harnessing the ideas and contributions of the incredible talent within the company could lead to business benefits, increased loyalty amongst colleagues, as well as raising trust amongst the general public. Having structured a Europe-wide innovation platform at Levi Strauss Europe during my days there, this is something close to my heart.

In a previous post, I mentioned a wonderful and elegant man called Robbie Robinson, who retired from London Underground after 38 years of serving the people of South London at various Tube stops. To mark his retirement, London Underground put up a poster at Clapham Common Tube wishing him well (see above). A small detail, but a detail that suggests that London Underground truly appreciated his positive contribution to people's perception of the organisation. A detail that suggests they cherished him. Which is no bad thing. Maybe at the 2014 WFA event, companies will be showcasing some of the great work they have done within their own organisations to cherish, and be inspired by, their own colleagues.

 

Elegant People: Mr. Robinson of London Underground

His name is Mr. Robinson.

He works for London Underground, often at Clapham Common tube station. Originally hailing from the Caribbean, Mr. Robinson has worked for LU for an incredible 38 years. Next week is his last week. He is taking retirement.

Whenever we see him, he is always ready with a smile, a hello and a how are you and the family. Even when he might be tired, he is always there for the community of people who pass by him in the ticket hall. He knows who my son is and keeps an eye out for him. Mr. Robinson epitomises what is great customer service, without thinking about it.

Mr. Robinson has Elegance in the bucketload. Now Mr. Robinson cuts a fine dash, but I am not referring to his sartorial elegance.

That is not my focus of Elegance.

The inspiration comes primarily from the worlds of mathematics, engineering and computer programming. Proof of a mathematical theorem to a complex problem is seen to be Elegant if it is simple, constructive, long lasting and effective. In computer programming, elegance is achieved by using the least amount of code to create a simple and effective output.

So I took this Elegance and transposed it into the world of Business, where all too often we over-complicate our relationships with people, be they colleagues, investors, partners or customers.

My TEDx speech was the first attempt to outline how Elegance may unfold in Business.

In essence, I see an Elegant Business as one that, amongst other things, is:

• agile to the evolving relationship with people
• shapes long lasting coherent business strategies
• seeks to build trust by delivering on the company promises
• has values that come to life on a daily basis throughout the organisation, rather than just sit on a powerpoint deck and the website
• makes life simple for their customers, their partners, their colleagues and their investors
• in the business of making business
• listens, truly listens to customers (aka people)

People within the organisation are clearly critical to this Elegance. A great cashier, wonderful service on the phone, a speedy and helpful response from someone at a company on Twitter. These and many other examples add to the sense of an Elegant Business.

Meanwhile, we have witnessed in the UK (and elsewhere) the monthly parade of obscene bonuses, rewards and pension pots paid to many bankers and others, each of whom seem to have had a morality bypass. We see senior management incompetence rewarded in the banking, political and public sectors.

With (justifiable) anger focused here, it is easy to forget the flip side.

We are surrounded by Elegant People. People who are to be admired, trusted and cherished. People who do what they do with dignity, with care and with a focus on doing their work with excellence and with pride. People like Mr.Robinson.

Yet in the rush to go somewhere, many people walk past and don't notice him or his colleagues. Place oystercard on the machine and go.

We have known Mr. Robinson for 27 years now, and we will miss him. For us he is a symbol of what is great about public transport, and about customer service. The London Underground tends to get negative coverage when trains fail to work, buses are late and strikes occur. Yet for the vast majority of the time the people who work at the stations, on the trains, boats and buses, do their best for us.

So if you pass by Clapham Common today or next week, say hello to him. If you can't, how about saying hello to the other people who look after you on your journey from A to B on the bus or metro instead.

I think Mr. Robinson would like that.

Encouraging people into the physical store

Those lovely people at GDR Creative Intelligence kindly asked me to ponder how retailers could get more people to the physical store.

Driving more people to store, or driving people to store more often, in itself is intensely challenging.

With rates, rental, utilities and supplier costs rising, and banks doing little or nothing for small and medium size retailers, the high street retailer could do with some positive news.

Yet the hurdles continue. The big supermarket chains have for years wielded their influence over planning departments of local government to help secure out of town shopping complexes. Over recent years they have been moving back into town creating their local/mini/city stores. The sad irony of course is that they have often taken up empty retail space vacated by the smaller retail businesses driven out of business by the supermarkets themselves. Nice.

Then of course, we have the shift online. Why brave the cold weather when you can shop online, save petrol, save time and get stuff delivered to your door.

Plus, retailers now face the indignity of having people come to their stores to use the space as product showrooms, then get out their mobile to find better deals online.

However, I have given it a go and shared my thoughts. Drawing upon a myriad of examples to highlight what might be possible, I have even provided examples of what can be learned from those lovely supermarket people.

When I met Carmel Allen, Editor in Chief of GDR Intelligence, I took notes of our conversation on my iPad, using the mindmapping software iThoughtsHD. I like to use the tool to capture different lines of thought and themes during a meeting.

When she saw what I was doing, Carmel immediately suggested I mindmap my thoughts on getting more people to the physical store.

So I did.

It appeared in Issue 45 of the GDR Creative Intelligence Report. Here is the mindmap in pdf form for you to download if you fancy taking a look. The pdf has hyperlinks built in, so you can explore some of the examples I have shared.

As ever, thoughts appreciated

Paul

 

In search of an Elegant Business

 

Earlier this year, I was kindly invited to speak at TEDx Porto and chose to share my thoughts on Elegant Business.

For some the idea of Elegant Business may conjure up smart business outfits, coiffured hair, fresh breath and well heeled shoes.

Elegance in how one dresses in business is not to be ignored. There is a fine balance to be found between the 'rules' of a certain culture or community in business and being yourself. However, the focus of my speech was elsewhere.

Elegance in Business can also be seen as the pursuit of better manners. Anyone who has suffered poor customer service or had to listen to a company boss promise one thing whilst receiving something quite different, may empathise here. A business that fails to treat their customers with respect and consideration, and there are many, is not an Elegant Business.

Given that many people have lost Trust in institutions and business - politics, banking, advertising to name three - going back to the basics of customer care would help a lot. However, once again the focus of my speech was elsewhere. My focus lay in the world of mathematics.

Like businesses, Mathemeticians are faced with hugely complex problems to surmount. They seek solutions that are long-lasting, constructive, effective, simple. They seek simplicity in complexity. It is what they call the search for an Elegant Solution.

Often it takes a left-field look at the problem to get there; fresh thinking; lateral thinking. One thing is certain though. An Elegant Solution is not necessarily simple to find.

Computer programmers seek Elegant Solutions too. The great programmers create something incredible using the simplest of code.

Business needs such elegance. And there is no better place to start than with marketing.

People (not customers/target audiences/segments/consumers/employees/staff) are supposed to be 'at the heart of the business'. People are faced with more choice in their lives, but also greater complexity. Yet rather than making life that little bit easier to navigate, brands often confuse and complicate matters.

Above is my speech at the TEDx Porto event earlier this year. In it I showcase where elegance can be found and give a few thoughts on what can be done to develop a culture of Elegance in Business.

If you are interested, I will also be sharing examples of Elegant Business on this blog over the coming months.

 

 

 

What is Media? A work in Progress

 

 

What is media?

 The media industry is in flux. Media Agencies and Media Owners are redefining themselves, whilst others redefine them too. New companies are appearing with what seems increasing speed, carving out their own territory in the land of 'media'.

 

Once 'media' and 'digital media' were separated in the communications proces, with 'digital' often being relegated to a bit part in the client pitch (as 'media' still is when side by side with 'creative').

In many companies, the line between 'digital media' and 'social media' is in place, the former sitting in the silos of 'Paid-For' and 'Owned' media, the latter falling into media that needs to be 'Earned'.

Yet more silos for 'media'.

Once there was a clear divide between the content maker and the content distributor. This line is blurring ever more as the days go by.

Who makes and who shares now? Is 'media' only focused on the distribution or sharing of great content or is there something more to the industry and to the word itself?

I was kindly invited by the World Federation of Advertisers to present on the topic of 'Innovation in Media'. During my research on the topic, I kept coming back to asking myself what is 'media' in 2012. I have helped many companies shape their local or global media and communication strategy, and helped them define an approach, a philosophy towards media.

However, I thought it would be useful, at least to me, to explore how people define 'Media'.

Via the medium of Twitter, I asked a selection of Media Agencies for their input. Sadly, the response was not as hoped for (as you will see in the deck).

However, I also approached a number of incredible people on Twitter, with whom I engage with and get continually inspired by. All 13 of them thankfully responded to my question "What is Media?", and I have incorporated their responses in the document above.

This document is merely a work in progress. I am keen to hear your definitions too, and I promise to compile them into a future report and share again.

So if you read this and feel compelled to share your own definition of "What is Media?", then head to the comments section below, head to my slideshare over here, or join me in twitter (@citizenbay #whatismedia).

Hope this is of some use and stimulates debate (at least a little)

Paul