illuminate Systems' iLuminate May Be the Most Flexible Analytical Database Ever

OK, I freely admit I’m fascinated by offbeat database engines. Maybe there is a support group for this. In any event, the highlight of my brief visit to the DAMA International Symposium and Wilshire Meta-Data Conference conference last month was a presentation by Joe Foley of illuminate Solutions , which marked the U.S. launch of his company’s iLuminate analytical database.

(Yes, the company name is “illuminate” and the product is “iLuminate”. And if you look inside the HTML tag, you’ll see the Internet domain is “i-lluminate.com”. Marketing genius or marketing madness? You decide.)

illuminate calls iLuminate a “correlation database”, a term they apparently invented to distinguish it from everything else. It does appear to be unique, although somewhat similar to other products I’ve seen over the years: Digital Archaeology (now deceased), Omnidex and even QlikView come to mind. Like iLuminate, these systems store links among data values rather than conventional database tables or columnar structures. iLuminate is the purest expression I’ve seen of this approach: it literally stores each value once, regardless of how many tables, columns or rows contain it in the source data. Indexes and algorithms capture the context of each original occurrence so the system can recreate the original records when necessary.

The company is rather vague on the details, perhaps on purpose. They do state that each value is tied to a conventional b-tree index that makes it easily and quickly accessible. What I imagine—and let me stress I may have this wrong—is that each value is then itself tied to a hierarchical list of the tables, columns and rows in which it appears. There would be a count associated with each level, so a query that asked how many times a value appears in each table would simply look at the pre-calculated value counts; a query of how many times the value appeared in a particular column could look down one level to get the column counts. A query that needed to know about individual rows would retrieve the row numbers. A query that involved multiple values would retrieve multiple sets of row numbers and compare them: so, say, a query looking for state = “NY” and eye color = “blue” might find that “NY” appears in the state column for records 3, 21 and 42, while “blue” appears in the eye color for records 5, 21 and 56. It would then return row=21 as the only intersection of the two sets. Another set of indexes would make it simple to retrieve the other components of row 21.

Whether or not that’s what actually happens under the hood, this does illustrate the main advantages of iLuminate. Specifically, it can import data in any structure and access it without formal database design; it can identify instances of the same value across different tables or columns; it can provide instant table and column level value distributions; and it can execute incremental queries against a previously selected set of records. The company also claims high speed and terabyte scalability, although some qualification is needed: initial results from a query appear very quickly, but calculations involving a large result set must wait for the system to assemble and process the full set of data. Foley also said that although the system has been tested with a terabyte of data, the largest production implementation is a much less impressive 50 gigabytes. Still, the largest production row count is 200 million rows – nothing to sneeze at.

The system avoids some of the pitfalls that sometimes trap analytical databases: load times are comparable to load times for comparable relational databases (once you include time for indexing, etc.); total storage (including the indexes, which take up most of the space) is about the same as relational source data; and users can write queries in standard SQL via ODBC. This final point is particularly important, because many past analytical systems were not SQL-compatible. This deterred many potential buyers. The new crop of analytical database vendors has learned this lesson: nearly all of the new analytical systems are SQL-accessible. Just to be clear, iLuminate is not an in-memory database, although it will make intelligent use of what memory is available, often loading the data values and b-tree indexes into memory when possible.

Still, at least from my perspective, the most important feature of iLuminate is its ability to work with any structure of input data—including structures that SQL would handle poorly or not at all. This is where users gain huge time savings, because they need not predict the queries they will write and then design a data structure to support them. In this regard, the system is even more flexible than QlikView, which it in many ways resembles: while QlikView links tables with fixed keys during the data load, iLuminate does not. Instead, like a regular SQL system, iLuminate can apply different relationships to one set of data by defining the relationships within different queries. (On the other hand, QlikView’s powerful scripting language allows much more data manipulation during the load process.)

Part of the reason I mention QlikView is that iLuminate itself uses QlikView as a front-end tool under the label of iAnalyze. This extracts data from iLuminate using ODBC and then loads it into QlikView. Naturally, the data structure at that point must include fixed relationships. In addition to QlikView, iAnalyze also includes integrated mapping. A separate illuminate product, called iCorrelated, allows ad hoc, incremental queries directly against iLuminate and takes full advantage of its special capabilities.

illuminate, which is based in Spain, has been in business for nearly three years. It has more than 40 iLuminate installations, mostly in Europe. Pricing is based on several factors but the entry cost is very reasonable: somewhere in the $80,000 to $100,000 range, including iAnalyze. As part of its U.S. launch, the company is offering no-cost proof of concept projects to qualified customers.

Read More

The Limits of On-Demand Business Intelligence

I had an email yesterday from Blink Logic , which offers on-demand business intelligence. That could mean quite a few things but the most likely definition is indeed what Blink Logic provides: remote access to business intelligence software loaded with your own data. I looked a bit further and it appears Blink Logic does this with conventional technologies, primarily Microsoft SQL Server Analysis Services and Cognos Series 7.

At that point I pretty much lost interest because (a) there’s no exotic technology, (b) quite a few vendors offer similar services*, and (c) the real issue with business intelligence is the work required to prepare the data for analysis, which doesn’t change just because the system is hosted.

Now, this might be unfair to Blink Logic, which could have some technology of its own for data loading or the user interface. It does claim that at least one collaboration feature, direct annotation of data in reports, is unique. But the major point remains: Blink Logic and other “on-demand business intelligence” vendors are simply offering a hosted version of standard business intelligence systems. Does anyone truly think the location of the data center is the chief reason that business intelligence has so few users?

As I see it, the real obstacle is that most source data must be integrated and restructured before business intelligence systems can use it. It may be literally true that hosted business intelligence systems can be deployed in days and users can build dashboards in minutes, but this only applies given the heroic assumption that the proper data is already available. Under those conditions, on-premise systems can be deployed and used just as quickly. Hosting per se has little benefit when it comes to speed of deployment. (Well, maybe some: it can take days or even a week or two to set up a new server in some corporate data centers. Still, that is a tiny fraction of the typical project schedule.)

If hosting isn't the answer, what can make true “business intelligence on demand” a reality? Since the major obstacle is data preparation, then anything that allows less preparation will help. This brings us back to the analytical databases and appliances I’ve been writing about recently : Alterian, Vertica, ParAccel, QlikView, Netezza and so on. At least some of them do reduce the need for preparation because they let users query raw data without restructuring it or aggregating it. This isn’t because they avoid SQL queries, but because they offer a great enough performance boost over conventional databases that aggregation or denormalization are not necessary to return results quickly.

Of course, performance alone can’t solve all data preparation problems. The really knotty challenges like customer data integration and data quality still remain. Perhaps some of those will be addressed by making data accessible as a service (see last week’s post). But services themselves do not appear automatically, so a business intelligence application that requires a new service will still need advance planning. Where services will help is when business intelligence users can take advantage of services created for operational purposes.

“On demand business intelligence” also requires that end-users be able to do more for themselves. I actually feel this is one area where conventional technology is largely adequate: although systems could always be easier, end-users willing to invest a bit of time can already create useful dashboards, reports and analyses without deep technical skills. There are still substantial limits to what can be done – this is where QlikView’s scripting and macro capabilities really add value by giving still more power to non-technical users (or, more precisely, to power users outside the IT department). Still, I’d say that when the necessary data is available, existing business intelligence tools let users accomplish most of what they want.

If there is an issue in this area, it’s that SQL-based analytical databases don’t usually include an end-user access tool. (Non-SQL systems do provide such tools, since users have no alternatives.) This is a reasonable business decision on their part, both because many firms have already selected a standard access tool and because the vendors don’t want to invest in a peripheral technology. But not having an integrated access tool means clients must take time to connect the database to another product, which does slow things down. Apparently I'm not the only person to notice this: some of the analytical vendors are now developing partnerships with access tool vendors. If they can automate the relationship so that data sources become visible in the access tool as soon as they are added to the analytical system, this will move “on demand business intelligence” one step closer to reality.

* results of a quick Google search: OnDemandIQ, LucidEra, PivotLink (an in-memory columnar database), oco, VisualSmart, GoodData and
Autometrics.

Read More

Service Oriented Architectures Might Really Change Everything

I put in a brief but productive appearance at the DAMA International Symposium and Wilshire Meta-Data Conference running this week in San Diego. This is THE event for people who care passionately about topics like “A Semantic-Driven Application for Master Data Management” and “Dimensional-Modeling – Alternative Designs for Slowly Changing Dimensions”. As you might imagine, there aren't that many of them, and it’s always clear that the attendees revel in spending time with others in their field. I’m sure there are some hilarious data modeling jokes making the rounds at the show, but I wasn’t able to stick around long enough to hear any.

One of the few sessions I did catch was a keynote by Gartner Vice President Michael Blechar. His specific topic was the impact of a services-driven architecture on data management, with the general point being that services depend on data being easily available for many different purposes, rather than tied to individual applications as in the past. This means that the data feeding into those services must be redesigned to fit this broader set of uses.

In any case, what struck me was Blechar’s statement the fundamental way I’ve always thought about systems is now obsolete. I've always thought that systems do three basic things: accept inputs, process them, and create outputs. This doesn't apply in the new world, where services are strung together to handle specific processes. The services themselves handle the data gathering, processing and outputs, so these occur repeatedly as the process moves from one service to another. (Of course, a system can still have its own processing logic that exists outside a service.) But what’s really new is that a single service may be used in several different processes. This means that services are not simply components within a particular proces or system: they have an independent existence of their own.

Exactly how you create and manage these process-independent services is a bit of a mystery to me. After all, you still have to know they will meet the requirements of whatever processes will use them. Presumably this means those requirements must be developed the old fashioned way: by defining the process flow in detail. Any subtle differences in what separate processes need from the same service must be accommodated either by making the service more flexible (for example, adding some parameters that specify how it will function in a particular case) or by adding specialized processing outside of the service. I'll assume that the people who worry about these things for a living must have recognized this long ago and worked out their answers.

What matters to me is what an end-user can do once these services exist. Blechar argued that users now view their desktop as a “composition platform” that combines many different services and uses the results to orchestrate business processes. He saw executive dashboards in particular as evolving from business intelligence systems (based on a data warehouse or data mart) to business activity monitoring based on the production systems themselves. This closer connection to actual activity would in turn allow the systems to be more “context aware”—for example, issuing alerts and taking actions based on current workloads and performance levels.

Come to think of it, my last post discussed eglue and others doing exactly this to manage customer interactions. What a more comprehensive set of services should do is make it easer to set up this type of context-aware decision making.

Somewhat along these same lines, Computerworld this morning describes another Gartner paper arguing that IT’s role in business intelligence will be “marginalized” by end-users creating their own business intelligence systems using tools like enterprise search, visualization and in-memory analytics (hello, QlikView!). The four reader comments posted so far have been not-so-politely skeptical of this notion, basically because they feel IT will still do all the heavy lifting of building the databases that provide information for these user-built systems. This is correct as far as it goes, but it misses the point that IT will be exposing this data as services for operational reasons anyway. In that case, no additional IT work is needed to make it available for business intelligence. Once end-users have self-service tools to access and analyze the data provided by these operational services, business intelligence systems would emerge without IT involvement. I'd say that counts as "marginalized".

Just to bring these thoughts full circle: this means that designing business intelligence systems with the old “define inputs, define processes, define outputs” model would indeed be obsolete. The inputs would already be available as services, while the processes and outputs would be created simultaneously in end-user tools. I’m not quite sure I really believe this is going to happen, but it’s definitely food for thought.

Read More

eglue Links Data to Improve Customer Interactions

Let me tell you a story.

For years, United Parcel Service refused to invest in the tracking systems and other technologies that made Federal Express a preferred carrier for many small package shippers. It wasn’t that the people at UPS were stupid: to the contrary, they had built such incredibly efficient manual systems that they could never see how automated systems would generate enough added value to cover their cost. Then, finally, some studies came out the other way. Overnight, UPS expanded its IT department from 300 people to 3,000 people (these may not be the exact numbers). Today, UPS technology is every bit as good as its rivals’ and the company is more dominant in its industry than ever.

The point of this story—well, one point anyway—is that innovations which look sensible to outsiders often don’t get adopted because they don’t add enough value to an already well-run organization. (I could take this a step further to suggest that once the added value does exceed costs, a “tipping point” is reached and adoption rates will soar. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen this in reality. Nice theory, though.)

This brings us to eglue, which offers “real time interaction management” (my term, not theirs): that is, it helps call center agents, Web sites and other customer-facing systems to offer the right treatment at each point during an interaction. The concept has been around for years and has consistently demonstrated substantial value. But adoption rates have been perplexingly low.

We’ll get back to adoption rates later, although I should probably note right here that eglue has doubled its business for each of the past three years. First, let’s take a closer look at the product itself.

To repeat, the basic function of eglue is making recommendations during real time interactions. Specifically, the system adds this capability to existing applications with a minimum of integration effort. Indeed, being “minimally invasive” (their term) is a major selling point, and does address one of the significant barriers to adopting interaction management systems. Eglue can use standard database queries or Web services calls to capture interaction data. But its special approach is what it calls “GUI monitoring”—reading data from the user interface without any deeper connection to the underlying systems. Back in the day, we used to call this “screen scraping”, although I assume eglue’s approach is much more sophisticated.

As eglue captures information about an on-going interaction, it applies rules and scoring models to decide what to recommend. These rules are set up by business users, taking advantage of data connections prepared in advance by technical staff. This is as it should be: business users should not need IT assistance to make day-to-day rule changes.

On the other hand, a sophisticated business environment involves lots of possible business rules, and business users only have so much time or capacity to understand all the interconnections. Eglue is a bit limited here: unlike some other interaction management systems, it does not automatically generate recommended rules or update its scoring models as data is received.

This may or may not be a weakness. How much automation makes sense is a topic of heated debate among people who care about such things. User-generated rules are more reliable than unsupervised automation, but they also take more effort and can’t react immediately to changes in customer behavior. I personally feel eglue’s heavy reliance on rules is a disadvantage, though a minor one. eglue does provide a number of prebuilt applications for specific tasks, so clients need not build their own rules from scratch.

What impressed me more about eglue was that its rules can take into account not only the customer’s own behavior, both during and before the interaction, but also the local context (e.g., the current workload and wait times at the call center) and the individual agent on the other end of the phone. Thus, agents with a history of doing well at selling a particular product are provided more recommendations for that product. Or the system could restrict recommendations for complex products to experienced agents who are capable of handling them. eglue rules can also alert supervisors about relationships between agents and interactions. For example, it might tell a supervisor when a high value customer is talking to an inexperienced agent, so she can listen and intervene if necessary.

The interface for presenting the recommendations is also quite appealing. Recommendations appear as pop-ups on the user’s screen, which makes them stand out nicely. More important, they provide a useful range of information: the recommendation itself, selling points (which can be tailored to the customer and agent), a mechanism to capture feedback (was the recommended offer presented to the customer? Did she accept or reject it?), and links to additional information such as product features. There is an option to copy information into another application—for example, saving the effort to type a customer’s name or account information into an order processing system. As anyone who has had to repeat their phone number three times during the course of a simple transaction can attest—and that would be all of us—that feature alone is worth the price of admission. The pop-up can also show the business rule that triggered a recommendation and the data that rule is using.

As each interaction progresses, eglue automatically captures information about the offers it has recommended and customer response. This information can be used in reports, applied to model development, and added to customer profiles to guide future recommendations. It can also be fed back into other corporate systems.

The price for all this is not insignificant. Eglue costs about $1,000 to $1,200 per seat, depending on the details. However, this is probably in line with competitors like Chordiant, Pegasystems, and Portrait Software. eglue targets call centers with 250 to 300 seats; indeed, its 30+ clients are all Fortune 1000 firms. Its largest installation has 20,000 seats. The company’s “GUI monitoring” approach to integration and prebuilt applications allow it to complete an implementation in a relatively speedy 8 to 12 weeks.

This brings us back, in admittedly roundabout fashion, to the original question: why don’t more companies use this technology? The benefits are well documented—one eglue case study showed a 27% increase in revenue per call at Key Bank, and every other vendor has similar stories. The cost is reasonable and implementation gets easier all the time. But although eglue and its competitors have survived and grown on a small scale, this class of software is still far from ubiquitous.

My usual theory is lack of interest by call center managers: they don’t see revenue generation as their first priority, even though they may be expected to do some of it. But eglue and its competitors can be used for training, compliance and other applications that are closer to a call center manager’s heart. There is always the issue of data integration, but that keeps getting easier as newer technologies are deployed, and it doesn’t take much data to generate effective recommendations. Another theory, echoing the UPS story, is that existing call center applications have enough built-in capabilities to make investment in a specialized recommendation system uneconomic. I’m guessing that answer may be the right one.

But I’ll leave the last word to Hovav Lapidot, eglue’s Vice President of Product Marketing and a six-year company veteran. His explanation was that the move to overseas outsourced call centers over the past decade reflected a narrow focus on cost reduction. Neither the corporate managers doing the outsourcing nor the vendors competing on price were willing to pay more for the revenue-generation capabilities of interaction management systems. But Lapidot says this has been changing: some companies are bringing work back from overseas in the face of customer unhappiness, and managers are showing more interest in the potential value of inbound interactions.

The ultimate impact of interaction management software is to create a better experience for customers like you and me. So let’s all hope he’s right.

Read More

ParAccel Enters the Analytical Database Race

As I’ve now written more times than I care to admit, specialized analytical databases are very much in style. In addition to my beloved QlikView, market entrants include Alterian, SmartFocus, QD Technology, Vertica, 1010data, Kognitio, Advizor and Polyhedra, not to mention established standbys including Teradata and Sybase IQ. Plus you have to add appliances like Netezza, Calpont, Greenplum and DATAllegro. Many of these run on massively parallel hardware platforms; several use columnar data structures and in-memory data access. It’s all quite fascinating, but after a while even I tend to lose interest in the details.

None of which dimmed my enthusiasm when I learned about yet another analytical database vendor, ParAccel. Sure enough, ParAccel is a massively parallel, in-memory-capable, SQL-compatible columnar database, which pretty much hits all the tick boxes on my list. Run by industry veterans, the company seems to have refined many of the details that will let it scale linearly with large numbers of processors and extreme data volumes. One point that seemed particularly noteworthy was that the standard data loader can handle 700 GB per hour, which is vastly faster than many columnar systems and can be a major stumbling block. And that’s just the standard loader, which passes all data through a single node: for really large volumes, the work can be shared among multiple nodes.

Still, if ParAccel had one particularly memorable claim to my attention, it was having blown past previous records for several of the TPC-H analytical query benchmarks run by the Transaction Processing Council. The TPC process is grueling and many vendors don’t bother with it, but it still carries some weight as one of the few objective performance standards available. While other winners had beaten the previous marks by a few percentage points, ParAccel's improvement was on the order of 500%.

When I looked at the TPC-H Website for details, it turned out that ParAccel’s winning results have since been bested by yet another massively parallel database vendor, EXASOL, based in Nuremberg, Germany. (Actually, ParAccel is still listed by TPC as best in the 300 GB category, but that’s apparently only because EXASOL has only run the 100 GB and 1 TB tests.) Still, none of the other analytic database vendors seem to have attempted the TPC-H process, so I’m not sure how impressed to be by ParAccel’s performance. Sure it clearly beats the pants off Oracle, DB2 and SQL Server, but any columnar database should be able to do that.

One insight I did gain from my look at ParAccel was that in-memory doesn’t need to mean small. I’ll admit to be used to conventional PC servers, where 16 GB of memory is a lot and 64 GB is definitely pushing it. The massively parallel systems are a whole other ballgame: ParAccel’s 1 TB test ran on a 48 node system. At a cost of maybe $10,000 per node, that’s some pretty serious hardware, so this is not something that will replace QlikView under my desk any time soon. And bear in mind that even a terabyte isn’t really that much these days: as a point of reference, the TPC-H goes up to 30 TB. Try paying for that much memory, massively parallel or not. The goods news is that ParAccel can work with on-disk as well as in-memory data, although the performance won’t be quite as exciting. Hence the term "in-memory-capable".

Hardware aside, ParAccel itself is not especially cheap either. The entry price is $210,000, which buys licenses for five nodes and a terabyte of data. Licenses cost $40,000 for each additional node cost $40,000 and $10,000 for each additional terabyte. An alternative pricing scheme doesn’t charge for nodes but costs $1,000 per GB, which is also a good bit of money. Subscription pricing is available, but any way you slice it, this is not a system for small businesses.

So is ParAccel the cat’s meow of analytical databases? Well, maybe, but only because I’m not sure what “the cat’s meow” really means. It’s surely an alternative worth considering for anyone in the market. Perhaps more significant, the company raised $20 million December 2007, which may make it more commercially viable than most. Even in a market as refined as this one, commercial considerations will ultimately be more important than pure technical excellence.

Read More

What's New at DataFlux? I Thought You'd Never Ask.

What with it being Valentine’s Day and all, you probably didn’t wake up this morning asking yourself, “I wonder what’s new with DataFlux?” That, my friend, is where you and I differ. Except that I actually asked myself that question a couple of weeks ago, and by now have had time to get an answer. Which turns out to be rather interesting.

DataFlux, as anyone still reading this probably knew already, is a developer of data quality software and is owned by SAS. DataFlux’s original core technology was a statistical matching engine that automatically analyzes input files and generates sophisticated keys which are similar for similar records. This has now been supplemented by a variety of capabilities for data profiling, analysis, standardization and verification, using reference data and rules in addition to statistical methods. The original matching engine is now just one component within a much larger set of solutions.

In fact, and this is what I find interesting, much of DataFlux’s focus is now on the larger issue of data governance. This has more to do with monitoring data quality than simple matching. DataFlux tells me the change has been driven by organizations that face increasing pressures to prove they are doing a good job with managing their data, for reasons such as financial reporting and compliance with government regulations.

The new developments also encompass product information and other types of non-name and address data, usually labeled as “master data management”. DataFlux reports that non-customer data is is the fastest growing portion of its business. DataFlux is well suited for non-traditional matching applications because the statistical approach does not rely on topic-specific rules and reference bases. Of course, DataFlux does use rules and reference information when appropriate.

The other recent development at DataFlux has been creation of “accelerators”, which are prepackaged rules, processes and reports for specific tasks. DataFlux started offering these in 2007 and now lists one each for customer data quality, product data quality, and watchlist compliance. More are apparently on the way. Applications like this are a very common development in a maturing industry, as companies that started by providing tools gain enough experience to understand how the applications commonly built with those tools. The next step—which DataFlux hasn’t reached yet—is to become even more specific by developing packages for particular industries. The benefit of these applications is that they save clients work and allow quicker deployments.

Back to governance. DataFlux’s movement in that direction is an interesting strategy because it offers a possible escape from the commoditization of its core data quality functions. Major data quality vendors including Firstlogic and Group 1 Software, plus several of the smaller ones, have been acquired in recent years and matching functions are now embedded within many enterprise software products. Even though there have been some intriguing new technical approaches from vendors like Netrics and Zoomix, this is a hard market to penetrate based on better technology alone. It seems that DataFlux moved into governance more in response to customer requests than due to proactive strategic planning. But even so, they have done well to recognize and seize the opportunity when it presented itself. Not everyone is quite so responsive. The question now is whether other data quality vendors will take a similar approach or this will be a long-term point of differentiation for DataFlux.

Read More

Red Herring CMO Conference: What Do Marketers Really Want?

I’ve spent the last two days at Red Herring Magazine’s CMO8 conference, which was both excellent and a welcome change from my usual focus on the nuts and bolts of marketing systems. Reflecting Red Herring’s own audience, the speakers and audience were largely from technology companies and many presentations were about business-to-business rather than business to consumer marketing. My particular favorites included AMD’s Stephen DiFranco, Ingram Micro’s Carol Kurimsky, and Lenovo’s Deepak Advani. DiFranco discussed how AMD manages to survive in the face of Intel’s overwhelming market position by focusing on gaining shelf space at retail and through other channel partners. Kurimsky described how her firm uses analytics to identify the best channel partners for her suppliers. Advani gave an overview of how Lenovo very systematically managed the transition of the ThinkPad brand from IBM’s ownership and simulataneously built Lenovo’s own brand. Although each described different challenges and solutions, they all shared a very strategic, analytical approach to marketing issues.

Personally I found this anything but surprising. All the good marketers I’ve ever known have been disciplined, strategic thinkers. Apparently, this is not always the case in the technology industry. Many in this audience seemed to accept the common stereotype of marketers as too often focused on creativity rather than business value. And, despite the prominent exception of Advani’s presentation, there seemed to be considerable residual skepticism of the value provided by brand marketing in particular.

The group did seem heartened at the notion, repeated several times, that a new generation of analytically-minded marketers is on the rise. Yet I have to wonder: the worst attended session I saw was an excellent panel on marketing performance measurement. This featured Alex Eldemir of MarketingNPV, Stephen DiMarco of Compete, Inc., Laura Patterson of VisionEdge Marketing, and Michael Emerson of Aprimo. The gist of the discussion was that CMOs must find out what CEOs want from them before they can build measures that prove they are delivering it. Obvious as this seems, it is apparently news to many marketers. Sadly, the panel had a magic bullet for the most fundamental problems of marketing measurement: that it’s often not possible to measure the actual impact of any particular marketing program, and that sophisticated analytics are too expensive for many marketers to afford. The best advice along those lines boiled down to “get over it” (delivered, of course, much more politely): accept the limitations and do the best you can with the resources at hand.

So, if the attendees voted with their feet to avoid the topic of marketing performance measurement, where did they head instead? I’d say the subject that most engaged them was social networks and how these can be harnessed for marketing purposes. Ironically, that discussion was much more about consumer marketing than business-to-business, although a few panelists did mention using social networks for business contacts (e.g. LinkedIn) and for business-oriented communities. The assembled experts did offer concrete suggestions for taking advantage of social networks, including viral campaigns, “free” market research, building brand visibility, creating inventory for online advertising, and creating specialized communities. They proposed a few new metrics, such as the number of conversations involving a product and the number of exposures to a viral message. But I didn’t sense much connection between the interest in social networks and any desire for marketers to be more analytical. Instead, I think the interest was driven by something more basic—an intuition that social networks present a new way to reach people in a world where finding an engaged audience is increasingly difficult. For now, the challenge is understanding how people behave in this new medium and how you can manage that behavior in useful ways. The metrics will come later.

Anyway, it was a very fun and stimulating two days. We now return to my regularly scheduled reality, which is already in progress.

Read More