January 25, 2023
Commentary
Q&A: Monica C. Smith Of i.Predictus
- by Charlene Weisler , Op-Ed Contributor, November 2, 2015
Smith is very self-effacing, but that belies her canny abilities in entrepreneurship and data. She has built her business from the ground up based on her conviction that the business of television can be done better. And she has proved it out with her firm i.Predictus.
The following is an excerpt from a longer interview that can be accessed here.
Charlene Weisler: Tell me about i.Predictus.
Monica C. Smith: i.Predictus is a media analytics platform, SaaS-based, that uses a series of algorithms to use past performance of television advertising to predict the future of individual advertising airings. There are around 120 attributes that media buyers, analysts, and planners use to make decisions on the best media airings to buy or plan for their clients. It is very similar in digital, and somewhat similar to direct mail.
advertisement
advertisement
We have looked at the way those attributes interact with each other, and created 3 million formulas that answer the questions that most media planners and analysts would ask of their data.
CW: What are some of these attributes?
MS: They can be cost per point or Nielsen ratings, number of rotations, daypart analysis, seasonality, creative, competitive information — things that absolutely have an impact on whether a campaign is hitting or will hit its goals, or taking historical information… to bring in all the data and to use it appropriately. So in addition to not only the standard attributes that we are looking at, to make decisions… we are also taking historical information, whether it is from a day ago, a month ago, or a year ago.
CW: What is the challenge of cross platform measurement?
MS: In cross platform, the challenge is that the data is not uniform. So unless someone steps up and creates that standard for uniform data, the platforms most likely cannot communicate as well as they should. And therefore you’re left with humans to create that data ingestion process. Data purity is a multiyear journey — but at i.Predictus, we started with a standard. If our standard is accepted, then cross-platform will become a reality for many organizations.
CW: What predictions do you have for the media landscape in the next five years?
MS: I think television advertising and digital advertising will be held to a much higher standard, something much more accountable — which is right around the corner. This means that agencies will have to have a higher level of transparency on what they are buying, an understanding of what is driving them to make those purchasing decisions and what outcomes are expected. And I think technology and marketing automation will allow for all of that.
My second prediction is that conglomerates such as the MSOs and their consolidation will essentially change how television is viewed. Consumers will ultimately be able to make more decisions on what they are viewing from an advertising perspective, possibly through individual servers at their house. Addressable advertising will be the next phase beyond programmatic — and I think that agencies will prepare for a much more strategic buying practice than they are used to right now.
I'd be interested to know which advertiser clients this company has, Charlene, and what they are using this system for, how much money is fed through the system annually, what are the most common metrics, what "discoveries" have been unveiled, etc.? Otherwise, most of what was said is extremely fuzzy and theoretical sounding. For example, there are 120 "attributes" that media buyers, analysts and planners use"....and "three million formulas" to answer these questions. Wo
Don't get me wrong. Everyone has a right to dream about possible future scenarios for TV advertising. For example, I'm thinking of setting up a company---tentatively called BrainWave LLC---which will implant microchips in everybody's brains and send them whatever programs and ads their subconscious minds really desire. This should be the ultimate in "addressable TV" if I can only figure out a few things, like how to get the right kind of chips into the right heads, how to fund the operation, how to get people to cooperate, how to sell the time---"programmatic", I guess----etc. But I'm working on it and I predict that this idea will revolutionize TV----maybe.
Ed, where do I send my CV?
John, you have to qualify to begin with. We're planning to take only the most important people in our first "Beta test, namely "millennials". You don't read like a millennial---you make too much sense.Meanwhile, we've identified 3102 variables and 17.2 million formulas to include, so far. Sigh! So much to do; so little time.
Hi Ed, I am reaching out to Monica to answer your question.
Oh no Ed!
I was hoping to bring to the table a system I have been working on since 1985 and only finished a few weeks ago on October 21.
It's called the Multipurpose Advertising Data-driven Media Engagement Network. I was going to call it MADMEN but apparently someone beat me to it.
Because it uses SO much data and SO many variables I've not only had to develop the algorithm but also had to custom-build the hardware for it to run on, such is its vastness.
I order to get the system up and flying I designed and built a new PCB called the Heuristic Optimisation of Viewability Engagement and Response. All the raw data must first be uploaded via the HOVER board.
Then to deliver the results that data goes to the Digital Evaluation Level Of Realtime Engagement Algorithm Neurosystem or DELOREAN for short.
I have every confidence that MADMEN will be a hit and will revolutionise media planning and buying, especially as I used the services of Pat Pending as my developer and he comes highly recommended having worked on many similarly complex systems.
But John, your system only has one algorithim---don't you love that word, it's so technobabbly sexy. My system must be better as I have developed 376 aglorithims and more are on the way. Funny, I also use Pat Pending. I'll have to have a chat with him about "exclusivity"....unless you wish to consider a merger---say, a joint venture----so we can revolutionize TV together.
But Ed ... my one algorithm has more lines of code than your 376 put together. Surely that is better. Or as the '70s British sitcom about two tailors put it - never mind the quality feel the width.
I know who we should get as inaugural Chairman of the JV - Al Khwarizmi himself! (you may have to Google him). As long as Pat is OK with that idea as well.
But, John, in response to your last comment, I've just instructed my team of "data scientists" to triple the number of formulas we plan to use and delve into the more "granular" areas, like every zip code on a market by market basis. We are also negotiating with parties I am not at liberty to name to obtain "super big data" from at least 100 million homes on their household set usage, which, of course, we can combine with "third party" sources to really zoom in on advertiser targets. I can only hope that the media planning community as well as the time buyers and advertisers appreciate our joint efforts to revolutionize how they do business.
By the way, we've already got some interest in our new service---it's from a North Korean TV network,
Our algorithms have been validated by more than $750MM in media throughput. The concept of making media accountable is difficult when it’s harder work. We have been awarded a patent for our work on the lifetime value of an airing and we are not stopping. We know that data visualization, data transparency and faster optimization are mission critical for stronger omni-channel performance and have strong case studies to back that up. If you’d like to hear from some of our clients firsthand, you can speak to SharkNinja, Mercury Media, Altman Dedicated Direct, or Horizon Media.
Ed and John, I'm not sure what the point is of your snark. Ed (in particular), you typically offer substantial comments and feedback that add value to the topic at hand. If you think there is no value to the article, move on, otherwise, give Monica a call. In this case, you both sound like skeptical drunks in a corner bar.
The point, Keith, is that we are being bombarded with extremely theoretical and not exactly informative commentaries of this sort whch end up as ads for the parties promoting their wares. Normally Charlene does a very good job on these reports and interviews and I have commented favorably on her work. I know that she has the smarts and the ability to do a meaningful piece if the party being interviewed has anything tangible to say. Unfortunately, in some cases, there is virtually no substance.
I'm sorry if our little jesting was taken personally as this was not the point---at least where I'm concerned. Perhaps, you garnered meaningful and important insights from this piece. If so, that's just great. I'm happy for you.
Keith, we were just having a bit of fun. Sorry, but I missed the email that fun was verboten.
Ed, pass me another beer.
Oops. Did it again. Sorry Keith.