How does this still qualify as a question when it has been answered? Enough to warrant a "big prediction" and a panel discussion? Apparently, Omnicom thinks so.
The idea that it is going out on a limb to say that "everyone in the advertising industry will be 'partly a data scientist.'" is frustrating because it should be that way already, and should have been for years.
Obviously, I did most of my ranting on this a few posts back, but seeing it in print just gets my hackles up all over again. When I got into this business, it was basically because I spent a lot of free time on sabermetrics and baseball, and I wanted to work in a field where data analytics was the job. I honestly assumed that every SEM account team would have a dedicated stats person, rather than 2-3 analytics people for an entire office, if you are lucky.
On one hand, I should be glad, because every single advertising person who hasn't completely embraced the statistical analysis side of the industry is making me look better in comparison. As a search person, you would think that it would be a huge advantage over traditional media and thus cause money and favor to flow to my part of the business.
The reality is though, while it seems like a no-brainer to some, the very fact that there is an article like this means that the boat is being missed as we speak. If you saw a newspaper article in 1943 headlined "FDR Concerned that Hitler Might Cause Some Trouble," wouldn't you worry about what the heck FDR had been up to since 1936?
Is it worse to be stating the obvious, or stating the obvious years after it should have been obvious?
On the other hand, apparently we have a bright future to look forward to, with numbers and stuff.
No comments:
Post a Comment