article notes
Spotlight
ff ̂ * ' • " i
LJ
1 I
6o Harvard Business Review March 2013
ARTWORK The Office of Creative Research (Mark Hansen & Ben Rubin) Moveable Type, 2008 Vacuum-ñuorescent display screens, each 8" x s", New Yori< Times building lobby; sentences and phrases that have appeared in the Times
Marketers now have an unprecedented ability to fine-tune their allocation decisions while making course corrections in real time, by Wes Nichols
SPOTLIGHT ON THE FUTURE OF ADVERTISING
Abeutthe Spatlight Artist Each month we illustrate our Spotlight package with a series of wori<s from an accomplished artist. We hope that the lively and cerebral creations of these photographers, painters, and installation artists will infuse our pages with additional energy and intel- ligence to amplify what are often complex and abstract concepts.
This month we feature art from the Office of Creative Research, a New Yori<- based multidisciplinary group that explores new modes of engagement with data. Its practices borrow from both the arts and the sciences.
View more ofthe artist's work at o-c-r.org.
ONE OF OUR CLIENTS, a Consumer electronics giant, had long gauged its advertising iinpact one medium at a time. As most businesses siill do, it measured how its TV, print, radio, and online ads each func- tioned independently to drive sales. The company hadn't grasped the notion that ads increasingly in- teract. For instance, a TV spot can prompt a Google search that leads to a click-through on a display ad that, ultimately, ends in a sale. To tease apart how its ads work in concert across media and sales channels, our client recently adopted new, sophisticated data- analytics techniques. The analyses revealed, for ex- ample, that TV ate up 85% ofthe budget in one new- product campaign, whereas YouTube ads—a 6% slice of the budget—were nearly twice as effective at prompting online searches that led to purchases. And search ads, at 4% ofthe company's total adver- tising budget, generated 25% of sales. Armed with those rich findings and the latest predictive analyt- ics, the company reallocated its ad dollars, realizing a 9% lift in sales without spending a penny more on advertising.
That sort of insight represents the holy grail in marketing—knowing precisely how all the moving parts of a campaign collectively drive sales and what happens when you adjust them. Until recently, the picture was fuzzy at best. Media-mix modeling, in- troduced in the early 1980s, helped marketers link scanner data with advertising and decide how to al- locate marketing resources. For about 20 years, ev- eryone gorged on this low-hanging fruit, until the ad- vent of digital marketing in the late 1990s. With the ability to monitor every mouse click, measuring the cause-and-effect relationship between advertising and purchasing became somewhat easier. Market- ers started tracking a consumer's most recent action online—say, a click on a banner ad—and attributing a purchase behavior to it.
Combined with a handful of time-honored mea- surement techniques—consumer surveys, focus groups, media-mix models, and last-click attribu- tion—such outmoded methods have lulled many marketers into complacency. They mistakenly think they have a handle on how their advertising actually affects behavior and drives revenue. But that ap- proach is backward-looking: It largely treats adver- tising touch points—in-store and online display ads, TV, radio, direct mail, and so on—as if each works in isolation. Making matters worse, different teams, agencies, and media buyers operate in silos and use different methods of measurement as they compete
for the same resources. This still-common practice, what we call swim-lane measurement, explains why marketers often misattribute specific outcomes to their marketing activities and why finance tends to doubt the value of marketing. (See the exhibit "Get Out of Your Swim Lanes.") As one CFO of a Fortune 200 company told me, "When I add up the ROIs from each of our silos, the company appears twice as big as it actually is."
Today's consumers are exposed to an expanding, fragmented array of marketing touch points across media and sales channels. Imagine that while view- ing a TV spot for a Toyota Camry, a consumer uses her mobile device to Google "sedans." Up pops a paid search link for Camry, as well as car reviews. She clicks through to Car and Driver's website to read some reviews, and while perusing, she notices a display ad from a local dealership but doesn't click on it. One review contains a link to YouTube vid- eos people have made about their Camrys. On You- Tube she also watches Toyota's clever "Camry Re- invented" Super Bowl ad from eight months earlier. During her commute to work that week she sees a Toyota billboard she hadn't noticed before and then receives a direct-mail piece from the company of- fering a time-limited deal. She visits local dealer- ships' websites, including those promoted on Car and Driver and in the direct-mail piece, and at last heads to a dealer, where she test-drives the car and buys it.
Toyota's chief marketing officer should ask two questions: How did this combination of ad expo- sures interact to influence this consumer? Is Toy- ota investing the right amounts at the right points in the customer-decision journey to spark her to action?
Data Deluge Seismic shifts in both technology and consumer be- havior during the past decade have produced a gran- ular, virtually infinite record of every action con- sumers take online. Add to that the oceans of data from DVRs and digital set-top boxes, retail checkout, credit card transactions, call center logs, and myriad other sources, and you find that marketers now have access to a previously unimaginable trove of infor- mation about what consumers see and do.
The opportunity is clear, but so is the challenge. As the celebrated statistician and writer Nate Silver put it, "Every day, three times per second, we pro- duce the equivalent ofthe amount of data that the
62 Harvard Business Review March 2013
ADVERTISING ANALYTICS 2.0 HBR.ORG
The days of correlating sales data with a few dozen discrete advertising variables are over. Many of the world's biggest companies are now deploying analytics 2.0, a set of capabilities that can chew through terabytes of data and hundreds of variables in real time to reveal how advertising touch points interact dynamically. The results: 10% to 30% improvements in marketing performance.
The move to advertising analytics
2.0 involves three broad activities:
• Attribution quantifies the contri-
bution of each element of advertising.
• Optimization uses predictive-
analytics tools to run scenarios for
business planning.
• Allocation redistributes resources
across marketing activities in real time.
Implementation of analytics 2.0
means building the required infra-
structure and entwining it in organiza-
tional culture, strategy development,
and operations. Any company can be-
gin that journey; businesses that don't
will be overtaken by those that do.
Library of Congress has in its entire print collection. Most of it is...irrelevant noise. So unless you have good techniques for filtering and processing the in- formation, you're going to get into trouble."
In this new world, marketers who stick with tra- ditional analytics 1.0 measurement approaches do so at their peril. Those methods, which look back- ward a few times a year to correlate sales with a few dozen variables, are dangerously outdated. Many of the world's biggest multinationals are now deploy- ing analytics 2.0, a set of capabilities that can chew through terabytes of data and hundreds of variables in real time. It allows these companies to create an ultra-high-definition picture of their marketing per- formance, run scenarios, and change ad strategies on the fly. Enabled by recent exponential leaps in com- puting power, cloud-based analytics, and cheap data storage, these predictive tools measure the interac- tion of advertising across media and sales channels, and they identify precisely how exogenous variables (including the broader economy, competitive offer- ings, and even the weather) affect ad performance. The resulting analyses, put simply, reveal what really works. With these data-driven insights, companies can often maintain their existing budgets yet achieve improvements of 10% to 30% (sometimes more) in marketing performance.
Drawing on the pioneering mathematical mod- els developed by UCLA marketing professor and MarketShare cofounder Dominique Hanssens, our firm provides analytics 2.0 solutions to many large global companies. The models quantify cross-media and cross-channel effects of marketing, as well as di- rect and indirect effects of all business drivers, and the software employs cloud-computing and big-data capabilities. The cases we present in this article are drawn from our client companies. Numerous other firms—such as VivaKi, Omniture, and DoubleClick— have emerged in recent years to meet the growing demand for advEinced analytics.
The Move to 2.0 Powered by the integration of big data, cloud com- puting, and new analytical methods, analytics 2.0 provides fundamentally new insights into mar- keting's effect on revenue. It involves three broad activities: attribution, the process of quantifying the contribution of each element of advertising; optimization, or "war gaming" by using predictive analytics tools to run scenarios for business plan- ning; and allocation, the real-time redistribution of resources across marketing activities according to optimization scenarios. Although those activities
Get Out of Your Swim Lanes Marketers commonly measure the performance of each of their marketing
activities as if they work independently of one another—so called swim-lane
measurement. This may result in significant over- or underattribution of ad-
vertising revenues because ads in one medium can exert a powerful influence
on, or assist, those in another. Swim-lane measurement ignores those assisted
effects. Data analysis of one campaign revealed that swim-lane measurement
grossly underestimated the revenues attributable to social-media marketing
and display advertising while overestimating PR and paid-search revenue.
$50,000
AD REVENUE CALCULATION • ASSISTED • SWIM LANE
SOCIAL MEDIA
DISPLAY ADS
TWITTER ORGANIC SEARCH
TV AFFILIATES PAID SEARCH
March 2013 Harvard Business Review 63
SPOTLIGHT ON THE FUTURE OF ADVERTISING
are described in this article as sequential steps, they may occur simultaneously in practice; outputs from one activity feed into another iteratively so that the analytics capability continuously improves.
Attribution. To determine howyour advertising activities interact to drive purchases, start by gather- ing data. Many companies we've worked with claim at first that they lack the required data in-house. That is almost always not the case. Companies are awash in data, albeit dispersed and, often, uninten- tionally hidden. Relevant data typically exist within sales, finance, customer service, distribution, and other functions outside marketing.
Knowing what to focus on—the signal rather than the noise—is a critical part ofthe process. To accurately model their businesses, companies must collect data across five broad categories: market con- ditions, competitive activities, marketing actions, consumer response, and business outcomes. (See the exhibit "Optimizing Advertising.")
With detailed data that parse product sales and advertising metrics by medium and location, sophis- ticated analytics can reveal the impact of marketing activities across swim lanes—for example, between one medium, say television, and another, social media. We call these indirect effects "assist rates." Recognizing an assist depends on the ability to track how consumer behavior changes in response to ad- vertising investments and sales activities. To over- simplify a bit: An analysis could pick up a spike in consumers' click-throughs on an online banner ad after a new TV spot goes live—and link that effect to changes in purchase patterns. This would capture the spot's "assist" to the banner ad and provide a truer picture ofthe TV ad's ROI. More subtly, analyt- ics can reveal the assist effects of ads that consumers don't actively engage with—showing, for example, a 12% jump in search activity for a product after de- plojnment of a banner ad that only 0.1% of consum- ers click on.
This insight translates directly to any advertis- ing that consumers encounter but may not specifi- cally act on, including TV ads, social-media place- ments, PR, online or outdoor displays, mobile ads, and in-store promotions. Think ofthe billboard ad on our Toyota buyer's commute. The ad itself prob- ably didn't cause her to drive to the dealership and purchase a car. But it may have nudged her to look at the direct-mail piece when it arrived, which ulti- mately inspired the visit to the dealership—a com- plete customer journey we can now measure. It's
difficult or impossible to quantify such assist effects at an individual level, particularly when they involve off-line ads, so analytics 2.0 works by exposing those effects. It uses a sophisticated series of simultaneous- equation statistical models that reassemble various interrelated effects into a view that accurately ex- plains the market behavior.
The hazards of simplistic swim-lane measure- ment were personal for one of our client's market- ing executives. Early in his career, at a high-profile e-commerce company, the marketing team pre- sented to finance some campaign results that had been generated using traditional analytics methods:
ADVERTISING MEDIUM
DISPLAY ADS
PAID SEARCH
SEARCH ENGINE OPTIMIZATION
E-MAIL MARKETING
TOTAL
ESTIMATED RESULTING REVENUE
$40 MILLION
$50 MILLION
$40 MILLION
$30 MILLION
$160 MILLION
Things quickly became awkward when finance pointed out that the business unit had generated only $110 million in revenue, $50 million short ofthe reported total. The discrepancy arose because, lack- ing good data, leaders in each swim lane claimed the same bucket of revenue.
That lesson stuck with this executive as he set out to help solve the industry problem of incorrect attribution. He eventually joined a consumer tech- nology company that has enthusiastically embraced analytics 2.0. There he created an analytics platform to reveal how the company's advertising and sales force activities interacted.
Examples like these necessarily distill the com- plexity of analytics 2.0. In actual analyses run by a large company, statistical models may account for hundreds or thousands of permutations of advertis- ing and sales tactics, as well as exogenous variables such as geography, employment rates, pricing, sea- son of the year, competitive offerings, and so on. When you analyze every permutation of an ad cam- paign according to those variables, the complexity of the task and the necessity for cloud computing and storage become clear. You also realize that such analyses allow you, for example, to instantly see how a new TV ad affects consumers' online search patterns—and then to change your keyword-search
64 Harvard Business Review March 2013
ADVERTISING ANALYTICS 2.0 HBR.ORG
Optimizing Advertising
other economic factors
MARKET CONDITIONS
Consumer confidence
Unemployment rates
Fuel prices
Print ads
Statistical models that reveal the effect of advertising on
consumer behavior and business results must account for
hundreds of variables related to market conditions, marketing
actions, and competitive activities. A software analytics engine
uses those models to attribute each variable's effect accurately,
to optimize the marketing mix, and to guide spending allocation.
Data on consumer response and business outcomes feed back
Into the engine, allowing marketers to fine-tune their cross-
media spending in real time.
M A R K E T I N G ACTIONS
Social media
¿ Season
Public W relations
Customer service
New- product releases
Pricing
COMPETITIVE A C T I V i T I E S
1 CONSUMER RESPONSE
Search
Online chatter
Store visits
Purchasing
BUSINESS OUTCOMES
Unit sales
Revenues
Margins
Market share
Share of voice
Customer lifetime value
bidding strategy to buy up relevant words as the ad is running. They might also help you identify Face- book's actual effect on both short-term revenue and long-term brand equity.
Optimization. Once a marketer has quantified the relative contribution of each component of its marketing activities and the influence of important exogenous factors, war gaming is the next step. It in- volves using predictive-analytics tools to run scenar- ios for business planning. Maybe you want to know what will happen to your revenue if you cut outdoor display advertising for a certain product line by 10% in San Diego—or if you shift 15% of your product- related TV ad spending to online search and display. Perhaps you need to identify the implications for your advertising if a competitor reduces prices in To- kyo or if fuel prices go up in Sydney.
Working vnth the vast quantities of data collected and analyzed through the attribution process, you can assign an "elasticity" to every business driver you've measured, from TV advertising to search ads to fuel prices and local temperatures. (Elasticity is the ratio of the percentage change in one variable to the percentage change in another.) Knowing the elasticities of your business drivers helps you predict how specific changes you make will influence partic- ular outcomes. If your TV ads' elasticity in relation to sales is .03, for example, doubling your TV ad budget will yield a 3% lift in sales, when all other variables remain constant. In short, analytics 2.0 modeling re- veals how all driver elasticities interact to aifect sales. (See the exhibit "How Ads Interact to Boost Sales.")
War gaming uses the actual elasticities of your business drivers to run hundreds or thousands of
March 2013 Harvard Business Review 6s
SPOTLIGHT ON THE FUTURE OF ADVERTISING
scenarios within minutes. In a typical war-gaming process, team members define marketing goals (such as a certain revenue target, share goal, or margin goal), often across multiple products and markets. Crunching the vast database of driver elasticities, optimization software generates a set of most-likely scenarios along with marketing recommendations to achieve them. The software also can test specific what-if scencirios: For instance, how will sales of our midsize pickup truck in Denver be affected if gas prices climb 5% and we launch a combined TV and online campaign promoting a $300 rebate?
At Ford, marketing communications director Matthew VanDyke leads a cross-functional team in- volving IT, finance, marketing, and other functions. The group is tasked with optimizing Ford's $1 billion in advertising spending. Using advanced analyt- ics, the team routinely runs thousands of scenarios involving hundreds of variables to gauge the prob- able effects of different ad strategies under a range of complex circumstances. The analyses incorporate insights from the attribution step, allowing Ford to predict from one scenario to the next how changes in advertising investment in one medium are likely to affect ad performance in others, and how exogenous factors might influence outcomes.
For example, as consumers' interest in fuel- efficient vehicles has grown. Ford's marketing sci-
ence manager Mike Macri and his team have used war gaming to quickly assess which markets will be receptive to creative messages about fuel efficiency and have redirected advertising resources accord- ingly via their agency partners. Indeed, these war games are driving several current cross-media cam- paigns for Ford.
Predictive analytics also allow Ford to war-game changes in media planning and purchasing, both nationally and locally. For instance, it discovered that the company's overall digital spending, though appropriate, was overemphasizing digital display and underinvesting in search. In addition, before the firm used war-game scenario planning, national and local marketing budgets were treated separately and rarely coordinated. It had been difficult for Ford to determine, for example, how much it should pro- vide in matching funds to dealer groups, whether consumer incentive levels differ among the various cars and regions in its portfolio, and how boosting social-media spending and reducing traditional media buys would affect sales to young drivers. War gaming allowed Ford to predict how those scenar- ios would play out before actually making changes. The result: Shifts from the national budget to local budgets have produced tens of millions of dollars in new revenues, with no net change in the total ad budget.
How One Company Attributed, Optimized, and Allocated Electronic Arts (EA), one of the world's largest software gaming companies, creates some of the best-known titles across all gam- ing platforms, including Madden NFL, Battlefield, and Sims. EA faced challenges that are com- mon in creative industries: high volatility; high-risk, high-reward development cycles; short prod- uct life cycles; a premium on creative quality; and a reliance on hit products. Like other cre- ative businesses, EA also relied heavily on intuition in its decision making.
Senior VP of marketing Laura Miele and
head of decision sciences Zachery An-
derson recognized several years ago that
although relying on traditional analytics
and instinct in its marketing had served
the company adequately, its advertising
performance had fallen off. One reason,
they surmised, was that the company's
tech-sawy core audience was spending
more time online, beyond the reach of EA's
traditional marketing efforts. In that new
environment, they wanted to answer ques-
tions about a variety of strategic issues,
including the company's investment strat-
egies, marketing activities, cross-media
and cross-channel efforts, and the effect
of online initiatives on in-store sales.
The company ultimately decided to
retool its marketing analytics by applying
the attribution, optimization, and alloca-
tion framework to its entire game port-
folio. EA had been measuring advertising
performance using traditional methods
such as customer surveys and media-
mix models, and it had been attributing
year-to-year and title-to-title variations in
sales to creativity in advertising and game
quality.
In the attribution step, the analytics
engine homed in on hundreds of EA's
business drivers, including advertising,
reviews, sales data, pricing, game qual-
ity, distribution, and online chatter. The
exercise uncovered several important
66 Harvard Business Review March 2013
ADVERTISING ANALYTICS 2.0 HBR.ORG
Marketers are also using analytics 2.0 to run what-if scenarios for advertising new-product launches, ad buys in markets where data are limited, and the potential effects of surprise moves by com- petitors. For instance, as a global consumer electron- ics company client of ours was preparing to launch a game-changing product in an emerging market where historical sales-marketing data were scarce, it used advanced analytics to review advertising be- havior by competitors and accurately predict their spending for upcoming releases. Using those pre- dictions and optimization scenarios, the company successfully entered the market with a much clearer understanding of the strategic landscape and ad- justed its plans quickly to address new competitive dyncimics.
Allocation. Gone are the days of setting a mar- keting plan and letting it run its course—the so-called run-and-done approach. As technology, media com- panies, and media buyers continue to remove fric- tion from the process, advertising has become easier to transact, place, measure, and expand or kill. Mar- keters can now readüy adjust or allocate advertising in different markets on a monthly, weekly, or daily basis—and, online, even from one fraction of a sec- ond to the next. Allocation involves putting the re- sults of your attribution and war-gaming efforts into the market, measuring outcomes, validating models
(that is, running in-market experiments to confirm the findings of an analysis), and making course corrections.
At one of the world's largest software compa- nies, senior management realized that it needed more accountability and precision in its market- ing, as allocation decisions had historically not been based on scientific analysis. To understand which marketing activities were driving leads to its website, resellers, and retail partners—and thereby generating sales—the marketing leadership team used analytics 2.0 to reveal how all its marketing components interacted.
By using models that ultimately accounted for hundreds of variables, the company quantified the precise combination of ads that most effectively stimulated software trials, which acfivities by resell- ers generated the most profits, and how advertising in one product category influenced purchasing in other categories. With those insights, the firm re- allocated marketing dollars for its various B2B and B2C products. Shifts between off-line and online spending, as well as investments in brand build- ing, have boosted revenues by millions of dollars incrementally.
This company's analytics 2.0 system has gained credibility with executive management, is now driv- ing minute-to-minute allocation decisions, and is be-
facts. First, in-theater advertising, a
tactic favored by the organization, was
underperforming. Second, the effect on
sales from search, digital, and online-
video advertising (such as YouTube) was
significantly greater than believed. Finally,
EA discovered that the "flighting" of its
advertising—that is, the timing of cam-
paign tactics and the intervals between
them—was suboptimal.
Then EA moved to the optimization
phase, war-gaming hundreds of advertis-
ing scenarios for collaborative review by
people in marketing, finance, operations,
and other functions. This optimization
process led to an allocation plan, to be
executed by EA's agencies and channel
partners, that shifted ad investments from
TV to search and online video, as well as a
new flighting schedule for the holidays.
Before the analytics were deployed, the
campaign for previous versions of Battle-
field allocated about 8 0 % to television
and included very little paid search, social
media, or online video. The increased
budget for Battlefield 3 reflected big shifts
in allocation: to only 5 0 % television, with
significant spending in both online video
and paid search. These changes helped
to make Battlefield 3 the most success-
ful launch in EA's history. Shifts in the
marketing budget alone accounted for an
estimated 23% increase in EA's sales of M
Battlefield3, compared with previous v e r - *
sions of the game.
March 2013 Harvard Business Review 67
SPOTLIGHT ON THE FUTURE OF ADVERTISING HBR.ORG
How Ads Interact to Boost Sales In this holiday campaign for a consumer
electronics product, online searches on
the manufacturer's name spiked in direct
response to TV advertising.
Analytics revealed thatthe company could have
made better use of cross-media effects on retail
traffic. Although just 15% of its campaign budget
went to digital marketing, digital accounted for 38%
of the product's retail sales.
Measuring cross-media, cross-
channel effects drove significant
reallocation recommendations
that ultimately generated 9% more
revenue with the same budget.
SEARCH 1 QUERY , i à VOLUME i ^
1 1 1 1 1 1
NOV DEC
f" | \ TV GROSS
4 1 SPENDING JAN
CAMPAIGN ^ ^ 1 BUDGET ^ H
PRODUCT ^ ^ 1 SALES ^ H
TV 1 1 1
PAID ONLINE YOUTUBE SEARCH DISPLAY
-12%
TV YOUTUBE
A D SPENDING REALLOCATION
+32%
PAID SEARCH
ing rolled out globally. As a result, the firm's advertis- ing ROI has nearly doubled over the past three years.
Five Steps to Implementation Analytics, once a back-of-the-house research func- tion, is becoming entwined in daily strategy devel- opment and operations. Executives who were pio- neering early digital marketing teams 10 years ago are advancing to the CMO office. Already wired for measurement, they are often amazed at the analyt- ics immaturity of the broader advertising industry. These new CMOs are taking more responsibility for technology budgets and are creating a culture of fact-based decision making within advertising. Technology consultancy Gartner estimates that within five years, most CMOs will have a bigger tech- nology budget than chief technology officers do.
Technology is necessary but not sufficient to move an organization to analytics 2.0. In our experi- ence, these initiatives require five steps, which can be implemented even by smaD companies:
First, embrace analytics 2.0 as an organization- wide effort that must be championed by a C-level executive sponsor. Often, pockets of resistance to new analytics approaches crop up, as they chal- lenge closely held behefs about what works and what doesn't. Senior-level buy-in is essential to help promote clarity of vision and alignment in the early stages.
Second, assign an analytics-minded director or manager to become the point person for the effort. It should be someone with strong analytical sknls and a reputation for objectivity. This person can report to the CMO or sit on a cross-functional team between marketing and finance. As the project expands, he or she can help guide business plarming and resource allocation across units.
Third, armed with a prioritized list of questions you seek to answer, conduct an inventory of data
throughout the organization. Intelligence that is essential to successful analytics 2.0 efforts is often buried in many functions beyond marketing, from finance to customer service. Identify and consoli- date those disparate data sets and create systems for ongoing collection. Treat the data as you would intel- lectual property, given its asset value.
Fourth, start small with proofs of concept involv- ing a particular line of business, geography, or prod- uct group. Build limited-scope models that aim to achieve early wins.
Fifth, test aggressively and feed the results back into the model. For instance, if your optimization analysis suggests that shifting some ad spending from TV to online display will boostsales,trya small, local experiment and use the results to refine your calculations. In-market testing is old hat—what's new is getting the cross-media attribution right so that your testing is more effective.
When businesses have multiple sales channels such as retail, online, value-added resellers, or mul- tiple products and geographies, analytics 2.0 may become more complex than internal teams can handle. That's when vendors with specific analyt- ics and computing capabilities are needed. But any company can begin the journey and build much of the required infrastructure for analytics—and the culture of adaptive marketing—in-house. The chal- lenge is as much organizational as computational. Either way, the writing is on the wall: Marketing is rapidly becoming a war of knowledge, insight, and asymmetric advantage gained through analytics 2.0. Companies that don't adopt next-generation analyt- ics will be overtaken by those that do. 0
HBR Reprint R1303C
j Wes Nichols is a cofounder and the CEO of I MarketShare, a global predictive-analytics company
headquartered in Los Angeles.
68 Harvard Business Review March 2013
Copyright 2013 Harvard Business Publishing. All Rights Reserved. Additional restrictions may apply including the use of this content as assigned course material. Please consult your institution's librarian about any restrictions that might apply under the license with your institution. For more information and teaching resources from Harvard Business Publishing including Harvard Business School Cases, eLearning products, and business simulations please visit hbsp.harvard.edu.