Women at Work: Rise of the Female ‘Millennipreneurs’

Bonnâe Ogunlade is the Regional Associate Insight Director for Carat APAC. This article originally appeared in Campaign Asia.

Especially in Southeast Asia, young women are reinventing the way businesses are created and operated.

5 minute read


Image courtesy of the Lean In Collection, a library of images devoted to the powerful depiction of females and the people who support them.

In Asia Pacific’s emerging markets, the development of technology and the proliferation of mobile phones is opening up new career paths to women. Consequently, we are seeing a bourgeoning trend of female ‘millennipreneurs’—entrepreneurs under the age of 35—especially in Southeast Asia.

Access to global networks via social platforms, mobile apps and digital payment methods is allowing young women to break the cycle of working menial jobs for a meagre allowance.

In Asia Pacific alone, there has been a twofold increase in the number of active internet users since March 2015. This translates to 1.8 billion internet users and 4 billion mobile connections. Speaking in broader terms, the number of mobile connections in APAC alone equates to more than half of the world’s population.


Young and restless: New face of business in emerging markets

Image courtesy of the Lean In Collection.

Dentsu Aegis Network’s recently released whitepaper, “Amplifying the Voice of Female Entrepreneurs in Southeast Asia,” found that female millennials are more likely to start a business than their older counterparts. In Vietnam and Thailand respectively, 86% and 73% of current entrepreneurs are aged between 18 and 34. Further still, millennipreneurs are likely to have launched twice as many companies as baby boomers.

In Vietnam and Thailand respectively, 86% and 73% of current entrepreneurs are aged between 18 and 34.

So what’s so special about the young and restless? Behavioural trends suggest that most millennials are synonymous with ambition, authenticity and early adoption of technology. They use tech as a seamless enhancement to their lives and value convenience over cool. Additional traits embodied by millennipreneurs are leadership, boldness and a social conscience.

This translates to millennials having clearer expectations of brands and choosing to interact with those that offer transparency and are aligned with their values. It also places them in prime position to create companies that resonate accordingly.

Image result for Hooi Ling Tan
Photo courtesy of Financial Times.

One notable example is Hooi Ling Tan, the female co-founder of Grab, a ride-hailing mobile platform (reportedly worth US$3 billion). At the tender age of 32, the Harvard Business school graduate, who hails from Malaysia, ranked 17th on Fortune’s 40 under 40 list. What’s also revealing is the increasing number of women included in this list year on year.


Positive effect

However, despite the increasing number of women-founded businesses, Dentsu Aegis Network reported that nearly half of female-led business ventures are self-funded. This may be due to the disparities they face in terms of funding and legal systems.

Shannon Kalayanamitr, the female founder and chief marketing officer of ecommerce platform Orami, a self-confessed advocate for women, states in an interview that there remains a double-standard in terms of how men and women are perceived and treated in business. (Kalayanamitr is a member of Campaign Asia-Pacific’s 2016 40 under 40.)

Image courtesy of the Lean In Collection.

What the industry needs to realise is the significantly positive effect of female entrepreneurs on both emerging countries and businesses. According to the 2016 BNP Paribas Global Entrepreneur Report, companies helmed by women make on average 13 percent higher revenues than those run by men. This rings truer for businesses led by ambitious young women with revenues rising by 9 percent to 22 percent amongst millennipreneurs. In fact, if there were greater parity between male and female business owners in terms of access to capital, women would potentially be able to lift the GDP of emerging markets.

According to the 2016 BNP Paribas Global Entrepreneur Report, companies helmed by women make on average 13 percent higher revenues than those run by men.

Furthermore, our research shows that almost all female business owners are willing to mentor others and have the impetus to inspire a single child to a whole community. Young female business owners are tremendous role models as they tend to be more concerned with their social impact and are very conscious of giving back.

To foster both a financially and socially progressive environment, we must encourage women and girls into business, provide them with early access to the right knowledge, support and funding and direct them towards positive role models.

Image courtesy of the Lean In Collection.

Brands need to keep pace

Research has proven the capabilities of successful female millennipreneurs in disrupting and shaping the digital economy, especially in emerging markets. Women are using mass technology to tap into local consumer insights to create powerful offerings that resonate by providing transparency, immediacy and convenience. They are reinventing the way businesses are created and operated and, they are commanding the way platforms, providers and devices evolve.

Rather than try to market, persuade and preach to millennials that they should heed what they are doing, brands need to start considering how they too can assimilate themselves into the lives of consumers in the meaningful and impactful way.

In recognition of the growing force of the millennipreneur, leading companies like Facebook and Google have even dedicated significant resources to emerging market developments for small businesses. However, some global brands are stagnating in the face of smaller more agile and relevant competition. These brands need to ‘stop’, ‘look’ and ‘listen’ to these women and their consumers or face extinction. Rather than try to market, persuade and preach to millennials that they should heed what they are doing, brands need to start considering how they too can assimilate themselves into the lives of consumers in the meaningful and impactful way that millennipreneurs are so adept at doing.


2016: A Year in Review

2016 has been a big year, filled with a lot of unforeseen changes from Brexit to Beyoncé dropping Lemonade. The events and business decisions from this past year have affected everything, including our own little world of media.

As the final issue of Rocket for 2016, we wanted to compile the reflections and predictions of  those around the network, each one reflecting a unique background and point of view.

It’s been (sur)real; see you on the other side.


The year we gained a little more balance

Kate Williams, Executive Producer, Carat APAC

“The fucking debate is all over” was one memorable 2016 industry headline for me. The katemad man behind the statement resigned and the global industry discussions that followed evidenced how wrong his claim regarding gender bias was. Our reality is gender bias is one element of our wonky advertising industry. Advertising is in-balanced in many aspects; gender, ethnicity, age. Due partly to out of date agency models and legacy leadership hiring and promoting people who remind them of themselves.

What is brilliant about our industry though is the overwhelming need for us to cultivate diversity, and the actions smart businesses take to foster this.

Our creative business, Carat Content has been designed from day one to be nothing like legacy creative agency models. Our approach means we strengthen our team with people who are not like ourselves. We unite team members with different perspectives, backgrounds and skills. 2017 is a year of significant growth so I am excited we will continue to sharpen our edges, building even more diverse, challenging and stronger teams. As a result, we are more reflective of society, and collectively we produce the most creative, successful work.


The year AI broke into our consciousness

Ben Milne, Head of Innovation, Client Services, Posterscope

This year I hired a PA, Amy. She is now a regular feature of my day, autonomously emailingben colleagues arranging our meetings and putting invites into our calendars.

Amy is an AI bot. She only does one thing, but she does it brilliantly. So well in fact that a number of my colleagues have invited Amy to lunch so they can meet her in person! There is potential for improvement though, when I asked her what the weather was, I got a stock “I’m sorry Dave I can’t do that” type reply, something that Siri, Cortana or Google Now can all do with ease.

2016 was the year Artificial Intelligence (AI) broke into our consciousness at scale. In the future AI will become more ubiquitous and interconnected. We will become more familiar and comfortable with its presence and begin delegating more of our tasks and decision-making to them.

From a marketing perspective, we already know a lot of content and advertising that consumers discover and consume is being curated and created by the AI code powering ad tech platforms the world over. In 2017 I expect that the advances in the way AI mediates human lives will necessitate a greater focus on marketing to bots not people.


The year we realized how important it is to break out of our bubbles

HyoJae An, Strategy Associate  Director, Carat APAC

November 9th hit me to the core personally, I was so sure like all the other liberals out there that Hilary would win, and that only the minority of uneducated racist people voted for someone like Trump. Since the shock win there have been numerous articles that have been written about the “bubble” that the Democratsscannable-document-on-29-nov-2016-5_18_26-pm lived in and criticisms soon followed on how they failed to really listen to the white working classes.

This hit a chord with me on how we and marketers today approach our job. How much do WE really listen and empathise with different types of consumers today? Are we living in our own marketing bubble?  We get in the habit of generalising a whole group of consumers, because of course ALL Gen Z’s have an attention span of a goldfish and need a distraction ALL the time, oh and they also take in information instantaneously apparently.

Trump’s campaign had 40,000-50,000 different Facebook ad variants that were constantly A/B tested, a process which made the messages more meaningful and personal to the individual voter. He also understood the rural voters much better than Clinton, as marketers and media specialists I wonder how much we skew our communication from our urban lifestyle POV, forgetting to understand the different media landscape and motivations of rural consumers.

Development of technology allows us as marketers to make our communications that much more relevant and targeted.   There is no excuse anymore to generalise a whole generation of consumers, we need to start being more empathetic, curious and most of all listen if we want to come out as winners.


The year FMCG brands didn’t grow

Jonathan Rudd, Head of Digital Strategy, Carat APAC

‘Big brand’ FMCG in is facing real challenges. 90% of the top 100 FMCG brands didn’t grow last year. For the majority, jonathandoing things the same way they’ve always been done clearly isn’t the path to growth in the digital economy.

The problem is brands are too often guided by their defined ‘category’ which is often dictated by retailers. This dependency on existing customers and networks is a root cause of the innovators dilemma and one of the core reasons so many well-known brands are in decline.

By looking beyond a brand’s traditional category and understanding the broader Consumer Activity Cycle, it is possible to redefine what value a brand can create for people and unlock tremendous growth opportunities. This involves understanding how people behave (how they go about getting jobs done) and creating value such as saving time or money, or providing entertainment or social worth during the activity cycle. Typically addressed via a tech solution(s), it also helps accelerate digital competency and promotes innovation whilst opening up new opportunities around data collection, targeting and commerce.


The year people created their own truths

Reuben Png, Director of Experience Design, Carat APAC

Everybody knows that the dice are loaded reuben
Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed

Everybody knows, everybody knows
That’s how it goes
Everybody knows

Leonard Cohen (1934-2016) was not referring to the fake news sites covering the recent US elections that received more engagements on Facebook than mainstream news sites. Neither was he singing about the average ability to discern between fact and fiction in this era of clickbait, scams and misleading thumbnails. Perhaps times were simpler in 1988 when he wrote the song.

What is certain today however, is that anyone can be presented with varying versions of information according to what topics they are usually interested in, who they regularly connect with and where they access the information from. The truth, it seems, depends on what the beholder chooses to perceive (and what the data source provides).

Data in its most common form is one-dimensional. The chief responsibility of those who gather and interpret data is not simply to deliver it, but to also understand and provide the context to which the findings are true. It takes bravery to test your findings against datasets that are outside your comfort zone, but the end result is insightful information that is robust and trustworthy. This not only maintains our credibility, but also builds long-lasting business value for those whom we advise and design for.


The last year we should care about clicks

Ed Wilson, Regional Digital Manager, Carat APAC

2016 saw many changes, both good and bad. But there was one thing that didn’t evolve as much as it should have. In all but a few cases digital measurement is still being done the same was as ever and it’s getting increasingly more wrong. The reliance of clicks continues to cloud the most important measurement of marketing: who was reached, how did it affect them.

If I asked a marketer to give me $0.50 and in return I would click their ad – what would they say? They should say no – because clicks only tell marketers how good they were at getting clicks – and who cares about that?  What they do care about is how their brand/campaign is perceived and sales.scannable-document-on-1-dec-2016-11_33_39-am

For the upcoming year I think that there are a couple of glimmers of hope to look forwards to:

Atlas, although suffering a rocky resurgence is going into full measurement mode. This means we’ll be able to use Facebook ID data to see where interactions happen across their many devices and better understand how they fall down the ‘funnel.’ Advertisers with no conversion point need to be asking their account teams to ensure that brand tracking is implemented – that is to ask the question to the intended audience “what do you think of my ad?”

For advertisers in South East Asia there is a Nielsen integration with Google’s DCM coming so we should be able to activate that ever too neglected brand tracking with a simple flick of a switch.. OK so setting these things up is never that easy but at least some complexity is being removed!

Finally solutions such as Google Consumer Surveys can give both pre and post campaign insight. The ability to ask people what they thought of the campaign and to then get answers back in a matter of minutes. These have been little utilised since launch, as they incur additional costs – but these are answers worth paying for.

I’d like to see at least one of these on each plan in 2017. Then we can talk about clicks.


The year that felt like a serious blast from the past

Jasper Distel, Regional Associate Director of Strategy, Carat

There is only one clear superstar this year. It created an overnight phenomenon, gotjasper people killed and even had governments all over the world introduce official legislation. And no, I’m not talking about the latest synthetic homemade drug—I’m talking about Pokémon GO. Actually, not just about Pokémon GO itself, but more about the ‘secret ingredient’ that catapulted it to immediate success.

Little over 20 years ago, there was a Japanese fellow called Satoshi Tajiri who created the Pokémon franchise. Nintendo quickly spotted its massive potential and decided to jump on board. It then reached and moved millions of teenagers all around the globe during the 90’s.

The most interesting part?! These teenagers who grew up with Pokémon are now the group silly media peeps often refer to as ‘millennials.’ Guess which group were the quickest to adopt the game? Yep, same same but a little older.

And it didn’t end there. Stranger Things—a show heavy on 80’s nostalgia—broke all records when it was released by Netflix and even kicked Narcos and House of Cards’ ass. In your face Pablo. But wait, there’s more… Nintendo just relaunched the most iconic game console EVER. It brought back the NES and sold out within a matter of minutes. The secret ingredient behind all these successes? Embrace nostalgia and marry it up with modern tools and trends.

I’m already looking forward to 2030 when iPhones, Musical.ly and Snapchat Lenses potentially make their comeback.


The year we got even closer to becoming a sci-fi film

Kim Doan, Regional Digital Manager, Carat

Remember back in the 90’s and early 2000’s, sci-fi films such Total Recall and Minority kimReport would be so mind-boggling? Not only because of the story plot, but how imaginative and forward-thinking technology was portrayed in these movies; as if it would be a lifetime before these advancements would exist.

A memorable scene is when Jon Anderton (Tom Cruise) enters the GAP store and a hologram message was targeted directly at him – or rather since he replaced his eyeballs – targeted at Mr. Yakimoto. This story was set in year 2054 and it doesn’t seem like the prediction from this film about “predictive analysis” is that far off.

We’ve had industry leaders going into 2016 saying “By 2020, 50B devices will be connected” (since revised to ~21B devices) – to put into context, our global population is recorded at 7.4B. Internet of Things (IoT) continued to be a huge topic this year with developing news of Google Smart Lens and the launch of Uber and Volvo’s self-driving cars in Pittsburgh.

Marketers are diving further into a space where internet connection can come in many forms, making our media channel choices and consumer journeys more complex as every action feeds into a matrix of data. Ultimately, our channel choices will be difficult and as important as being asked whether to take the blue pill or red pill.


The last year we should start a communication plan with a TV ad

Jonathan Rudd, Head of Digital Strategy, Carat APAC

Many brands in APAC are still a long way off reflecting how people consume media. Whether it’s salary men in Tokyo or Gen Z in

rudd Jakarta, the majority of people are watching a lot less linear TV and spending a lot more time on their phones. However, media agencies are repeatedly briefed to distribute TVCs on digital platforms, the majority of which are simply not fit for purpose.

Consumption behaviour in digital, particularly on newsfeeds, is totally different. Many marketers in the region still start their communication planning process with a TV ad or a TV script. Instead, it should begin with a creative idea that can be effectively amplified across platforms and screens where people spend their time. This also means customising content to reflect platform consumption habits as the user experience on Snapchat, LINE, Facebook, YouTube and many others varies significantly and users are now much more empowered as to whether to stop and watch or swipe/tap away content that doesn’t stand out or resonate.


The Year of Open Source and Collaboration

Clay Schouest, Chief Strategy Officer, Carat APAC

Three things come to mind in terms of notable changes I’ve witnessed for the industry in 2016.

Firstly, there’s been a real shift toward more claycollaboration and development of solutions on open-source platforms and APIs. Whereas previously brand ecosystems used to be closed to competition, 2016 was a shift toward opening up to allow enhancement and development. Facebook comes to mind in terms of API plug-ins. We’ll see more of that to come as brands realise they can’t do it alone and that the benefits of collaboration result in far better consumer experiences.

Which brings me to my second observation: the increasing usability of Big Data. There seems to have been a steep uptake on pulling multiple data sets and an increase in ability to combine and use them.

Lastly, my third observation is about the growing emphasis towards context-driven marketing and how it enhances mental availability for consumers and thus brand relationships, à la the huge popularity of Laws of Growth.

I think 2017 will be about how we continue with the above to further enhance consumer experience within the communication ecosystem. I hope the new year will also bring about a shift towards how to inject more creativity into our work.


The year Snapchat became a media force

Tam Le, Senior Strategy Manager, Carat APAC

This year, the social media account I placed above all else was Michelle Obama’s Snapchat. In a year plagued by copy-and-paste features tam(Instagram Stories and disappearing photos, Facebook Live), Snapchat felt surprisingly fresh. Always one to go against conventional wisdom—temporal content, vertical videos, little to no user instruction—Snapchat continued to do its own thing in 2016.

During this year’s SXSW, I watched Mashable founder Pete Cashmore state that Snapchat will be the new cable TV. And it’s clear from the app’s redesign in June to combine publisher-created Discover channels from companies like CNN, Hearst, etc. with user-generated Live Stories from your friends or celebrities that Snapchat aims to be more than a social media company. In fact, with the introduction of Spectacles (sunglasses that can shoot videos for Snapchat) and the rename to Snap Inc., the company aims to be more than Snapchat alone.

Snapchat is an important channel for marketers to watch as they continue to introduce more ad products and tools for advertisers. And don’t underestimate its growing user base: this year, Snapchat surpassed Twitter in daily users and it’s only a matter of time before it takes over Asia as well.


The year we had to scrap everything we know…again

Jude Koh, Regional Associate Strategy Manager, Carat APAC

In 2016, amid the numerous celebrity deaths, earthquakes and shocking election results, the media and tech industry

judealso went through a year of turmoil. We saw Pokémon GO which finally led us to seriously advocate or doubt AR (again). Instagram is slowly taking all of Snapchat’s features. The new Apple TV combined social, news and actual television programming all into one screen. IBM Watson proved predictive analytic and neural learning could be the smart assistant we need for media buying and planning.

Although all these developments seem like just headlines, they pave the way for even bigger changes in our industry. These changes are natural given the increasingly fast progress of technology and rise of competition. 4 years ago, I started my career as an intern in a digital agency. Everything I learnt then has since been disrupted or flipped. Today, Atlas isn’t so bad anymore, mobile is all the rage, and video became cool.

So what do all these changes (or disruptions) mean for us? It means that what we know (or think we know) today has a high chance of being obsolete tomorrow, but what will not change anytime soon are basic human behaviors. People still love cat videos. People still love looking at themselves—whether it’s in the reflection of a pond, a commissioned oil painting portrait, a Polaroid picture, a duck-faced selfie, or a puppy-filtered snap. Media is just an amplification of these human behaviors and the better we understand them, the better we can navigate these changes. Here’s to the changes! Cheers to a turmoil year! Here’s to more AR selfies and may the lonely hearts always get a swipe right.


Enjoyed this? Feel free to share with clients or with friends. Want to contribute yourself? Awesome! We want this platform to be as collaborative as possible.

If you have a thought piece you’d like to share, a project you want to showcase, an idea for an entry, a question you’d like to ask—whatever—please email rocket.apac@carat.com.

We look forward to opening your email.


Illustrations by Tam Le, Senior Strategy Manager, Carat APAC.

False Memories & What It Means to be Human

Tam Le is the Regional Strategy Senior Manager for Carat APAC.

To paraphrase neuroscientist and philosopher Sam Harris, allow me to describe a hypothetical situation that is both terrifying and likely to occur: implanting false memories for therapy. With the proliferation of VR, this seemingly sci-fi concept is quickly approaching reality.

5 – 7 minute read
10 minute existential reflection

We, as humans and as media professionals, have the ability to shape the future and create a world that we can come to terms with—one that is both virtual and real.

There are documented cases from the past few decades of therapists manipulating their patients’ memories in order to overcome psychological obstacles [1], but with the increasing quality and spread of virtual reality (VR), our ability to create realistic, false memories is greater than ever. “When you look at your brain under an fMRI, remembering and experiencing look very similar [2],” announced Google VR vice president Clay Bavor at Cannes this year, “You’ll be able to have an experience that’s so convincing, at times you won’t be able to tell whether you’re in virtual reality or real reality [3].”

With the increasing quality and spread of virtual reality (VR), our ability to create realistic, false memories is greater than ever.


Memory capture is currently one of the greater ambitions of VR; Bavor has experimented with creating a prototype camera for recording memories to replay in VR. “You can remember someone you love who might be far away or who you’ve lost,” he goes on to say, I’ve recorded…little fleeting moments: sitting with my grandmother in her home, having breakfast with my son. Here’s the thing: a few years from now, when my grandmother is gone, I’ll be able to sit with her. Twenty years from now, when my son is an adult, I’ll be able to put on some goggles and sit across the breakfast table from him as a little boy [2].”

“Twenty years from now, when my son is an adult, I’ll be able to put on some goggles and sit across the breakfast table from him as a little boy.”

-Google Virtual Reality Vice President Clay Bavor


Now what if those recorded memories were slightly altered?

What if we could replace your grandmother’s criticism of your wife with a compliment or insert a resolution to that fight you had with your son at the breakfast table? A reverse-Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind of sorts where instead of removing memories for therapeutic purposes, they are constructed or modified.

Etermal Sunshine.JPG

Our susceptibility to false memories and the effect they have on our subsequent actions have long been proven by scientists. In a study, researchers falsely suggested to half of their subjects that, in their childhoods, they became sick after eating spoiled peach yogurt. Two weeks later in a seemingly unrelated follow-up study that consisted of sampling various foods, those who were given the false memory ate about 25% less peach yogurt than the control group. This avoidance of peach yogurt was especially pronounced among the participants who now claimed that they could “remember” eating the spoiled yogurt as a child [1].

Similar to how we’ve always had the ability to get from point A to B, and cars just help get us to our destination faster, we’ve always had the ability to implant false memories into others, and now VR can help get us there faster.


Taking it one step further

But what if we were to take it one step further? What if we were to push the boundaries of ethics even more? Now this is where my thought experiment begins: what if we were to introduce brands?


How many brands do you use out of familiarity or because of association with positive memories? Do you drink Coke because it tastes better than Pepsi or do you drink it because you grew up drinking it and just seeing a red can takes you back to hot afternoons at the pool and late night pizzas with friends? What are brands willing to pay for nostalgia?

I imagine that, like all current forms of therapy, implanting false memories through VR simulations will not come cheap. What if brands were to subsidize the cost of memory therapy through “sponsorships”? Today freemium services are a way of life. Consumers understand that in exchange for free music streaming service from Spotify, they will have to listen to sponsored ads. If they choose to pay for a Spotify Premium subscription, the ads will disappear. What if this model could be applied to VR memories?

What are brands willing to pay for nostalgia?


Why does this make you feel uncomfortable?

At this point, you are probably feeling thoroughly uncomfortable and possibly slightly disgusted by my suggestions. I know I was when I first conceived it. I think this is because the idea of implanting false memories, even with the aim of improving lives, messes with our belief of what it means to be human. Our identities are based on our memories and experiences, but what will it mean if those memories and experiences are false?

Our identities are based on our memories and experiences, but what will it mean if those memories and experiences are false?

But then this brings us into the philosophical debate of what is true and what is false. Are all non-physical experiences not considered “real”? Are the emotions you’ve felt while reading novels not “real” because the story is fictional? Are the lessons you’ve learnt from watching movies not “real” because you did not physically experience them? Are all our digital memories imaginary? Does reading a hurtful comment about ourselves online hurt any less because it was not to our face, but on Facebook? Or does this feeling of uneasiness come from the deceit of a VR experience passing off as a memory of a physical encounter?

Are all non-physical experiences not considered “real”?

As we move into even more non-physical forms of communication and increased exposure to VR, we are going to have more memories of non-physical experiences—there’s no denying this. And regardless of whether we believe those to be true or false, we will retain memories of them and they will impact our future beliefs, attitudes, and actions. After all, our reality is merely our own personal construct of it. The question is now, how will society shift once everyone is walking around with heads full of fictional memories?

We are going to have more memories of non-physical experiences—there’s no denying this.


The scenarios written here raise a lot of questions, one of them being: why did I write this?  I created this thought experiment because this is an impending situation and we should consider the ethics of it before it is realized. VR is here. It will bring about unimaginable cases, the consequences of which we cannot predict from where we stand today. But we can begin to anticipate some emerging circumstances based on what we are already witnessing.

It has been proven that VR can affect or manipulate people’s experiences for days or years after they remove their headsets [4]. VR is already being tested to alleviate pain, phobia and depression. Memory alteration for therapeutic purposes already exists. So do brand sponsorships, integrations and product placement. It is only a matter of time before these worlds merge, and before that happens, we, as humans and as media professionals, have the ability to shape the future and create a world that we can come to terms with—one that is both virtual and real.



  1. Would it be ethical to implant false memories in therapy | BBC http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20161003-would-it-be-ethical-to-implant-false-memories-in-therapy
  2. Is virtual reality for our own memories such a great idea | The Daily Beast http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/05/is-virtual-reality-for-our-own-memories-really-such-a-great-idea.html
  3. Google at Cannes 2016- Adventures in virtual reality | JWT http://www.jwt.com/blog/opinion/google-at-cannes-2016-adventures-in-virtual-reality
  4. Misled Memories | Mashable http://mashable.com/2014/06/26/virtual-reality-memory

Searching for Marketing’s El Dorado

Clay Schouest is the Chief Strategy Officer of Carat APAC.
This was originally
presented at the Advertiser International Association 2016 conference in Beijing on 25 June.

The marketing world is chasing the dream of data, but in our pursuit, are we losing something equally important? And how will this affect our hiring policy?

5 – 7 minute read

El Dorado is an allegory. For those of you who may be unfamiliar, El Dorado is a legendary lost city, one overflowing with gold and precious stones in fabulous abundance. Over time, and creative interpretations, El Dorado has been used as a metaphor to represent the ultimate prize that one might spend one’s life seeking [1]—wealth, success, happiness, etc.

In Voltaire’s Candide, El Dorado represents an ideal society where everything is perfect—Paradise, you might say. The main character of the book commits his entire life to obsessively searching for the lost city, searching for Paradise.

Sadly El Dorado turns out to be only in his imagination—a place that does not and never will exist.

I’d like to spend a few minutes pondering what I believe to be our industry’s search for El Dorado: data, specifically the idea of data as the answer to all our dreams. We currently seem to have a myopic obsession with all things related to data.

The Fourth Industrial Revolution: the Digital Economy

We are entering the Fourth Industrial Revolution: the First powered our trains and the transportation industry with steam; the Second increased productivity through electricity; the Third revolutionised our world through computing; and now the Fourth is about new technologies that are fusing the physical, digital and biological worlds [2].

Our industry has never been more exciting. The fourth industrial revolution provides new means for better outputs and is impacting all disciplines, economies and industries—even challenging ideas about what it means to be human.

In marketing we often refer to the Fourth Industrial Revolution as the Digital Economy. By 2020 we prophesize our industry will be 100% digital and organised around data. China is leading the charge and will most likely be the first market to get there.

The Fourth Industrial Revolution is about new technologies that are fusing the physical, digital and biological worlds.

There are now more bytes of data left behind by our behavioural digital footprints than there are stars in the universe. To be exact, there are over 40 trillion terabytes of data and that number is growing every day. All this data represents the opportunity to get closer to consumers like never before, even predicting what they want before they know they want it. For example, AI technologies are now commonplace within our industry. We are using them to communicate, get to know our consumers and provide products and services based upon their interests.

We are now closing the gap between interaction and transaction. By 2020, all the media we consume, whatever the format, will link content with brand commerce. That is a brilliant thing for both business and consumers. As an industry, the ability to maximise ROI at the moment of receptivity with message and media makes our work more accountable. We know from studies that ROI improves up to 55% when we develop connected experiences that link content and commerce.

The future is bright; there is no denying that. One might say El Dorado is now within reach—or is it?

How this affects hiring policy

I can’t help but feel uneasy about how our industry is preparing for our bright future, and more specifically, the type of talent and capabilities we are hiring to help get us there. We seem to have an unbalanced hiring policy towards the talent that we recruit to realise our future vision. Our cumulative marketing brain talent pool has become lopsided—seemingly favouring the left, more analytical side, over the right, based on creativity and lateral thinking.

Why? That’s partly because it’s new and partly because people are coming to grips with how to manage, organise and classify data. In a recent survey of what keeps CMOs up at night “data” was cited as the #1 driver of how companies and organisations are structuring themselves. So it’s no surprise that when we look at LinkedIn, up to 70% of the new job postings from within the past year have “analytics” in the title or job description.

Our cumulative marketing brain talent pool has become lopsided—seemingly favouring the left, more analytical side, over the right, based on creativity and lateral thinking.

Are we headed in the wrong direction?

So here’s my point of controversy:

Today when I look around the industry, I see a bunch of organisations, clients and agencies who are convinced that data is their El Dorado. I believe data is a means not the end. The end is fundamentally about touching the human spirit, creating an emotional connection—that is what will fuel growth.

In fact, when you look at the top driver of business value, it is creativity, by far. Creativity contributes to business value far more than any other factor. Additionally, if you look at the skillsets required to succeed in the Fourth Industrial Revolution, as outlined by the World Economic Forum, creativity also tops that list [2]. The power of an idea is just as important as ever; that hasn’t changed. What has changed is the ability to design and amplify ideas in the digital economy.

So let’s make sure we develop and stimulate the right brain again. Let’s hire more creative minds to help deliver great ideas that fuel those data-led approaches. And when I say creative minds, I don’t mean creative in the traditional sense. I don’t mean copy editors; I mean lateral thinkers.

Data is a means not the end. Creativity contributes to business value far more than any other factor.

Let’s remember data is not our El Dorado. It is not the end goal. To truly succeed in the digital economy, we need data solutions that inspire more creativity. In order to realise that ambition, we need to attract and retain more creative thinkers, not just data analysts. Let’s think and plan for our long term future.

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Dorado
  2. The Fourth Industrial Revolution by Klaus Schwab

The Myth of the Lone Hero

A collaboration between Jude Koh and Tam Le.
Jude Koh is the Regional Strategy Associate Manager for Carat APAC.
Tam Le is the Regional Strategy Senior Manager for Carat APAC.

Forget everything you believe about the lone, genius inventor—more often than not innovative ideas are a result of a collaborative, cross-functional team. We can apply this insight to transform the way we work with our teammates, other DAN brands, our media partners and even our industry competitors.

5 – 7 minute read

Innovation is, more often than not, accomplished by a “dream team” rather than a “lone hero.”

There is just something so gratifying about watching the Avengers: the way individual superheroes come together, united by a common goal, to defeat a singular villain. In Captain America: Civil War, we saw how the combination of Hawkeye’s precision with an arrow and Ant Man’s miniscule size came together to short-circuit Iron Man’s suit. This is a great metaphor for the collaborative approach needed for innovating: combining different, specialized strengths to achieve greatness unachievable alone. Innovation is, more often than not, accomplished by a “dream team” rather than a “lone hero.”


There never was a lone hero.

Yet in our narratives about innovation, it’s often about a sole genius, a visionary so brilliant and ahead of their time: Elon Musk, Steve Jobs, Alexander Graham Bell and one of the most revered of all time—Thomas Edison. The man credited with inventing the phonograph, the motion picture camera and the light bulb actually surrounded himself with a team of strikingly diverse specialists (both in terms of professional expertise and nationality): a British mechanic, a Swiss machinist, an American physicist and mathematician, and about a dozen other draftsmen, chemists, and metalworkers. Together they formed a large-scale industrial research lab in Menlo Park, New Jersey nicknamed “the invention factory.”  As great of an inventor as Edison was, he recognized the greater power of a collaborative, cross-functional team [1].

Why should we care if Edison invented the lightbulb on his own or with the help of others? If we unmask the myth of the lone hero and instead recognize that innovation comes from a collaborative network, it affects how we cultivate ideas as a society: less rigid patent laws, cross-disciplinary teams, employee participation in stock plans, etc.

As great of an inventor as Edison was, he recognized the greater power of a collaborative, cross-functional team.

Today’s world of innovation is full of partnerships, even among competitors.

Today, we can see the effects of Edison’s Menlo Park; their organizational structure marked the beginning of cross-disciplinary teams and collaboration between different specialists. For example the early iPhone utilized the power of Google Search and Google Maps to create a truly superior mobile device. Recently, Facebook and Shopify collaborated to create an e-commerce service on Facebook Messenger, giving small businesses tools that were previously inaccessible. Similarly, Volvo and Uber are joining forces to develop driverless cars. This past September, tech giants Amazon, Facebook, Google, IBM and Microsoft came together to form Partnership on AI with the goal “to benefit people and society.”  These otherwise fierce rivals will regularly meet to conduct research and promote best practices. Outside the tech world, Joe Biden’s Cancer Moonshot is a multi-national collaboration of scientists and charities from both the public and private sector. These collaborations show an obvious need for companies and NGOs to offset their own weakness by leveraging the strength of others.


Collaboration in companies lead to real business results.

Innovation arises from collaborations, not only between companies, but within companies as well. In a Deloitte study among Australian companies [2], those that prioritize collaboration are twice as likely to be profitable and outgrow competitors. Collaboration actually increased work completion rate by 15%. Not to mention, 73% of the employees do better work and 56% are more satisfied when they get the opportunity to work together. Most importantly, 60% of employees are more innovative when collaborating. Clearly, working together towards a shared goal has a direct and measurable impact for both the business and its employees.

Companies that prioritize collaboration are twice as likely to be profitable and outgrow competitors.

For our own work, collaboration can come in many different forms.

Collaborate with Fellow Carat Members: When innovating, we should create teams of people with different strengths, skillsets, backgrounds and perspectives, instead of relying on a “lone hero” to come up with the ideas. In Carat APAC’s Regional Product team, we have specialists in the field of insights, strategy, digital and content. Like the Avengers, we work best as a team when each “superhero” keeps their ego in check and their minds open to new ways of working.

Collaborate with Other DAN Brands: Beyond Carat, the Dentsu Aegis Network (DAN) is comprised of specialist brands, all potential partners that we can leverage because of our one P&L model. When pitching for new business, our ability to seamlessly integrate capabilities from throughout the DAN network provides a competitive advantage over other agencies.

Collaborate with Our Media Partners: Furthermore, by continuously collaborating with our media partners, we have the opportunity to present our clients with some truly innovative options. A great example of this is the joint partnership between Carat China, Mondelēz and Tencent, China’s internet media giant with vast resources in IM, WeChat, gaming, mobile, music and video. This strategic partnership enables Carat’s client Mondelēz to fully leverage exclusive and beta products across Tencent’s ecosystem [3]. By collaborating with media partners, we can deliver business value and live up to our claim of “redefining media”.

Collaborate with Our Competitors: Additionally, taking a cue from Amazon, Facebook, Google, IBM and Microsoft’s Partnership on AI, there is an opportunity to set aside our self-pride and rivalry and work with other media agencies with the aim of bettering the industry.

We work best as a team when each “superhero” keeps their ego in check and their minds open to new ways of working.

By recognizing the strength of others, we face endless opportunities to collaborate, and in turn innovate, as that is a responsibility that does not rest on any one person’s shoulders alone.

  1. How We Got to Now: Six Innovations that Made the Modern World by Steven Johnson
  2. The Collaborative Economy | Deloitte. https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/au/Documents/Economics/deloitte-au-economics-collaborative-economy-google-170614.pdf
  3. Mondelez, Carat and Tencent form joint business partnership in China | Campaign http://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/mondelez-carat-tencent-form-joint-business-partnership-china/1371610

Shopify Facebook Messenger image courtesy of TechCrunch.

Marketing Myth: Loyalty Programs Lead to Large Revenue Growth

Tam Le is the Regional Strategy Senior Manager for Carat APAC.

The following article is the second in a series of what we’re calling “Marketing Myths.” There are a lot of misconceptions and “rules of marketing” out there that have been disproven over time by research. Each article in the series will focus on one marketing misconception, drawing largely on the work of Byron Sharp and the book How Brands Grow. Through the series, we hope to help you avoid these marketing myth pitfalls and make you stronger media professionals.

3 – 5 minute read

Since moving to Asia, I was proud to sign up for a Singapore Airlines KrisFlyer number. I couldn’t wait to be rewarded for my loyalty! But looking through my flight history, this sentiment feels like déjà vu. While in the U.S., it seems I’ve declared my loyalty for many airlines within the past two years alone. In no particular order, I am also a member of the following “loyalty” programs: United MileagePlus, American Airlines AAdvantage, Delta SkyMiles, Southwest Rapid Rewards, JetBlue TrueBlue, and even Spirit Airline’s FREE SPIRIT. What’s more, this list only covers the frequent flyer programs I’m enrolled in; it doesn’t even begin to cover all the carriers and airline alliances I’ve flown. It appears that I’m a philandering polygamist!



Of course, I’m not the only unfaithful consumer out there. In fact, consumers like me, heavy buyers of a category with low brand loyalty, are the most desirable consumers for loyalty programs. As high buyers of a category, we have more loyalty to give, and if a loyalty program could convince us to shift our spending, then the brand has much to gain. However, keep in mind, motivation for the consumer to be loyal to just one brand isn’t high as we will probably accumulate similar rewards with competitors.

Heavy buyers of a category with low brand loyalty, are the most desirable consumers for loyalty programs.

The remaining categories of consumers are unlikely to contribute to revenue growth for a company through loyalty programs:

Light Buyers of a Category, Low Level of Loyalty

A majority of consumers fall into this category—remember the amended 50-20 rule from last month’s Marketing Myth where it was found that the heaviest 20% of buyers contribute to about 50% of sales volume? Introducing a loyalty program will capture some of these consumers (because there are so many of them) and hopefully convert some of them into more loyal buyers of the brand.

However, it is difficult to change a consumer’s category purchase rate from low to high, and as low category buyers, they will most likely fail to accumulate enough points for rewards and eventually forget the program. For example, I have a membership card with the drugstore Watsons, so I try to purchase from them versus their competitors whenever I need to get something from the drugstore; however, there are only so many times in a month that I need to go to a drugstore. I’m not going to increase my purchases within the category just because I am enrolled in their loyalty program.

So even if a brand’s loyalty program wins over light buyers of a category, they are still light buyers. Therefore the value of this consumer segment comes from their sheer number which balances out their low purchasing rates.

Even if a brand’s loyalty program wins over light buyers of a category, they are still light buyers.

Light and Heavy Buyers of a Category, High Level of Loyalty

Consumers already-loyal to a brand are the ones who will most likely sign up for a loyalty program. First, they come into contact with the brand more often, so will have more opportunities to find out about a loyalty program. Second, because they purchase from the brand so often, they see their high likelihood of receiving rewards from such a loyalty program.

For consumers who are already brand loyal, there’s not much change that a loyalty program will evoke. These consumers can’t really purchase the brand any more than they already do, and they don’t need to change their behaviour in order to earn rewards. As a result, implementing a loyalty program will only reward already-loyal consumers without receiving increased revenues in return.

Implementing a loyalty program will only reward already-loyal consumers without receiving increased revenues in return.


Given the previous paragraphs, I think you would be surprised to hear that the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute actually found that loyalty programs result in a positive effect on loyalty—although it is a very small and weak effect. Despite this loyalty effect, it is too small to noticeably drive revenue growth, and given the costs of a loyalty program, the effect on profits is presumably negative.

The loyalty effect is too small to noticeably drive revenue growth, and given the costs of a loyalty program, the effect on profits is presumably negative.


After all of this, you may be wondering why any business would continue the costly endeavour of maintaining a loyalty program.

Firstly, these types of programs are tricky for a company to exit from. Consumers with lots of points do not take kindly to them being taken away.

Secondly, if used to their full advantage, loyalty programs can be used to build consumer databases. A robust database that charts consumers’ purchase history can be a powerful tool for personalized direct marketing. And once the database collects enough purchase history data of enough consumers, the data can be mined for insights like the infamous diapers and beer correlation.

Bottom line: if companies don’t expect their loyalty programs to drastically increase loyalty for their brand or stimulate any revenue growth, and instead viewed them as a method to build databases, then they won’t be disappointed by unrealistic expectations.

To read more Marketing Myths: https://rocketapac.wordpress.com/category/media-musings/marketing-myths.
Frequent Flyer credit card image courtesy of

You Don’t Have to Play the Game to Win It

Jude Koh is the Regional Associate Strategy Manager for CARAT APAC.

Advertisers are often engaged in highly competitive and bloody bidding wars for the “best” TV spot or search term. But are these costly slots actually a good investment? By more deeply understanding our audience and applying our knowledge of statistical distribution, we can more efficiently reach our target consumers and leave our competitors in the dust.

7 – 10 minute read



When Joseph Schooling won Singapore’s first Olympic gold medal this past summer, brands raced to Singaporean airwaves and television sets to be the first to congratulate him before announcing their own promotional Olympics offer [1]. However, in this race, there are no winners except for the media owners who received a sudden demand for their ad space.

schoolingpromosImage from Vulcan Post

Ad space can suddenly become a prized commodity during popular events. Speaking of the Olympics, this past summer, the most coveted spot went for $2 million in Australia [2]. And TV spots during the Super Bowl in the U.S. are notorious for their unbelievably high price tag: sometimes costing upwards of $5 million to air a 30-second commercial (remember that this doesn’t include agency or production costs) [3]. Singapore’s leading TV station, MediaCorp, charges a basic rate of $1,000 for a 30second ad which is compounded by a multiplier factor based on the popularity of the show, the ad position, and seasonality loading [4], sometimes reaching an upwards of $10,000 [5].

Events like the Olympics or primetime TV promise a huge reach which creates intense competition among brands: each trying to outspend the other in order to get the “best” spot. The same can be observed in paid social and paid search; brands are all competing for the same top audience on Facebook or top position in AdWords.

But are there tangible returns for such a huge investment? Not for McDonald’s. The fast food franchise made a huge investment in a spot during the 2015 Super Bowl. Following the event, their store sales went down by 4% that month and 2.6% for the entire first quarter of the year [6]. A separate study across 13 brands in different industries found that well-established brands did not actually benefit from any form of Super Bowl advertising [7].

Clearly, the high price of chasing massive reach does not necessarily pay off for brands. This highly competitive habit of outspending the competition to gain the most coveted spot is like a red ocean of sharks gutting each other over the same prey.

This experience of sharks fighting over the same prey is also similar to ads fighting for our attention by cluttering our screens.

In one hour of primetime TV, on average 15 minutes are actually dedicated to emotional ads about shampoo, cars, and insurance. There is also no relief when we turn to our phones as ads bombard our Facebook and Instagram feeds. On YouTube, we are forced to endure one minute of an unskippable ad before we can watch a 30-second Marvel movie trailer. Instead of informing us, ads are suffocating us and using up our precious data limit.



I do not intend to buy a car in the foreseeable future, yet I am constantly served car ads. There is a huge disparity between the consumer and the brand which is the reason for low returns on high media investments. The message falls short of what the consumers want.

Nike recognised this and decided not to be a part of the 1996 Atlanta Olympics clutter of ads [8]. Instead, they sponsored runner Michael Johnson by providing him with a $30,000 pair of gold-coloured racing spikes. After he won, Johnson appeared on the cover of Time Magazine with the same pair of golden shoes strung around his neck. His nickname, “The Man with the Golden Shoes”, cemented Nike’s role in his achievement [9]. The brand showcased their product’s performance to a massive audience without spending the $50 million Reebok did to be an official Olympics sponsor that year.


Image from Time Magazine

Again Nike created an uncontested marketspace during the 2010 World Cup using a similar principle [10]. Because Adidas was the official sponsor, Nike had to get creative—they found different ways and different channels to engage their audience. The brand understood that the beauty of football lies in its unpredictability, a topic that leads to much social conversation. So they created an emotional three-minute video called “Write the Future” which captured how quickly a game can swing between exhilaration and devastation for a team and its fans. The video was released on Facebook and Nike’s followers doubled in less than a week, all driven by the desire to see and share the ad. Furthermore, Nike created engagement opportunities by allowing fans to edit the ad and write their own versions of the future. The brand drove even more engagement by taking popular headlines written by fans on Twitter and Facebook and showcasing them in a massive LED lightshow on Johannesburg’s fourth largest building. The lightshow was visible from 2.5 kilometres away, gathering massive hype around the surrounding area. Although they could not advertise during the televised games because Adidas was the official sponsor, Nike went around the competition by running spots on shows airing at the same time and on soccer matches prior to the start of the World Cup. Their deep understanding of consumers and avoidance of the competition led to massive results: “Write the Future” was viewed by over 20 million people online within five weeks of its debut and Nike enjoyed more than double the share of World Cup buzz than Adidas. Success came from removing oneself from a highly competitive arena and instead, creating engagement opportunities with fans through a passionate narrative.


Image from football-marketing.com

After realising the low returns on investing in the 2015 Super Bowl, McDonald’s pulled out the following year [6]. Instead, they focused on creating meaningful conversations with consumers. Social media served as a platform for consumers’ feedback and news about their latest, revamped menu. This revenue-generating tactic helped McDonald’s overturn a bad quarter and achieve their best annual earnings yet. By avoiding the competition and engaging potential consumers, McDonald’s rebounded from a bad quarter and performed better than ever.

Nike and McDonald’s had created their own blue oceans—uncontested market spaces. A blue ocean strategy is about finding opportunities and creating and capturing new demand. Nike and McDonald’s, though they sell products with mass appeal and achieved high reach, communicated in a personal way that appealed to a diverse set of consumers.



The long tail is a statistical term used to describe the type of distribution seen below:


Let’s say this long tail distribution is being applied to SEO; similar to what we saw in the fight for primetime television slots, there is high competition for popular key search terms in the head, creating a red ocean. However, when we look at the long tail, we see a blue ocean: overall, there is a sizeable amount of search volume with lower competition and higher conversion rates. And today, technology makes it easier to cater to the long tail.

This advantage was fully made used of by Obama’s campaign team during 2 of his elections.  They are known of running a highly sophisticated digital campaign and by precise targeting of undecided voters [11]. Finding these undecided voters was challenging, so they used statistical analytics supported by technology to go beyond traditional demographic based targeting based, and instead microtargeted voters [12]. This technique involves sampling a group of undecided voters through surveys, layered on data mined from digital platforms to create statistical models. These models predicted different types of voters and their individual hot button issues.

Microtargeting helped the campaign team refine their targeting of the undecided voters and serve messages that pulled at their heartstrings. For example, the campaign team discovered that there were some female voters who agreed with most Republican stances except when it came to the issues of equal pay and women’s health. However, those voters were only 20-40% likely to vote for Obama. To win them over, the team tailored their message to inform these women about Obama’s proposed policies on equal pay and women’s health [11].


Image from girltalkhq.com

The campaign team became more efficient in their communication efforts with microtargeting. Specific messages were broadcasted on niche TV networks and programs, avoiding the big networks and primetime slots [13]. They identified the cost per dollar of persuading a voter by building models that marry detailed information about a voter’s viewing habits and their political leanings. This superb efficiency helped Obama beat an extremely well-financed opposition in the 2012 election.

Nike, McDonald’s, and Obama’s campaign team understood the need to move away from the overcrowded red ocean and focus on new opportunities in their own blue ocean. Nike shied away from the obvious mass reach sponsorship tactic, and instead, created meaningful stories across different touchpoints. McDonald’s built relationships with their consumers by listening to them on social media.

Targeting the long tail is about becoming more relevant to the vast majority who are more varied in interest and preference, otherwise not reached by an approach tailored for the “head”. Technology enables us to do this with greater efficiency and accuracy, as seen in the Obama campaign’s use of statistical models to microtarget. To fully take advantage of this, brands need to know the nuances of who they want and how to reach them.



Competing in the red ocean is an exhausting, vicious cycle of winning and losing. Creating a blue ocean allows for more sustainability. The long tail will provide an almost infinite opportunity for brands. With developments in analytics, it is now easier to understand these consumers with precision. Advances in technology also creates more ways to reach consumers. There is no longer a need for us to compete over the top ad spot just to gain mass reach. We can now target more efficiently by creating models of potential consumers, engaging them with relevant messages through different platforms, measuring the outcome, and optimising for future campaigns—all with scale and precision.



  1. Companies race to honour Joseph Schooling | Straits Times
  2. Local brands spend millions on ad campaigns during the great Aussie medal hunt | News.com.au
  3. Why Some Top Companies Decided Super Bowl Ads Aren’t Worth It | The Huffington Post
  4. Mediacorp 2016 Advertising Rate Book for Channel 5, Channel 8, and Channel U
  5. Based on internal survey of media planners and buyer in Carat Singapore
  6. Not Advertising In The Super Bowl…McBrilliant | Forbes
  7. Russell, M. G., & Et Al (2003). Brand Perceptions of TV Commercials During Super Bowl XXXVIII. ResearchGate
  8. How Nike Brilliantly Ruined Olympic Marketing Forever | ADWEEK
  9. Michael Johnson’s legendary gold Nike shoes at Atlanta 96 almost never existed | Dailymail UK
  10. The World Cup Brand Winner: Adidas or Nike? | HBR
  11. How Obama’s Team Used Big Data to Rally Voters | Technology Review
  12. They Know Who You’re Voting For: How Big Data Redefines Political Campaigns’ Microtargeting | Data Informed
  13. Secret of the Obama Victory? Rerun Watchers, for One Thing | New York Times