<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Where Have All The Planners Gone?</title>
	<atom:link href="https://bja.igloo1.com/blog/where-have-all-the-planners-gone/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://bja.igloo1.com/blog/where-have-all-the-planners-gone/</link>
	<description>from BJ&#38;A</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Jul 2016 12:01:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.38</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eduardo Salazar</title>
		<link>https://bja.igloo1.com/blog/where-have-all-the-planners-gone/#comment-128427</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Eduardo Salazar]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Apr 2016 09:45:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bjanda.com/blog/?p=751#comment-128427</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Think Brian that despite judgement playing a significant part in planning (irrespective of the basis for making that judgement, whether it&#039;s data driven, stars driven or what not) there has been an undue agency pressure to weight the decision to use X or Y media rather than Z on the basis of whether X or Y deliver a higher margin than Z. So over time recommendations have become increasingly less media-neutral (it has never been completely media-neutral, as I think you know... but that&#039;s a consequence of exerting your &quot;judgement&quot;) and that, of course, has eroded much of the basis of proper media planning work. The weight of evidence (from multiple sources) any good planner uses to make his/her call has been supplanted by &quot;business imperatives.&quot; As you say, we&#039;ll see. On the other hand, thinking technology will provide much of that lost &quot;neutrality&quot; might be easier said than done... just think of the feathers ruffled by Google&#039;s multi-analytics-agency work on the effectiveness of YouTube videos. That&#039;s &quot;technology&quot; at work. Neutrally? Well...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Think Brian that despite judgement playing a significant part in planning (irrespective of the basis for making that judgement, whether it&#8217;s data driven, stars driven or what not) there has been an undue agency pressure to weight the decision to use X or Y media rather than Z on the basis of whether X or Y deliver a higher margin than Z. So over time recommendations have become increasingly less media-neutral (it has never been completely media-neutral, as I think you know&#8230; but that&#8217;s a consequence of exerting your &#8220;judgement&#8221;) and that, of course, has eroded much of the basis of proper media planning work. The weight of evidence (from multiple sources) any good planner uses to make his/her call has been supplanted by &#8220;business imperatives.&#8221; As you say, we&#8217;ll see. On the other hand, thinking technology will provide much of that lost &#8220;neutrality&#8221; might be easier said than done&#8230; just think of the feathers ruffled by Google&#8217;s multi-analytics-agency work on the effectiveness of YouTube videos. That&#8217;s &#8220;technology&#8221; at work. Neutrally? Well&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
