Sometimes change happens so dramatically and swiftly, that even as you’re watching it, you can’t register its impact.

In the not-so-distant past I’ve talked about all media becoming local. But we’re quickly skipping over local, right to personalized. Rapid development cycles in technology have created hyper-targeting. There are not retina scanners, a la “Minority Report” – YET. But we’re awfully close.

Some evidence:

- Google got in trouble last week when it surreptitiously installed tracking tags via Internet Explorer and Safari. In other words, if you use Apple’s browser and you did so, thinking your web habits weren’t being followed, think again. They were. And by the biggest ad network in the world.

- Speaking of Google, later this year, they will start selling eyeglasses that project information, entertainment and, yes, advertisements on the lenses. There will be facial recognition. There will be GPS tracking. Eyeglasses powered with Android software.

- iAds lowered its minimum investment from $1,000,000 to $500,000 and, this week, to $100,000. Why? Look at Facebook’s success with local, long-tail advertisers’ ability to target.

- New York Times ran a story this past weekend about some data wonk at Target developing algorithms, based on purchase behavior, to determine just how pregnant a customer might be. The father of a teen girl came to the store, incensed she was receiving coupons for pregnancy items. He came back later to apologize. His daughter hadn’t yet disclosed her impending arrival.

- Articles in Ad Age used to be primarily about large marketers grappling with reach mediums in an environment lacking transparency. (Think TV upfront). Last week there was an article about a Belgian beer company attributing $50 million in sales to Facebook. They committed more dollars to social media and promotional marketing.

- Mobile is a rapidly growing ad medium. Its reach exceeds that of television at 104% HH penetration. However, its GPS, geo-targeting technology, behavioral targeting and direct-response mechanisms, like click-to-call, are better suited for individualized messaging.

What this will mean for media agencies and clients is really a whole new business model. More time spent in research and education. More time spent developing mathematical algorithms. More time in strategic planning and research. More thought work, period. This will be a difficult model to sustain if compensation continues to be based on a percentage of spend, which is better suited for executional services.

I’ve begun putting startup businesses into two growth-strategy buckets.

The first is through building a product or service, which is private-labeled and distributed under another brand. Think: monster.com, whose recent growth strategy was to serve as an engine for other publishers.

The second, and more costly, is through developing a unique brand position and building that brand. Think: Keurig, which is a brand, serving as a platform for increased coffee sales.

For this discussion, I’m going to define “brand” as a business’ personality. What attributes makes it different, unique or compelling to its customers? I believe branding is a communicated position, by which consumers can define the business. Apple, for instance, is about a physically attractive technology experience.

When I think about technology companies, the most successful ones have set aside resources to build their own brands. For example, Google, Apple and Facebook. At some point those companies asked and answered a compelling question: Am I a technology company providing a consumer service? Or am I a consumer service brand, underpinned by technology?

Similar questions must be asked by any small business. Am I a brand or am I goods or services, agnostic to distribution? It can be tricky to know at what point in the company’s growth that question must be answered. And it’s even trickier to invest in brand building before the business’ adolescence. But if a business doesn’t think about its own brand early on, it’s at risk of cannibalization by a company that did.

“Progress is man’s ability to complicate simplicity” – Thor Heyerdahl.

In this age of botox, “non-surgical” cosmetic surgery and DNA manipulation what if “imperfect” is the new sexy?

Album sales were up in 2011 for the first time since 2004, driven in a small part by an increase in vinyl purchases. Apparently music purists love the warm sound of their favorite artist that only vinyl can emit. Dave Grohl, of the Foo Fighters, recorded his last album in a garage, intentionally, for the small, happy, human imperfections that space creates.

Media has traditionally been a one-way conversation, with the creative manifestation of the message delivered by perfectly stereotypical actors in flawless settings. But look how much attention the Dove “real women” campaign generated.

Lorne Michaels, creator of Saturday Night Live, doesn’t want the show’s performers to break character. But, come on, admit it, it’s kinda fun when they do crack up, on live TV.

Although one could argue this is a more appropriate discussion for the branding and creative team, I’d contend it’s OK for the media team to think “happy accident.” Like when we get a last-minute media pitch, without time for ROI calculations, but it just “feels” right. It takes a brave client to invest cold, hard cash on instinct.

Social media campaigns sometimes must pass legal, c-executive and board approval and by the time every stakeholder has expressed his risk concern, the ability to be creative, funny, happily imperfect, has passed.

Digital media agencies are built on mathematical geniuses, analyzing, optimizing and creating nearly perfect- performing campaigns. We love presenting those campaigns to the CFO, because we can show return. But, sigh, sometimes we just want to play that Beatles album where you can hear John laughing in the background.

I learned very quickly, furniture shopping, there is a real difference between price and cost. The price of the sofa was attractive; not so much the cost, when, six months later the cushions sagged and fabric faded.

As media strategists, we quite often are asked, “What does it cost?” That answer is actually quite longer than time generally allows. Sort of like asking a local sports radio station, “How did the Patriots do Sunday?”

One standard consideration unit is CPM, or cost per thousand. Perhaps we’ll rename that to PPM, or Price Per Thousand. Local media ranges from $.50 CPM (online) to $45 CPM (print). That’s the price. But the cost is dependent on audience qualitative & audience scale necessary for the product being sold, along with other ROI factors. If you need tens of thousands of customers in foot traffic, it’s really hard to achieve that with a $.50 CPM online banner campaign.

Another example: We’re often faced with a choice between two different TV spots, both in the same prime daypart, one with a higher cost per point (CPP) than the other. And our selection, sometimes, is the higher CPP. Why? Well, we know which one is priced better. But which one actually costs more? That depends on the client’s appetite for preemption; the qualitative of the audience; the age and gender composition of the audience; the amount of spots in the break; the content environment; the likelihood of DVR against each program, etc.

Like any good relationship, determining cost requires communication. Your agency should ask a lot of followup questions, when you ask “What does it cost?” Otherwise, the conversation devolves to “What’s its price” and you risk a race to the bottom.

I was a huge fan of Candid Camera. It’s deliciously silly & voyeuristic, watching people in unexpected situations. One episode had people standing outside a building, picketing, holding white signs with the word “protest.” Nothing else. They would ask passers-by to march with them, against some unknown complaint, and a surprising number of folks agreed. Those in on the prank had determined, irritated looks on their faces and marched intently. The Candid Camera “marks” looked befuddled.. One of the innocent participants never asked why they were marching, but did have one burning question: “Do we have to march in such a tight circle?”

Kind of like “Occupy.” Everything that’s good and challenging about social media can be summed up in “Occupy.”

The good? Huge groups of people can be mobilized quickly, from tweets no more than 140 characters. The challenge? Why are they marching?

The Occupy movement is a reflecting pool. Whatever ticks you off today is its meaning. It’s a rally against: Wall Street greed and deregulation; job outsourcing; diminishment of unions; high cost of health insurance; university president salaries; corporatization of farms; animal abuse; environmental abuse; foreclosure practices; shrinking middle class. I’m quite confident I’ve forgotten one or two others.

[Video: Occupy Boston Day 3]

Personally, I can get behind at least one of those complaints. But here’s the problem - I’m too damned pragmatic to protest solely for an opportunity to vent. I actually want something to happen. And that’s what makes social media so challenging. How do you put together a platform, a mantra, a focused list of demands? That will require old-school planning, discussion and vision. Which will take a slight bit more deliberation than the rapid dissemination of messaging that social media fosters.

It will be interesting to see how this movement evolves.

I guess not everything in business can be solved with football analogies. I won’t let that stop me.

My alma mater, LSU, hosted a scandal early this season when its starting quarterback, Jordan Jefferson, was arrested for involvement in a barroom brawl. He and other team members broke curfew, apparently a 40-year tradition this particular night. They enjoyed a few adult beverages at the local watering hole, Shady’s. Yep, that’s really the name. A brawl ensued in the wee morning hours. When the dust settled there remained a head-injury victim and an investigation of Jefferson’s 33 pairs of sneakers.

Several weeks later, with a misdemeanor charge and even as the backup quarterback was winning games, Jefferson was reinstated. His appearance in the stadium was met with boos.

Later that night a lively dinner conversation among family and friends ensued. The attorney at the table made arguments as to Jefferson’s misdemeanor charge, the alleged victim being rather infamous locally and the strength of the team with a 2-quarterback strategy. The social worker at the table wondered about the message his reinstatement sent to the other players, about Jefferson’s roles in previous fights and even about whether this was life skill/lesson-learning for Jefferson himself.

The thing is, they’re both right.

Or both wrong.

It depends on what you want to happen.

Is the university’s mission statement to win games and drive revenue? Or is the university’s mission statement to produce responsible adults, and drive a better society? Can it accomplish both? The former mission is an easier, faster decision; the latter a much slower bake with non-immediate results. Will the university have the patience and courage for a tougher decision?

As difficult as that question is to answer, we find ourselves and clients quite often in the same dilemma. What is it we hope to happen? What are we willing to sacrifice to get there? Do we have the patience for the slower bake?

The biggest questions are too often the most difficult to address and the last, if ever, answered.

I read this week that since June of 2009, women have lost 218,000 jobs while men have actually gained 768,000 jobs. Which made me think of the extinct secretarial pool, which made me realize why Facebook is so good but just so damn hard.

Let’s just accept that marketers must embrace social media, and since Facebook is the largest social media portal, by far, marketers must be in the game. The profile targeting of Facebook advertising is seductive. The recent added tools of real-time targeting, where ads appear against terms as they are posted on users’ status updates; and the imminent integration of Skype and community chat will make the Facebook experience even more robust AND more attractive to advertisers.

We’re talking over 500 million users, half of whom log in daily. This is THEIR small-town, town hall and they need to know all the latest news. So marketers must think of Facebook as different from any type of marketing they’ve done in the past. It’s intimate, it can expose ugly truths and be nasty, it can tick you off, melt your heart and coax you to tears. And I’m talking in a commercial space. I’m saying this because the first rule of Facebook is that it’s as much a listening tool as a speaking tool. Even when you’re speaking, it needs to be an intimate voice. Not a broadcast announcer.

That approach takes talent. It takes subtlety, it takes time. But businesses now live in an automated world, with little subtlety and certainly minimal time. When was the last time anyone nurtured an SEO campaign? Many banner campaigns are worked on trading desks, with automated, real-time bidding. We outsource services to India. Executives now handle their own administrative tasks.

The thing is, managing Facebook is, for a marketer, like hiring a secretary. You want a community manager with social and organizational skills, with genuine enthusiasm for your brand; with the time to organize a company party on a shoestring budget and do it well.

But the thing is, nobody hires a secretary anymore.

Forrester Research says companies must now be “customer obsessed” due to the disruptive power of technology-enabled consumers. It’s a simple laundry list of consumer needs, according to Forrester, that looks something like this:

• I want my stuff faster
• I want it better & cheaper
• I demand customer service, to a high degree
• I want transparency and technology-enabled information about your product

According to Forrester, previous sources of competitive dominance, like brand advertising, distribution and manufacturing, are now just “table stakes.”

I’m curious how marketers will respond in the corresponding environment of:

• Decreasing customer service talent
• Product commoditization causing decreasing margins to pay for said customer service talent
• Several generations of “me-llennials,” responsible for replacing the boomer talent pool.
• Increasing costs in transportation and health-care

If we think of this scenario in terms of a line chart, where the X axis is “consumer demands” and the Y axis is “company response tools” are we headed for a flatline?

As a consumer and small agency, I love the idea that companies must realize they are not talking to consumers anymore. They are wooing consumers and nurturing a healthy relationship. Companies must be nimble, able to react to consumer demand quickly; they must provide consumers with the information they want, when they want it, in an engaging manner.

Easier said than done. If companies are obliged to put resources behind engaging and mutually satisfying customer experiences (like mobile apps, social media, associate training and incentivization) in a market that is evolving exponentially fast, then consumers may need to understand their stuff may come better & faster, but it won’t come cheap.

Best Laid Plans of Mice and Men

As much as this sounds like false logic, I foresee the end of planning.

Here are some clues:

•Geo-locator services like 4-square lead to “planned serendipity.” Why make social plans, when you can log on and see who’s in your area? Then you can make a spontaneous decision whether to play or not. I’m part Baby Boomer and Gen X, so I’m not completely comfortable with this, but ask any 20 year old.

•Planned obsolescence is accelerating. Owning a cell phone, laptop or even washing machine longer than two years is becoming a rarity. Lenovo no longer makes a battery for my two-year old laptop. The cost of repair for most appliances is half the cost of a new one. Because of the rapid rate of technology change, there exists a status of diminishing manufacturing sources & shortages. “Fast-cycle” products = accelerated obsolescence.

•Some of the most efficient online inventory we purchase cannot be planned. We put a budget into an account, and draw it down as needed. For example, search terms, pay-per-click (PPC) inventory, behavioral targeting and cost per acquisition (CPA) inventory is bought with algorithms having to do with price bids and relevance. We don’t know in advance how many ad serves we’ll obtain. In traditional, planned, media, we pay for the placement, not its relevance to the audience.

•Then there’s the interesting employment status of many middle agers, who are finding themselves suddenly in a professional existential crisis. Their job is obsolete, and they’re stuck wondering “what’s my next act?” As quickly as technology is evolving, its impact on employment, and the evolution of business models, cannot be ignored. Thirty years ago Dolly Parton and Jane Fonda, in the movie “Nine to Five,” worked in a secretarial pool.

•In terms of the economy, credit is tight. So for many businesses, including retail, there’s a “pay as you go” environment, making it tricky to speculatively stock inventory, hire or plan an appropriate advertising budget.

If there is no planning, I guess we, media agencies, simply plan for the unplanned. We must work smarter, efficient, fast. In other words, as an agency, we stay nimble. But here’s the catch, are advertisers ready to change protocol, streamline decision-making and move fast too?

If 2010 is the year of optimizing media, 2011 will be the year of optimizing data.

There now exists a newlywed marriage of cookie technology with machine-learn modeling so that our online preferences are tracked , bucketed and sold. (audience targeting) There exist publishers and advertisers and a whole motherload of complicated frienemies in-between, trying to help you sell goods to people looking to buy your goods. Only the motherload of frienemies, with overlapping services, creates – God bless America – good old-fashioned competition, driving down costs, and squeezing margins. This is good news and bad.

The good is that advertisers can execute, track and optimize campaigns, proving ROI. The bad is that if publishers, agencies and third-party facilitators can’t make money, the web will not grow to scale needed by many.

Some other industry futuristic musings:

-Eventually, the online media industry’s transparency will equal that which it demands from consumers. Joe American’s IP address discloses his web preferences to a scary degree, but some ad networks still won’t divulge its list of publishers, obstensively because the publishers don’t want media buyers knowing how low their CPMs will really go.

- Data management will become the apex of any marketing team. Analyzing and overlaying in-house customer database with social media “friends” with purchased acquisitional lists with conversion lists and retargeting lists – both online and offline will be crucial because…

- Ad creative won’t be so much about a fully-baked iteration as assets, which can be combined in myriad combinations, dynamically, to serve the right ad at the right time to the right recipient.

- And if we can keep margins profitable, if we can consolidate all those in-betweeners, if we can develop smart industry protocol, then online media targeting won’t just be online anymore. (Think Google TV’s debut.)