Following on the heels of Boone Oakley’s YouTube website, is the Argentinian agency Kamchatka, with their agency website listed as a series of Twitter accounts.
Kamchatka Site Demo from Kamchatka on Vimeo.
It’s an interesting idea, but might be a little too convoluted for users. Time will tell!
Via: Biz Report
Recently, I’ve come across some articles about the ad industry having a sort of midlife-crisis. This is an interesting notion, as this would premise that advertising as such has a natural life that has to come to an end at some point. And after so many people already having screamed “Advertising is dead,” I am now confused it isn’t. It’s just a mid-life crisis? Folks, get our vital signs right! Also, to follow the metaphor, what exactly is the proverbial “Porsche” in Advertising’s “mid-life crisis”?
Joking aside, just 2 weeks ago Germany’s Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung painted a critical picture of the industry and mentioned that ad professionals have hard time reinventing themselves and their business model.
Just like a balding 45 year old in a track-suit with disposable income looking for a souped-up convertible to feel better about himself, advertising lacks purpose.
Today, I read Warren Berger’s take on the Bogusky situation “Maybe the Midlife Crisis Isn’t Bogusky’s?“. Being American and a bit less cynical that his German counterpart, and using the crisis as an opportunity, Warren states that agency professionals (just like Bogusky, but without the massive payout) have been looking for deeper social meaning and context for their work ever since digital technologies have put public opinion (and advertising itself) in the hands of the people. But more interestingly, Berger also makes some nice observations that in fact remind us what the real story is:
The second part of the story suggests to me that some client companies are perhaps still a bit thin-skinned when it comes to having any kind of candid discussion about serious issues. Which in turn suggests that these companies are living in the past — in a pre-social networking era when they could actually still control the public debate.
Ok. To anyone working in an ad agency, this is a pretty shared (even though somewhat of a subjective) sentiment; still, thanks for saying it on Adweek, Warren! And, by the way, this answers my previous question of what the “Porsche” is in the “advertising mid-life crisis”: Affording yourself the irresponsible, ineffective and inefficient luxury of lolly-gagging around when it comes to changing your business model, dragging your heels on changing your creative product and pretending you still live in a brand era. However, I would say this is still true for clients and agencies alike. Dependency on short-term quarterly planning, lack of deeply thought-out foresight and interupted implementation of long-term vision apparently makes it hard to think about a more efficient, unsexy hybrid car when you can still afford the 911. You won’t be able to afford the gas in a couple of years, but hey, »Après nous le déluge«.
Hence, Warren continues to point out that the ad agency’s deliverables should change: product design, launching community initiatives, revising corporate policies, etc.
Or, as we would tell our clients: We want to help you doing things, instead of just saying things. Things that create value exchange, not messaging.
For that to happen though, the role and creative product of agencies have to change. And right now, it’s a a bit of a chicken or egg problem: a) Agency leaders have to really put their money where their mouth is, and enable their shops to actually deliver a creative product that does things with people and instead of milking a defunct business model of creating messages, while b) clients have to become more confident in matters of understanding true human behavior and consequently need to start paying their agency partners for creating purpose-driven initiatives that create a qualitative difference in people’s lives. Result of this catch-22: if agencies don’t offer it, clients can’t buy it. If clients don’t buy it, agencies can’t build those competencies.
So instead of wondering what’s first, chicken or egg, all parties should focus on the chick everyone has been talking about hatching: people-driven brands that have a human purpose, not a promise. Experiences that are authentic, not tagged-on target-audience sentiments that muddy a brand’s expression more than enable a true value exchange. If both clients and agencies came together on this simple observation, Warren’s finishing paragraph would actually not be that utopian:
It might even allow the ad agency to claim some of the moral high ground as it plays a greater role in guiding companies to do the right thing — not just for themselves, but also for the world at large. Is that an overly ambitious and idealistic vision of the future of ad agencies? Maybe. But hey, when you’re having a midlife crisis, you’re allowed to dream big.
Damn right you are. It’s what you signed up for.
In fact, there are enough examples of behavior-based and purpose-driven brands out there that show it’s not utopian to steer clear of a type of cookie-cutter advertising that is either crass exhibitionsm or bland commercialism or teary-eyed sentimentalism, but rather enable human behavior in a way that works for brands and people alike.
In their article Does Social Media Change Your Agency Relationships? I think the author missed the point.
The article (but more specifically several comments to the article) opines that marketers might need to bring aspects of social media marketing in-house because the agency’s role is to ’spin a marketing message’.
Really? How old-fashioned is that? Is this the 50’s? Is this Mad Men?
I’d agree that the emergence of social media changes relationships, but to say it’s about whether or not your Advertising Agency is involved is to miss the larger change. Wouldn’t we have to agree as an industry that social media has changed how COMPANIES can/should/must operate? Not just Agencies, not just Brand Marketers, not just Customer Care and not just PR folks. Ultimately, the smartest marketers and agencies understand that Social is not a channel or even just a strategy, but a reality about how humans live their lives, and sometimes that reality includes Brands. That’s not to say that Brands have to participate in conversations - they don’t. But realistically the conversation may happen with or without the Brand being a part of it, and therefore a chance missed to make a connection that is fundamentally different from a TV spot. Social conversation is building relationships and co-creating with consumers, and, for better or worse, it’s a central experience for consumers now.
Brands need more than a strategy and process for what they want to do in Social. They need partners to bring their values and benefits to life in the space, and processes built by students of Human Behavior to monitor, moderate, and participate in ways that grow and deepen relationships that people have with the Brands that they love.
But don’t get me wrong - the Brand Marketer (or the agency for that matter) that thinks they don’t have to change as well is in for a long, tough road. In order for successful engagement to be built, the processes of vetting, judging, guiding and responding require commitment and organizational change from both sides of the Marketer-Agency relationship. For one thing, the old model of “take a few weeks to nail the statement and then we’ll run it by legal” doesn’t work when you have to react in real-time. For another, the demands of an active community can seem like a new call center just opened up for Customer Service folks - it’s always on and they have a lot of questions!
I see it as 5 steps, with mostly shared activities:
1. Agency(s) and Brand set the strategy, including input from all concerned parties like PR, Consumer Affairs Brand and Senior Management.
2. The right channel, tools and voice(s) are chosen for each aspect to be participated in, and content creation loops are realized. Smart partner selection rounds out this step.
3. Guidelines are set that push for flawless execution through whatever delivery channels.
4. Metrics are implemented to ensure responsible and efficient use of resources (proving out the business case for the investment).
5. Partners are leveraged to keep up with new opportunities, changes and innovations as they emerge.
The strain on Marketer’s organizations to deal with Social Media is enough without telling them to go it alone. Why not share the load with your partners?
