The Elephant in the Integrated Room

Danny G has an interesting piece on TalentZoo that kind of re-sparked some thoughts that I've been having a lot lately about how we're all handling this integration thing.  During the course of a typical day, I probably have four or five conversations about integration, as it relates to advertising -- or sometimes, media in general. 

In our industry, we perceive two sides of the integration fence.  But truth is, there are many.  The most obvious ones to us are traditional agencies who want to become more digital -- who solve that any number of ways -- and digital agencies who either want a bigger share of the overall marketing pie, or who want more credit for the stuff they come up with.  In the tech world, where they're (a little) less concerned about the development of marketing messages, there's lively debate on delivery options, connectivity, integration of platforms, and, of course, the relative usefulness, and frequent downtime of Twitter. 

Those are integration discussions, too -- because they deal with the integration or adoption of new technologies into the real world.  And that, to me, is both the essence of the agency debates, as well as the big, fat elephant sitting in the room that no one bothers to talk about much.

Because how this stuff integrates into the lives of real people is, really, the only thing that matters.

The talk for some time around agencies is about how consumers (users, people) are now in control.  News flash:  They've always been in control.  You just didn't notice it as much, because they didn't have as many ways to express their displeasure or acceptance, and the ways they had were nowhere as far reaching or immediate.  They are now.  Which means, if you're used to putting out drivel, you'll get called on it much quicker.  If you're putting out stuff that's appealing, you'll see faster acceptance.

Discussion about integration too frequently centers on what the other integrating party needs to do to make it happen.  Traditional marketers think that if the digital set would just think more about the big idea, they'd be better off.  Digital folks think that the traditionals need to finally get on Facebook and Twitter, and try to keep up.  Both are right, and both miss the bigger point.

New technology has enabled human interaction to happen through new conduits.  But it hasn't changed the essence of that interaction one bit.  Dig deeper through the delivery mechanisms and the pithy headline-visual combos, and you'll find, if you're smart, that we as marketers are simply surrogates for our clients in a great big room full of regular people, and we're just trying to be noticed and liked. 

My seven-year-old doesn't think about the mechanics of how he interacts with Sponge Bob.  Sometimes it's with a mouse, other times it's with a DVD remote.  They're different to him, to be sure, but what ultimately matters is that Sponge Bob (and, well, Patrick) crack him up.  Nick has given him a variety of ways to interact with Sponge Bob, and he uses them all, right down to the new toothbrush.  What they've done right is to deliver meaningful experience within two contexts -- one, the context of the medium itself (meaning the site he plays on isn't simply a re-hash or alternate distribution of the tv content), and two, within the context of his relationship with the character -- there's creative continuity without the use of, or need for, content duplication.

Analogy Alert: Say you're at a summer barbecue, and you meet a really nice woman, and buy her a beer.  She enjoys hanging out with you for the day, because you make her laugh with your sometimes loud, but consistently funny behavior. She gives you her number.  When you call, she invites you to go with her to a semi-formal garden party.  When you go, do you (A) wear the same Hawaiian print shirt you wore to the barbecue, tell the same loud jokes, and offer to buy her a beer (after all, that seemed to work before) -- or (B) dress appropriately for the garden party, but keep her giggling with subdued humor?

Option (B), clearly, is the way to go.  Because it recognizes the essence of your brand (humor) that is the attraction to the audience.  Yet, it alters the nature of the creative to be appropriate for the delivery mechanism.  It sees the underlying message ("please continue to like me") and delivers that message as basic human interaction that's appropriate to a specific time and place.

If I haven't lost you, here's where I'm going with all this:  Digital - it's not all about the new cool stuff that's out there.  Traditional - it's not all about forcing the same old stuff into new places.  Everybody - it's always been about the people you're trying to attract, but none of us noticed as much before.  Now it's clear that it's not partly about them, it's only about them, and what they want.  It's our job to deliver it, in the ways they want it delivered.

Technorati Tags:
Advertising  Marketing   Creative   Interactive   Online Marketing Design  Digital Design Blattner Brunner  Ernie Mosteller  BB Digital 

del.icio.us this      

Comments

[Aaron]

Great post. Your "woman at a summer barbecue" analogy is one on the best that I've heard to explain the difference between simple advertising and building a relationship with the consumer.

[Danny G]

Thanks for the shout-out, Ernie. Glad you enjoyed the column. I loved your analogy, too.

Dan
(danny g)

[Eric G]

Ernie. First time commenter. Long time reader. I love this post and plan to share it. I think it demystifies digital to some extent for the less-than-savvy.

[Josh Chambers]

Ernie. I couldn't agree more. In spite of all the shiny new tools out there, people are still people. Great analogy.