The Death of the Advertising Industry: Part 1

No question, things are changing in the marketing industry. The multinational conglomerates are in a feeding frenzy, eating up digital shops and rolling them into their agency networks as fast as they can. They're buying bright minds on the leading edge of new media and figuring out ways to roll them in as part of their vertically integrated service offering. They're doing this because that's where the money is moving to. Surprise, surprise. This is nothing new.

Last week, some guy wrote an opinion piece entitled 5 Reasons You No Longer Need an Agency. I've been loathe to talk about it because it's such an obvious sensationalist ploy for blog hits and retweets. Regardless, the author brings up a couple interesting points worth discussing.

I'm going to paraphrase reason 1: There's no longer a need for 'the big idea'. Media fragmentation, content distribution and things like "consumer conversations" have fractured the 'big idea' into many small ideas.

My retort: The ‘Big Idea’ is as relevant or perhaps more than it ever was. The big idea is your brand. I don’t agree that the big idea needs to come from inside an organization. It’s great if it does, but I can’t see any reason why that kind of insight can’t be generated externally from information provided internally. (Communications theorists might disagree, but nobody listens to those guys anyway.) Sure media is fragmented and content can now be created for specific consumer subsets. But you still need the skills to accomplish that.

Then there’s the matter of execution. You need to outsource all the separate pieces of production and you still need to increase the skill level in-house to accomplish what most agencies can do. An in-house marketing team with Wordpress isn't likely to replace Razorfish any time soon.

Paraphrase reason 2: Websites are too big and expensive. Clients are getting talked into buying more than they need.

My retort: He has a point here. It’s like realtors—given their fee structure, what incentive do they have to sell you a cheaper house? However, it’s also incumbent on you to determine at least partly what you need and how much you want to spend. An agency can help you with some or all of that. And the end of the day you determine whether you want to spend $500k on a site or $5k on a Wordpress site. As a marketer you still have to be informed enough to make that decision.

Paraphrase reason 3: Traditional marketing is ineffective and online marketing is complicated, so you need to simplify--just use Facebook, Twitter and a blog.

My retort: I'm pretty sure he's just making this point up because '5 reasons to ditch your agency' is way more impressive than 4. However, I’ve heard the traditional is dead argument enough times to start to see how wrong it is. Traditional has a place. Facebook isn’t likely to move a lot of socks or dish detergent, no matter how stoked your friends are about it.

Paraphrase reason 4: Focus groups are evil and expensive.
My retort: I agree. The focus group was never reliable or accurate and much better ways of gathering that kind of information are emerging. I think Twitter is better than a focus group and significantly less costly.

Paraphrase reason 5 (and this is a doozy): You need to rebuild and restaff your organization in order to take advantage of the first four reasons.

My retort:I hate to say it, but I agree again, despite how preposterous the idea is. If you can hire and retain top-tier talent for any length of time, and also remove the management-imposed shackles that are systemic in your organization, then do it!!! Good luck with that.

The Value of Content: Part 1

Last post got me thinking about a whole bunch of things, not the least of which is how content is valued once it's separated from a specific channel. And then I got distracted by the news of Les Paul's passing. Here was a man who not only created unique content, but he helped create new tools that would utterly transform that content.

Les Paul was a unique voice in jazz music. His style pushed guitar up from where it strummed quietly in the back of the orchestra, right up to the front with all the other soloists and showboats. And to keep up with the horns, he electrified it to make it louder, which changed the music world by opening the door for rock and roll. And if that wasn't enough, he went on to invent multi-track recording, which transformed music yet again. Sometimes the influence of a single great mind is truly remarkable.

On cue it seems, the Globe and Mail published a couple articles today about how well Cineplex is doing. The Canadian entertainment giant appears to be where laid off auto-workers and realtors are spending their EI cheques. Content and channel again. The public thinks movies and the cinema experience are worth paying for. You can download it from iTunes if you want. You can pick it up at Best Buy, but apparently suburbia is still piling the kids into the Aerostar and lugging them down to the bank-branded mega-entertainment complex to ooh and ahh at the exploding sphinx and frickin' laser beams before the film. Compelling content, sticky experience provide by the channel (not just the floors) and people are still willing to pay traditional prices, and extra for real butter -- digitally distributed competition be damned.

The best part is that Cineplex doesn't even need to market their channel. They don't run campaigns touting the benefits of the movie house experience. The don't have to 'connect consumers with the brand'. The movies do the blanket marketing for them and for every other channel. Cineplex just reaps the benefits and value-adds with popcorn.