Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Now coming to a PC near you.

These days every CMO and account lead worth their golden parachutes talks about how we shouldn't be shoving messages at consumers. Instead, they tell us, we ought to be creating experiences. We ought to make it easy for the consumer to interact with and play with the brand.

Of course, these same CMOs and account leads are still allocating the largest portion of their budgets to creating television commercials that no one notices any more. Experience be damned, we have to create a spot.

Not long ago I started thinking that despite all the cosmetic integration between those spots, and online efforts and in-store efforts, etc., what is absent is intelligent communications integration. That's a high-falutin' way of saying it doesn't seem like we've figured out how to use each media to the benefit of the product or service we are trying to sell. So here's the analogy I started using. Good web experiences should be viewed the same way you'd view a trip to the Apple store. Part information. Part entertainment. Part commerce. An amalgam a 30 simply cannot capture. So what would happen if we said our site is the movie, the show, the experience. Other media, TV, print, banners, must intrigue and entice and drive us to the show.

That's a different way of looking at the marketing world. I'm not sure it's right. But I am sure it's worth thinking about.

2 comments:

tore's tour said...

Trough the geniuses of DDB and quite likely a smart and strong client.
Print-ad ideas where print-ad ideas and tv spots where tv spot ideas and not filmed print-ads. Print-ad copy was meant to be read, tv-spot scripts meant to be acted or read by a VO.Much of the story told in film language.
i'm sure that if we would've had the internet back then, they would have treated it respectfully and made sure the brand's voice would've come true in the most effective way for the media. Not just looking good at a wall test.
Surface integration amounts to nothing at the end of the day. It's counter productive. It blends itself in rather than standing out.
t.

tore's tour said...

First i'm sure you're right when you think of a campaign as an event. With the brand being the star attraction.
I also think we've become less adapt at intergrating campaigns.
What used to be a tone of voice, an attitude, a brand personality, has become meaningless empty charades.
The classic VW campaign was one example.
and in more recent history Wieden & Kennedy's work for Nike.
Print-ad ideas where print-ad ideas and tv spots where tv spot ideas and not filmed print-ads. Print-ad copy was meant to be read, tv-spot scripts meant to be acted or read by a VO, much of the story told in film language.
i'm sure that if we would've had the internet back then, they would have treated it respectfully and made sure the brand's voice would've come true in the most effective way for the media. Not just looking good at a wall test.
Surface integration amounts to nothing at the end of the day. It's counter productive. It blends itself in rather than standing out.
t.