Please Get It

 

We often tend to believe (here in the industry) that companies and brands are all jumping on the train of successful online communication and messaging. Successful communication in the knowledge that it is effective, entertaining, word spreading and reveals something of what the brands stands for. It’s a naive idea. Too many people are still rusting away in their old marketing (and advertising) models.

Look what happened last week when I blogged about the brilliant cover version of I Follow Rivers by Belgian rock band Triggerfinger (click here). I included the YouTube clip which had been around on the web that day. Few hours later when I came back I saw the video had been removed due copyright claims by VARA (the Dutch media company by which the radio station is owned). But the brilliance of the web of course is that once content has been posted, it’s like an unstoppable bullet you can never get entirely back. Obviously another user had put the video online again. So I edit my post with the new relevant video in it. Again; few hours later I had to witness that video had been removed as well. This even happened a third time. An easy Google Search brought me to the official VARA channel where the video was being hosted and apparently supposed to be hosted only. So I included that link. Don’t I love you guys?

Look how willing I was to share that video. I can assure you I’m one of the few that would put so much effort in sharing content that I’ve already seen, and tried to spread. And willing to repeat that process over and over. And content that has actually nothing of value for me to share (unless I would masturbate on the numbers of posts I publish here).

Doesn’t VARA get that?

You have to ask yourself (or better: THEY have to ask themselves) what their priority is in putting this video on the web: By driving more users towards their own brand channel to increase the visit number; or by spreading the name of their brand and activity in an appealing way? It’s clear VARA puts their priority on the first option. And that’s what is wrong with them and many other brands today.

Don’t they realize that by sharing that clip on Youtube, it will be spread a lot more (I saw several Facebook friends posting the clip)? And by spreading that clip (for free and really easy for users) it creates positive awareness for the activity they’re bringing (unless you don’t like Triggerfinger or that song but those people should be hanged)? It creates not only awareness for the band but more importantly: for the radio show Giel which I didn’t know before (among lots of other Belgians) and am curious to check it out a bit more. And shouldn’t that be the entire purpose of putting your brand’s content online AND for free AND in an easy way to share without your narcissism to have in ‘only’ on your own portal which will generate a lot less content sharing? Get your shit together! ORRRR … call me … I can help you (and make myself rich)!

PS. Just when I’m busy writing this post I notice they put the video on YouTube again, now by the official GIEL account itself. I don’t think it breaks down the point I’m trying to make here and actually it proves it somehow: they only want the video to get shared by themselves – in their own name (claiming a superior position) in order to drive more traffic to their website instead of providing entertaining free branded content people are willing to share. And for what reason would the brand prevent that from happening? Brands have established the most effective positions within online communication by acting as a peer towards their audience instead of a god or a king on its throne, serving his slaves with sacred, royal branded content he hopes they’ll all absorb as easy as water.

When the Line of Digital should be Fading

So this week AKQA was chosen and awarded by Adweek and by Campaign with the title ‘Digital Agency of the Year’. Yes, we celebrated here although credits obviously do not go to me, but I do am bloody proud for being part of it. I was glad to read the articles where the magazines are already debating whether something still needs to be called ‘digital’. Does it still need a separate title? I actually think not. Like Yacce Vijn recently said on the Amsterdam Ad Blog: “The term is slowly eroding; when I go to a shop to buy a camera, I’ll ask for a camera, not a digital camera. It’s obvious that it will be digital – everything is. I think the time is ripe to stop putting digital labels on agencies and go for integrated by default“.

He is absolutely right and they should cancel the title ‘digital agency’. Every (successful) campaign today has a digital component. Even if only the case study video goes viral afterwards. You can immediately distinguish the innovative agencies that were considered traditional and have proven themselves completely integrated in today’s communication. Think for example of one of the most brilliant campaigns of 2011 that’s still ongoing today: The Old Spice campaign from “traditional” (?) agency Wieden+Kennedy where they truly have proven how direct the communication between consumer and brand can be. Or agencies that have proven to put the border of definitions even further away with full-integrated campaigns connecting outdoor with digital such as what Droga5 did for Bing and Jay-Z (one of the most inspiring campaigns in the last decade if I may say so).

The other direction we see as well and I actually hope we will see more in the future: AKQA’s viral video ‘Trick or Treat’ for Audi pleased the client so much it went on tv afterwards as well – done by a ‘digital’ agency. So what’s the definition of a TVC anyway? Both Old Spice and Heineken’s The Entrance videos first appeared online before going on tv, so is that a digital or a traditional video? It’s time we don’t need to ask ourselves that question anymore and just call it ‘advertising’ from now on. As it always has been of course.

As well as I’ve said here before that I love AKQA for having the reputation of a quality (digital) agency, yet the planning of the campaigns is exactly the same as in any other ‘traditional’ agency: trying to have a deeper understanding in the people and the world. Obviously there’s digital data as well, but that simply is part of the entire strategy spectrum and definitely what all agencies deal with today as I’ve been trying to explain above. I actually dislike the term ‘Digital Planner’ instead of calling yourself just ‘A planner’. It somehow limits your possibilities and is actually contrary to what the whole idea of advertising planning is: finding the relevant tone of voice, audience, communication style AND communication channels.

Digital Discussion

It’s ironic I’m at AKQA now while I’ve always been bashing the “digital focus”. As choosing to study psychology and always been around with a vast interest in human behavior, I suddenly came to question if pursuing a job in the ad scene was still a good and relevant thing to do when I got introduced to it during my first internship two years ago. I was scared we would start to lose our focus on human interaction and sell it out for computer driven data. My very first posts on this blog where actually about this issue and a talk with a high up and respectable planner last week reminded me to keep on focusing which path into the above and beyond the line material I would chose to keep everything as efficient, effective and meaningful possible.

First of all, it’s bloody scary and dangerous if there are still planners out there who do not recognize the value of digital advertising and marketing. I’m not going to dig into this as I assume everybody reading this blog is smart enough and has already figured that out a long time ago. But apparently there still advertisers out there who want to hold only on traditional media. I can only hope that species will extinct soon and make room for more inspirational and innovative thinkers this scene grows on.

But why was I scared and why do I believe we all should be aware of the dangers? Because it’s an easy trap to fall in when going through digital data. It’s so easy to lose focus on what the key motivator was why people where there (in a certain digital space) in the first place. Because only internet data simply does not reveal anything about our consumers, it actually limits it. And while these data could be relevant and useful for the strategic marketing department of our client, it is not for the creative process of coming up with relevant ideas that have a deeper meaning and impact on the consumer. Because we may never forget that we’re talking to human beings and digital data alone can not bring us there.

And why do I feel safe and for the moment extremely excited at AKQA? Because for the projects I have been involved in so far (in the few weeks I’ve been here), we included both online and offline behavior. Because I got to understand that AKQA sets itself apart from other “digital” agencies in the knowledge that digital is the medium in the communication and not the objective. Because AKQA sees itself not fully as a digital agency, but perfectly integrated between the traditional and digital ones, what makes this really a unique place to work. Because at AKQA, the idea still comes first. But the most important one without any doubt is realizing that we’re here because of the value of communication and that we now simply happen to live in an area in history where digital has tremendous benefits and is becoming the prior tool in communicating. The first channel that brought us to widespread massive communication started with book publishing. Along came the telephone, the radio and the tv. The internet, smartphones and tablets came next but they are still the same as their previous partners: a channel, a medium. Only that this is now going through a two-way dialogue direction instead of the monologue we had in traditional advertising. Where will we be in 10 years?

From Advertising To Communication

I don’t like the word advertising (anymore). Besides the fact I’m still a student / intern, I do feel myself able to be saying to people “I do something in advertising”. But mostly this leaves me with some creepy looks against my own person. As sadly (so far I already discovered), when people hear the word ‘advertising’, they tend to think about ‘bad advertising’. You know, those meaningless ad’s with only product information, fake promises and ridiculous expectation-creations for your health, lifestyle or whatever.

I’m done with it. In the past years I have been observing so many (global) agencies that are out there and none has ever pulled off crap like that (or none that I found). Where does it keep coming from? I see all agencies working indeed on big names, but also on charity campaigns. And everybody I already met in the scene says always the same: we are here, since there’s still so much bad work out there.

I want to change the word advertising in ‘communication’. Advertising has brought itself into a fictional world for the people, filled with manipulation, dark psychology and corporate whores. And out of all people, aren’t we the ones who have to speak in a relevant way towards our listeners? We don’t advertise anymore nowadays, we communicate with people. We bring a client in a consumer relevant way closer to the people in a dialogue, not a monologue. We already know this, look at all the digital websites. So why are we still so stubborn (even myself, look at the copy of this blog) holding on the ‘Mad Man’ idea we ‘control’ the masses through advertising, while actually the masses control us day in and day out when we have to do our job. It’s their voice we try to find, not to turn around. Btw, all those ‘big names’ we do work for have always been doing this (and that marks their success): making products relevant for those in need.