I read an interesting and provocative piece by Mark Holden of PHD in Adweek on what the media agency of the future might look like. Some stuff that I personally think is likely to happen, some stuff I think that has been predicted since I started working in advertising but has yet to happen and some stuff I fundamentally disagree with.
However, what I really stuck out to me was the inherent irony in the argument about consumer understanding and models of communication. For years, media companies expertise has really come in dealing with mass audiences. Over the last few years they've begged for forgiveness and set up numerous philosophies, divisions and structures to deal with one to one or one to many communications. This has bled all the way through to an unhealthy embrace of neuroscience and the individual's reaction (more often than not in the natural surrounding of an isolated lab) to communication and media.
Yet, isn't their inherent expertise in the very mass and social nature of media and communication something they should be embracing? The most pervasive evidence (popularized by Mark Earls) shows that we are first and foremost social animals who do stuff because of what other people do. Perhaps rather than apologizing for their legacy of using and intuitively understanding mass tools they should be embracing and celebrating this expertise? Perhaps there's some competitive advantage for a media company who moves away from better understanding media's effect on the individual and instead celebrates expertise in understanding the truly social nature of media and how behavior cascades through populations.
Yet, isn't their inherent expertise in the very mass and social nature of media and communication something they should be embracing? The most pervasive evidence (popularized by Mark Earls) shows that we are first and foremost social animals who do stuff because of what other people do. Perhaps rather than apologizing for their legacy of using and intuitively understanding mass tools they should be embracing and celebrating this expertise? Perhaps there's some competitive advantage for a media company who moves away from better understanding media's effect on the individual and instead celebrates expertise in understanding the truly social nature of media and how behavior cascades through populations.
Gareth, great post. The only issue is that I wonder whether agencies really do have the expertise to understand "truly social nature of media and how behavior cascades through populations."
It seems to me that the agencies have instead perfected the mechanics of buying and manipulating the media itself, rather than refining and understanding its effects on people.
Posted by: Rich Nadworny | July 01, 2009 at 08:49 AM
Fair point Rich. But I'd argue that's the opportunity. I think the really good media people get it intuitively which is a start. they then just need to focus their R&D budget on stuff that really matters
Posted by: Gareth | July 01, 2009 at 10:22 AM
Gareth - really good post, where I have been struggling with media agencies is their stance on social media - when it comes down to it, they will always recommend banners/bought media to clients, this is the only way they can get remunerated. they haven't worked out how to remunerate themselves against earned media - and most importantly in showing accountability against earned media. remuneration keeps them solvent, accountability keeps them at the top table. this is preventing the development of more engaging social media solutions.
Posted by: Indy Saha | July 02, 2009 at 07:21 PM
Hey Indy, good to hear from you; how are things?
Fair point and one of the big issues we need to resolve in my opinion. We're paid-particularly media agencies-in a way that tends to encourage efficiency and conservatism and penalizes effectiveness and innovation
Posted by: Gareth | July 02, 2009 at 10:02 PM