A little less conversation and a little more action

I was looking at some old video from a 2007 conference from the always brilliant PSFK (incidentally, Piers and co, if you want to give away a free ticket to the 2010 London conference, to a blogger who will  post about it etc, you my email address is on the side bar....).

A big thread of that day the tension between old advertising and new digital. It was relevant then. Blogs were still hot news, Facebook was still in college, while digital agencies and ad agencies looked at each other with mutual suspicion, or even derision.

There was lots of chat about how ad agencies were adapting to the new digital world, while digital agencies moved up the food chain to own brand ideas rather than execute them. But while things have moved on the real world - the web blurring into the physical world, Telly on digital digital on TV..blah di blah, it's mostly the same damned conversation that just doesn't matter anymore.

 

Only last week, I opened Campaign Magazine for the first time in ages to find a double paged spread on 'integration' as the future. For the love of God.

Let's dispel the myth that there was a golden age when most agencies were brilliant. They were not. Most of the ads you saw on TV in th 1980's were crap, most of the agencies were not really any good, clients hadn't figured out their act.  And guess what? Most of th ads you in 2010 are still crap. Most ad agencies are still not any good. But it's immatures for digital natives (don't you just hate that term) to berate all ad people, or non-digital specialists as stupid, crap or behind the times. It's plain wrong to say that people ignore telly or telly ads. They don't, they just ignore the bad stuff. And that's not entirely true. Most ad people hate Proctor and Gamble's work (Old Spice excluded) but they just keep chugging along nicely.

Let's also burst that digital bubble too. The internet hasn't banished stupid. Most digital agencies are crap too. Some are great, most are not, most love the technology and have conveniently forgotten to influence people, or trot our the same cliche about creating conversations without creating something worth talking about.

And media people, yes you, some of you show clients how when and how to engage, but most sell plans. Most think comms strategy ends at when and where, forgetting that context, how and relevance matter too. And let's not get into forcing digital stuff to work like broadcast.....

The truth is, the market for something people believe in is infinite. The possibilities for getting away with not being good are fading. Good places can't be arsed with false distinctions between online and offline...because real people don't  make that distinction. They're getting on with having ideas that build brands and profit. They don't worry too much about brands as verbs, conversations, etc...they just create stuff people want to be involved with and let them.

If you're smart, talented, open minded and want to work hard, you'll be fine. If you're not and you want to continue this bogus conversation around a dividing lin that only exists in agency world's (and a few bad clients') collective imaginations, you may have some problems.

Stop talking about this and just get on with it.

Comments

[John]

I remember that conference - a couple of pontificating americans, Russell shrugging a lot and a lot of nice, smart people who've gone on to do stuff while remaining nice and smart.

Your observations about the conversation not progressing too far are bang on and terribly depressing.

[northern]

The Americans we're truly terrifiying.
I think I did the usual and hid in corners in the break out bits, I seem to remember Will forcing me to have my picture taken with you and Iain Tait.
He didn't capture you best side

[John]

I tend to sit on it.