
The Interactive Advertising Bureau’s annual MIXX Conference & Expo - dedicated, with a little linguistic handiwork to Marketing Innovation and eXXcellence — is a two-day cavalcade of 100 digital stars. But it has a single theme, which I’d like briefly to explain and explore:
In
an always-on, digital, interactive communications environment,
marketing value - now and forever - derives from the “mixx” of strategy
plus channel plus content. And that, in turn, requires new forms of collaboration among marketers, agencies, and media companies.
Let’s
parse that statement, starting with the concept of marketing value.
It’s a commonplace that for much of its first century, advertising’s
worth was essentially unknowable. “Does advertising increase demand for
a given firm’s products?” asked Harvard Business School Professor Neil
Borden in his classic 1942 text, The Economic Effects of Advertising.
“Indeterminate,” he concluded. Does it preclude price competition? “In
no case,” he wrote. So for all its supportive research, advertising in
the 20th century was largely a “faith-based initiative,” as I and Booz Allen Hamilton consultants Chris Vollmer and John Frelinghuysen wrote a few years back:
…With
ad agencies and clients alike believing it worked best when it raised
awareness of brands and goods across a large swath of a target
population, with success calculated using various survey-based input measures,
such as page impressions; cost-per-thousand viewers or readers; and
gross ratings points (GRPs), an indicator of audience size. Volume was
the highest value. Rosser Reeves, head of the Ted Bates ad agency,
voiced the prevailing view this way in 1960: “If 90 percent [of the
audience] do not remember it, the story is not worn out.”
This
center could not hold, for many reasons. As the U.S. economy matured,
then fell into repeated rounds of recession and recovery, corporate
owners - which came to include most of us, with our 401k’s and IRA’s -
demanded greater and greater returns on invested capital; Finance
Departments accordingly marched through corporate units demanding
accurate calculations of return on investment. Real estate, sourcing,
logistics, and human capital fell under scrutiny. It was only a matter
of time before marketing expenditures were held to the same standards
as all the other functions.
As
this was occurring, the first round of advertising agency megamergers
started taking place, exposing for the first time the enormous profit
margins agencies earned from their clients’ ignorance. When in 1986 the U.K.’s Saatchi brothers bought The Ted Bates Agency - fittingly, the agency built on Rosser Reeves’s theories of repetition - Bates’s
chairman and CEO, Bob Jacoby, personally pocketed $111 million. The
windfall clearly exposed the entire agency business. “We may stand
today looking more like hucksters than when Frederick Wakeman wrote the
book more than 25 years ago,” lamented the president of the American
Association of Advertising Agencies, Leonard Matthews.
Into
this rising demand for ROI and accountability rode the Internet, with
its promise to banish advertising unknowability and waste. “The Net is accountable,” I wrote in Wired in 1999.
“It is knowable. It is the highway leading marketers to their Holy
Grail: single-sourcing technology that can definitively tie the
information consumers perceive to the purchases they make…The new media
technologies, by drastically reducing production and distribution costs
and making possible almost continual and instantaneous refinements in
message, promise to increase the efficiency of accountable advertising
so that its widespread adoption, not as an ancillary medium but as the
primary communications choice, becomes inescapable.”
Quest for Solutions
But
even this rosy view of advertising’s accountable future missed what was
really happening among consumer and product marketers: They were
becoming less and less interested in buying marketing communications
products, which increasingly they perceived as a commodity. Instead,
they wanted their suppliers, agencies and media companies alike, to
bring them solutions.
A solution, in the words of two other former Booz Allen colleagues, Chuck Lucier and Jan Dyer,
is when “a supplier takes responsibility for value-added integration,
using its superior knowledge to integrate and sell an interdependent
system of products and services.” Needless to say, the primary problem
marketers in a mature economy like the United States
want to solve is how to grow. Marketing teams, in turn, want their
suppliers to help them climb the ladder to growth, by bringing them
consumer insights, establishing and maintaining dialogues with
consumers, engaging the audience with unique content relevant to their
needs and desires, and by reaching them at exactly the right moment
with the right message.
This quest for integrated solutions - and the call for help in finding them - sounds through the recent book CMO Thought Leaders: The Rise of the Strategic Marketer, published by Booz Allen and the Association of National Advertisers. “What’s
changed,” Procter & Gamble CMO Jim Stengel told me in an interview
for the book, “is that the engagement level we can have with our consumers
is just so much higher. We can have a two-way dialogue, a relationship.
That means we will need more brand-enhancing, consumer-enhancing
dialogue in more of our businesses. It’s a different skill set—with
different capabilities—than we required in the past.”
American Express Co. CMO John D. Hayes - our keynote speaker on the opening morning of this year’s IAB MIXX Conference - put the distinction between commodity advertising an
d
solutions-based marketing even more starkly. “The world is in the
middle of an ongoing conversation,” Mr. Hayes told us. “A marketer’s
challenge and job is to enter that conversation. And when you do join
in, you had better be prepared to add value. If
your attitude is, ‘We’re going to pound away with this many GRPs
talking about our new product,’ all you’re doing is interrupting the
conversation. People don’t like that.”
Solutions
are, first and foremost, a service - and a very complex service at
that. They require a sophisticated knowledge of the customer’s
business, deep analytic skills, and the flexibility and willingness to
combine, apply, even customize, varying sets of assets and capabilities
on behalf of the customer’s needs. This is a far cry from what
advertising agencies, even in their heyday during the first Creative
Revolution, saw as their mandate. They wanted to be known for their
creativity, and creativity was defined narrowly - as the manufacturing
of a pre-formatted marketing-communications product (notably a
30-second television ad and the magazine page) known for its
attention-getting cleverness.
Jim Durfee, a co-founder of the Carl Ally Agency, once explained the distinction to me. “A
product,” the courtly Mr. Durfee said, “is something that is molded,
produced, thought out and set out before the person: ‘We have made this
for you, we think this will help.’ A service is hat-in-hand and through
the side door. It was a completely different attitude toward what an
agency was and what an agency made.”
Commoditization vs. Integration
Hence the second part of our MIXX Conference’s theme: that marketing value derives from the “mixx” of strategy plus channel plus content.
However
clever, any product as narrowly defined by its formats and the sameness
of its content as was conventional advertising is subject to
commoditization. And that is what has happened to advertising. The
routines - of marketers providing briefs to agencies, which rendered
those briefs in a set of familiar formats, distributed over seven
“measured media” with standardized content forms - grew tired. The
industry even accepted its exhaustion. Its language has long been the
language of commoditization: Agencies and media for decades have spoken
of tonnage - of, as Amex’s Mr. Hayes put it so disparagingly, pounding
away with GRP’s. Even the brass ring reached for by so many top
creatives - success in “cutting through the clutter” - accepts
commoditization as the environment in which it exists.
By
contrast, the notable efforts in interactive advertising have been sui
generis, unique applications of an idea to a channel, realized through
singular content. Whether it’s the user-generated Super Bowl campaign for Dorito’s, the “Obama girl” guerrilla video for the Democratic presidential candidate, or the even more aggressively political “Campaign for Real Beauty” by Ogilvy & Mather
and Edelman Worldwide for Dove soap, the best interactive advertising
brings a strategy to life in a way that cannot readily be replicated.
Commodity
or tonnage advertising will continue to exist. It will remain an
important weapon in the arsenal of marketers and agencies, if for no
other reason that regularized formats are an efficient means for
communicating to a disinterested or moderately interested audience that
might be lured to a brand, product or service. Its efficiency will only
increase as behavioral targeting in interactive media succeeds in
weeding out the disinterested and improving accountable returns for
such advertising.
Even
more efficiency will be brought to commodity advertising through
process automation - and the Internet is a giant process-automation
machine for advertising. Indeed, much of the recent wave of consolidation in interactive media and advertising
- the acquisitions of 24/7 Realmedia by the WPP Group, Doubleclick by
Google, AdECN and Aquantive by Microsoft, Tacoda by AOL, and Right
Media by Yahoo - can be looked at as an effort to bring more
process-automation efficiencies to major media companies.
On
the surface, these look like (and are) very different companies -
advertising pricing exchanges, ad networks, third-part ad-serving
companies - but they all share one basic characteristic: They mechanize
parts of advertising buy-sell processes, notably in planning, pricing,
and placing, that previously were handled by humans. And they scale
those processes to heretofore unthinkable dimensions. (Our second panel on the first day of MIXX,
featuring the chiefs of 24/7 Realmedia, Doubleclick, Atlas, and Right
Media, will explore some of the implications of consolidation and
process automation in advertising.)
But,
while machines may automate routine tasks (however complicated they may
be), they can never automate the core components of the solutions
clients really want. They cannot tell a CEO or CMO how to grow her
business. Although they can aid, they cannot fully mechanize
brilliance, intuition, engagement, insight, and joy. As another former colleague, George Johnson, wrote today in The New York Times:
“What is spreading through the Web is not exactly artificial
intelligence. For all the research that has gone into cognitive and
computer science, the brain’s most formidable algorithms… have eluded
simulation. The alternative has been to incorporate people, with their
special skills, as components of the Net.”
The New Strategy
This
is the path forward for marketers, media, and agencies alike, and it
brings us to the third element of our MIXX Conference theme: That
creating marketing value requires new forms of collaboration among marketers, agencies, and media companies. At the IAB, we call this “the new strategy.” It will be the subject of the first panel on MIXX’s opening day, featuring top agency executives Carla Hendra, Rishad Tobaccowalla, and David Verklin.
The
importance of collaboration has become a commonplace of contemporary
economics. It’s even deemed critical to learn to partner with
competitors, a task known as “coopetition.” And here again, the
Internet is a large part of the impetus. When information - about the
availability of parts, say, or their quality, or their fair price —
was hard to come by, firms had an impetus to vertically integrate.
Owning knowledge would lower transaction costs, keeping the firm
competitive. This theory of vertical integration contributed to the Nobel Prize in economics won by Ronald H. Coase in 1991.
The
Internet has made information of all sorts more freely available than
ever, with dramatic effect on firms and entire industries. Consider the
impact, as described by Rhonda Germany, now the vice president for
strategy and business development at Honeywell, and Raman Muralidharan,
a managing director of HSBC, in the management journal strategy+business:
The
result is industry value chains that are undergoing almost continuous
evolution. The morphing value chain — you might call its new form a
value web, an extended enterprise, or (our favorite) a value
constellation — challenges firms that thrived with a [vertically]
integrated approach. The best value-capture mechanisms may now lie
outside the individual firm’s boundaries…The firm is shifting from a
self-contained value-creation and -capture apparatus into one part of
an interdependent community whose members continually negotiate
responsibility for value creation and the right to value capture.
Just
as the marketing and advertising disciplines could not remain free from
the spiral of commoditization, they cannot - and should not - remain
aloof from the value of collaboration. The capabilities and skills of
marketers, media, and agencies - their differentiated knowledge and
skills - must be brought together to fashion the solutions that clients
desire.
Keith
Pardy, senior vice president of strategic marketing at Nokia Corp., put
it this way in the CMO Thought Leaders book. “The ones that learn to
collaborate with all the ecosystem partners,” he said, speaking
specifically of ad agencies, “are the ones that will survive.”
At
IAB’s MIXX Conference on Tuesday, we’ll be showcasing one such
ecosystem collaboration: the partnership between Microsoft, the agency
Crispin, Porter + Bogusky, and Burger King that created a unique Xbox
game for the restaurant company - an effort that won the Titanium Grand Prix at the Cannes Advertising Festival this year.
One
such collaboration does not an industry make. At the Interactive
Advertising Bureau, we are dedicated ourselves to educating the entire
value chain of this new set of realities. Our Leadership Forum: Agency Summit on November 12 in New York
will feature even more collaborative case studies by agencies,
publishers, and marketers. But we invite everyone in the industry to
turn this into a crusade.
I’ll repeat the theme of MIXX: In
an always-on, digital, interactive communications environment,
marketing value - now and forever - derives from the “mix” of strategy
plus channel plus content. And that, in turn, requires new forms of
collaboration among marketers, agencies, and media companies.
Do you have examples? If so, please post them. Counter-arguments? We’d love to hear them. MIXX it up — “clog” with us, and change the world of media and marketing forever.
Comments