The (changing) state of digital creativity

 

There’s a refrain I’ve heard repeated, oftentimes on the media seller  side: digital creativity sucks. The idea is the Internet hasn’t found its Bernbachs, Ogilvys and the rest of the advertising canon. That’s why the Internet has failed to attract much attention for brands.

Recently, IAB CEO Randy Rothenberg weighed in. In a lengthy blog post/manifesto, Randy decries the state of creativity in interactive media. This is the real problem, he says, not whether display ads are sold like pork bellies. To be sure, the state of creativity in banner units and microsites probably is regrettable. Yet I wonder if Randy is missing the point when he thirsts for an online equivalent of classic outbound ad campaigns like Doyle Dane’s “Think Small” campaign for Volkswagen. This is general fighting the last war, not the next one.

The problem is this assumes digital will work like TV. I can understand this viewpoint from the side of ad sellers. Brand marketers have never found the Internet a particularly great place to build brands through online media. That last part is quite important. The IAB is premised on the notion that the Internet can do brand advertising at scale. I remember how often it flogged those McDonald's flat-bread sandwiches case studies. What if that’s not the case? A digital agency CEO I met this morning confessed he doesn’t think it’s possible to do large-scale brand building through Web media. If you want scale, you need to standardize, which then leads to commoditization. The Web’s strength is its niches. What’s the answer to covering niches at scale? The sketchy ad networks that are driving the price of online media to nearly zero.

The question then remains whether creativity can change that. It depends. "Creative” comes in many forms in digital. Some of it is the online equivalent of TV’s talking animals and slapstick humor. It’s things like “Whopper Sacrifice,” a very smart gimmick that got people’s attention for a little while. Or it’s those Mac vs PC “talking” banner ads. Clever stuff. But digital creativity isn’t simply an imitation of TV. What if it’s a blend of design, utility and technology that goes into what Ana preaches: brand systems. That means digital creativity might look more like software than TV spots. Sure, it’s hard for these things to win awards and aren't as easy to admire as singular objects of "commercial art." We touched on this during a panel I moderated last week at The Rubicon Project. Andrea Kerr-Redniss, an executive with Optimedia, noted digital creativity can be quite different. It can be a useful application, not just a viral piece of entertainment people pass around. Often, they don't involve much paid media. Randy mentions "Subservient Chicken" as the paragon of digital creativity, but you could argue something like Nike Plus is a better example of where creativity is going.

I've written before about how digital is changing the entire notion of creativity. This is something that's just starting and requires the industry change a mindset that seems still very tied to old structures built in a bygone era.

Comments

[Randall Rothenberg]

Brian, I think you've missed the point of my "Manifesto" -- for which I must fault myself (although the multiple comments on it would indicate the many did get it). At no point do I come close to suggesting that successful interactive advertising must be like television, print, or, as you put it, "classic outbound campaigns." Quite the opposite, I specifically say the value of the medium to consumers and customers is immensely varied and transcendent. With apologies for quoting myself:

"Given the remarkable creative potential in interactivity, online media should present a cornucopia of fabulous, affecting and effective advertising. Take the great concepting and design that went into Doyle Dane's 'Think Small' ad for Volkswagen, spoon in the equivalently brilliant production simplicity of Chiat/Day's 'Human Cartoons' campaign for the Nynex Yellow Pages, throw in the remarkable production values that for two generations characterized BBDO's work for Pepsi, sprinkle over it the captivating long copy Ogilvy wrote for Rolls-Royce -- and then add the potential for mass viral video distribution, one-to-one validation, social media engagement, blog conversation, customization on premium news and entertainment sites, and segmented reach through online networks. The marketing mind boggles."

In fact -- and again, I apologize if I wasn't clear -- the point of the piece reinforces exactly what you say, that interactive "creativity" must be "a blend of design, utility and technology," hence my explicit recommendation that creative technologists be admitted as full partners into the traditional creative partnership, allowing for the software-as-marketing solutions you suggest.

But you didn't just miss our utter agreement; I think you also missed some important nuances. These include the ways advertising works to influence the culture and passions of the advertiser's organization, and the significance of the value systems in the agency business, which historically has depended on individuals striving for greatness (and the recognition that attends it) to fuel achievement. Thus, the almost willful ignorance displayed by interactive agencies and publishers toward creative people and their drives has hindered the industry, especially in its quest to appeal to consumer-brand marketers. I, too, didn't fully grasp these when I was a journalist -- I only became fully aware of them when I was a CMO of a global services company.

I recommmend (humbly) that your readers go to the "Manifesto" and judge for themselves: www.randallrothenberg.com.

Don't get me wrong -- I am glad that here, and in your "Banners in Crisis" post, and elsewhere, you've joined the conversation. But I also think it's vitally important that we incorporate deeper understanding of experienced practitioners' points of view in that conversation. Not everything can be learned by moderating panels.

[Digitalent]

I understood where you were coming from, Mr. Rothenberg.

[Brian]

Randall,
Thanks for visiting. Guilty: I never worked for Booz Allen in any capacity. I'm humbly a journalist and panel moderator on the side. My job is to speak to lots of people to find innovative and effective ways companies are reaching consumers through digital channels. The advantage of this is I talk to a wide array of people at all levels -- and I don't have an agenda or anything to promote. The disadvantage is like all journalists, I don't do any of this. We work with what we have.

My point, which perhaps you missed though my post was 1/10 as long as yours, is digital creativity comes in forms that -- gasp -- aren't advertising in IAB units and Flash microsites. You cite your IAB award winners. Well, that's the problem. Look at the categories. You're judging objects, not systems. (That's from Colleen DeCourcy, btw. You should get people like her and the people commenting here involved in the IAB if you really want to follow through on this push to raise the profile of creativity.) I'd be hard-pressed to find any digital creative, outside maybe the winners, who believed that's the best representative of digital creativity.

I'm constantly asking the same question to big theoretical stuff like your post: give me examples. What do you consider "successful interactive advertising"? Please be specific. It is ironic you bemoan how technologists aren't rightly honored as creative counterparts, yet you ascribe "Subservient Chicken" solely to CP+B when Barbarian Group made it what it was.

I agree with much of what you wrote. For instance, you state that the interactive ad industry has a DR culture, although in truth it was fostered in large part by the IAB. In fact, at your last ecosystem meeting all the talk was about the plumbing of the Internet -- platforms, friction, etc. People like Wenda Harris Millard expressed to me mild revulsion over what the industry had become. I might remind you this was at an IAB event.

You ask where the digital agencies are with their founders' name on the door. Here's two leading ones. R/GA is Robert Greenberg and Associates. Also, AKQA is Ajaz Ahmed's initials. But maybe the larger point is the founders names on the door is part of the problem. See, if you think the future is building powerful brand systems, then the primacy of the brilliant creative with the name on the door is kinda over. The agency is one part of a large cast. Systems are more complicated than a "big idea" jotted down on the back of a napkin. In an age of transparency fostered by social media, the notion of great advertising papering over deficiencies strikes me as an anachronism. Then again, if you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail, right?

Final thing: You fail to address any of the points made by commenters here, which include the very practitioners you and I aren't.

[Digitalent]

OK, per Mr. Rothenberg’s request, I sat down and read his “Manifesto.” I stand by my original reaction: “But from what I scanned, I’d have to agree with much of it.”

The man is dead on with nearly everything he wrote. And I did not view it as the musings of a “general fighting the last war, not the next one.”

However, I think the war he’s hoping to start will be difficult to win. Mostly because the digital industry has positioned itself like direct marketing, adopting a lot of direct marketing’s business model. Assignments are projects versus parts of long-term branding relationships with clients. It’s all about billable hours and deliverables. And the timelines are ridiculous for real creativity (although even traditional advertising agencies are struggling with that constraint). Now, don’t get me wrong. The digital arena, like the advertising arena, has its star players – the shops that do consistently great work. But the Barbarian Group and R/GA, unfortunately, do not reflect the global digital field. Across the board, the digital arena is direct marketing with a mouse. Need proof? Go to the marketing/business shelves at your local bookstore. For advertising, you’ll see classic titles like “Hey, Whipple, Squeeze This!” and “Ogilvy on Advertising,” as well as contemporary books on creativity. Not so with digital. For every “The Open Brand,” there are at least 1,000 titles like, “How to write online copy that SELLS!” or, “Make BIG MONEY with Social Media and iPhone apps!” Perhaps you could argue that the true digital artists aren’t reading books. But the existing books are certainly helping to shape the arena’s position in the global industry’s mind.

One more point regarding my muddled comment from yesterday. The issue is not just that digital creative is being judged by traditional advertising standards. The bigger issue is that traditional advertising standards (and schedules) are being applied to the digital creative process. To elaborate on the example from yesterday, while the traditional ad guys get two weeks to come up with a concept for a TV spot or print ad, the digital folks should receive 3-4 weeks. We need more upfront time, and probably less back end time than traditional ad practitioners. At least on most projects. The net statement: If we recognize that our end product is not traditional (literally and figuratively), then we need to invent unique creative processes too.

Finally, I don’t understand all the pissiness between bloggers here. For people showing disdain for traditional advertising, you display a lot of the political ugliness of the old field.

[Brian Morrissey]

@Digitalent: Thanks for the awesome thoughts. They've helped move the issue forward.

On your final point, I have a couple random thoughts. I'm not sure there's been much pissiness in the comments. I thought the post sparked some interesting stuff. My idea when I recently started this blog was there wasn't a place for reasoned discussion of big issues facing the industry. It's a work in progress. We'll see if it gets there. You're an AdScam commenter, so you know that has its own culture that George has fostered. It, Agency Spy and lots of others are great. I find them limited because much of what passes for conversation is one-off jokes and snide remarks. In a way, I want to replicate a great panel or discussion. There, I've found the key is to come up with topics people want to discuss and get others involved. That's what I hope happens here: real talk about real issues. The great thing about this post is the comments going to and fro on the topic. I'd rather not the discussion necessarily be what I write, but what people think about the topic. I hope you'll return to chat about all this stuff. There's a lot to cover.

[slowmo]

Hi all, here’s my 5 cents’ worth.

I agree with IAB’s 4 main points but its effort to rationalize, institutionize, compartmentalize and then commoditize digital advertising is truly puzzling. For many of us who grew up with the web, the Internet is the land of the free. For free.

Rick Webb from the Barbarian Group brings out this point perfectly: “to build a great brand on the web, you don’t need to buy a single piece of paid media… Yet virtually every “digital marketing” organization out there is built upon buying and selling these paid media placements. It’s as if we’re trying to build the first automobile but insist that we keep the horse in there.”

http://www.barbariangroup.com/posts/1712-brianmorrissey_the_dearth_of_internet_creatives

The first dot com bust during the Clinton years have shown us the immense difficulties of monetising traffic and eyeballs on internet portals, especially when the Internet is driven by USERS, but not instituions, brands and businesses. Pure online plays that succeeded in creating viable business models are the rare exceptions.

That’s why there is a current boom in Internet use as the age of user-generatedor uploaded content are driving the most popular sites. Even Google would not be what is is without its users constantly clicking on its search results and prioritising its search results.

These lessons seemed to be lose on mainstream advertising bodies and agency groupings, which are now trying institutionise, internalise and monetise digital advertising. Good luck on that

The way the web works is that it is fickle, ever-changing and ever open to a new idea, conversation or interaction that puts people from place ‘site’ to place or from one level of brand interaction to another. Call this an ever-ending series of first blind dates and the last thing you want is people/institutions/leaders to chaperone this process, which will make it forced, artificial and close-minded.

The reality is that most of the interactions between brand and users are happening without institutional inputs and none are required. Internet and technology has liberated users, online content producers and digital creatives from the need to involve traditional advertising or media middlemen.

This makes it very clear to me as well as every digital or integrated grunt in the trenches. We need a separate identity from direct marketing and mainstream advertising disciplines. The current situation of being judged by professionals from other disciplines must stop. Their rules are for a bygone age where users trust ad agencies to bring out the salient points of brands and services for their consideration.

Now, users prefer to rely on themselves, their friends and on other users who are talking about the brand online. That’s why digital campaigns have reached out to consumers while bypassing unnecessary intermediaries like the traditional media.

It’s no longer about reaching people who may be reading the newspaper, watching the TV channel or basically “people who are there”

It’s about targeting “those who care” i.e. about the subject matter and are willing, if not enthusiastic, to bring in their own point of view and content into the conversation. And get their friends and family involved.

So if the context is different, why should rules and benchmarks be the same for digital advertising, as compared to traditional advertising? Right now, digital media partners and conventional advertising agencies only see value in a marriage of convenience by working with pure digital partners. They prefer to remain in control as the driving force behind any campaigns, digital or otherwise.

Such fair weather partners will not hesitate to take credit for digital work and steal ideas and processes to create their own digital department. And when that happens, they will discard whatever consensus or common grounds that they have established with digital set-ups and creatives. For more about this, read:

http://www.adweek.com/aw/content_display/news/digital/e3i8338a3cc42d9fb02fef5c7f7fcb8fa4c

For now, digital and interactive creatives know that it’s not just having a big idea but also the ability to constantly create new messages and getting consumers involved at the interactive level for the long term.

Or simply put, that it’s more about the user or brand experience that is built from the concept, the technology and the production/design expertise.

And as long as these 3 elements constantly evolve, any fixed institutional framework will be constantly behind the curve.

For example, while SEO and SEM are vogue words worth tossing around, people have moved on to other work i.e. taking apart my client’s new product and finding ways to build applications or campaigns on its key features or brand strengths in a way that makes things even easier to access by the target audience.

This can be a thematic idea. A software. A game. An email. A viral application or even a virus.

For now, all those who are busy pontificating about the ramifications of digital advertising, rather than doing it themselves, I would ask them to give it a rest. There’s no point to this because even digital creatives don’t know where we are heading.

[Randall Rothenberg]

Man, this is fun!

I'll have to read more carefully to respond in more detail.

Could not disagree more with the comment, "If you think the future is building powerful brand systems, then the primacy of the brilliant creative with the name on the door is kinda over." Every successful business, whatever the industry, is built around teams. No successful business, whatever the industry, can afford to handcuff the individual, the entrepreneur, the creative.

[Digitalent]

@ Brian

I completely agree with you regarding different blogs inspiring different debates. I enjoy Parker’s blog very much, and have always recognized the environment is closer to the old “Cheers” bar versus the environment I think you’re trying to create with your blog. Agency Spy is a waste of time, and a total shithole disaster.

To be clear, I found the “pissiness” in two areas.

1) There continues to be growing divisiveness between traditional advertising and digital (no news flash, I’m sure, for you and your visitors). Digital supporters—yourself included—seem to enjoy pointing out the failures of the traditional guys, branding the practice as outdated and getting worse. In many respects, you’re right. Hey, even Parker agrees. But what is the point of hammering them? It seems rooted in defensiveness and insecurity. There are a number of commentators on this thread who admit to being ex-traditional advertising executives. I have seen few ex-direct marketing executives. Well, guess what? I spent a few years doing direct marketing for a major direct marketing agency too. What always bugged me was that they believed they were the ugly stepchildren. And it wasn’t just at the agency employing me at the time. I’ve spoken to many others in the direct marketing field, and found similar attitudes. In fact, direct marketing icon Lester Wunderman displayed the same attitudes in his book, “Being Direct,” especially when he merged with Y&R. I find the same attitude in the digital field too, which makes Rothenberg’s direct-digital observations both relevant as well as critical to ultimately making progress. As I tried to point out in my comments here—although didn’t articulate as I’m about to—the work of any digital enterprise will be greatly affected by the shop’s proximity/relationship to the traditional advertising agency counterpart. If you’re the digital department in, say, Draftfcb, you will be greatly affected by the Draftfcb advertising “legacy,” as well as the direct “legacy,” depending upon which client you are servicing. I guarantee you, the digital drones in such places must submit to the directives of their “partners,” all of whom are desperately seeking to keep the clients happy—and all of whom are likely ignorant about the digital space. Creating “synergy” in such scenarios usually means trying to turn the TV spot or print ad into a banner or microsite. Additionally, you are beholden to the holding company, which will probably view you as secondary to the advertising practice. The holding companies are not about to let the digital wings usurp power from the traditional advertising guys. At least not before the digital folks can prove they will be more profitable. And to complete the circle, digital won’t bring in the dollars like advertising if they adopt a direct marketing business model. I could go one, but I’m starting to get verbose like Rothenberg. The net point: Ripping traditional advertising is not the answer. Someone made the comment that there must be a meeting of the minds between traditional and digital. This is the true challenge, especially when we are all trying to stay alive in a crumbling economy.

2) You opened your post by seemingly attacking Rothenberg. I’m not a regular visitor, or a regular reader of your Adweek work, so I don’t understand the history between you and Rothenberg. But even your referring to him as “Randy” seemed a little petty—closer to what I’d expect from Parker or the retarded Van Hoven at Agency Spy. I must admit that I’ve always respected Rothenberg. My introduction to him was reading “Where The Suckers Moon,” which anyone with brains must agree remains a classic and brilliant examination of traditional advertising. Rothenberg continued to write reports and columns, mostly for Ad Age, and he never failed to display high intelligence and a deep understanding about the many aspects of our business. In fact, Parker regularly praised Rothenberg’s work, which is a high compliment indeed. I continue to believe Rothenberg was correct in his observations. And as he pointed out, the two of you agree on more than not. If you really hope to be involved with the needed progress, you should create a respectful relationship with this man. For starters, he’s a lot smarter than you—or at least smarter than you think—on the digital front. And he’s significantly superior on the journalistic tip (although you show potential, for sure). Fueling divisiveness within the digital arena is not a good thing. As I’ve said before, it smacks of the political ugliness inherent in traditional advertising.

Again, pardon the verbose reply and typos. Cheers.

[Brian Morrissey]

@digitalent: That wasn't my intention He goes by Randy and Randall. It's not a slight. I have nothing against him. I've interviewed and chatted with him a few times. There's no history of any kind, negative or positive. The post doesn't attack him. I must have plenty of work to do on the journalistic tip if that's what you took away. Thanks for the feedback.

[Randall Rothenberg]

It's true -- I am completely interchangeably named. Brian's right -- there's no back story here. This is all a professional debate. IF WE'RE GONNA START SLINGIN' MUD, YOU'LL KNOW IT!

[Digitalent]

OK. Misread it. My bad.

[brad Kay]

Randy//

Bring this debate to your upcoming IAB conference in Orlando. I'll happily moderate it. Seriously, if the live banter is half as good as the online version, you'd have a well attended panel on a topic that people in our industry clearly care about.

Bradley

[Randall Rothenberg]

The formal "Great Debate" at this year's conference is much more controversial: "RESOLVED: Brand marketers don't need advertising agencies any more. Interactive publishers can provide all the services they need." John Partilla of Time Warner and Sarah Chubb of Conde Nast are arguing "pro," and Quentin George of Universal McCann and JP Maheu of Ogilvy are arguing "con."

[Hashem Bajwa]

Interesting discussion here. I agree with Brian that the evolution of great creative work today will mean a mix of different kinds if things, software, services, usefulness, etc. To Brian's point, we can't use digital like it's just another ad medium. Iain Tait of Poke London describes creating things for the web like opening up a TV and rewiring how it works completely, it's not just thinking about what to run on the TV. Far too many advertisers still (wrongly) think in that way, about "running" their ads on the web.

Which brings me to a question for you Randall: While I like that the IAB has themed their event around these topics, why have the old legacy companies debate it? I have great respect for Ogilvy, McCann and Conde Nast, but the real innovation happening on the web is coming from unexpected places and a very different set of people. To Brian's point, tap into these kinds of people actually doing new things, not the same old cast if a
characters who seem to be talking a lot but not walking it. The IAB will only benefit from a fresher perspective, pupose and people.