The death of (the term) digital

The day after my post about the ways digital advertising is different than traditional, I saw this tweet from John Winsor, co-author of Baked In and co-founder of Victors & Spoils:

 



 

This got me thinking. Does the advertising industry unnaturally force traditional and digital into separate silos? It’s true that creatives in traditional and digital agencies have to think and work in different ways. But my last post relied on generalizations, and oversimplified things in order to make its point. There's no doubt that integrated campaigns, wherever they come from, are becoming the norm. But “traditional” and “digital” are agency terms we use internally. The world doesn’t see campaigns the same way we do. When I joined AKQA, one of the things that excited me was that the focus isn’t on digital - it’s always about the idea and the experience and the best way to reach and affect people.

The same day I read Winsor’s thought-provoking tweet, I had two separate conversations that also helped put things in perspective. One with a Creative Director steeped in the oldest school of traditional. The other with an Agency Lead shaping the newest school of digital.

They both made the same point.

Successful campaigns are never successful because they’re traditional or digital. Campaigns become successful when they’re social and interactive. When they embed themselves in pop culture and latch onto people’s minds. This holds true for any campaign, no matter where it comes from.

“Social” campaigns existed before there was the term “social media.” If something was memorable enough, it became a part of culture because culture kept referring to it. Campaigns like VW’s “Da Da Da” and “Got Milk?” and Bud’s “Wassup.” Those were all from a pre-Twitter/Facebook era, but they became social anyway. They got mentioned on Letterman and the Today Show. The difference between then and now is that today’s digital tools make the conversation a little easier. 

Digital gets the hype because it’s the popular new kid on the block. But sooner or later someone is going to figure out how to make other mediums more social and interactive. Remember the Jaws 19 billboard from Back to the Future Part 2? How long before all OOH interacts with people who walk by? Some examples already exist. What about using our iPads to interact with live TV? It’s already happening, and it’s the type of thing that’s going to become second nature. How long before a Like button is at the end of every TV commercial?

Looking back, the projects I work on at AKQA don’t start with digital. They start with the consumer. Each project is about giving the consumer something they’re looking for, whether they know it or not. What we do often ends up as a digital execution - right now that’s the best way to start a conversation. Smirnoff Nightlife Exchange created cultural events all over the globe. Fiat Eco:Drive helps eco-conscious drivers monitor their gas consumption. Gearheads race the Volkswagen GTI on their iPhones. Fans of Halo Reach erected an actual monument using points of light and a robot. Calling any of this work digital doesn’t quite describe it. And it’s not quite advertising. It’s something much more intrinsic. It’s social. It’s interactive.

So what does it all mean? A great campaign will never be about the platform. Platforms come and go; they evolve. When we put our pen or Wacom stylus down, it’s always going to be about the idea and perfectly integrating an idea into the right platform. It’s a subtle shift in perspective, but an important one.    

Comments

[dbedwood]

I like that. spot on.
having been schooled in the 'traditional' ways as a creative team ( although back then it was just called advertising, there wasn't anything to be traditional against) the importance of thinking about people when writing ideas, was always paramount. Human behavior hasn't changed that much over millennia, if at all. Technology more often just enables or highlights these behaviors more, (people have always bitched, now they can do it instantly whilst watching xfactor!)

I think the endless boring debate about traditional VS digital is mostly conducted by people who don't have much knowledge of what makes great work, if they did know, they'd not spend a great time debating it, they'd just be doing it.

Platforms, technology and trends will always be the thing most people talk about as it's much easier to do that, and more interesting, than to talk about (or actually do) how someone came up with the funny conceit for the idea, (Just like bullet time filled the Matrix extras, not so much on it about the writing process).

To make great advertising, today, needs a combination and mutual respect of a number of different skill sets. Too often I've heard arguing over who 'owns' the idea, too often there is disrespect from a creative team towards digital designers and too often their is a disrespect from designers to creative teams, thinking they can do their job as well as their own.

But just as in making a film where, amongst many other things, you need a cinematographer, screenwriter, director, special effects team, you wouldn't expect the cinematographer to write the script and vice versa. Respectful collaboration is the key.

Once we get beyond all this 'Vs' crap, we can just focus all the energy on who has the best ideas.

[JC]

Great post. Thank you for sharing your experience.