10 Reasons Why There’s Not More Great Work in the Interactive Space
Ben Malbon
07/04/2009
(NOTE: This post is an attempt to capture some of the emerging themes resulting from an earlier and original post on the subject - see http://bit.ly/iZf7 for original post . . . probably worth going there first if you’ve landed here and want to contribute)
Some great, insightful and provocative replies to the earlier question around the perceived paucity of great work in interactive.
First off, I found it fascinating that - to date at least - no one’s responded with a great list of knockout creative, or, in fact, with any knockout creative. This would suggest that there is indeed a problem and that it’s not just perception. Please correct me if I’m wrong here. I’m reassured that various folks who ‘know their shit’ have commented here, and I’m certain they would have picked out the gems had I missed them in my haste to make the point.
Second, what we have emerging is a really very useful list of factors that, together, explain why we’re not yet seeing consistently great work, and in particular strong enduring campaigns, in the interactive space. Factors cited by contributors will be familiar to many, and include the following, which are reported not as fact but as supposition, at least at this stage:
1. SPEED - Our lack of speed in responding to the changing landscape, a blight suffered by agencies of both old & new skools, digital & analogue, hampers creative innovation.
2. ENDURANCE - We suffer a particular weakness at creating work that endures over time - what Bud Caddell captures well as ‘long is the untapped market’.
3. VALUE - There endures a disparity in budget allocation between offline & online worlds, suggestive of a pervasive disparity in value in clients’ eyes, perhaps.
4. EFFECTIVENESS - The online mix is inevitably ‘optimized’, resulting in the replacement of brand building content for ‘hard sell’ work that ‘really delivers’ (Griffin Farley nails this powerfully in his response, suggesting that we currently encourage clients to look at media through the wrong lens).
5. PASSION - Interactivity can certainly make an ordinary brand more useful or more relevant, but truly great interactive ideas still tend to come from brands that people care about already (Tom Morton, as ever, sums this up infinitely better than I could).
6. LINEARITY - Involvement of the specialist digital agencies occurs too late for them to show what they can really do; they provide a microwave meal-style service rather than the full Cordon Bleu of which they are capable; they manage rather than soar.
7. BELATEDNESS - Even when the right people are cast together (the geeks, the strategists & the creatives) it’s often too late for that fertile collision to produce the magic that should be possible.
8. NOT INVENTED HERE - We’re frequently seduced by the temptation to want to invent from scratch rather than borrow (&, critically, credit) with pride.
9. NARRATIVE - There’s currently much less of a culture of developing narrative or storytelling on the web (possibly linked to numerous points, above, including one made by Rory Sutherland about the instant disposability - & thus perceived low value - of much interactive work). I look enviously at the output of Campfire and other such agencies in this respect.
10. RISK - We’re crap at taking risks, partly because there’s no facility for doing so (& I liked Gareth Kay’s point about the CDP studio in the basement where people could flex their muscles and stretch the boundaries), but partly because many of us think we’re already taking risks, or being ‘new skool’ just meddling in digital. We’re not.
Hmmm. So what now. While many of these factors remain out of our immediate control or require significant re-tooling of our ‘factories’ (client budgets & pressures, archaic processes, the dreaded ‘optimization’ of media plans at the last second, the fact that people are more likely to be moved by atheletes or music than by fabric conditioner or banks), actually so much is easily within our remit to change. Now.
As Sir Winston Churchill noted, with Churchillian economy, ‘attitude is a little thing that makes a big difference’.
Around half of these factors seem - at first glance - to be matters more of approach than of structure. Creating an environment for experimentation, giving away credit (or at the very least ensuring it’s shared with those who deserve it), encouraging early and respectful collaboration . . . these might surely be actioned today? What’s stopping us?
Some of the more structural issues - around the value of interactive, linear process, cumbersome execution of that process - present more of a headache, but remain ENTIRELY within our control. The one area I feel I particularly disagree with contributors on is in instances where the client is blamed for something. I’m not absolving certain clients from responsibility for poor interactive work, but I am clearing them of the responsibility for changing the situation. It’s down to the folks who runs the businesses which are dysfunctional to change those businesses. That’s us, by the way.
So moving forward I’d really like to hear about solutions to some of these issues. It has to be the most exciting time to be doing what we’re doing since Mad Men. We’re only going to be doing this - if we’re lucky - for a few handfuls of years. So my mantra is fight for change today, not tomorrow. And don’t even think about complaining if you’re not also actively engaged in changing.
Would really value your thoughts on accelerating transformation.
Tags:
23 comments on “10 Reasons Why There’s Not More Great Work in the Interactive Space”
bill allen Said (April 7, 2009 at 5:30 am)
I think, like I said in that other post…but with completely different words, agencies (digital or otherwise) need to get more involved in creating things that will draw clients to them rather than getting in front of clients and saying what they can do.
A lot of clients have only the most passing interaction with the elements of the interactive world that a lot of us take for granted…and they’re no different than the users we’re trying to engage.
Qapture is a great example of getting out ahead of the curve and creating some gravity that will draw in users and interaction. I don’t think it’s OMGWTFBBQ! But it’s community creation and development for it’s own sake and I think that is a pretty profound shift in mindset.
Tim Malbon Said (April 7, 2009 at 6:28 am)
Have a look at this brilliant, short, deck from John Maeda, President of the Rhode Island School of Design: http://creativeleadership.com/slides-4 Maeda is both a designer and computer scientist (as well as a brilliant thinker). The fact that his work straddles both design and technology gives him a unique perspective on the area where these two fields are merging and is very relevant to you marketing types. Slides 3 and 4 are particularly instructive - as he contrasts the hallmarks of traditional leadership with those required for new-skool Creative Leadership. The comments here touch on some of the contrasts he points to (taking risks, linearity etc) but I think the most powerful contrast he draws is “Orchestra Model” vs “Jazz Ensemble”. This for me captures the gap in leadership and team structure between ‘what you have’ and ‘what you need’ t do great interactive, whilst simultaneously capturing the vast difference in aesthetic approach. Two further characteristics of the new creative leadership are “Comfort with Ambiguity” and “Metaphorical in Tone” - so I won’t explain too much. Have a look at the deck and see which column most describes you and your organisation. How many people want to be in the left hand column any more…?
stueccles Said (April 7, 2009 at 8:50 am)
I agree with the issues of risk and value.
Too often digital production work appears to be a “race to the bottom”, ideas and execution are too rapid a commodity. Down-stream digital agencies are often selected, by clients and lead agencies, by their price and an idea too well defined so they can form a contractual relationship.
How often do you hear of a risky piece of interactive work being prototyped and thrown away to actually improve the creative process.
Truely great work in the interactive space won’t happen until the same budgets and processes are thrown at it that are more commonly seen with a first-round funding for a digital startup.
And that will only happen when we get the same passion for digital as delivered by the entrepreneurs, which is sadly lacking at both clients and agencies alike.
When did all this become work?
Anjali Ramachandran Said (April 7, 2009 at 9:46 am)
Projector + Uniqlo = Uniqlock, one of my favourite pieces of digital work. Knockout creative. AND it’s branded (following up on my comment to your previous post).
Build the right team, make that blindingly obvious idea a creative reality, sell it in, sit back and relax. Or start work on the next piece of knockout creative. Let the naysayers say what they want, and go for broke.
Patricia McDonald Said (April 7, 2009 at 10:32 am)
Find the issues of narrative ability and comfort with risk particularly resonant.
Yes, getting to truly great work in the interactive space requires much greater comfort with risk, ambiguity, even an element of chaos than most of us are instinctively comfortable with. But if we are are uncomfortable our clients, anxious to set budgets and agree on fixed tasks are inevitably even less comfortable. So somehow we have to find ways of taking the pain and fear out of risk-presenting clients with the upside of risk but also finding faster, cheaper ways to experiment. Clients I’ve spoken to are comfortable with experimentation, even happy to set aside an experimentation fund, as long as the financial risk is at a level they feel is manageable. We also need to show them that there is method in the madness, that what seems like an inefficient way of working is actually the only effective way to work.
Your point about narrative struck me on two levels. One, “traditional” marketing thinking tends to be convergent-we try to summarise, precis, refine and and focus. We ask what is the one, single thing we want to say. Great on-line experiences tend to be divergent, fragmented and multi-faceted. It’s a fundamental change of mindset. Second, perhaps we need to be mashing up entirely different skill sets-not simply technologists, strategists and creatives but creators of wonderful off-line narratives and images with on-line skills. So, for example, writers who make a virtue of the fragmented narrative or unreliable narrator in the off-line space could do extraordinary things in the on-line space if enabled with the right technical partnerships.
Arindam Said (April 7, 2009 at 11:56 am)
the fuss about why is digital so low on the radar for clients is REASON 10, most pople think about a national/regional work… since it is ROI linked. Digital or no digital it is hard to get any guy to take a risk in marketing. the bold ones are those who have no geography to look at, but serve a global community. the interactive work based on human insights make splases in a time frame… later the frame of reference changes ofr consumers, there is no magic in repeating it…CISCO GOAL, COKE HAPPINESS FACTORY, LIVE EARTH, good examples.
we never thought of digital advertising and the OTHER as ANALOG ADVERTISING did we… so why draw boundaries when we can collaborate the skills… the only reason I can think of is fear of losing money in chasing a dream… thats what plagues all of us
Arindam Said (April 7, 2009 at 12:03 pm)
pardon the spelling errors…to read it would actually be lisp-syncing … the head thinks faster than my keybored skills
Conrad Said (April 7, 2009 at 12:54 pm)
1. Make progress, not noise – find creative ways of delivering objective-based interactive campaigns versus doing lots of stuff. Perhaps this only goes half way to solving the effectiveness issue, but at least we can show clients that we think beyond the microsite and ancillary “cool kid” tactics that turn clients into skeptics.
2. Create Utility – ask yourself if the work ads value (to users, to the media mix, to the brand). A lot of times we’re so focused on deadlines and drunk on our own “creativity” that we forget people “use” what we make. If the work doesn’t do anything for the consumer, it’s not going to do anything for the brand.
3. Stop focusing on the meme du jour – enough said.
4. Reward Collaboration - don’t ask me what that “reward” looks like, but it just seems that on a very human level, behavioral change (even in Ad Land) can be tied back to incentives…remember Maslow? Until people are rewarded for strong cross-platform/media/disciplinary integration and collaboration, they’ll have no NEW reasons to celebrate or foster those behaviors.julie walker Said (April 7, 2009 at 1:05 pm)
Two challenges agencies face are:
• alleviating the risks in using the new technologies which are available
• getting over the perception that technology changes really quickly and that they need to keep up
The reality is that technology takes time to be understood as an enabler, for example CRM has been around since the early 1990’s and it has only been in the mainstream for the last 5 years and even now there are very few companies who actually gain maximum benefit from the tools and there are plenty of mid to small companies who have not adopted it or even know what it does.
There is an anxious view within the marketing world that “we are missing out on something really cool” – if we are not using the latest cool technology. Time needs to be spent on working out what piece of the puzzle technology supports or enables and then look to include it in the process – history shows that the first or best technology does not always become the market leader – it may just be the first company to solve that problem. The challenge is to identify the different problems and look at the companies solving then today and work out how these tools can benefit the creative process today and be prepared to replace the technology over time.
The technology used today is unlikely to be the technology that is used in 3 or 5 years time; however the underlying problems do not change:
• Sell more product in one or more markets
• Increase market share in one or markets
• Launch product in one or more markets
• Gain insight about customers needs and wants
• Identify unmet needs and look to address with new product or service
• Communicate with stakeholders, customers, employees, shareholders, partners, suppliers, advocates, external influencers etc
• Engage stakeholders in conversation to gain insight
• Measure results of sales and marketing activities
• Create assets for client campaign and distribute to local market for adaptation and localisation
• Share media plans with global client team
• Etc etc etc……..
The challenge for agencies is to understand that technology provides an enabling platform, which can be used to support the creative process and provide new communication channels as well as create and develop stakeholder relationships, which can provide valuable insight into needs and wants - creating new opportunities.
Many campaigns and initiatives today are about getting quick wins through grabbing attention in one or more digital channel rather than creating a platform for longer term benefits.
Businesses need to do both and agencies have to decide how far into the new online world which encompasses business model innovation, new creative and communication platforms, Video, IPTV and mobile, mixing branded and user generated content, two way communication and feedback on all areas of a business.
If agencies want to maximise the benefits that can be gained in an online world and create new opportunities for themselves and alleviate concerns with their clients then they need to put more effort into understanding what technology is, what it does and how this can be incorporated into the creative process – using twitter and writing blogs and creating quirky online videos is not enough.Chick Foxgrover Said (April 7, 2009 at 3:20 pm)
Great post.
I do think though that it misses an important point. The underlying problems of commerce and marketing do not change but people’s behavior does. And it’s evolving in front of us, with online identity formation, participatory remix behaviors and all sorts of other interesting and emerging behaviors and artefacts.
The point about the internet being a platform is terrific but it’s important to remember it’s a platform for action and not a medium for messages. Or rather the medium for messaging is incorporated into to something much larger and dynamic as far as peoples lives today are concerned.
Love you point about technology as the SUBJECT of conversation. Technology is not the point other than to remind us all that we’re building software and that brings new concepts of creativity and long term responsibilities to the forefront. Thanks for great contribution.julie walker Said (April 7, 2009 at 5:34 pm)
Thank you.
Agree completely about change in behaviour being the result of the new tools and technologies - we are all changing our behaviour, agencies, clients, consumers and every segment within our custoer bases.
This change in behaviour has resulted in an expanding number of services and opportunities many of which need new skills and time to let the individuals with those skills learn to work together effectively and when they do - creatives, production studios, technology specialists, insight analysts, business consultants and clients - new creative examples will emerge which will be beyond what we can imagine today.
This is new for us all and it will be those that experiement, learn and evolve from the process who create the award winning work of the future.
I think this will be a great journey.
Laurence Parkes Said (April 7, 2009 at 1:41 pm)
Fantastic discussion. Thanks for starting this one off Ben.
Obviously there are loads of reasons for our collective output being weaker than it could be. However, I think there is one key point that, if sorted out, will cause all the other issues will fall into line.
Ben mentioned, in the original post, the importance of defining what great digital work is. I believe that if we (clients and collaborating agencies) shared the same inspiring vision then “great digital work” would come more freely. It strikes me that in traditional advertising there is a long and understood heritage of what makes good communication. Go back to the early days of print advertising and the ads regarded as hum-dingers in their day are still exciting today.
This understanding is kept alive and fresh by the constant debate about what the modern classics are (e.g. Cadbury’s Gorilla and Hovis “As good today…”). These ads take on an aura as a result of commentary and become a shared language within ad agencies and their clients.
The problem that digital ideas is that there is far less opportunity for people to overhear the campaigns. This means that digital campaigns are less likely to become part of the pop cultural landscape. It also means that they are likely to be far fewer conversations about why these ideas deserve to be lauded.
We have a responsibility to spread knowledge and excitement about good digital campaigns. We should be helped by creative awards but often the content we need is put out of reach. The Cannes Lions website used to be a fantastic resource of creative from previous winners to share and discuss with colleagues and clients. Unfortunately, you now 1,500 euros for a subscription.
Surely we can find a way for these awards organisations to make money and help the common cause for better creative work?
Does anyone know of a aggregation website of links to agencies websites that host the previous “greats” (as a way of by-passing the awards) - like an FWA.com but for all types of campaigns?
If not - I might set one up…
Mamus Said (April 7, 2009 at 3:43 pm)
What constitutes “knockout” work? Please explain.
ryan Said (April 9, 2009 at 3:26 pm)
exactly, thank you. please.
faris Said (April 7, 2009 at 3:49 pm)
too many good brains have weighed in already mate
But - let’s look at some of these points.
Speed- the impact horizon of ideas gets shorter as replication and distribution gets faster. Sheet music becomes records becomes mp3. Bestselling hits are hits for less long accordingly.
Speed: We are not nimble. We are big, we are tangled in webs of different specialisms, the sign off process takes longer that the half life of ideas.
Endurance: We create campaigns. Digital doesn’t work that way. But in order to have ongoing commitment, someone needs to commit ongoing to manage and so on. Who does that?
At the moment we are still at the point of media transposition - using techniques from old media and applying it to new.
This is wrong.
Because the internet is a new kind of medium. Interactive at it’s heart. User controlled.
Value - ‘ad inventory’ is practically infinite online - so there will always be deflationary pressure when it comes to ‘ad units/ but nothing considered interesting usually lives in them anyway.
Passion - sure, in a way but these aren’t big passions. Mostly. All products are boring [to most people]. We try to make them interesting. Trainers: Boring. Japanese cars: Boring
Obviously I back transmedia planning a narrative model…
Anyway - I guess - if I’m to contribute anything - ALL WORK IS INTERACTIVE.
Even TV ads must be considered as such. Content to be remixed and spread.
But, for some good ‘interactive work’
http://www.crackunit.com/2009/03/17/9-reasons-japanese-interactive-work-is-awesome/
right - have to go give a presentation about digital and that
Mamus Said (April 7, 2009 at 6:15 pm)
Faris. You wrote much, but didn’t say anything. Sorry man.
Maybe part of the reason there is no “knockout” work is because creatives and interactive folks are really speaking to themselves.
ACTA NON VERBA
Best wishes -jm
faris Said (April 7, 2009 at 6:56 pm)
Yeah - you’re probably right about that
rockonfx
faris Said (April 7, 2009 at 6:57 pm)
in fact ignore me and just click on the link
alex benady Said (April 8, 2009 at 4:11 pm)
Seems to me that too much online marcoms is about interruption and not enough is about engagement. Even where there is an attempt to engage it through the medium of quick gags, not longer lasting emotional/imntellectual connections.
rnadworny Said (April 9, 2009 at 2:46 pm)
No knockout creative? That’s interesting because even the offline guys these days are continually looking at and getting inspired by the work shown on thefwa.com, for example.
Want one to start? How about http://www.gettheglass.com/? Knockout by North Kingdom
Mel Exon Said (April 9, 2009 at 10:28 pm)
Great example, thank you for the reminder. Also check out Mike Arauz’s own post responding to Ben’s provocation here. Amongst other things, he cites what he sees as strong work in the interactive marketing space http://bit.ly/M17uJ
Alex Morrison Said (April 9, 2009 at 3:07 pm)
Love these two posts, thanks for sparking the debate– it’s one that I’ve been curious about for some time.
While I think there has been great creative work in the interactive space, largely the examples people site are elegantly executed or concepted campaign microsites- a breed that while not dead, is certainly not the main piece of the puzzle anymore. More difficult to measure is the connective social fabric that is so crucial to great creative in digital.
In addition to all of the factors above (RISK being the most weighty, I believe, with very few clients willing to embrace great, but risky, ideas) is that the very power of great advertising work as we’ve known it to date is in SIMPLICITY. Single-minded ideas that resonate without a ton of bells and whistles.
The inherent challenge with interactive is to not be distracted by all the amazing executional possibilities that exist to the point where it no longer comes from a single fountainhead– a big idea that resonates. Granted, today that idea will subsequently be chopped up into a thousand pieces, edited, and re-mixed by consumers, but without a single-minded concept, we’ll never really stand a chance.
The great creative work I’m anxious to see in digital will start from a single insight and action statement, be informed by but not lured by the “shiny new objects” du jour, and most importantly, LEAVE ROOM FOR CONSUMERS to own the idea themselves. Giving the consumer credit and a leading role is crucial to this.
To use an analogy I’ve used of late quite often- for the music folks out there- think of it as syncopation. Only when you leave spaces in the rhythm is there a groove, and only then do the audience members move into it. And that’s called dance.
I’d like to see consumers dance.
Mel Exon Said (April 10, 2009 at 12:06 am)
Alex, I love your use of dance as an analogy.
“Dance will bring the dead world to life and make it human”
Herbert Marcuse
(this via our own Mr Malbon’s PhD on clubbing which I can tell you is a chewy read, but worth it if this whole subject interests you http://bit.ly/1Acx8)As I see it, most great creative, whether interactive or not in fact, has always allowed the audience space to draw their own conclusions, to fill in the gaps. The resulting sense of reward is not just for kicks, it creates a greater emotional connection between audience and brand.
The obvious relevance of your dance analogy to interactive is that it’s kinetic, behavioural. But what makes the analogy particularly powerful is the sense of humanity, connection, energy and inspiration it brings with it. And here I think we’re getting closer to a definition of what constitutes truly ‘knockout’ work.
You may be right about microsites, but I find format per se the least interesting thing. I am much more interested in what Alex Benady says above about lasting emotion connections, which - whilst by no means limited to this - builds on the point in Ben’s post about disposability and the lack of involving narrative or storytelling culture amongst brands on the web.
Undoubtedly, they have it easy in this sense, but entertainment brands are often the exception here. By way of example, say what you will about Watchmen, the marketing content around the graphic-novel-turned-film was, in my opinion, damn well near flawless. It built an immersive world a fan could lose themselves in happily over a prolonged period of time. More on this another day, but for now check out Dan Light at PPC’s candid & riveting account of producing it all here http://bit.ly/ajiU