Recently, the always-worth-a-read Dominic Mills writing on Mediatel’s Newsline commented on Starcom’s tool to automate content. As part of a larger initiative that has been running for several years, the agency has licenced access to archive content from various magazine titles in the Americas, has systematized this content and is now making “repurposed” versions of the original available to clients for use on their (the clients’) sites.
On the one hand this is smart. There is, at least for the moment, an advertiser demand for “content.” The difficulty with “content” is that someone has to create it, and media agencies don’t as a matter of course have journalists, or as I suppose we should refer to them “content creators” on their staffs. So why not take what’s out there sitting in an archive somewhere and use it?
On the other hand it seems to me to be the latest manifestation of a rather concerning trend -- media agencies’ obsession with having to quantify and systematize everything.
Media agencies’ services have expanded enormously and largely usefully over the last decade. If forced to sum up what they offer in a trite sentence, it would be something like, “We own the numbers.”
Anything that can be quantified is meat and drink to the media agencies. Furthermore they are much more pragmatic and customer-focused than (say) the market research agencies that seem to find themselves caught in a paralysis of self-doubt if anyone ever dreams of questioning why they do what they do. Read a few of the market research blogs and user group discussions out there and you too will start to wonder if there is a future. The media agency solution would just be to shrug and do it differently.
Look at marketing science, or econometrics. Media agencies would claim the edge over independent specialist operations in that they take the findings through to execution, to the planning and buying of the communication. Specialists might be technically “better” (whatever that might mean) but the promise of a seamless move from analyzing something to taking action on the findings makes the agencies’ offerings (available through their own specialist operating units, like WPP’s OHAL) attractive to many (despite the fact that marking your own homework poses a whole other set of questions).
Or take the digital trading operations. They have brought an ability to crunch large quantities of data and to take the results through to the buy. Whatever the carpers might say (and I speak as a major carper) there is no doubt that large amounts of data are indeed crunched and used.
So “we own the numbers” isn’t a bad mantra.
But I can’t help thinking its soul-less. Numbers can only take you so far. As Kim Shillinglaw, who heads two BBC TV channels, BBC2 and BBC4, said in a recent interview, “Small audiences of people who are indifferent are a problem. But a small audience that is really responding to something is a wonderful thing.” Or, “Large numbers of people who are reached at the right moment and engage fully with the message are far more attractive than even larger numbers of people who are indifferent.”
That’s what’s wrong with many media agency tools. Yes the numbers might work on a CPM or CPC or CPAnything basis; but without some creativity to add the magic the solutions won’t move people to do anything.
The mix of numbers tempered with creative thought is what existed in the best full-service ad agency media departments. The potency of the numerate/creative mix survived in some of the best of the media agencies where at least some individuals believed in the importance of working alongside their creative counterparts. And of course it fuels that interesting hybrid, the communications planner inside a creative agency.
Numbers need context; they need creative dilution in the same way that the more extreme creative ideas need some pragmatism and scale. It’s frankly depressing to think, as many, especially in the specialist digital world of today seem to do that everything can be quantified.
By all means own the numbers, but don’t confuse that with creativity. And don’t think that one without the other is anything other than half the solution.
Brian Jacobs spent over 35 years in advertising, media and research agencies including spells atLeo Burnett (UK, EMEA, International Media Director), Carat International (Managing Director), Universal McCann (EMEA Director) and Millward Brown (EVP, Global Media). He has worked in the UK, EMEA and globally out of the USA. His experience covers shifts from full-service ad agencies to media agencies; from traditional single-commercial-channel TV to multi-faceted digital channels; and from media planning to multi-disciplinary communication planning. Brian can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Read all Brian Jacobs' MediaBizBloggers commentaries at The Cog Blog.
Check us out on Facebook at MediaBizBloggers.com
Follow our Twitter updates at @MediaBizBlogger
The opinions and points of view expressed in this commentary are exclusively the views of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of MediaBizBloggers.com management or associated bloggers. MediaBizBloggers is an open thought leadership platform and readers may share their comments and opinions in response to all commentaries.