|
Is the Web really moving so fast that the recently bold innovative, interactive marketers are now the "traditional" media...?
Are they obsessed with RIA/Flash based "orgies" for the senses and missing the boat a little on the "new" marketing, the conversational marketing, the blog marketing, the social software, etc.?
I was listening to a rant the other day on Joseph Jaffe's podcast, and the rantee kept saying a phrase that brought back memories of the heady days of the dotcom era, namely "they just don't get it."
Now, I've got mixed feelings about that phrase, because in many cases it came to represent the hubris and arrogance that would sometimes creep into the culture of these agencies. But that being said, the successful interactive agencies probably have some structural and cultural problems that will get in the way of them jumping on this next wave.
From a recent report from Forrester, Interactive Markters had this to say:
Just 13% reported using blogs or social networks in marketing, and 49% said they had no plans to do so in the next year.
If that's the marketers, then what hope do the clients have? Talk about the blind leading the blind.
If you then read this article here, it seems that McKinsey is taking a leadership position in getting some old and new media leaders to get together in New York. Mind you, in support of the idea that what used to be new media is now traditional, take a read:
McKinsey, the management consultancy, is understood to have asked senior executives from old and new media groups alike – from Yahoo to YouTube...
From "Yahoo to YouTube..." that's pretty funny. I wonder if anyone from Technorati is going?
Tip of the Hat
|
Comments
Hey Karl:
I tried hitting your post with a trackback ping, but it doesn't appear to have gone through.
I see much of the Interactive Marketing industry breaking into two camps - the Online Video camp and the Engagement Camp. The former is obsessed with broadcast-model stuff (particularly online commercials) and the latter is more interested in two-way communication.
I know it may look as if there's a certain arrogance creeping into the discussion, but I don't blame Jaffe and his guests for occasionally indulging in the ol' point and laugh every so often (or making fun of folks who, in their estimation "don't get it.")
The truth is, we've already been down the "Internet is broadcast" path, and we know where that leads. Could you take a minute and visit my post on your post and let me know what you think?
http://www.hespos.com/archives/000827.html
Posted by: Tom Hespos | 06.01.06
Thanks for your comments Tom. On the surface, I like your distinction between the broadcast camp and the engagement camp. The problem is that many agencies execute broadcast strategies, that 'look' like engagement, and were probably pitched to the client as engagement and yet fail to engage :-)
See my post from last year on the Agency.com campaign for audible.com that was supposed to be viral: http://blog.experiencecurve.com/archives/farting-elves-vs-agency-and-audible
and of course the create your own priceless ad campaign from mastercard:
http://blog.experiencecurve.com/archives/priceless
another broadcast campaign disguised as engagement.
I guess I might say there are three camps, Engagement, Psuedo Engagement, and Broadcast :-)
Posted by: karl long | 06.02.06
I'm actually not surprised by this. Social media based marketing takes more time than money -- which isn't what many agencies want to deal with. It also can require long-term commitement. Short campaigns don't really work well. Unless you happen to hatch some killer viral thing like Subservient Chicken -- but those are few and far between.
What's interesting is that a client of mine recently came back from a conference with a Forrester report telling them to get into social media marketing. She sent it to me and I just laughed, because I've been trying to talk her into it for months.
Posted by: CarlenLea | 06.02.06