Commentary
Creativity Feeds The Data Beast (And Digital Killed The TV Star)
- by Cory Treffiletti , Featured Contributor, January 6, 2010
2009 saw the explosion of data as the primary driver behind the growth of our business, or at least the defense of dollars that spent in the face of the great recession. Creativity seemed to take a second position to data, because data is something that can be proven, while creativity is far too subjective. 2010 is headed directly into the arms of data once again, with more and more companies focusing on ways to harvest and utilize behavioral data, whether it is social-graph- or real-time- and recency-driven. I don't argue with the rationale for this direction; data is our strongest weapon as we battle the nonbelievers (whoever they actually may be) who feel TV is still a better medium for advertisers. I'd suggest that we not bypass creativity completely, because creativity is what actually provides us with better access to data, and can help us assume the top position for marketing dollars.
advertisement
advertisement
The majority of creativity being applied to digital marketing is for the innovation behind the data systems. I ask that we start to applaud the creativity that can be applied to the front-end that users actually see, guaranteeing they truly engage with the message. All the data in the world can tell me what I already know: users are flocking to social media. The data also tells me that interaction rates are low but that digital media can indeed influence awareness and drive consideration and intent. What I want to see is more innovation being applied to the actual interface of the media we provide and the marketing that we interject. I want to see more refined, polished, yet engaging executions that grab the attention of consumers and get them to react in some way.
The issue I see at hand is twofold. First off, there is a serious issue facing our business in 2011: the government may indeed legislate the way that companies can place and use cookies. If that happens, then the data-driven revolution is dead in its tracks. The second thing is that our budgets will continue to grow only if we can prove that we drive a higher impact on awareness and consideration than TV -- and that is still a hard battle to fight.
Creativity gets attention, and getting attention is what drives marketing. Attention creates interaction and interaction is what creates data. Data is what is driving our business, so the simple fact is that we need more creativity in order to feed the data beast and continue to see growth in our business.
My hope for 2010 is that creativity can at least regain an equal footing to the world of data. I have to admit that I am part of the problem here; for many years I told clients, "Just get us a bunch of ad units so we can optimize. They don't all have to be killer, just get us volume to work with." That approach does a disservice to creativity, and I apologize. We need to respect the audience a bit more and try to show them good work. We need to value each interaction and show consumers we want to provide them with good information. We need to put our best foot forward and provide something of value, so consumers respond and we prove the value of the medium for marketers.
Simply put: no more "punch the monkey" or "dancing aliens." No more "X10 cameras" or "mortgage rates are lower" ads. We need more intelligent thought applied to the work we put forth, and we need to be sure that we support that work so it is exposed to the largest, targeted audience possible. It doesn't have to be an ad that skims along the page and intrudes upon my experience, but it can be successive story lines or integrated into content. It can be creative without being annoying.
So for 2010, let's put on our thinking hats and spit out some creative work that will prove once and for all that digital marketing is a worthy combatant for TV. The "sight, sound, and motion" argument doesn't work anymore for me. What about you?
Correct - the "sight, sound and motion" thing was dead in 1980 and now that we're 30 years beyond that the actual content and interactivity of video needs to be addressed. How do we find, engage and retain an audience for online video programming? How do develop compelling content in a world of infinite choices? (Shameless plug: I actually know how to do this - but I'm not going to put 5 paragraphs of buzzwords and links) Because, when all is said and done, if the programming / content is worthless - ain't nobody gonna watch the ads.
Cory - this is soooooo "chicken or the egg" -ish!!! You say, "Creativity gets attention, and getting attention is what drives marketing. Attention creates interaction and interaction is what creates data"....but doesn't data about WHO our consumers actually are ultimately drive creative, and overall marketing strategy? 'Creative' is simply a component of marketing which happens to contribute to some channels which are not measurable. See you in San Fran!!!
Robin Anthony
VP, Sr. Recruiter
MLB Associates
robin@mlbassociates.com
518/523-2371 (T)
www.mlbassociates.com
Executive Search - Measurable Marketing
One of the many most memorable ads I have ever seen was an ad for Volkswagon. It was a single black line outline about 3/4 of the top of the car on a totally white background. The strength came from everybody knew the product from that line - no blinking, no 3-D. What would products give to be able to share their message so simply, relative, addressable, reactive, directly and inexpensively? All you need is a black line to take you from here to there.
Sing it, brotha. You can only collect info from people who are willing to engage, and just hammering them with "buy now!" messages won't lead to anything but "I can't SEE you" from the audience.
Consumers have the power to turn off messaging - adblock web apps, DVRs to zap the crap on TV. Haven't seen much success on SM from the usual suspects, either - traditional marketers seem to think SM is simply another channel for the same over-amped "buy now!" junk.
Creating content that sells the message without annoying the hell out of the desired audience should be the goal. I think the data on successful campaigns will support my theory....
Agree that online has to prove its value, but not sure it has to be either online or TV. In the days of market mix modeling, etc., online just has to demonstrate that it's a valuable piece of the puzzle. (E.g., Show that TV/Online is better than TV Only). When the "online vs. offlline" war ends and the true battle begins (I.e., What mix of Online/offline is the best arsenal to achieve one's goals), that's when all vehicles of value win.
I think you are coming at the whole issue from the angle of the advertiser and NOT from the angle of the end-user.
The bottom line is that online there has been a huge tidal shift and the user is now in control, and I know you agree with this premise based on your past articles.
So the first questions have to be, what does the user want to see and where do they want to see it? NOT, how do we implement creative campaigns so we can get more eyeballs and engagement.
Get back to the basics, speak to the user in the language and in the places they want to hear it and realize that THEY are in control and give them the tools to share, voice, comment, debate.
If you are talking digital, you have to talk from the perspective of the end user. So it's not about creativity and data and TV or digital, it's about the end user and what they want to see and do. Find this out first and give them what they want.