• by Mike Bloxham , Op-Ed Contributor, June 4, 2008

Full disclosure: I consider Mitch Oscar to be a friend; I've have been a regular attendee of Carat's Digital Exchange since its inception and have also presented there.

Despite these things -- maybe because of these things -- I feel able to comment objectively on Carat's recent decision to terminate the Exchange as many of us had experienced it and to "part company" with Mitch (or whatever euphemism you prefer).

Naturally, when friends find themselves on the wrong side of an HR decision, one's instinct is to sympathize and offer what support one can. Mitch -- as many of you know -- is not the sort of person to need our sympathy (though let's face it, the no doubt large number of calls and emails he will have received won't have been entirely unwelcome). He's resourceful and respected. As surely one of the most knowledgeable people in the business on matters relating to enhanced advertising opportunities afforded by digital TV (in all its forms), I find it hard to believe he will not be offered a handful of opportunities in the coming weeks and months.

For these reasons, then -- and because it is a company's business who they retain and don't -- I'm not going to say much more of Carat's decision to let him go, but will instead focus on what that decision may signal to many who care about the informed and collaborative exchange of insights and experience relative to the evolution of digital TV -- and specifically advertising.

As many readers will know, one of the great achievements of the Exchange has been to gather together groups of people, who would often see each other as competitors, to share presentation and debate ideas -- sometimes even sharing data (warts and all). This is rare enough in any environment, but in the hyper-competitive world of media, it was truly uncommon to see people from other agencies crammed among the rest of us in Carat's conference room on the 36^th floor; sometimes they even presented.

Such a forum is a rare thing and should be nurtured. Not blindly, and not for some esoteric good that looks suspiciously like a cost item on the balance sheet (however minimal), but as something that -- while serving its role as a forum for discussion -- is also a perfect environment for cultivating new business. Naturally, I have no idea if Carat generated worthwhile new business out of the Exchange, but I would venture to suggest that if it did not, it has only itself to blame. My own experience of running similar events in the past has convinced me they are an excellent route to new business as long as the integrity of the event itself is respected and those seeking the opportunities don't behave like the proverbial bull in a china shop.

Following last week's news that Mitch was leaving Carat and that June's Exchange was cancelled came word on Monday that Carat will be retaining the event, but overhauling the format and focus: "Once a forum exclusively covering the digital television world, the new Carat Exchange will now include topics on all areas of media and marketing - search marketing, digital TV, mobile, social networking, print, television, radio, branded entertainment, multicultural marketing, among others..."

All extremely important subjects, many worthy of their own events. And therein lies the point. From focusing on what is arguably one of the most important issues of the day in media -- namely the digital future of the TV industry and how business can and must change to take full advantage of it -- the event seems to be shifting to focus on well, everything. And hence nothing.

With a laundry list of an agenda like this, it is hard to see how any of these subjects are going to benefit from any kind of ongoing meaningful dialogue without a serious injection of resource on Carat's part. The only way to do the kind of justice to all these subjects that the Exchange 1.0 gave to enhanced advertising and digital TV would be to carve out a regular schedule of events dedicated to each of the areas listed. Maybe this is the plan, but I'd be very surprised (or course I'd love to be proved wrong -- even if I do find myself off the invite list).

While Monday's announcement may suggest the agency sees the business argument for hosting this type of event, I'm still bemused by the decision to effectively dilute a strong and widely recognized position as facilitator on the digital switchover so close to the transition itself (which is only 257 days away at the time this piece is published).

To paraphrase Lincoln, "You can be relevant to some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time. But you cannot be relevant to all of the people all of the time."

The Exchange 1.0 was highly relevant to a wide range of people preoccupied with one of the most pressing media issues of recent times. Hopefully the Exchange 2.0 won't fall into the trap of trying to be relevant to all of the people all of the time.

Meanwhile, I'm sure those of you who know him will join me in keenly anticipating the next manifestation of Mitch Oscar - beyond the TV Board of course.

(Now I'm off to the mountains so you get a break from me for a week or so.)