• by Cory Treffiletti , Featured Contributor, February 9, 2005

I think the advertising industry has some issues.

Our industry suffers from a number of psychological problems, near the top of which is an inferiority complex on one side and narcissism on the other. Interactive professionals have the inferiority complex whereas TV is too narcissistic.

Let me explain. This week, I witnessed a number of agencies and clients at the San Francisco i20 event distill their vision for the future landscapes of advertising into about two hours of content. I listened to very insightful presentations about the future of interactive advertising and marketing, and everyone who spoke agreed that clutter is an issue, that all media is moving in a digital direction, and that our "piece of the pie" is getting larger.

All of this sounded great to me and then I came to the conclusion that we should not be differentiating the two anymore. Our audience certainly isn't!

This was the core of the argument in my head. I was taught that to develop an effective campaign, you must step inside the head of the consumer and view the opportunities from their perspective. Perspective allows you to have an idea of the positioning of your brand in the consumer's eyes.

When I applied this model to what we were talking about, it became very apparent that the consumer sees no line of distinction. The consumer doesn't say, "I like TV ads, but I don't like online ads." They don't make a distinction between the effectiveness of an ad in the Sunday New York Times vs. the ad in The Wall Street Journal or the ad in Rolling Stone magazine.

To be honest, they don't think about them at all. They are being trained by our continuous deluge of ads to not pay attention, so the only time they really and truly interact with an advertising unit is at the point of rationalization.

The point of rationalization is sometimes referred to as the tipping point or the point of epiphany. It's the moment they really see the ad and it speaks to them or they decide to move on; it is the moment they become conscious of the ad.

This happens in all forms of media and may come as a result of frequency across media, so why or how can we continue to draw a line of distinction between these forms of media? To take the question even further, if all media is indeed becoming digital in one way or the other, how can we continue to think of them as differentiated between offline and online?

Why not refer to all of this simply as advertising and marketing? Why not refer to all of this simply as communication opportunities?

I think it's time for the advertising industry to seek some therapy. The folks in the offline world need to accept the writing that's on the wall. They are no longer the dominant force in advertising. The online people need to get the chip off their shoulders and recognize that there is much to be learned about traditional advertising.

As the two merge together we can start to be more objective and less confrontational. We can identify the types of media that work well with one another, and remove the old forms that are not adding value to the communications relationship.

I would love to see various industry publishers embrace this idea. No more should we see magazines or online sites that specialize in "interactive advertising." They should be specializing in "advertising." At the very least, they should be specializing in "accountable advertising." For the offline pubs and people who don't cover interactive, it's time to wake up and get some editorial moving ahead, don't you think? You might miss the boat completely if you don't.

What are your thoughts?