You know you're getting
old when you start looking back at certain parts of your career as the good old days. I admit I fall victim to the rose-colored-rear-view-mirror mentality once in a while. But you know what's worse?
Thinking back on those halcyon days and realizing just how antiquated and irrelevant the work you were doing then is today. It's humbling.
But I've come to realize there's
something even worse than that: not seeing just how antiquated and irrelevant the old approaches have become. Because I have to tell you, some in our industry still seem to be trying to
perfect the very practices I consider past their prime.
Case in point: reductionism. What I mean by this (and, yes, you can argue whether it's really a word if you want, but
Webster's says it's "a procedure or theory that reduces complex data and phenomena to simple terms") is the almost maniacal need we advertising professionals have to boil down solutions to one central
insight, one target audience, one core strategy and one campaign. The history and lore of advertising is rooted in identifying the single brilliant idea that will solve the client's problem.
But reflect briefly on how your own media habits and content choices have changed over the past decade, and you'll see how dangerous it can be to try to apply the reductionist approach
today. There are simply too many options, as well as the freedom and means to choose among them (not to mention more diversity of all kinds) to predict with accuracy a sole "right answer" to clients'
communication problems.
In my consulting work I try to point out the power of a "multiplicity" approach, embracing and planning against multiple target audiences, strategies and
creative approaches. In today's world, I believe this can be the difference between creating meaningful (read: profitable) connections with lots of different people and simply counting eyeballs among
a mass target. Usually my suggestion is met with a polite nod of the head, quickly followed by the many reasons why the agency and/or marketer couldn't possibly develop advertising against more than
one set of specifications. You'd think I had suggested something really crazy rather than something that's rather obviously needed.
I believe three core factors underlie the
unwillingness to entertain multiplicity as a legitimate approach:
>>It's unfamiliar. The ad industry was built on the practice of
unearthing the single best idea to accomplish client goals. It can be overwhelming to think about multiple, coexisting targets, strategies or campaigns. It also raises whole new questions: How will we
balance our investment across different approaches? Is one more important or potentially more profitable than another? Can we still have one overall brand position despite multiple ways in?
>>It's presumed to be expensive. In yesterday's production environment, creating multiple campaigns simply wasn't practical. Today it is, if you're inventive and
committed to the idea of creating truly meaningful, motivating communication with a number of different groups - and, importantly, if you loosen your definition of what a "campaign" is. When you let
go of trying to impress the largest number of people with a single execution, and instead accept that lots of smaller connections can add up to more than the sum of their parts, you begin to see that
the answer doesn't always have to be expensive TV shoots.
>>It's scary. At a time when everyone talks about risk-taking as a business mandate yet few follow
through, creating multiple communication approaches can feel like sticking multiple necks out. Yet there are successful precedents to look to. Consider Nike these days, for whom "Just Do It" manifests
as anything from an online workout record to running clubs to, yes, TV ads. The point is that I have my way of connecting to the brand and you have yours. Or look at Burger King, which threatens some
of us with Whopper deprivation, delights others with custom Xbox games and creeps out still others by draping kids in King costumes at Halloween. Its approach may not cling to the consistency rules of
years past, but it works.
No one would argue with the concept that the communications world bears little resemblance today to the one of decades ago - it contains infinitely more
options, more flexibility, more customization and more personal appeal. How great would it be if the same could be said of advertising?
Lisa Seward is the founder of Mod Communications, a strategic media consultancy. (lisa.seward@modideas.com)