One and the same or two different beasts? Many people in the advertising industry use the words to mean the same thing. I am one that happily used to switch between the two. Recently however it seems they are clear delineations being made. Now depending on what particular area of advertising and what point you have to make to differentiate yourself from the competition doing "digital" or "interactive" can actually be used as an insult.
Here are afew definitions I have picked up:
- digital = just the channels we deliver in
- interactive = specialist agency
- interactive = everything we do should have some form of interaction with our audience, therefore eveything we do is "interative"
- digital = craft
- interactive = strategy
I would be interested in any other thoughts...
Tags:
giles rhys jones digital vs interactive
3 comments:
I kind of think that increasingly everyone's getting around to understanding that 'digital' works best when it's 'interactive'.
rik at www.livinginadigitalworld.com
If you take "interaction" rather than "interactive", then it becomes an alternative to interruption - rather (or even, as well as) simply interrupting the consumer, you invite them to interact.
Once they're interacting, communication goals become easier to achieve, from building brand awareness and loyalty to collection of data to simply asking the customer what it is that they actually want.
From this point of view, "digital" becomes a way in which you can achieve "interaction".
Of course Rik is right when he says that the best digital is interactive, although I think it's better to say that the best communication works when its interactive. Digital is an excellent way of achieving this, but it's not the only one.
Adam at www.wayoutwhere.com
what a interesting blog of interactive marketing, I think that the digital is better than interactive, is there more information about this?
Post a Comment