Rory Sutherland makes an interesting point in an article for Campaign about creatives having responsibility for the media budget and the fact that they would most likely spend it on content that would reach as many people and generate better interest than pissing it up Murdoch's wall.
The difference between earned and bought attention.
But just as channels should not have preconcieved notions about what they do: DM does relationship, TV does branding and just as attitude to technology is not defined by age, neither is being wedded to grps, reach, frequency and volume defined by whether you work in media or at a creative agency.
I have yet to define the golden question to identify these people but it might just be Rory's "do you identify your ideal man/women by her shoes size?"
As marketing directors and their agencies are increasingly being held more accountable they retreat ever more into the safety of number and "proven" best practice. (If a panel of 600 odd people reporting behavior and attitude change is proven success of anything.)
This is in stark contrast with the increasing need for investment or risk marketing which he describe one element of in his article.
The more we move away from payment models based on the production of stuff to ones that reward success and the more we move away from ideas just coming from the creative department the better opportunity we have of producing stuff that works.
Tags: rory sutherland giles rhys jones future of advertising advertising media
Post a Comment