Skip to main content

The Full Stack “Advertising” Planner


The fragmentation of the communications landscape has created a complexity of channels, disciplines, and skill sets in the industry. Today, we have so many flavors of advertising agencies (e.g., digital, direct, PR, content, CRM, data agencies, mobile, brand, social media, innovation…) that it feels like going to a Baskin Robins store with 31 flavors to choose from.
The challenge is that the digital economy is pushing businesses to go cheaper, faster and better in this complex landscape. Companies need to prioritize velocity over perfection. Brands need to be always on to engage with consumers every day. Campaign cycles are running shorter, which makes it harder to architect a cohesive experience. On the other hand, people don’t differentiate the brand experience across channels. A bad experience it is still bad regardless of where it happens (Retail, Youtube, Facebook, Direct Mail, Call Center…) 
To reconcile the conflicting client needs of speed and specialization in a fragmented landscape, agencies and businesses need the rethink their approach to talent. To deliver the best work and customer experience, they need to move from specialists to generalists. They need full stack planners or marketers, people willing to bridge different worlds to deliver faster and more innovative solutions. 
In the ad agency world, this means planners that can bridge traditional brand planning with digital, UX, content and product development. A person who can help craft the brand story, develop a communications plan and architect the digital experience across channels. This does not mean that specialization does not matter.   Specialization is just going to be more relevant at the category level (e.g., healthcare, insurance, tourism, telecommunication…) rather than at the channel and discipline level. 
The counter argument that I normally get with this approach is that the environment is changing too fast. Therefore, you need specialists just to keep up with the technology and deliver the best work. While I get this point, I just don’t buy that people can only be good at one thing. Plus, channels are mushrooming so fast that it does not make sense to have people specialize in key channels or disciplines. If we needed one expert per channel, imagine the number of people we’d in the room to deliver on this approach and the time it would take to reach a consensus.
In summary, in today’s digital economy, brands need to innovate at a faster pace than ever to survive. They have a choice between being the disruptors or being disrupted. For brands to be nimble, they need their people to be nimble. This means exposing them to different kinds of thought and disciplines, to turn a concept into a finished product faster, cheaper and better.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How Cool Brands Stay Hot: Aim for Love, Not Likes

Love is an unconditional emotion while like is a more watered-down version of love. Loving someone means that he or she means everything to you while liking someone implies that you are only happy being with that person. Love involves deeper, stronger emotions, while like is more of a tender feeling towards that special someone. In a world of infinite choices, love is everything. Like is a nice to have.  Today, we live in a world of abundance, where people intent to create content surpass their time to consume it. Video content is much easier and cheaper to produce than at any other time in history. YouTube sees 400 hours of video uploaded every minute. Facebook has more than 250,000 status updates in the same span. We could never read and see everything online.  With unlimited possibilities and limited time, we pay sustainable attention to what we love and divided attention to what we like. We spend hours watching Homeland and give our divided attention to our news feed on Facebook. …

Adidas kills TV. Now, let’s debate

The News: Adidas is ditching TV for digital. The company is looking to boost its e-commerce revenues from $1.06 billion in 2016 to $4.25 billion by 2020 — and Adidas wants to use digital channels to get there. The Rationale: Fish where the fish are. Younger consumers don't watch TV anymore. They spend most of their time on their mobile devices. The Controversy: Why do they want to ditch a medium that is allegedly more "critical" to the brand and that generates more sales than digital? Here we have the Debate between TV and digital: Media Consumption TV: People are watching TV now more than ever.  Digital: People are consuming media more than ever, but mostly through digital devices. The Fact: In 2017, people are projected to spend 6 hours on digital – with the majority being mobile devices - while only spending 4 hours consuming television according to the eMarketer forecast. Younger viewers watch 2.5 times more internet video than TV. Consumers aged 13-24 watch 12.1 hours …

Winter and Summer in Adland

It is winter in Adland.  We have moved from a world of scarcity to a world of abundance and algorithms.  We have lost the power of influence. Trust has been severely damaged.  Consumer attention is the new bottleneck. We no longer decide who sees us. Instead, we get picked.  30 second is not enough anymore. We need to take consumers through a scenic journey to create a long lasting relationship.  Everyone is a publisher. It is easier than ever to create, but harder than ever to make a hit.  The impulse to make has far outrun the desire to consume.  New forces have emerged in the form of sophisticated algorithms.  A new model has surfaced called "pay per play,” which scored everything we do on relevance to feeding the machine. It decides what gets picked, when, and where, based on extreme relevancy.  Mass media has vanished. Precision and personalization have emerged.  It is winter in Adland. The good days are all long gone.  It is Summer in Adland We now have the power to make bra…