The battle of opinions continues: first Anderson vs Gladwell; now Goodby vs Garfield
Change is fun. Or at least fun to argue about. A month ago we had Chris Anderson, Seth Godin and Malcolm Gladwell debating the logic of the “free economy.” Anderson argues that everything will be free. Godin declares it already is. Gladwell reminds everyone that no one’s making money so the model put forth by Anderson is unsustainable.
Now this month we have the release of Bob Garfield’s The Chaos Scenario. It’s part Groundswell, part Chris Brogan, part Clay Shirky. The controversial (to some) Ad Age columnist lets us know that old media is dead, digital changes everything, and we have to listen. Listenomics he calls it. So if you’re among those who haven’t been listening, say to David Armano, Danny Brown, Jeremiah Owyang or Chris Brogan, to name but a few, you can find a synthesis of all that’s been said already on social media blogs consolidated nicely into one, very well-written book. One thing about Garfield, the man can write. No shortage of active verbs and pithy sentences in this book. Here he is talking about the advertising specialty item.
“Not that the 30-second spot represents high culture, exactly, but it’s hard for mere words to convey how déclassé is the advertising-speciality niche. Still, I’ll try: They are the white-belt/white shoes Full Cleveland of marketing. In a digital world, advertising specialities are as analog as you can possible get.”
“Honey, get rid of those refrigerator magnets. Bob says they’re déclassé.”
But wait, there’s more. Jeff Goodby, the legendary founder and chief creative of one the world’s most awarded advertising agencies, has weighed in. Fortunately, Jeff lets us know that despite Garfield’s doom and gloom scenario ad agencies really don’t have to worry. Why? Because lots of people are working on morphing advertising into something that people will actually want to experience and seek out.
Here’s Jeff: “There is simply too much money and corporate energy devoted to this cause for those budgets, and hopes, to disappear overnight. There will be no “Post-apocalyptic Post-Advertising Age,” as Garfield calls it.
Jeff goes on. “Not only that, but I firmly believe we don’t want to be advertised to in private, with nothing to discuss around the water cooler. We like the social interaction of enjoying or hating these ham-fisted corporate efforts together.”
While it’s not a very confident-boosting argument, a lot of agency people will breathe easy this week. After all, it’s Jeff Goodby.
Anyone paying attention has to agree with Garfield, even the ad folks who’ve been the brunt of his hold-no-punches critiques. The mass media advertising model is dying fast. Look at your own habits. When’s the last time you actually watched a TV spot on television? I watch them on YouTube.
Then again, there is some validity to Jeff’s defense of ad agencies. The fact is we’re well on our way to having so many communities, YouTube videos and social media exchanges that we’re quickly moving from conversation to cacophony. Eventually what will stand out from the noise will be great content and creative ideas. Sure they may be crowdsourced, user generated, and closer to the production quality of the typical YouTube video, but regardless they will need to be interesting, memorable and emotional. And guess who knows how to do that? Creative agencies like Goodby Silverstein and Partners. They’ll certainly be among those who figure out how to create, source, inspire and distribute that kind of content. Maybe they’ll do it themselves; perhaps they’ll simply become curators, brokers or the teachers for many individuals learning to do it themselves. These companies may look different, but they’ll still be around.
But Jeff’s also wrong. We may want to share a common experience as he suggests, but we don’t need advertising to give it to us. We can create it ourselves. Think green avatar. Or the fact that we were as likely to take in Michael Jackson’s unexpected death on Twitter as on television. We, the consumer, want control, participation, and a relationship with each other regarding the brands we care about. We don’t want a pre-packaged message. And so far, most agencies only excel at the latter.
Finally, if advertising does survive, it won’t be the money and corporate energy that saves it. Reinvention will come from the efforts of individuals, developers and startups that understand the new intersection of consumers, content and technology. It will come from learning to leverage the capabilities of companies like Kluster, which can allegedly crowdsource creative decision making; the Morphic Group, whose utility and applications are potentially more creative than messages; and Aerva, a firm that can give content creators access to any screen anywhere.
Staying in business will have less to do with money and energy than it will in staying curious and open-minded. That’s why I’m reading both Garfield and Goodby. Who do you think’s right?
Comments
9 Responses to “The battle of opinions continues: first Anderson vs Gladwell; now Goodby vs Garfield”
Leave a Reply
I didn’t have the chance to take a look at “The Chaos Scenario” yet. But I know a couple of things about chaos, and I find the title well fitted for the subject. Henry Brooks Adams once said “Chaos was the law of nature. Order was the dream of man.” Markets are constantly undergoing a transformation based on basic needs, anxieties and social values of different cultures. One third of psychologists are employed in business and industry to explain the chaotic behaviour of consumer society. “Business is people. Social media is people.” (http://thedigitalcitizen.wordpress.com/2009/09/06/business-is-people-social-media-is-people-social-media-is-business/). Advertising is all about understanding people’s needs. It is about effective communication. This may seem analog to some, but it is a speciality we can’t afford to lose. I don’t think there is a question of whether advertising will survive or not. But I feel there is a great need for us all to communicate.
Zoe Marmara´s last blog ..What’s on your mind?
Zoe:
Agree. But connections happen differently now. No longer one way. We can connect by creating opportunities for our consumers to participate. It’s why I’ve become a huge proponent of crowdsourcing. People want a role, whether creating videos, being citizen journalists, whatever. Advertising needs to redefine how it connects brands to people. Thanks for your thoughts.
Dialogue between Jeff Goodby and Bob Garfield on the future of the ‘advertising business’ has at least one advantage over other public debates occurring at the moment.
Unlike the idiots who appear on TV holding up a photo of Pres. Obama with a Hitler moustache thinking this advances the debate on healthcare reform, these two are experts on the issues and therefore willing to admit when the other has a point.
We should draw some hope from this fact. On the other hand, advertising is morphing so radically it is not within the predictive control of these two gentleman. In fact, no professional group can possibly dictate the number of new options that become available every month, or when these new communication channels will be introduced.
Garfield calls that chaos, and Goodby says there are opportunities to tell brand stories using these channels. They are both correct, but it leaves undecided whether the economic model we know as an ‘ad agency’ has a place in this new paradigm. I’m not sure anyone is equipped to answer that question right now.
Anthony:
What a reasonable reply. It’s no surprise that everyone argues their point from their own self interest. Garfield has to sell books and generate reaction, so he needs to be a little controversial. I’m halfway through Chaos Scenario and to be honest, it’s hard to disagree with him. Of course, others have all been saying the same thing for a long time. But Garfield does a good job tying it together. Goodby also must argue from his post as an ad agency guy. And given that he’s transformed a traditional agency into one that has some sense of digital creative no doubt he’ll figure things out. But the future of marketing will definitely see the reduced influence and impact of anything remotely resembling traditional agencies. Technology, social media, consumer behavior will see to that. Clients will always need inventive solutions, brilliant executions (think Nike Chalkbot at the Tour de France), and ways to mobilize an audience. But it won’t be with TV spots. It won’t even be with traditional story telling. I will in all likelihood be with experiences, communities, and inspiration that get consumers to create, share and spread their version of a brand’s story. Our role will be to encourage, foster and curate that process and its outcome.
Edward,
I’m still trying to figure out if you’re surprised by the fact that I’m being reasonable or that the dialogue on your site has returned to more muted tones after the crowdsourcing debate.
Anyway, thanks for the ‘big ups’ as they say.
I’m aware of the ChalkBot case study and as much as I admire the ingenuity (and idealism) of those involved in the execution of this idea, it reminds me that as our institutions recede from controlling the public discourse, many municipalities are also looking to monetize our public spaces by leaving them in the hands of corporations who will happily fill it up with advertising of one sort or another. Messages of hope and inspiration from Nike included.
The Internet, as you know, was government property at one time.
In the process of researching Howard Gossage recently I came across the following quote: “Advertising, being a very young thing, is as curiously innocent of the shape of evil as a 10 year old. There is no real comprehension of sin. The industry, it is true, is awash with condemnations of bad practice, but one gets the same feeling as when a child evangelist preaches against fornication. It is unlikely that he knows
what he is talking about.”
If we can have any influence over the future direction of advertising, we should ensure the development of social media is not simply providing a faster route to a ‘Minority Report’ scenario for our society.
arb:
Gossage was a smart guy. And his insights remain relevant. I’m not worrying about the Minority Report scenario. There seems to be, as James Surowiecki documented, a wisdom in crowds. More importantly, those of us who are supposed to be good at extracting insight, synthesizing content and focusing brands, will (or should) simply learn to do that in the midst of chaos and conversation, learning to listen, then influence, or at least steer. However, we’ll have more data and ideas at our disposal from which to craft our strategies. There may be many speaking who don’t know what they’re talking about. The key is to make sure that those of us who are listening do, or at least learn to know what we’re talking about.
Thanks for another stimulating post!
The fact is we want advertising. Most of the time it gets in the way, but once in a while it helps us make a decision to buy something that improves the quality of our lives.
I think it is about good versus bad advertising. We need smarter ads that tell us we should buy something even if we don’t know we need it yet.
Bad ads (email spam, TV commercials, newspaper ads, etc.) will morph into better ads (keyword ads, corporate sponsorships, entertaining ads, etc.)
Advertising will never die, the industry will just get better at reaching the people ready to buy.
I think one key change in the future will be that marketing companies will become more closely involved in product development. Creating TV commercials for a weak product is stupid marketing. Developing an amazing product that people want to talk about is genius marketing. IDEO is going to be in the advertising business.
John Bardos´s last blog ..Stop Telling Me What to Do (The Normal Person’s Guide to Success)
Two things: advertising (this is semantics) the word seems to represent the old (mass media). And that’s what I think will slowly die. Also, the word reach seems antiquated. It presumes a one way message, sent by us, to get to an audience. We will actually get better at “engaging, inspiring, connecting, inviting, being visible and accessible” to people ready to buy. And yeah, creating tv commecials, especially for a bad product, is stupid.
[...] book by the same name is out now. Rather than being caught up in this whirlwind, Jeff Goodby has a few calming words for the industry. “There is simply too much money and corporate energy devoted to this cause for [...]