I’ve been thinking a lot lately about whether we are developing into an integrated agency and about the implications of this for innovation in digital marketing, and how this addresses the challenges of how brands communicate going forwards.
My take on the term ‘integrated’ is that it is normally used to refer to the combined offering of media planning, buying, and creative services. In digital marketing this often translates into: how much budget can we spend driving people to an award-winning platform we have created. I am obviously being deliberately simplistic in my definition but the point remains the same, how different is this approach from creating a 30-second TV spot?
For today’s marketing environment the integrated story is as tired as the 30 second slot it was built around.
Around the insanely stimulating work environment that is Spannerworks I think that we have settled on a way to articulate our view, and it’s been arrived at holistically and from a point of re-framing the question. Integration fails because people don’t act in an integrated way and some activities just don’t integrate because the thought process is different. People are connecting, traveling, and creating via networks - a concept that’s as people-centered as human history, the only difference today is that we can do it on a far bigger, faster and more complicated scale.
So we settle on a view that is more about connectedness than integration. Connected brands will win big because they interact with their environment. Ideas become the new network hubs of innovation, with the brilliant ones taking centre stage in people’s imaginations, earning attention and engagement in the process.
One thing is certain, changes to our communications environment are transformational they are complex, rapidly evolving and perpetually in motion. But I guess you cannot be involved with a revolution without getting a little stressed out can you? Back to the media plan? Press delete now…
December 10th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
I\’ve seen this definition of Integrated Marketing a few times lately, but it doesn\’t float for me. Firstly, you are talking, here at least, about \”integrated Marketing Communications\” which is but one chapter of the \”Integrated Marketing\” story. Even in this narrow context however, I would have to differ with you. Integrated does not mean a one stop shop. It might require, in part at least, getting your media and creative ducks in a row, but what it is really about is ensuring that all your communications are saying the same thing, pointing in the same direction and thereby achieving the consistency of message that is esential for the development of brands.
\”The Big Idea\” that represents your brand community, the way that it manifests as a proposition to different segments and the route that you take to reach them are the three sides of the communicatiosn triangle. The Big Idea has to be BIG - and that\’s clearly a challenge too far for most clients and agencies, the proposition has to be direct and relevant and the route has to be uninterrupted and with the minimum overlap between the different stages in the journey or the different media. However, this is still just a case of taking a promise to your market. Where most organisations fall on their face is in the delivery and that\’s where \”Integrated Marketing\” comes into play. Integrated Marketing as distinct from Integrated Marketing Communications takes the next step in the evolutionary process by ensuring that all the marketing stuff is pointing in the same direction. That means that you stand a greater liklihood of delivering your promise every time.
There are all kinds of reasons and facts supporting why you have to do this, but what it boils down to is the single difference between a successful company and an unsuccessful one - efficiency. Marketing and in particular marketing communications hasn\’t been efficient in the past because its been hard to measure. These days you can measure anything so all this stuff is not only possible, but there are absolutely no excuses for not doing it.
However, we are still not there because to create the optimum efficiency, without which companies in the next few years will be dead meat, you need New Model Marketing or Integarted Business. This integrates business functions, structures and practices with marketing and marcoms to create a new type of business with the brand at its core and marketing in the driving seat.
This is what I do with my clients. It works, its no myth and it inceases ROI. And THAT\’S what we are here for - yes?
December 12th, 2007 at 11:33 am
Your point is well made Phil. Theoretically an integrated campaign is joined-up but this is where we, as the agency community, and clients as our customers often struggle. Many clients are not organised internally in a way that facilitates an integrated marcomms approach. Clients are also not buying the integrated language any more - they’ve experienced too much BS and few ways of accurately substantiating the integrated marcomms approach through measurement. They are left to decipher competing ‘channels’ performance often presented in simplistic formats.
I agree that it’s about efficiency, but it’s also about having the tools and mentality to challenge accepted thinking about ROI. If creative big ideas can be connected to the best of digital practice (complexity, scale, and availability of data) we are on to something altogether different.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:22 pm
I recognise that most businesses are not structured in a way that facilitates \”integrated marketing\” - this is my area.
As for client organisations turning their back on the \”integrated\” solutions proposition, I think this is really the fault of the marcoms sector who have raised unrealistic expectations of what they should expect integrated marcoms to achieve.
The fact is that integrated marcoms can only convey a promise, what makes a business successful is actually delivering that promise and that\’s where most businesses fail.
I\’m with you on this, belive me, my background is advertising and I work with marketing services firms across the world, so I see what drives this, but marcoms aencies can\’t take this on for a raft of reasons and their efforts to do so are producing this desensitisation you refer to.
The way to go is to firstly identify a promise that is realistic (which as I have said the macoms sector has shown itself to be pretty bad at for a start) and then set about using coms skills in different ways to ensure that the promise is delivered.
The way I see it, its a win-win situation. Clients win because they become more successful (there is no doubt about it) and agencies win because it opens up new opportunities for them to practice their skills in different areas of a business. Hopefully this will reduce the agency tendency to adopt a role that they aren\’t equipped to tackle - integrated marketing strategy.
I have no problem with agencies inegrating communications strategy, we need you guys to do what you do best, but that\’s only a part of marketing.
My battle is to get people to stop using the term \”marketing\” when what they are talking about is \”marketing communications\” so that we can then focus on the other aspects of business that constitute what \”maketing\” really is.
Undoubtedly there is a requirement for clients to restructure and re-think and that\’s scary for some, but it needn\’t be traumatic if you handle it in an organised way - that\’s what Full Effect Marketing and in particular my Brand Discovery Programme is about. Hopefully, I\’ll get more clients in shape to manage the process and the stuff that you guys conribute
Happy to debate this \’til the cows come home, but I\’m more interested in working with organisations - client and agency - who want to make it happen. Now if you fancy a crusade, that\’s one I\’d be happy to join!
January 5th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
I think it is fair to say that integrated is something that happens very, very rarely.
Interesting post. Thanks.
www.spotlightideas.co.uk