Raise the topic of integrated marketing among marketer and watch heads nod briskly. It is not so clear if it is in acknowledgment of the fundamental soundness and pragmatic value or in application. It seems that few brands and companies really understand and embrace the practice.
Why is this? Surely we have moved past the naive understanding that ‘integrated’ meant all creative executions looked similar and were delivered to the market around the same time. Despite the rational support for implementing integrated marketing, there are some institutional boundaries that restrict it.
I suspect that many CMOs grew up in business with TV as the pinnacle of brand marketing activities; just now are we seeing senior marketers who have been “digital” for most of their life. These factors are not easy to overcome, but will as the next generation of CMOs emerges. In addition, the advertising world still portrays the big general agency who does TV and Print with greater reverence and esteem. These factors, plus agency compensation models have made true integrated marketing difficult.
So what is wrong with this approach, you ask? Let’s examine a typical approach for a brand campaign.
1. The general agency (as the lead agency) participates in developing or tweaking the Brand Positioning, from which the Big Idea is established.
2. The general agency develops TV Story Boards and Executions, with CMO and Senior Marketing staff involvement.
3. Other media leads (digital, direct marketing, PR, shopper, sponsorship, etc.) are then tasked with adapting the TV idea; too often via awkward agency to agency briefings.
4. Media planners is left to stitch together a cohesive plan by sequencing buys.
Rather than the waterfall cascade from TV to other communication, would it not be a better use of resources to have all agencies and marketers participate in the brand positioning and big idea development? With today’s multi-touch media and multi-channel distribution model, it is necessary to include broader viewpoints than just that of the TV audience. This will also enable media centered ideas to emerge upfront; critical with the plethora of social web choices available.
By engaging broader agency and brand resources to participate in evolving the campaign ideas, a richer and more vibrant discussion will ensue. The potential of having smart creative people build upon each other and create synergistic and linked programs is significant. No one agency or media form has a lock on good thinking, if we are open the possibilities. And, given the new media horizon the traditional approach has to be scrapped, since niche to mass is becoming a more common pattern.
No doubt, this will require advertisers and brands to take a very clear and firm stance with their agencies that all planning will be done in a collaborative and integrated manner. (Not to mention the ego soothing and hand holding needed). But the biggest challenge may lie with agency structures and compensation.
An ideal scenario might be one where a brand works with an agency holding company and defines the types of resources desired. It is up to that holding company to provide a ‘virtual team’ of the best and proper people at any given time to meet the needs. This could involve a mish-mash of people from general, media planning, digital etc. across their organization. Many boutique agencies follow this pattern now – working with strategic partners to supply critical resources a project requires, but not charging the client when not needed.
I expect the agency issue is not easy to resolve, but when enough client’s demand that approach it will be. The most critical opportunity is for clients to make the move to true integrated marketing for it is a better approach in meeting customer needs and maximizing the relationship and ultimately shareholder value
No comments:
Post a Comment