The media paradox
Haven't you heard? The traditional way of marketing and advertising is dead. It's not about the 30-second television spot, print, or radio or even out-of-home. Ok, maybe it is still about out-of-home. It's about reaching consumers with techniques that resonate and make an impact. The internet and digital devices are where those consumers are spending their time, and digital methods of reaching them are where the brand should be spending its budget.
Uh, yeah, right.
Welcome to the reality of the media paradox. It's not that there is anything inherently fallible in that statement -- over time…a loooong time -- but why, then, have there been so few inroads in the way that brands reach people through digital? Why is the interactive agency still often an adjunct to the process?
Why, when 30 percent of media consumption is digital, is it only 5 percent of total ad spending? The interactive agency and the traditional agency offer a unique combination of services to serve the client's business. If they could only coexist without trying to cannibalize each other's business, maybe it would make all of our lives a little easier.
There are a number of ways to look at this, and there is no single answer on how to get more involved. However, there is one constant: the traditional agency. If you are not getting involved early enough in the process, you have no one to blame but yourself. If you seek to understand the client's business and barriers to growth and structure your ideas around that instead of pitching what you think they should do, there is not an intelligent brand out there that will not listen.
Unfortunately, not all brands have the most intelligent people at their marketing helm. However, even the biggest brand marketing noob knows more about their brand than the agencies.
But how do the agencies themselves view the issue? And are we viewing the marketing landscape through an agency model that no longer exists?
Author notes: Sean X Cummings is director of marketing for Ask.com. Read full bio.