It's back. Those of you who have been around the online ad industry for a long time might have heard it before. Those of you who have been in advertising for more than 10 years have also heard it before, in other contexts. The word is "integration."
The word conjures all manners of images; from media that hold hands around a campfire singing "Kumbaya" to shape-shifting, mighty morphin' media that change from one medium into another, to Egon Schiele's "Embrace."
Agencies, pundits, top media sales brass and industry wonks are again talking regularly about integration of media plans and the vehicles that make up those plans.
The question is, is integration more than just a word?
Clients are looking for more integrated service from their agencies. In the hopes of maximizing effectiveness and efficiencies among all of their marketing efforts, advertisers seek a holistic, interdisciplinary approach to their businesses. Agencies in turn are looking for solutions that marry with these needs. Publishers and multi-platform media companies in turn proffer up the word "integrated" to those agencies in the hopes of attracting dollars that the client wants to spend on integrated initiatives.
What most clients, agencies and media companies/publishers don't seem to understand is that integration is not really a media opportunity; it is a creative strategy.
Yes, ladies and gentleman. Integration is not really possible in media.
Media companies with multiple platforms to offer are not INTEGRATING, they are offering up multiple touch points.
Back in the early 90s, the media and marketing world referred to this as "media mix."
This is no different than a major media company giving an advertiser spots on TV, banners on their site and pre-roll video rotation in their streaming video product or on an iPod.
Is the agency's purpose for looking for an integrated media buy to realize the achievement of a strategic objective or simply to yield cost efficiencies?
If it is the former, then the term "integration" may not be adequate. If it is the latter, we are simply talking about a way to further commoditize the media inventory we buy, and I'm not sure this is a good thing.
I guess I just don't find integration to be an adequate term for what marketers and advertisers are really seeking to accomplish. Unless what we are referring to is a creative solution that seeks to integrate a brand into the content with which it is being affiliated, what we are really talking about with media is coordinated effectiveness, not integration.
The real question marketers should be articulating is not whether or not a media plan is integrated, but whether or not the various media can be coordinated for maximum cumulative effectiveness. What balance of online, television, print and / or mobile best deliver on a client's business objective?
This is what we are really asking about when we ask for integration.
And the only way to answer this is through trial and research. Multiplatform media, while interesting, really is just media mix. And its effectiveness remains unverifiable.
I am the biggest fan of surround sound marketing strategies you will ever find. I advocate bold attempts at using new media in new ways. But I feel the industry needs to be realistic with itself when it comes to integration, or we will forever be reaching out for something that doesn't really exist. A grail quest, a search for El Dorado.
Jim Meskauskas is media strategies editor for iMedia. Read full bio here.
