In the old full-service days, people never used to go into \u2018media\u2019. They went into advertising and specialised in media. Or they went into sales, and specialised in selling ad space or time.<\/p>\n
When media agencies started, one obvious impact was the split with creative. Mind you it had always been there even inside the full-service agencies, simply as a function of human nature and practicality. For practical reasons, departments were physically silo-ed. Human nature determined that many media individuals simply didn\u2019t understand and found it hard to mix with their creative counterparts (and vice-versa). Naturally there were exceptions; the true integrators were the ones who did well.<\/p>\n
Specialisation and financial independence meant that over time the media-creative divide got worse rather than better.<\/p>\n
Never mind, divide or no divide today it seems everyone is in \u2018advertising\u2019. Not just those involved in its creation, but those who sell it, who buy it, who plan it, even those who manage the technology that allows those buying it to buy it.<\/p>\n
Many are too far removed from the creation of the advertising even to know what they\u2019re placing, let alone how it came into existence.<\/p>\n
Those involved (in the broadest sense) in the creative process understand their role in the team. A media professional\u2019s part is about understanding where, when, how and to whom the message can most effectively be aimed.<\/p>\n
I would say that\u2019s pretty key, and should happen early on and as a major contributor to the creative process but I would also say that the form and content of the message trumps all. After all, the best media plan, the cheapest buy, the cleverest algorithm, the most amazing technology all count for nothing if the message is crap.<\/p>\n
Ad agency people have to care about the message. It\u2019s their product. Media people need to understand everything about the message in order to do their jobs well. Sales people should at the very least care sufficiently to know what the message is.<\/p>\n
You may be brilliant at technology or understand all there is to know about attribution and click-through rates. But these are a means to an end; the end is about making the message work as hard as possible.<\/p>\n
In May 1947 Bill Bernbach wrote a letter to all staff at his agency, Doyle Dane Bernbach. Here\u2019s part of what he wrote:<\/p>\n
\u201cThere are a lot of great technicians in advertising. And unfortunately, they talk the best game. They know all the rules\u2026They can give you fact after fact after fact. They are the scientists of advertising. But there\u2019s one little rub. Advertising is fundamentally persuasion, and persuasion happens not to be a science, but an art.\u201d<\/p>\n
70 years later there may be more science than there used to be in advertising but it\u2019s still more art than anything else.<\/p>\n
Many years ago I led the team responsible for this ad for \u2018The Observer\u2019<\/a>. I remember the media director at the agency (also my boss) telling me I had to produce a 30-second cut-down. I refused. We won awards (part of the strategy was to influence the agencies; having our ad played for free at award ceremonies was an efficient way to do that) and the whole campaign was a commercial success. No doubt if I had listened the media reach would have been higher.<\/p>\n