We are the consumer.
First off, this is not an article the decries the use of research. Research is and always will be an important part of marketing. So if you are a researcher out there, I love you and you will always be needed. Keep up the good work. This post is more about the dangers of using research over our minds and guts.

David Ogilvy once said, “The consumer is not a moron, she is your wife.” I would like to amend that quote to, “The customer is not a moron, the customer is us.” The longer I’m in the advertising world the more it astounds me that we fail to recognize this. We base many of our strategic decisions on research. These decisions affect the creative briefs we get. Sometimes we will even take the creative concepts we make and then stick them in front of focus groups to research their efficacy. All this testing and research blinds us to the fact that we – all of us in advertising and marketing – are also consumers. We watch commercials, we read ads, we surf the net. We buy things like clothes, food and cars. We consume products and we consume advertising.

I’m not saying research is useless. Research can always help inform decisions and directions. But it should never dictate it. If you gather a group of advertising professionals, and their gut feeling on a strategy or creative is in stark contrast to the research, flush the research.

Why research is unreliable:

1. Tact
I believe there are several reasons why research can be unreliable. The first of which is tact. In our modern society we have trained ourselves to be sensitive. Sensitive to other peoples’ feelings, sensitive to the consequences of our actions and our words, and with good cause.

Anyone who has been in a focus group, or has done an online survey, or has even filled out a little card at a restaurant has likely experienced the following:  you’re filling out your card at the restaurant, and it asks you about the quality of your food. It was pretty bad. The steak was overcooked, and the french fries undercooked (I eat at classy steak-and-french-fry places ;) ). You go to put a mark beside the 1 on a scale of 1-5. One being craptastic, and 5 being ÜBER FOOD. The food deserves a 1, but do you give it a 1? Some of us would, but a lot of us second guess ourselves. We don’t want to be too harsh. What if putting a 1 is the final nail in the coffin on an aspiring chef’s career? Or maybe we just don’t want to be mean. We rationalize the decision, making wild comparisons like “well it was better than fast food, or dog food,”and “its not the worst food I’ve ever eaten.” Our pencil moves slightly to the right, and we pick a 2 or a 3.

2. Context
The second reason is context. In Malcolm Gladwell’s Blink, he talks about the efficacy of research and focus groups. He brings up “New Coke,” the Coke designed to beat Pepsi in the now infamous Pepsi challenge. Coke invested millions, using focus groups to engineer a cola that consumers would pick over Pepsi in the classic blind sip test. After perfecting their cola they brought it to market, and it was one of the biggest failures in the history of the beverage industry.

Even today New Coke is the butt of many a comedian’s joke, if not the punchline. So what happened? Well people don’t drink cola a sip at a time in a white room with 2-way glass. They enjoy their cola at a picnic, or relaxing on their couch. The take longer, not shorter sips, and the ambience of the environments were they enjoy the beverage affect their mental states. In short, the research was flawed because the people in the focus groups where not in their standard environment and the state of mind where they would regularly consume cola.

When I was in university, I was out at a mall shopping. A woman approached me and offered me 10 bucks to come in a little room and watch some initial drafts of a Molson Ex commercial. I sat down in a LazyBoy, in a stark white room, and saw storyboards with drawn characters representing the actors in the would-be commercials. The audio track played as the storyboards flashed in progression. “It is obvious this woman wants to have sex.” the commercial started. “But I had sex yesterday, today I want to go out with the boys and have an EX.”

The woman who flagged me into the little white room came in and asked what I thought. I told her I thought it was humorous, but the most offensive commercial I had ever seen, and that if I had kids (which I did not at the time), I would not want them seeing it at all. She then asked me what I would think if I knew that the audience was men my age, and that it would only be shown after 10p.m.? My answer changed. “I guess it would be ok, then.” I was out of my element, I was not looking at the spot like I would in the 15-sec chunk mixed in with other commercials during the first intermission of the Habs game. I was studying it, thinking more deeply about whether it would alienate their target audience, whether or not it would offend me in that context, I even thought, “would this get me to buy a Molson Ex?”  A few months later I was watching the game and the Ex Sex commercial came on the set. I was offended. Whether it is a result of that commercial or not, I have never bought a Molson branded product in my life. I bought and enjoyed a Rickards Red (from Molson Breweries). And I have a favourable view of the family and company due to their long-time relationship with my beloved Montreal Canadians. But have never actually bought a Molson Canadian, Ex, or Dry.

3. Science and Humanity
I am a scientist at heart. I love physics, math, and technology. I went to school for Computer Science and Philosophy, and I did quite well in Calculus. But I am also a human. I have human relationships, emotions and drivers. And while we try our best, these qualities can rarely be summed up with a series of numbers, true or false statements, or sliding scales from 1 to 5.

“Advertising is a craft executed by people who aspire to be artists, but is assessed by those who aspire to be scientists. I cannot imagine any human relationship more perfectly designed to produce total Mayhem. ” – John Ward.

I love that quote, as it is a paradox in and of itself. As I previously stated, research is not useless. What it is is another piece of information. But it is in no way more important than the opinions of advertising practitioners (Creatives and Executives), nor is it more important and definitive than the guy sitting beside you on the train. We are the consumers, our friends and family are the consumers, and our clients are the consumers.

As advertising professionals we need to gather and ingest all the information we can on a problem, and then formulate a strategy and creative against it. And then let our inner consumer take over. The collective feeling and experiences of our colleagues, friends, families, and most important our guts will tell us what the right solution is. Even if our research tells us otherwise.

This is not an article debating whether digital or traditional agencies will dominate the landscape of future advertising. This is not an article predicting the death of advertising agencies. This is an article about the mutant super-child that the two models have started to birth. And the necessity for the industry as a whole to adapt and move forward in a new and rapidly converging world.

Chris Staples wrote a great piece called Dominant Agency Models Face Extinction. In it, he talks about how days are numbered for both traditional and digital agencies.

It starts with this quote from Mark Comerford: “Digital will fuck you up.”

Staples then explores some of the problems and obstacles both the traditional and digital models face.

Let’s elaborate on some of the root issues, and explore how both brands and agencies can overcome them.

The diagnosis
There are three equally important parts to any successful advertising campaign: Strategy, Creative, and Execution. This isn’t new thinking, but it is something that seems to be missed from time to time by brands and agencies alike. You’ll see campaigns that have sound strategy and execution, but bad creative. Or great creative and execution, but completely lacking the strategic component. If you have ever seen an ad, spot or microsite that you found compelling, but were left wondering, “What was the point of that?” then you know of what I speak.

When it comes to the new digital landscape, the three components are having an uncommonly difficult time getting together.

In traditional agencies, the strategy and creative may be sound, but the digital execution often falls flat.

In the digital agency, in general, the creative is solid, and the execution can be brilliant, but there is little attention paid to long-term strategy.

In other words, traditional models produce good strategic thinking, but are short on tactics. Digital agencies are good tacticians, but poor strategists.

This is important. The key to being excellent in all channels is making sure that – in all channels – the Strategy, Creative, and Execution are connected and well thought out. The strategy may inform the creative, and then on to the execution.

The best campaigns, however, are ones where all three components inform each other: strategists, creatives, and production working together to solidify the strategy, creative and tactic.

The wrong way
These two models of agencies (traditional and digital) have been compensating for their deficiencies in a similar and, ultimately, flawed way.

Traditional agencies, faced with the reality of the digital revolution, have done two things: The have purchased “digital shops,” or they have hired on digital “experts.”

Conversely, digital agencies who are trying to break into the traditional world hire on traditional “experts” to help them bridge their prospective gaps.

There are some pretty obvious problems with this methodology.

Case 1: Traditional shops buy digital arms:
In this instance the digital shops generally play second fiddle to their traditional counterparts. Briefs come in with the idea and strategy already baked in, and the digital arm executes against them. In this model, the digital specialists are handcuffed, and more important, never get exposure to the strategic side of advertising. The result is often poor execution due to strategic or creative limitations.

Case 2: Traditional and Digital agencies hiring specialists:
Again, Chris Staples has a good take on this case at Applied Arts, One ad agency veteran makes the case for a Third Way:

“In many of the larger networks, there was (and there still remains) a thinly-disguised paternal attitude towards the new digital offspring. Key decisions and the “big idea” were closely guarded by the core agency team of planners, account people and creatives. As more and more of their clients’ budgets fled to digital, this power relationship started to buckle and strain. If digital divisions are controlling the majority of the budget, shouldn’t they control the big idea as well? . . . Under the current system, clients are forced to deal with multiple project managers to create an integrated campaign. Having 10 people around the table inevitably causes in-fighting and inefficiency.”

When you have an agency that has a lot of specialists at the table, there can often be struggles deciding how to allocate budgets, and who should lead a project. This can result in watered down executions, both on the traditional and digital side.

The prescription: a new structure
Generalists often have a specialty, but have a deep understanding of all the channels that can be used in a campaign. The easiest route to generalists is through the production end. Producers and Project Managers can and will tackle any execution in a similar fashion regardless of medium. Therefore it is easiest to train them to work in the multiple channels. While good producers understand the media the are using, they do not have to understand how a camera operates or how to code a website. The naturally rely on their team’s expertise to fill in the knowledge gap. Because of this, producers tend to be the first to become generalists or, as I like to call them, “media agnostics.”

A few agencies (very good ones at that) have moved to an Executive Producer model. Where there is one lead producer, who is a generalist, leading execution on a client’s business. But we can take this further.

Generalists on top
Think of the new agency model as similar to the medical industry, with the client as the patient. All patients have an overseeing physician, usually called a GP or General Practitioner. When a patient goes to the doctor with a foot irritation, for example, they go to the GP. The GP will do an initial diagnosis and then refer the patient to the appropriate specialist, in this case either a podiatrist, or a dermatologist.

If the patient went directly to the podiatrist, there is a chance they would be misdiagnosed, because the podiatrist thinks almost exclusively about feet. Same can be said about the dermatologist. The GP is an essential part of the process because they look at the problem holistically and determine the best course of action to help the patient.

Translate this to the Agency. You want the generalists to be the primary drivers of the client’s business. Only then can you ensure that you are prescribing the right solution to achieve the client’s objectives. The specialists are still important. After the course of action is decided, you want to ensure that the specialists are the ones executing against the strategy and creative.

How to become or find the media agnostic
The differences between traditional and digital are not the obstacle in becoming media agnostic. Traditional creatives deal with multiple media all the time. You will have a hard time convincing me or anyone else that print and broadcast are the same. However traditional creatives work in these multiple medias all the time with relative ease. The key to them doing this is they don’t need to understand the intricacies of the various media they work with. Generalists in their own right, they rely on their line producers, directors, print producers, design teams, and studio artists to understand the specialized details of what they wish to accomplish.

People who are media agnostic are people who are immersed in the media they wish to work with. Because of this you will find a lot of media-agnostic young people.

I grew up on a steady stream of television, radio, gaming magazines, video games, and the Internet. But in order for the upcoming generations of advertisers to stay media agnostic, educators and those of us in the industry must make sure they are exposed to and allowed to explore all the media we use. We must be cautious not to silo them as they enter the industry.

But the young are not the only source of media agnostic advertisers. If you are traditional, and you wish to be media agnostic, live the media. Get a Twitter feed, use Facebook, read blogs (like this one), look at and explore the great digital work that is out there. Go to digital conferences like FITC and Flash Forward.

If you are digital, read Creativity and Ad Age. Stop skipping past the commercials when you PVR your shows. And really pay attention to the various print ads and billboards you see. The quickest and most surefire way to becoming media agnostic is to foster a genuine interest in all things advertising, design, and digital. Easy right?

Post-mortem
It has become clear that both the traditional and digital agency models are failing. The evidence of that is the lack of great integrated campaigns. They really are few and far between. That being said, I believe we are on the verge of a new resonance in advertising. More and more advertisers and clients are becoming less and less afraid of digital. As this happens, more and more agencies are adjusting their models to better support their clients.

It’s those of us who make the transition first that will be poised to lead the industry through this brave new world. And unlike our counterparts in other industries, such as music and film, digital won’t “fuck you up.”