People don't like advertising in general because it intrudes on their
lives to persuade them to spend money on something. The broader issue, as brought up by concerned adverters such as Jelly Helm (C.D. of W+K), is that advertising promotes a
consumer culture of constantly increasing needs. It's like Maslow's
Heirarchy of Needs, on crack, for an entire society. If advertising is
supposed to be a part of the marketplace of ideas, an influencer of
culture, then what has the industry done to peoples' perception of
their own needs? Would creating more thoughtful content create a more
thoughtful public, rather than the repeated message, "you need to buy"? Who has the
power to change the messages we receive, the services available, and
the way that brands operate?
If we keep polishing our perception of society, we're on a crash course with the reality of it.
Scott Bedbury came to the UO campus to talk with advertising and
business students about his work as a brand developer. Bedbury is the
marketing director responsible for turning Nike and Starbucks into the
massive success stories they are. It was amazing to talk with him. At our discussions in the journalism school and during lunch, he gave us his vision of what advertising, brands, and business could be; a collaboration between customers, company leaders, planners, and creative advertising and business minds. He also provided insight into the current state of brand leadership. Most important was his proposal that a company should put purpose and people before profits. But with so much power held by stakeholders, esp. the boards of directors for firms, how can brands find the courage to put anything before profits?
According to Bedbury, most major brand leaders are stuck in the old ways of thinking; brand equity is measured in dollars. He says that relying on awareness numbers and quarterly profit reports cannot account for the success of a brand. A company must include people in its assesment of brand equity -- not as a calculation, but as the organic component that keeps a brand alive. How do people feel about a brand? How much do employees want to contribute to the brand's success? It's like Seth Godin's model of bottom-up innovation, when employees go above and beyond; when they're empowered with the responsibility of improving how things are done. But a bottom-up innovative environment runs counter to most companies' heirarchal models, where orders are given and followed. If the orders come from the top, get channeled through a profit-monger to the ad agency, then how are ad agencies supposed to contribute to the direction of a brand?
Most of this change must come from company leadership, though the conservative, older company owners are unlikely to understand the potential of investment in people's innovations. Younger leaders who see this opportunity for brand development may turn to creative agencies to help get the word out. But what about the CEOs and their right-hand men trained in the profit machines of business school, loyal to the stakeholders, deaf to the public, and insistent on top-down heirarchy that robs everyone else of contribution to the brand?
A brand developer such as Bedbury gets the ear of the CEO, and can make powerful suggestions such as "put people first if you want to build your brand." Why doesn't an ad agency have that kind of access? Ad teams report to marketing directors and profits-pressed business executives. Right now, it seems that a majority of big agencies are so caught up in coming up with more and more creative executions of what their clients want, that they do not contribute to the direction of the brand experience, including their responses to consumers and investing in employees, services, products, and ideas for future expansion. Ad agencies are just a "You need to buy" hammer; every consumer is a nail.
Agencies need to leverage their incredible potential for problem-solving, innovation, and creativity; beyond making powerful art and copy. Account planners come up with insights that could propel businesses to new heights, if only they could talk with the CEOs. Agencies need to give CEOs their vision for the brand, including everything from customer service, their experience with the brand, responding to consumers, and to make decisions that put the company's purpose and people before its profits. Starbucks and Apple are good examples of companies with comprehensive brand experiences. They seem to be doing well. It's the collaborative fusion of everything from PR, Advertising, Marketing, product/service investments, and employees responding dynamically to consumer needs -- rather than orders given at the top such as "Increase sales 3% this quarter or you're fired." Advertisers need to make sure they're solving the right problem.
If a company establishes a purpose that is actually needed and fosters an environment wherein employees are enthusiastic and customers are emotionally attached, then profits will follow. The problem advertising agencies are solving is, "How do we make people want this brand?" The problem they should be solving is, "How do we make the brand give people what they want?" Dollars are only one indicator of brand equity; numbers do not solve the problems of people. That's what creativity is for. And isn't that our department?
"A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything, but the value of nothing."
- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan
- Joe
Recent Comments