Make Digital Marketing Work

One of the big announcements last year was that Google had expanded it’s search robot’s capabilities to take account of Adobe Macromedia Flash files.

Back when I started building websites in the mid 90s I was lucky enough to work with some of the best young designers in the business at that time, many of whom now head up departments and whose every murmur is greeted with hushed reverence.  At the time we were making things up as we went along because there wasn’t anyone who had yet defined specific rules of how to do things or demonstrated effectiveness as a standard.  Most of the time we discovered new and interesting things because everyone I worked with was incredibly bright.  One of the things that we embraced completely was Flash, and created some absolutely beautiful sites.   Here are some lessons that we learned with pre release and early versions of the software

Flash wasn’t easily updateable.  In fact every time you needed to make a change to a seemingly innocuous piece of text, you had to spend ages working on it, and present the client with a rather large bill that they didn’t appreciate.  That problem got sorted when Flash started to talk to external data sources.

People get carried away with Flash.  These were the days of the flash introduction and people seemed to think that having an advertising like introduction (similar to TV channel introduction animations was a good thing).  Usability taught us that users didn’t stick around to watch them.  Later a ‘skip this’ button was added to the animation and then it was (mostly) dropped completely as analytics showed us that users preferred to get straight into the meat and veg of a site’s serving and ignore any little tasty treat that stopped them getting to the content.  The important thing we learned was that the web was not a broadcast medium and that lesson has stood me in extremely good stead over the years. It was about that time that I started using the phrase that a website is workhorse not a work of art.  The key is to understand that the site is for the users not for the organisation producing it.

Flash couldn’t be seen by Google.  This was the killer to the large flash sites as your content didn’t exist in Google and so neither did you.  All but the clueless abandoned flash only sites in development, and the clients who insisted upon it pretty soon were having crisis meetings about how to get any meaningful figures on usage, whilst they looked at a pretty short report showing how many times the homepage had been viewed and not a lot else.   Google’s announcement at being able to crawl and index Flash changed the rules of web design again.

Flash did find a place amongst Hybrid sites that presented information in HTML and also provided Flash animations.  It meant that users could choose to view rich animations that delivered information as well as standard text and graphics.  Sites that have persisted in this and not undergone redesign since the announcement in 2008 have run the risk of having their content duplicated in Google’s index and whilst I haven’t heard of specific examples of this particular scenario, Google did treat general cases of duplicate content with extreme prejudice.  At any rate the writing has been on the wall for a company with a hybrid site to redesign it as matter of urgency.

Flash couldn’t be seen by every browser.  In many ways this is still as much of a problem as it has always been.  Computer browsers don’t treat Flash with the same disdain that they used to but a myriad of mobile and alternative device browsers have been added and the vast majority of sites do not account for them.

That brings me full circle.  There was a belief in the beginning that Flash sites were brand building and I sat in meetings back then making claims about ‘brand and content coming together to provide a total experience’.  I am less convinced of that argument now and have seen examples of content tests setting Flash based animations against standard HTML and graphics in comparison tests.  The inconvenient truth that I have witnessed is that user tests seem to conclusively show that users prefer HTML.

My instinct tells me that Flash isn’t inherently bad, it is just used badly which gives it a bad reputation, but I also think that designers need to ask themselves very carefully why they elect to use Flash.  In the end I come back to my two maxims.  At any rate, I do hope that the all inclusive single Flash movie that people used to create and parade as a site will be a thing of the past.  Users didn’t spend that much time on them.

The site is for the users to use and we should make it as intuitive and informing as possible.

And

A website is a workhorse not a work of art.

What do you think?

It used to be said that ‘the big idea’ that permeated agency output was all important and that the channel was secondary.  What was meant was that a good idea would translate to any media (although they usually meant TV) and so it was just a case of adapting it.  I’ve sat in meetings in rooms painted with blue skies (see what they did there?) whilst the great and the good of the creative team argued about the difference between pantone colours 2592 and 2602.  (As an aside if anyone can tell me the intrinsic difference between the two and why it’s worth two hours of two highly paid individual’s life arguing about it then I’ll buy the drinks).

I felt at the time that this was all a bit ridiculous and far too up its own arse and I am even more convinced of it now.

Then along came digital, and everyone proclaimed that it was just another channel.  I’ve been guilty myself of towing this party line to make sure that the delicate sensibilities of the creative department were not offended and they didn’t suddenly erupt in a re-enactment of mount Vesuvius as it destroyed Pompeii.  I know better now than to play that game, and would much rather be the little boy asking why the emperor has no clothes on.

Here is an analogy to explain what I mean.

There was a hierarchy of things, with brand and mass advertising occupying the high seats of power on the client’s right hand.  From there came PR and direct and a multitude of below the line suppliers.  Then there were the dogs of digital who padded around on all fours sniffing the distinguished guests and looking for the scraps, whilst everyone complimented them on their intelligence and fine breeding.  All was well in the universe and everyone knew their place whilst the people were told to admire the fine clothes of the emperor.

Then came the knock on the gates and the people of the kingdom rose up to create havoc in the order of things.

The very definitions that denoted an agency’s place in the hierarchy is vanishing quicker than the new receptionist and account manager at an agency Christmas party.  Consumers don’t care if the media they interact with is called Brand building, advertising, direct response, PR, experiential or anything else.  What they care about is whether it engages with them and facilitates a relationship with two way communication.

Does this emperor truly care about and listen to his people? The megaphone of power marketing is being ignored, and the royal decrees that it issued are now rejected as twaddle.  Moreover, there are mutterings that are spreading throughout the kingdom that the emperor is wearing no clothes.

Now the people are demanding that their needs and experiences are taken into account because they know best what they want to wear.   Consumers have overtaken agencies in knowing what they want to achieve and what they want to get out of the media they consume.

So where does this leave us?  The high table is in confusion and in the general melee the dogs are having a wonderful feast whilst the people cheer.

The actual point is that we will still need creative and creative ideas but instead of thinking of it in a simplex manner the creative will now be conceived with the added ability for customers to interact with it as they want to, and consumers will surprise everyone by how they choose to interact with it.  This is what we term as ‘duplex creative’.  If something is duplex it is two way and it flows.  Simplex is the advertising of the 80s, semi duplex assumed that the advertiser could choose the direction that it was led, but only when you reach full duplex communication is the customer’s needs actually served.  It can go either way and be led by either party.  Communication is the secret to all relationships and is definitely the key to customer relationships, because the focal point is the customer.

This is why I believe that the old ways are gone forever.  Naturally I think that the digital dogs will inherit the places at the top table but I also think that old media itself will morph into new and exciting forms of media.  What I hope I have seen the last of is someone looking at me and saying “but what is the big idea?”, and be under any illusion that what they are saying is intelligent.  The big idea is that we are going to be brave enough to interact on a personal level with customers.

That big enough for you?

In my post yesterday I talked a lot about Digital Marketing strategy and how some Offline and integrated agencies could have problems adapting.  This world isn’t so removed though from the wisdom of the great men of advertising though.  One of David Ogilvy’s most well known sayings was:

“If you’re trying to persuade people to do something, or buy something, it seems to me you should use their language, the language they use every day, the language in which they think. We try to write in the vernacular. “

He was of course referring to the way that sentences were constructed but the key point here is that you should use a tone and style that is familiar to consumers.  For the point I am making I would suggest using the channels, language and grammar of the Internet.   Grammar in these terms refers to yuser experience, SEO awareness, viral and all the other buzzwords that populate our trade press.  Some of us have watched and helped these channels evolve (Digital Pioneers?), whilst other people discovered them when they became popular but there is another sort of person and that is the Digital Native.  These are people for whom online and a tweet are as familiar as a pint in a pub.  These are the people who talk in the ‘vernacular’ of digital media and whose creative minds are tuned to the available channels.  Consequently these were the people we decided to look at when we were assembling our creative offer.

There is always a risk when you bet on youth.  Sir Matt Busby with the Busby Babes and Arson Wenger with his dedication to the Arsenal Youth are parallels that have struck us as poignant.  One thing for sure though and that is consumers are not going to put up with, nor respond to the bolted on and shoe horned offline creative that has traditionally been appearing in digital media.  The acid test is whether the creative produces effective return on investment for the client, not whether a panel has decided it warrants a reward (of course both is a goal that everyone should strive for).

My personal feeling is that Mr Ogilvy would have relished the new media around today and would have been unafraid to learn the vernacular and bet on youth who understood all the grammatical points of the channel.