Advertising 5.0: Who Will You Be?

Tom, as scary as your post may be for some folks, I agree almost completely.

From a marketing standpoint, the technology isn't the thing. Digital marketing isn't all that different than radio, it just has more measurement and a lot of acronyms.

Where technology is a HUGE factor is in the complete and total disintermediation of agencies and their clients. Already, many services that agencies charge for can be done by clients directly using free or inexpensive tools. Media placement (Google). Web site analysis (Google). Web site testing (Google). Media research (Google, Quantcast, Compete). Ad production (Google subsidiary). Even creative (CrowdSpring).

Ultimately, the agencies that survive must be able to take the amazing amount of data that technology provides, and make sense of it for the client, crafting strategies that are infinitely testable and nimble.

Consequently, I'm not sure I'd characterize the 5.0 agency as Creators, but rather Interpreters.

All we do at Convince & Convert is work with agencies to help improve their digital marketing prowess. And we're advising them to seek out employees that are great at synthesizing information, recognizing patterns, and then making subsequent recommendations.

I also concur with your notion of performance pricing becoming the norm, with the data stream enabling that to be a fair and transparent model.

It's going to be a wild ride, and it's going to happen a lot faster than most people believe.

Jason Baer
Convince & Convert
http://www.convinceandconvert.com/convince-convert-digital-marketing-blog

Advertising 5.0? Wishful thinking. Advertising History has been more like this:

Advertising 1.0. "Some guys strung together something they are calling a network. Now getting the message out is all complicated and stuff. We can handle that for you and it won't cost you a dime. We'll get our money from these network wonkers".

Advertising 2.0. "Some guys strung together something they are calling an Internet. Now getting the message out is all complicated and stuff but we can show you these things called metrics, since everybody knows the Nielsens are whack. We can handle that for you because your agency of record is clueless about any technology that doesn't have a fruit on it".

Advertising 3.0. "Trust us. We can figure out how to get the audience to pay attention to
what you have to sell them. Just give us some time. We can figure it out. No really".

Advertising 4.0. "The number you have reached is no longer in service".

The advertising business hasn't changed since the invention of television. The people running advertising haven't invested one dime of their $800 billion a year in R&D or best practices. The clients are saying the entire business model is broken. That was four years ago. There is nothing approaching an answer to that issue on the horizon now, let alone in five years. The biggest splash in Ad Age is about the parties at Cannes.

Who will lead the charge into this brave new 5.0 world The new head of the 4A's is just one more empty suit, not "Ubersuit".

I co-created "I'm Stuck On Band-Aid" more than 30 years ago. The best J&J can do is keep bringing it back, year after year after year. "Ubersuits?" "Ideators?" When was the last time you visited an undergraduate class in advertising or marketing? If you think those institutions of higher learning are preparing anyone for "Advertising 5.0" I have a great bridge in lower Manhattan I can offer you cheap.

Advertising is a sunset business. It's like the record business was ten years ago. Advertising doesn't have the will to become a sustainable industry. Look around you.
Everybody you work with looks, thinks and reacts just like you. Certainly not like all of those advertising immune audiences ignoring your work product out there.

Advertising is fast becoming obsolete. Technology companies know this. Google and Microsoft have been tooling up for years to step into the void. Advertising is fast becoming irrelevant. Entertainment companies know this. They understand all too well that people are people first and customers last. That's why the audience is lining up for Batman, not Coke Zero.

Agencies are not going to look for ubersuits or ideators. They are going to do what they have been doing for years. Hiring under educated kids and arrogant "rockstars" who will keep pissing away shareholder value until we finally reach: Advertising 5.0. (SFX:Crickets) http://MadisonAveNew.com

Tom, Jason - very pertinent points and very well noted.

Looking forward, I believe that the definition and principles of commercial communication will fundamentally change beyond recognition.

I feel that in the new world, the term advertising will no longer mean adverts, it will mean relevant, and useful content. Advertising in the new world will be beneficial in a way that enables people to do things.

This could be media players, car insurance finders, virtual payment mechanisms or concert ticketing services - it doesn't matter, so long as it's useful for people and brands to communicate with each other.

In the future, communities will prosper with environments, platforms and tools to create, collaborate and interact. We, as 'media people' on the trade side need to ensure this happens.
These facilities must exist in addition to communication that is relevant, an offering that is transparent, interaction that is easy to do and containing an incentive of value. These are the four rules of engagement, without which the environments, platforms and tools have limited power or purpose.

The advertising industry will soon be a facilitation industry. In fact, it may not be seen as an industry at all - more like a college environment. A resource base that, working with the public, facilitates creation, collaboration and interactivity with communities, for communities. Imagine what a wiki-agency would be like..

Such agencies will have a primary aim to make communication utilities that are desirable and intuitive for people to create, share and engage with. Measurement of success will be based mainly on the levels of emotional connection and advocacy to the rest of the world in social clusters.

Great impact will be judged on the reaction of the public, expressed solely by consumers who emotionally reacted - in whichever way they choose and through whatever channel.

No assumption, no inference.

Accountability will become of paramount importance. The labels of 'targeting' and 'behavior' will no longer be used for methodology that predicts or guesses.

Agencies will have totally transparent reporting on what works and what doesn't which will feed a continuous learning loop which educates, trains and inspires future innovation.

Creative awards will be won by teams that consist of members of the public who have co-created with them. Great creative will be seen as the creative that has had the greatest collaboration with the consumers. 'Them and us' will become simply 'us'.

The planning awards will be won by advertisers who have facilitated conversations through the creation of tools in which enable conversations.
Budget will be spent on the value of these engagements rather than the number of filtering eyeballs who may or may not have seen the campaign.

Brands will require agencies to have individual emotional connections at the forefront of strategy linked directly to accountable, trackable return on investment – the more personal the better.

Mobile will sit within Direct Marketing as it is an engagement media.

Location based services will be a component of search and the long-tail will be local in the same way as directory listings predominantly are.
People will effortlessly request information and the technology that provides the answers will be invisible.

Consumer permission and trust will be mandatory rather than a lucky by-product.

Pricing of communication will be based on value that is determined by the receivers not the transmitters. The value of their individual attention will be set by those whose attention is commanded and therefore earned.

Folk stories of long forgotten pricing methods with acronyms like CPM will be spoken of at bedtime to wide-eyed youngsters who plan on creating a mash-up animation with Disney in the morning. The anime will not be released as physical product nor distributed via any television network but released into the clouds for relevant social clusters to feast on, co-create an re-release to other virtual clusters.

Neither the brand nor the agency has any say in this other than to ensure the above can happen.
Agencies will be application and utility creators. Their competition will be other application and utility creators, enabling personal brand communication.

I am writing a book called The Communication Ideal (rants on which you can find here: http://www.jonathanmacdonald.com/?cat=10) and posts like Tom's will continue (I pray) to appear more and more as we move forward..

Keep it up! Nobody knows as much as everyone and to quote Einstein:

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them"

Indeed.

A lot of change is coming. As everyone knows by now, video is very exciting. I think in the next few years people will discover that video is appropriate for certain areas of the consumer market, right now it seems like everyone wants to use video for everything. I think the small business arena will benefit the most from video which is pretty much the thesis behind Jippidy.com

Tom, good article. I would agree with your vision of the next generation of the "agency".

I remember reading articles years earlier telling agencies not to be afraid of specialization. Now everyone is realizing their old ways just don't cut it. Too bad...but that is evolution. Survival of the fittest.

It's a harsh reality...but that is the way it is in any industry. Either evolve or die out.

What about changing the title from advertising 5.0 into communication 5.0? To me the shift from advertising to communication has not only already started but it is close to its completion.

Interesting article as well as some insightful comments.

If you take a page from the books of Ed Keller, Charlene Li and Josh Bernoff, and embrace the phenomenon of "influence communications", agencies will likely become (whether they like it or not) collaborators with consumer technograhic groups that are not only key brand stakeholders, but product creators. In fact, we're already seeing this shift in a major way.

In this context, agencies also have to act as technology enablers for these groups, empowering reputational insights and levering brand affinities.

While we all recognize by now that the business of communicating and influencing has irrevocably changed, I don't agree with your division of labor in the future. While there always have been and will be shops that specialize, I believe the small nimble 'generalist' shops will still originate the ideas and then carry through the execution (your C and P thesis). And I think clients will still want that.

When a team develops great strategy, and creative to support that strategy, there is an investment in success for the idea and the client. If agencies are only tasked with coming up with the ideas and then passing them along, I think accountability starts to dry up. Who does client hold ultimately responsible in your scenario?

And I agree with Gianandrea above, the big shift is that it's about communicating, not advertising. We started as a PR agency and evolved into a full creative shop. When we effectively blend the special sauce of how PR pros think about communicating with creative executions of ad pros we come up with programs that move into the realm of dialogue and engagement. That's what online brings us that print, TV and radio never could.

Indra Gardiner
Bailey Gardiner

Indra,

Accountability will certainly lie with the "C" agencies (at the client level) and with the "P" agencies (at the C agency level). Should any player in the ideation/execution of campaigns be deemed "not delivering" then the next stakeholder in the food chain will certainly fire them.

To everyone else,
Love the comments re: technology, communication versus advertising and the depth of comments in general.

May require a follow up post.
Thanks. Tom Martin
- www.tommartin.typepad.com

Dear Tom,

Your statement: (...)"What will the world of advertising look like for small agencies in five years? More important, what will your agency look like in five years? My crystal ball says many of us are in for a rude awakening."(...) Is indicative of someone primarily focused on their own emotions devoid of any empirical evidence — operating solely on the primacy of their "feelings" — rather than on analysis supported by some type of evidence. You are clearly uncertain as to what constitutes reliable evidence, thus tend to use the most easily found sources uncritically -- by using the Keiretsu Model that has never appeared outside Japan, it appears you have applied it to the larger agency models but they lack the 'bank factor' to finance and bail-out members along with the cooperative nature of Keiretsu involving established and unrelated businesses. Characterizing large agency networks as Chinese Triads might be more appropriate, but still a stretch. But using an esoteric foreign organization to predict agencies of the future is goofy. It is a bizarre analogy to explain why large agencies acquire smaller ones and why larger businesses use them. The obvious reason is to buy the agency's clients and talent in a given market, and for large businesses, it is to take advantage of economies created by such large advertising organization.

And it appears you are convinced that no opinion is worth more than another after your recent discoveries: All views are equal after yours.

Looking into your crystal ball is a good indicator that you are not really embarrassed at your lack of knowledge and skills for addressing key issues in advertising but instead offer hyperbole and opinion to feed on the fears of clueless individuals caught in the current flux in media advertising. Industry analysts collectively see the advertising industry in a period of change caused by the aftereffects of 9/11, consumer media use, and media fragmentation, which is when this downturn began. At that time advertisers cut their media advertising while increasing their trade promotions and while many mediums have rebounded clearly there is a shift in spending. This is well documented by Ad Age statistics. This coincides with a dramatic industry shift from manufacture to retailer dominance where more and more marketing dollars go to retailer promotions.

Your "C" and "P" agency models exist now and are functioning just fine, as are other models such as the large holding networks to small creative boutiques. The models that work are the ones that answer their client's needs.

Scholars of advertising see a cooperative merger of the Marketing Director/or Senior executive and the Advertising Agency where they work cooperatively utilizing the knowledge and skills of each discipline rather than many of the overlapping and duplication of efforts seen now. Corporate CMOs understand that trade promotion is not enough to strategically differentiate their brand(s) within their operating category and unique local markets. One size does not fit all and they increasingly rely on agencies with local market or niche marketing expertise. For example, you could tell P&G of your local market knowledge and experience in New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina. Assist it in marketing to the market you serve. Businesses have reams of historic data documenting media use and its effectiveness for their brands broken down by markets. Seldom does the Marketing Director share this information with its agency. It is their 'Holy Grail' and held as a secret. It is strategic and it is something they wouldn't want in their competitor's hands. More cooperative arrangements with marketer and agency and understanding of each will improve the effectiveness of both.

Clearly media is in a transition period and New Media is muddying-up the waters because no one has yet found a workable compensation model that equates to measurable results for marketers and agencies – especially advertising agencies. The well-documented fragmentation of media has put all mediums in a state of change. This transition period will include New Media as an important part for the promotional mix and marketing of brands. A good example of this was last year's Super Bowl. Here agencies used a mix of traditional TVC, promotions, with New Media to get more bang for the buck. In the near future New Media will be central to all brand promotion. In the very near future communication experts say that New Media will become the central marketing and promotion medium because of continued technological advances, consumer use growth and platform mergers/convergence. AT&T and several other companies have began marketing a single platform product for telecommunications, cable/broadcast entertainment and broadband/high speed Internet connection – it is being promoted as a consumer convenience that costs less – when convergence occurs, each will share content. Networks are streaming shows on-line and can show actual website hits as opposed to AC Nielsen voodoo metrics. As the transition between platforms becomes more seamless with technological advances, multimedia communications will become the standard for communications. With New Media's emergence as a primary lead promotional vehicle and with convergence, it is important that new media is integrated into the marketing/promotional mix of all brands now. Convergence will deliver once again, that critical mass that TV once did. Traditional Media fragmentation is making it more difficult to reach mass target audiences; and its costs are increasing as its effectiveness is decreasing. Traditional Media is feverously working to develop an Internet presence and for ways to interconnect the two for added revenues. Businesses have responded with more niche market products and services that can be reached and affected by niche media. Thus, media is in a transition period. Traditional advertising agencies have lost media revenues from the shift of media advertising to trade promotions and to advertisers who have switched their media buys to specialized Media Agencies who offer better planning, results and economy because of their huge buying capabilities. And then durables, packaged goods manufacturers, retailers and service businesses have taken control of their own websites with internal IT jealously guarding their domain to the chagrin of advertising agencies. All of these organizations need creative content and promotional methods to attract an audience - and that is the perfect entrée for agencies.

So not using a 'crystal ball' but instead looking at the realities around us, I'd say that the best strategy for any agency is to focus on their creative product and client responsiveness as well as their local market expertise and touting that to marketers and advertisers. Perhaps align themselves with a Media Agency that offers a commission, and utilize their expert planners and big buy economies for measurable results for medium and large clients. Retailers are threatening every aspect of consumer product and service brands by offering their own retailer generic brands. Marketers and advertising agencies need to work in concert to fend off this assault by practicing strategic branding to differentiate their brands within their category and market(s). With both understanding the realities of media in transition, and emerging New Media opportunities, together they need to develop metrics that assess both media and creative strategy effectiveness and work together to deliver quantifiable results.

The agency that is the most responsive to the needs of the businesses it serves, and can develop strategic creative that differentiates the brand and delivers sales, volume and profits to quantify it, will win in the future. Just as they are winning now. Those looking in crystal balls and not at the realities around them are sure to lose. Advertising has always been a custom-built approach for every client and market. Even though it may appear that everyone is doing the same thing, the reality is that winners in the marketing wars are quickly copied. So marketers have to be one step ahead of the competition. The same is true of agencies. Today, with the Internet and agencies needing to divulge everything about themselves and their innermost secret strategies, it isn't too difficult to see what the competition is up to. Prior to the Internet, agencies would get proposals from clients to help them understand what is out there. When I represented a client as agency of record, I told them that they should refer all promotional inquiries to me, and I would assess them and make monthly reports back to my clients if anything looked viable – thus saving my client's time. It worked too. They saved time and I learned what my competition was pitching. It is fairly easy to do the same now by surfing the web.

So your ideas on Role, Staffing, Compensation, seem pretty pedestrian to me. Role: the traditional generalist agency is coming to an end – if the traditional generalist agency has any size, it will do what it has always done: wait until a smaller agency develops it so they can suck it up like a big vacuum cleaner, and so on it goes to the largest agencies who have been known to share clients. They are going no where, it is business as usual for them – they just hire the expertise needed to keep relevant. Staffing: all agencies need what you describe now, not in the future. One-size-fits-all doesn't work in a custom design business. Each strategy is tailored for that unique client, as is the strategy. Compensation: Traditional fees and commissions will always be the rule. Compensation on a fee or percentage of profit basis is the reality of sophisticated marketing agencies that specialize in an particular industry and in branding within that industry. These Marketing Agencies bring new business segment expertise to business on a flat fee or percentage basis now. But I have not heard of an advertising agency that has taken a percentage of its client's revenues. Many wished they could.

So again, I think you have fairly described the current state of affairs in advertising offering little new insights or information. Theory and conjecture not backed up with some sort of empirical evidence, facts, or reference is little more than lip service and wishful thinking. Your Advertising 5.0 is as generic and as general as it can get. Good advice for an agency trying to remain relevant is to go to its clients and ask them where they'd like to be in five years and then design plans to meet their goals and objectives. Tell them how you can assist them in attaining these thresholds using your Role, Staffing, Compensation, as a start point to develop a strategic plan. If it is breakthrough, perhaps then you could get a piece of their pie. My belief was and is that this isn't about us, it is all about them – the client.

P.S. Dear Gunther,

Thanks for the new reading list. As for (...) "influence communications", agencies will likely become (whether they like it or not) collaborators with consumer technograhic groups that are not only key brand stakeholders, but product creators. In fact, we're already seeing this shift in a major way." (...) It isn't new. Astute marketers have been practicing this for decades. General Mills for example, has collaborated with consumers from the time of Betty Crocker. Its consumer comments have fueled new products, categories and markets. Agencies have traditionally given substance to their 'visions,' and have developed promotions to achieve stakeholder input through such devices as the Pillsbury Bake-off. Other marketers are becoming better listeners -- as should agencies.

So Daryl,

If I understand your 1,775 word treatise correctly... you disagree with me and think me unfit to write these posts.

Oh if only the comment field had the same 700 word limit my posts have...

www.tommartin.typepad.com

Dear Tom,

Yes I disagree with you, but no, I do not believe you are unfit to write these posts. In fact I admire your courage.

But my meaning was clear if re-read my comments. Perhaps with that input your articles will gain a little something. The ideas you present are great but your focus on your own emotions devoid of any empirical evidence — operating solely on the primacy of your "feelings" — rather than on analysis supported by some type of evidence, is a problem easily cured. Do a little research prior to writing. Then I'll be critical of your sources instead of being critical of you. It is your personalized writing style that gets my ire more than your theories. Some call it navel gazing.

Hi Daryl...allow me to clarify; you are correct - WOM and influence communications in general have been around forever. The shift I refer to is one in which technology has fostered a new level of dynamic participation amongst consumers and their collaborations with other content/product creators. Thanks for calling this out!

As for your comments to Tom...I actually think you guys are on a similar page, just perhaps caught up more in a semantic debate. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the particulars of the model he discusses, he makes an astute observation about the role agencies play and will play in the future.

Mr. Orris,

Your dependence on emperical evidence is consistant with the so-called common wisdom that put both the advertising and media industries in the current doldrums both find themselves in. The Nielsens were once considered empirical evidence, as were any other research findings that were/are dependent upon projected results.
A 1,500 sample does not speak for a million frames of mind.

William Bernbach once said, "Advertising is fundamentally persuasion, and persuasion happens to be not a science, but an art." Mr. Bernbach, would applaud Mr. Martin's Chrystal Ball gazing before he would support your dismissive request for evidence.

What more evidence do you require than sliding audiences and diminishing advertising budgets. Your brand of metric worship has become a dog that won't hunt. 1,775 words don't make your point of view any more relevant.


I certainly believe that more clients are dependent upon agencies for the art of their ideas then the empirical evidence of their business theories. I also believe that Mr. Bernbach's Art has been responsible for more cash register rings than Mr. Yankelovich's metrics.

Most certainly you are entitled to your point of view about Mr. Martin's writing. But it is after all just an opinion and therefor subjective. Which is hardly conclusive, lacking any emperical data to support it. http://MadisonAveNew.com

Tom,

I feel kind of bad about not adding something deeper, but I would bet a lot of money that you could run this exact same post every 12-months and receive almost identical responses.

The creative/producer model isn't going to happen, it's already happened. The keiretsu/TAAN/Worldwide Partners Model isn't developing, it's been going on for 60+ years. And as for the ubersuit, they are going to look and sound a whole lot like the uber account folk of advertising lore.

So the good news, everything you have predicted has already happened. The bad news: I'm not 100% sure our industry realizes it.

Dear Harry,

Bold talk from someone who sees advertising as a sunset industry.

I agree with Bernbach, even though he is long dead. Advertising is persuasion and it is an art, as is brand management, thus the MBA. I had two post-WWII mentors both journalism graduates (Columbia and Minnesota) who held your beliefs, but alas they too are dead. Advertising is a paid, mass mediated attempt to persuade. And advertising as it is now used is synonymous with all sorts of promotional methods - not exclusively print and broadcast media.

I too believe that more clients are dependent upon agencies for the art of their ideas then the empirical evidence of their business theories -- however I was stating that the two (agency and client) need to become more cooperative and avoid duplication and overlapping to work in better harmony - and not against one another. But the bottom line is none the less achieving quantifiable results for brand managers that hire you.

I particularly enjoy your naysayer view of advertising and predictions of doom for what you call a sunset industry. Harry I am one of your fans. However, advertising in its new context is bigger today then it has ever been. And it is not going away, even though you may try to wish it away. Advertising works and is much more relevant to people's lives today then the TVC-Print era of yesterday. That era is passing away. And my brand of metrics is producing results for clients using creativity, using Integrated Brand Promotion and teaming with clients to be in sync with them to create a synergy not otherwise possible.

I recently returned from China where I had consulted businesses and organizations on advertising and promotion. In 1949 advertising was banned as a Western evil. Since 1992 joint ventures controlled by the government have dominated advertising in China. And the joint ventures worked well enough to convince the Chinese officials that advertising works and will assist China in achieving its objectives to make it a world economic power. Not only do I not think advertising is not dead, but it is in fact in a metamorphosis now transitioning to a new phase of adver-marketing. Adver-marketing will take advantage of interactive media to persuade consumers to buy and build brand preferences. This is witnessed by adding a new billion people audience an d consumer base. Advertising is the number one expense of all businesses' marketing. As much as they (business) would like it to disappear, advertising is in fact becoming more important in brand promotion, creation, and marketing.

So while a fan, I couldn't disagree with you more. Voodoo advertising methods don't cut it in 2008, nor will they in the future. Advertising is a growth industry and Adver-marketing will require quantitative evidence that the promotional effort is effective. Quantifiable and qualitative results have become an inherent part of the new advertising, that I call adver-marketing.

"Bold talk from someone who sees advertising as a sunset industry." Think of me as an angry fist holding a small megaphone standing in the middle of Madison Avenue at 4am trying to wake the dead. The lights are on, but nobody's home.

"I had two post-WWII mentors both journalism graduates (Columbia and Minnesota) who held your beliefs, but alas they too are dead." I am not post-WWII, I am Post-Advertising. As for the dead part, that's still up for debate.

"Advertising is a paid, mass mediated attempt to persuade." "Attempt" is the key word here. How can you attempt to persuade anyone to do anything if they have you on "ignore?" And why should anyone pay for a service that has lost the power to engage its audience?

"But the bottom line is none the less achieving quantifiable results for brand managers that hire you." No one has yet been able to tie advertising to sales. Now they can't even tie it to awareness. And forget about tying it to persuasion.

"I particularly enjoy your naysayer view of advertising and predictions of doom for what you call a sunset industry." Quite the contrary. I have a naysayer view of advertising people, not advertising. As for it being a sunset industry, I find that to be the result of myopic thinking and an inability to embrace any reasonable form of best practices or research and development. This too shall pass with the current corps of dunderheaded management.

"Advertising works and is much more relevant to people's lives today then the TVC-Print era of yesterday." On what planet? The people I talk to believe that advertising is for people who don't know any better. Advertising immunity is spreading faster than herpes, and no amount of wishing is going to reverse the trend.

"teaming with clients to be in sync with them to create a synergy not otherwise possible." Client myopia as regards the efficacy of network television is as big a problem as the agencies that keep shoving it down their throats.

"Adver-marketing will take advantage of interactive media to persuade consumers to buy and build brand preferences." Technology has yet to succeed in making a human connection to the audience. As an aggregator of human experiences in the marketplace it is highly successful and noteworthy. But as a conveyor of meaningful content it is the content rather than the delivery device that makes the connection.

"Advertising is a growth industry and Adver-marketing will require quantitative evidence that the promotional effort is effective." That's why P&G, Lever, Ford, Amex and even more are cutting back on their advertising expenses. I think the entire business model is whack and needs to be tossed out on its ear. Thats why I joined forces with the Institute For Advanced Practices In Advertising to do just that. Rebuild it from the ground up.

"adver-marketing." Great idea. Needs a better name. I know some guys in advertising that could hook that up for you. http://MadisonAveNew.com

Harry -- Advertising has a broader meaning for me than for you, the advertising I see is much more inclusive than the limitation of what you see as traditional media. The key word is not 'attempt' but instead 'paid.' I magically tricked clients into paying me millions. And then throw in mass-mediated. Somehow I was able to mysteriously impact brands and consumers. And as for: "No one has yet been able to tie advertising to sales. Now they can't even tie it to awareness. And forget about tying it to persuasion." It is being done every day. Magically I took brands that were not number one in their respective categories and levitated them to the number one slot, yielding long term representation for my agency. Like magic I did again and again in several industries. And that may be a big part of the problem, those Magicians who succeed seldom tell how they pulled off their tricks. It's part of the craft. I hate writing with me and I, which is what this is turning into. But one last note, there is a sunset falling as you suggest, but it isn't falling on advertising.

"Harry I am one of your fans." Daryl,You really do need to get out more. Spongebob is far more engaging then I am. But thank you.

Dear Harry,

I didn't know your comment was in two separate and uniquely different parts. Had I waited for the latter, I wouldn't have commented the way I did. Sorry about that. That said, despite what I said, advertising is not magic -- it cannot magically change insipid marketing into a success, this is easily witnessed by the American car manufacturers. Great advertising can't sell many Caddies today. The world's number one auto maker did it with a better product and good advertising touting it. But word of mouth for quality and reliability won the top slot.

Hi Tom,
As long as the need for relationships and expressive communication lasts, I don't think traditional style agencies are facing a bleak future. The problem is not a technological one. It is that from an Agency point of view, some times we try to do"what we think the client" wants which turns out to be very different from what they really want. Which is why we churn out campaign after campaign without putting the relationship first. That's why the client directly tries out other forms of communication thinking what they did the last time "didn't work. Maybe if we put relationship first, we would find out out that the clients"actual" need is not on that which requires spending mega bucks, but off-the-shelf solutions that may not necessarily increase our bottom line but will give us a lifetime friend.
There is too much information out there for a client to think they can adequately venture out into a strategic communication plan without the services of a traditional Agency. Yes, we need to be very creative, but at the heart of the matter, we need to back to basics. Relationship- and understanding what the client/friend really wants.

Daryl,

Advertising is not defined by you or by me. It is defined by the decision makers at the agency networks who are dedicated to the profitability of their service offerings. I applaud your success and that of your clients. As for, "It's being done every day" I am certainly not talking about direct response or door-to-door. I am talking about good old fashioned traditional advertising where the majority of ad dollars are being thrown away.

As for your Magic, good luck with that. We are all descended from a long line of snake-oil salesmen, shamen and alchemists. I salute your powers of getting paid. And I sincerely hope that your reference to "sunset" has to do with this conversation. My fingers are getting tired trying to keep up. http://MadisonAveNew.com

Harry -- "Advertising is not defined by you or by me. It is defined by the decision makers at the agency networks who are dedicated to the profitability of their service offerings." I doubt that. Advertising, as with brands, are defined by consumers and not by anyone else. If they bite, then a brand is what they say it is, something they want; and so too with advertising -- if it works they buy. Stop being so controversial.

Harry -

Ultimately some of the points you make are valid. Unfortunately, it feels as if you are having a hard time looking out of the box that you criticize so extensively. This is especially evident when looking at the IAPIA's proposed ad on AdGabber...which you and the commenters noted.

The wording suggested at school of sorts. I think the agency world is already starting to fix itself, with the onset of so many small innovative, free-thinking companies. You say everyone around you in the biz is status quo and that students in marketing/ad/pr courses are being taught outdated material. There are some schools that step out of the books and into the marketplace on a regular basis.

Your thoughts about networking and being socially aware(former post said to major in psych and get an MBA) seem to be right on but you don't give current proffesionals enough credit.

You measure of "advertising history" seems to be missing many layers. Advertising history did not begin recently.

What is the purpose of advertising? To persuade.
What is the purpose of pr? To persuade.
What is the purpose of marketing? To persuade.

Advertising is not a sole venture. It must be combined with other efforts in order to meet its goal. Here you call it "adver-marketing," in some schools it is called Integrative Marketing Communications. It is a course of study that combines traditional studies, contemporary thought, and internships in the industry. A big emphasis is placed on keeping up relationships/ties with companies in the area because that is how you keep the curriculum relavent. It does exist.

In the industry things on the edge of the curve include social anthropology studies to delve deeper into consumers desires, wants, needs, habits, etc. Advertising is not becoming irrelevant, it is just changing into something that is less tangible, more philosophical, harder to control...where it is much more necessary to "do your research." Before planning a complete campaign to effect the segment that you really want to persuade.

Part of the problem with this is that it is often hard for companies to figure out what to do with their brand or multiple brands(which is increasingly the case) and they end up staying with the tried and true. That is not the advertisers choice. Sometimes this can go bad (band-aid), sometimes good (the priceless campaign). Its a judgment call. If you don't know which consumers you want to reach and how those consumers think, act, buy...how are you going to ever reach them and gain their trust & loyalty?

The buck doesn't stop here. But, adver-marketers are leading the industry into new arenas everyday, don't discount them - they will surprise you.

P.S. - The problem is too complex to just say that audiences are lining up for Batman instead of Coke Zero because advertising is obsolete. Batman was promoted much more than Coke Zero, in many different forums (Tabloids, CNN, TMZ, all movie promo outlets, box-office records). Not to mention the fact that beverage share is moving towards water/tea and away from cola. Causing companies like carbonated beverage companies to mega-brand and confuse consumers...further pushing them away from cola.

Daryl,

If advertising is to be defined by the consumers then it is already dead. Nobody wants to be defined as a consumer any more. The sheep have looked up. As the great Theodore Levitt said, these are just people with a job to be done in search of a product or service to do it for them. If the audience did define advertising it would be a lot more responsive to their needs and not the clients and their agencies.

As far as being controversial goes, it's earned me a fairly good living. Not to mention a significant number of clients. Why should I stop now?

Desiree, take a number and stand in line. I'll be right with you. http://MadisonAveNew.com

Desiree,

"Ultimately some of the points you make are valid. Unfortunately, it feels as if you are having a hard time looking out of the box that you criticize so extensively. This is especially evident when looking at the IAPIA's proposed ad on AdGabber...which you and the commenters noted."

Unfortunately those ads were done more than a year ago. As a result IAPIA was funded significantly and taken into stealth mode as a result. It is quite a different beast today.

"There are some schools that step out of the books and into the marketplace on a regular basis." I have been taking ad schools and portfolio classes to task publicly for the past four years. I attend portfolio reviews and critique undergraduate thesis submissions from at least 20 different universities. I have yet to have my socks knocked off by any original thought. AMA competitions not withstanding.

"Advertising history did not begin recently." Desiree, I am advertising history. My first client was the Pennsylvania Railroad when I was 12. There agency was Al Paul Lefton, one of the first agencies in America. But if you are referring to the tomb paintings in Egypt, you do have me on that. It was before my time, but only slightly. My point is that this industry has just changed significantly since the invention of television. I have yet to find significant evidence to the contrary. In spite of what Anomaly would have us believe.

"A big emphasis is placed on keeping up relationships/ties with companies in the area because that is how you keep the curriculum relavent". What makes you so sure these companies are up to speed. I worked at Ketchum on Heinze and PPG. I beg to differ.

"Advertising is not becoming irrelevant, it is just changing into something that is less tangible, more philosophical, harder to control...where it is much more necessary to "do your research." Before planning a complete campaign to effect the segment that you really want to persuade." Did I mention that I wrote "Divide and Conquer" the best seller on market segmentation? Who do you think you're talking to? Daryl? I'm not the one saying advertising is irrelevant. The people paying for it are saying it is irrelevant.

"Sometimes this can go bad (band-aid), sometimes good (the priceless campaign)." Band-Aid? Bad? It's just the longest running ad campaign in history. I just don't know why McCann can't come up with something better.

"If you don't know which consumers you want to reach and how those consumers think, act, buy...how are you going to ever reach them and gain their trust & loyalty?" Good question. When was the last time you saw an Executive Creative Director from Madison Avenue with a clipboard doing mall intercepts outside of a Wal-Mart in Kansas?

"The buck doesn't stop here. But, adver-marketers are leading the industry into new arenas everyday, don't discount them - they will surprise you." I'd be surprised if anybody who called themselves an "adver-marketer" could lead anybody anywhere. The clients I work with feel more like prisoners of their agency relationships not partners. And as far as leadership goes Google and Microsoft have more marketing decision makers following them then WPP or Interpublic do.

"The problem is too complex to just say that audiences are lining up for Batman instead of Coke Zero" The probem isn't too complex. Nobody gives a shit about Coke Zero, but Coca-Cola. They do care about a wacko actor who fried his brain on dope just as his big moment was about to arrive. Your analysis is a credit to your profession. The perfect example of what is wrong with this picture....Next. http://MadisonAveNew.com

Tom,

Sorry about hijacking your post. I think you are a lot cuter then Tom Cruise. And advertising is much sexier than sports marketing. I'll shut up now.
But not before a word from my sponsor. http://MadisonAveNew.com

Harry-

It seems as if we are criticizing each other of some of the same faults. When in reality all that is known is what is read.

I'm just curious as to why IAPIA went stealth mode? I saw that comment also, and mistakenly did not note the date.

So you're saying that the younger generation has no original thought?

I actually researched your "advertising history" and saw that it was extensive. I respect your opinion for the years of experience it represents. Though I do not believe that means your opinions should not be challenged or tested. It seems to me like you are attacking the industry in the comments you post here, and everyone in it, instead of trying to raise them up to the advanced level you speak about. I may be wrong, and there is nothing wrong with that because that is how you learn. I don't know what you are doing to educate/advance the industry outside of this forum.

My comment on advertising history would refer partially to egyptian paitings, but more towards the fact that advertising is a "recent" branch of a larger body of rhetoric.
You are not Egyptian old.

"My point is that this industry has just changed significantly since the invention of television. I have yet to find significant evidence to the contrary. In spite of what Anomaly would have us believe." Is that to say it is incapable of changing? If Anomaly is a sham and the incorrect direction to go in, what is the right one? I'm the first to say I have more questions than answers. But, doesn't meant it shouldn't be discussed at all. Which is what you propose when you "Next" me like that MTV show. That shuts down the dialogue right there, essentially seeming to aim to ban the ignorance of others.

I'm not saying these companies are completely up to speed, are you? Is anyone? What I'm saying is, it is a step. What are the next ones?

"The people paying for it are saying it is irrelevant." I know I'm not talking to Daryl. I addressed you. I'm not discrediting your success. Unfortunately, I have yet to read your work...which would have made me better equiped for this conversation. Have you noticed less and less companies paying for advertising/marketing research? Or do they pay for and say it is obsolete? Do they measure ROI? Are the people you refering to the client or the consumer, because ultimately it is the consumer paying for the advertising and brand maintence, in higher prices compared to store brands.

I actually thought you were refereing to Band-Aid as bad yourself, because you thought it was stale. I seem to be mistaken. The problem with brands like Band-Aid and Kleenex is that they have become commodities. I am not saying that directly reflects on your Ad. McCann can't come up with something better because the song has become a part of the brand. What is Band-Aid minus the song? Where is its identity without it?

"When was the last time you saw an Executive Creative Director from Madison Avenue with a clipboard doing mall intercepts outside of a Wal-Mart in Kansas?" - I haven't and I don't expect to. Do you? How is the industry going to change without collaboration with research sources?

"I'd be surprised if anybody who called themselves an "adver-marketer" could lead anybody anywhere. The clients I work with feel more like prisoners of their agency relationships not partners. " What exactly do these two sentiments have to do with each other? I'm not denying that the clients you work with may feel like prisoners...but have you examined why that is and tried to change it. Have you led others in the industry towards changing it? You will probaly say yes, because of the literary contribution you have made - etc. But, how? Are you not an adver-marketer? What do you call leaving your link in your comments? Why would you be surprised if an adver-marketer led people...aren't you trying to lead people?

"The problem is too complex to just say that audiences are lining up for Batman instead of Coke Zero..." The probem isn't too complex. -- You missed the end part. The main point was "...because advertising is obsolete." Advertising/Marketing is not obsolute, it just takes different channels and a coherent message. You are right in pointing out that people care about Ledger...and that they don't care about Coke Zero. Do they care about Coke period? I'd venture to say some do. How could they maintain the market share that they do without brand loyalty? It's just not an in your face caring...which is what companies are looking for, for their brands.

"Your analysis is a credit to your profession. The perfect example of what is wrong with this picture." I'm flattered that I am professional in your esteem, and that you took such detail in replying to my post. In fact I'm a recent college graduate (May). Old dogs may not learn new tricks (perhaps you are an exception), but I'm green. Any chance you you could think through my questions and teach the public/industry/me something instead of just condemning them? I'd venture you already think about ones like them...considering you've "never heard and original thought"...and that you have something in the works to lead to 5.0. Am I right?

After every sunset, comes a sunrise.


*Sorry about the hijacking Tom. And unfortunately my sponsor was not available for comment before release.*

Man alive! I've rarely seen such banter between a well-established copywriter who's won awards for powerful and economical statements about pop culture and society in general, and a well-established professor who's created, dissected and challenged just about every form of media there is.

Now, that said, can we put our EGOS aside, drop the semantics (myself included) and get back to thinking about how we can better our ideas, strategies and content collaborations with and for each other, "consumers", "people", whatever you'd like to call us?

OMG. Here we go again.
"I don't know what you are doing to educate/advance the industry outside of this forum". I don't believe the "industry" can put its arrogance aside long enough to allow itself to be educated. If it could, I am certainly not qualified to be its teacher. I would certainly rather leave that to those better qualified like our own Johnathan McDonald. My job has been to sound the alarm, which I've been doing for the past four years at MadisonAveNew.com. But after awhile the sound of alarm bells gets old. And your arm gets tired.

"If Anomaly is a sham and the incorrect direction to go in, what is the right one? I'm the first to say I have more questions than answers. But, doesn't meant it shouldn't be discussed at all. Which is what you propose when you "Next" me like that MTV show." Please do not take any of this personally. I am a well-documented jerk and an equal opportunity bung-hole. That said, discussion is good for the soul, but nobody is putting any money on the table to make it any better. The people who are backing the work if IAPIA are all from the technology sector. They understand the value of a proof of concept business model that mothballs what we call the advertising business. This hallowed journal that I misuse to drive traffic to my own website would never think of providing a forum to discuss what needs to be done to bring this business into C21. So I and people like you and Daryl and Tom and Johnathan have to do it under cover of "Small Agency Diary." God forbid anybody from the "Big" agencies would ever post here.

"I'm not saying these companies are completely up to speed, are you? Is anyone? What I'm saying is, it is a step. What are the next ones?" Since you asked, I'll tell you. Build a complex adaptive system in a computational model that replicates current market conditions. Test it against all current forms of audience influence. Then one by one add everything new that can be conceived by anyone interested enough. Keep what works. Toss what doesn't. See what you've got left. Then get to work and build these puppies from the computational model, to the test bed, to the alpha stage, to the beta stage from condo building to city block, to zip code, to DMA to County, to State, to Time Zone, improving as you go.Then you will be ready to start some shit.

"Are the people you refering to the client or the consumer, because ultimately it is the consumer paying for the advertising and brand maintence, in higher prices compared to store brands." With a 90% failure rating on new product intros, it is hard to pin the bill on the so-called consumer. Advertising (or the lack of it) falls squarely in the cost of sales column. If they could isolate ROMI there would be a blood bath on both the client and agency side. Self preservation is stronger than the will to improve the process.

"What is Band-Aid (Brand) minus the song? Where is its identity without it?" A better question is where is the Band-Aid Brand of today? Where are the campaigns that your brain can't let go of. Where are the people with the skills of modern day media working on campaigns that are equally and even more effective. The song isn't part of the product. The product is the subject of the song. When I say "I am stuck on Band-Aid Brand, 'cause..." billions of people all around the world can finish my sentence with the product's benefit. What "new media" campaign can make that statement?

"How is the industry going to change without collaboration with research sources?" That's just my point. The industry isn't going to change. Agency research sucks. Account Planning is a joke. Creatives throw enough research toplines in the trash to replicate our largest land-fills, let alone ever calling for the verbatims. The industry is totally out of touch with the audience and that's the way they like it. (Uh-huh. Uh-huh.)

"I'm not denying that the clients you work with may feel like prisoners...but have you examined why that is and tried to change it." Why would I do that. As long as they stay stupid, I stay paid.

"What do you call leaving your link in your comments?" Traffic building.

"aren't you trying to lead people?" No, I'm trying to get as famous as my work.

"How could they (Coke) maintain the market share that they do without brand loyalty?" Goizetta once said,"The business of Coca-Cola is advertising." Current management wants to walk away from that business proposition. I love Coca-Cola. But I worked on the Victory Tour for
Mike and Pepsi. And Mike is an avid Diet-Coke freak. But I couldn't sell Sergio on Mike. So I suggested he go to Pepsi. There is brand loyalty and there is business. I never drank a drop of Pepsi on the Victory Tour. I had cases of Pepsi cans switched out, filled with Coke and resealed at the Vernor's plant. Do you have any idea who you're dealing with here. I am a liar for hire.

"Any chance you you could think through my questions and teach the public/industry/me something instead of just condemning them?"

Read all 205 pages of MadisonAvenew.com and you will know everything I know. But it still won't get you a job.

"you have something in the works to lead to 5.0. Am I right?" Heh, heh, heh,heh. ( smiles enigmatically)

"After every sunset, comes a sunrise." After every sunset comes the dark.
http://MadisonAveNew.com

*Comes up for breath.*

What do you consider a research agency? Nielson & IRI or research done within particular advertising agencies?

Maybe if I read the 205+ posts and "knew everything you know," then I could answer my own questions. Now that would be cool.

Desiree and Harry -- thanks for your passion or anger... not sure which is which. But as for hijacking my post -- yes you seem to have done so -- which is fine, my hope was always to write something that would stimulate conversation.

But can we get back to the point of the post -- pontification on the FUTURE versus the PAST of advertising? Might be more fun.
-Tom
www.tommartin.typepad.com (as long as Harry is growing traffic I might as well too) ;>)

Dear Tom,

Okay, the agency of the future today and for tomorrow. Earlier I alluded to your agency's local market expertise and the aftermath of Katrina. I have friends in New Orleans who tell me that the place is still all screwed up: families broken apart and everybody lost something. It angers them that everyone who isn't from the South Gulf States are trying to forget about what had happened, ignorant how it changed lives, families and an entire culture – it was almost as significant as the Civil War. Perhaps focus on families and children. These kid's lives will never be the same. Families have been separated and are still reeling from the disaster.

I told you to go to P&G and tell them of your local market expertise – but armed with a promotion: "The Gulf States Recovery," or something along those lines where a manufacturer/retailer cooperative program helps to affect the development of 'community' again.

if you know your consumer base, this should be a no-brainer. I'd go with a female 18-55 demographic target, develop a list of top retailers with Wal-Mart at the top of the list. There help has already been well documented nationwide, as has the outpouring support across America. But the loss is still there – how do you rectify that using your art? Develop a multi-media promotion based upon a survey you do that talks to the victims of Katrina – how their life has changed using both retailers and manufacturers. What do the women of Louisiana and Mississippi need? Then develop a promotion for the Gulf States that helps victims who had great loss and help to heal the wounds that everyone else feels, and help make your community whole and better once again. These people are still shell-shocked. A huge promotion that integrates top packaged goods manufacturers (PGM) along with all of the top retailers could be an example of Cause Marketing at its best. Perhaps you develop a help-fund with a cap where people write and explain their need(s). And then have the sale of participating products give a percentage of the sale to the fund – both manufacturer and retailer. I developed a similar promotion in the eighties or early nineties, when Bob Hope was still alive. I developed a promotion for Land O'Lakes (LOL) in conjunction with the Children's Miracle Network (CMN). The promotion gave a percentage of the sale of LOL products as a donation to the CMN. It had local media print and broadcast support that touted the offer and the local market retail supporters. In the promotional materials I wrote a letter for Bob Hope where he asked grocers to help. The CMN guy called and said only Bob Hope can write Bob Hope letters – he'd have to talk with him. A short time later I got a call that opened with "Hey there, Sport-a-Reno, Bob Hope here." He said the letter was fine and asked if they could use the idea for other PMGs? I said yes, but I'd have to check with LOL's VP Adv first. He said yes and the whole thing ended with LOL's multi-million donation to the CMN, a happy LOL, and happy retailers nationally. Today with multi-media that included New Media, I am sure such design would be equally effective if not more so. I recommended P&G. I have never worked with them even though I had several telephone overtures – it just didn't happen. I had to keep telling them they had to come to me because I was tied to client obligations, that went over like a lead balloon. They have historically been innovators and have a record of community support not only in the U.S., but worldwide.

The agency of the future will be a facilitator between marketers/advertisers and the markets that they serve. They will be of service to their clients as idea facilitators and creativity. The Gulf States are a huge market and the agency of the future will look to its market and create client opportunities and ways to advance both its clients and the community it serves; thus making itself relevant and necessary. And that is how agencies grow beyond their local market – by becoming relevant to the client they serve with creative ideas that impact their business. A few blogs ago you were looking for that answer too.

Tom -- Incidentally, to 'pontificate,' from a logic or scholarly perspective, is to preface something one says or writes about in a way as to admit they are not an expert in it. Most people think it means to be pompous or dogmatic – was that your real intent? Were you being shrewd or clever? Trying to get whoever responds to your request to inadvertently admit that they are indeed dogmatic by accepting your invitation to comment on the Future of Advertising Agencies?

Prior to making a statement about something one may want to admit they are not an expert in this topic, then one would use it. For example: one could say that I will pontificate on Nuclear Fission as it applies to Nevada. Then give their statement. By saying 'pontificate' one is saying that I am not really qualified to make that statement on either nuclear fission or how it applies to Nevada. In that case you are basically saying it is my unqualified opinion; thus to pontificate. But again, to most people it means you are a pompous twit.

The opinion I gave to you about the agency of the future was not to pontificate or to be pompous – nor dogmatic; instead it was an expert opinion, or one could say a preeminent expert opinion. Semantics do matter. Now see, I didn't criticize you, but instead your choice of words.

Tom,

Being a man of few words, I offer this brief note of reference on the "Future of Advertising" for any who might care to examine:

http://MadisonAveNew.com/mad020.html
"The Future As I See It."
http://MadisonAveNew.com/mad031.html
"The Future of Advertising:The Brand"
http://MadisonAveNew.com/mad032.html
"The Future of Advertising:The Targets"
http://MadisonAveNew.com/mad033.html
"The Future of Advertising:The Grid"
http://MadisonAveNew.com/mad034.html
"The Future of Advertising:The Swarm"
http://madisonavenew.com/mad164.html
"The Future of Branding."
http://madisonavenew.com/mad170.html
"And Now, Lean Advertising."
http://madisonavenew.com/mad171.html
"Take The Red Pill."
http://madisonavenew.com/mad172.html
"Lean On This."
http://madisonavenew.com/mad173.html
"Constant Change For The Better."
http://madisonavenew.com/mad176.html
"Can Lean Advertising Become Lean-forward Advertising?"
http://madisonavenew.com/mad203.html
"Brand New Brands."
http://madisonavenew.com/mad204.html
"The Client Is The Audience."
http://madisonavenew.com/mad205.html
"The Transformational Idea Is The Idea"

And of course my comments (apologies) on
this particular discourse can be found at
http://MadisonAveNew.com

Sorry for the server error on the first five
articles listed below. It's been fixed.

The future of advertising depends on the future of global commerce, and while technology evolves, so must the tools, talents and personnel skills necessary to differentiate and communicate with the client's "customers." Today, those tools are increasingly digital, and agency personnel must be talented in all targeted media, from print to web to mobil and beyond, with skills that encompass both scientific and creative synthesis. While agencies have traditionally hired young employees because they cost less, now savvy agencies prize youth for their internet skills, fresh perspective and creative abilities, and compensate them accordingly.

In the future, actual agency size will only matter to clients more comfortable with the old analog model of bricks and mortar services, instead of the newer digital reality of open-source creativity and scientific accountability. Big agencies are slow, inefficient and expensive, but serve to provide false accountability to the client's bosses or shareholders, often based on analog metaphors for digital realities. Smaller agencies serve to prove the maxim that successful advertising fully integrates the agency with their client's business vision, and both have a stake in future sales results.

There have always been three main aspects to evolved agencies: creative (C), productive (P) and combined (communication mastery), often reflected in agency department names. In the future, smart agencies will electronically outsource, both intra-agency and inter-agency, and increasingly through public access filters, to harvest more ideas, images and hard data to accomplish the client's goals. Communication mastery has always been the most sought-after executive and creative skill in advertising, and this rare talent thrives on the present and future potential of all new media. Here in South Florida, agencies without a mastery of all communication forms, that can't adapt to the present and future direction of real multi-channel marketing, will perish.

Today, clients should expect to see copies of Wired and Ad Age, among other publications, on agency tables and desks. Clients should ask their agency if they have the youth, the digital skills and the real experience and intellectual resources necessary to compete in an evolving economy as winners in the global marketplace. Of course, these skills only serve to support the essential creativity and strategic skills that are the heart and soul of successful advertising, yesterday, today and tomorrow.

Tiffany Tobol
Mad 4 Marketing
www.mad4marketing.com

Tom, you're doing New Orleans proud. (Glad to see Paul from Worldwide Partners weigh in too - the members are testing the new model(s) everyday around the world.) By circumstance, necessity and through the grass-roots activation of our latent culture of creativity, New Orleans is an innovation laboratory. No better place to reinvent a tired industry.

Tom, if you want a view of an agency of the future, check out Modernista!
http://www.modernista.com/7/index.php#wikipedia

They have the most radical online presence of any advertising agency I have ever seen. You'll have to see it for yourself to believe it.

I always enjoy reading your posts. Very helpful.

Michael
http://www.fuelingnewbusiness.com