Category Archives: The future

Smoke and Mirrors by Profero Global

The chief virtue that language can have is clearness, and nothing detracts from it so much as the use of unfamiliar words – Hippocrates

Pop quiz, readers. Re-calibrate your synapses, set your faces to stunned and prepare for linguistic splashdown. Feast your eyes on this smorgasbord of gibberish and pick out the runt of the litter:

“Building a conversation strategy will allow us to visually see our complete marketing ecosystem and bake in our communication throughout all touch points.”

“First, by socializing all media, the engagement experience is cyclical and ongoing. Second, by identifying conversation groups (social graphs) and tapping directly into them and then connecting them together, the long tail of niche market segments become your mass or ‘mainstream’ media play.”

“Develop a multi-faceted communication program utilizing both traditional media and truly interactive social media channels, where listening and acting upon your human being’s wants is KING”

“A multimedia mix framed to spark conversations requires a compelling message concept that can work across a multimedia platform.”

“…Package the compelling message (internal marketing, external marketing and social network marketing) into an organized dashboard that exponentially expands website real estate, then push the content in real time to all product/service distribution points…”

Which of these abominations were written with a straight face, by real people with working brains? And which is the fraudulent imposter, demanding to be bound in the back of a transit van, driven to a remote woodland clearing and shot at close range through the back of the head? Well, are you sitting down? Because, remarkably, they are all genuine. And to someone somewhere they really do mean something.  To those displaying the characteristics of sentient and evolved human beings, however – upright, opposable thumbs, a rational mistrust of Scientology and men with winter tans – they are nothing more than a dreadful noise. A low, humming dreadful noise. And as someone who sat through much of the Guantanamo Bay-inspired torture purporting to be cutting-edge insight, from the industry’s “leading thinkers” at this year’s Cannes Festival, like a latter day, hairier Martha Gellhorn I can report from the frontline that this sort of smoke-and-mirrors propaganda is not restricted to the written word. People actually say this stuff, too. And other people clap. Loudly. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. Or, to put it lesss succinctly, the Danish vertical has become unsynergised from the positive engagement factor of the mainstream virtual/emotional experience vector.

Read More »

Smoke and Mirrors by Profero Global

The chief virtue that language can have is clearness, and nothing detracts from it so much as the use of unfamiliar words – Hippocrates

Pop quiz, readers. Re-calibrate your synapses, set your faces to stunned and prepare for linguistic splashdown. Feast your eyes on this smorgasbord of gibberish and pick out the runt of the litter:

“Building a conversation strategy will allow us to visually see our complete marketing ecosystem and bake in our communication throughout all touch points.”

“First, by socializing all media, the engagement experience is cyclical and ongoing. Second, by identifying conversation groups (social graphs) and tapping directly into them and then connecting them together, the long tail of niche market segments become your mass or ‘mainstream’ media play.”

“Develop a multi-faceted communication program utilizing both traditional media and truly interactive social media channels, where listening and acting upon your human being’s wants is KING”

“A multimedia mix framed to spark conversations requires a compelling message concept that can work across a multimedia platform.”

“…Package the compelling message (internal marketing, external marketing and social network marketing) into an organized dashboard that exponentially expands website real estate, then push the content in real time to all product/service distribution points…”

Which of these abominations were written with a straight face, by real people with working brains? And which is the fraudulent imposter, demanding to be bound in the back of a transit van, driven to a remote woodland clearing and shot at close range through the back of the head? Well, are you sitting down? Because, remarkably, they are all genuine. And to someone somewhere they really do mean something.  To those displaying the characteristics of sentient and evolved human beings, however – upright, opposable thumbs, a rational mistrust of Scientology and men with winter tans – they are nothing more than a dreadful noise. A low, humming dreadful noise. And as someone who sat through much of the Guantanamo Bay-inspired torture purporting to be cutting-edge insight, from the industry’s “leading thinkers” at this year’s Cannes Festival, like a latter day, hairier Martha Gellhorn I can report from the frontline that this sort of smoke-and-mirrors propaganda is not restricted to the written word. People actually say this stuff, too. And other people clap. Loudly. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. Or, to put it lesss succinctly, the Danish vertical has become unsynergised from the positive engagement factor of the mainstream virtual/emotional experience vector.

Read More »

Smoke and Mirrors by Profero Global

The chief virtue that language can have is clearness, and nothing detracts from it so much as the use of unfamiliar words – Hippocrates

Pop quiz, readers. Re-calibrate your synapses, set your faces to stunned and prepare for linguistic splashdown. Feast your eyes on this smorgasbord of gibberish and pick out the runt of the litter:

“Building a conversation strategy will allow us to visually see our complete marketing ecosystem and bake in our communication throughout all touch points.”

“First, by socializing all media, the engagement experience is cyclical and ongoing. Second, by identifying conversation groups (social graphs) and tapping directly into them and then connecting them together, the long tail of niche market segments become your mass or ‘mainstream’ media play.”

“Develop a multi-faceted communication program utilizing both traditional media and truly interactive social media channels, where listening and acting upon your human being’s wants is KING”

“A multimedia mix framed to spark conversations requires a compelling message concept that can work across a multimedia platform.”

“…Package the compelling message (internal marketing, external marketing and social network marketing) into an organized dashboard that exponentially expands website real estate, then push the content in real time to all product/service distribution points…”

Which of these abominations were written with a straight face, by real people with working brains? And which is the fraudulent imposter, demanding to be bound in the back of a transit van, driven to a remote woodland clearing and shot at close range through the back of the head? Well, are you sitting down? Because, remarkably, they are all genuine. And to someone somewhere they really do mean something.  To those displaying the characteristics of sentient and evolved human beings, however – upright, opposable thumbs, a rational mistrust of Scientology and men with winter tans – they are nothing more than a dreadful noise. A low, humming dreadful noise. And as someone who sat through much of the Guantanamo Bay-inspired torture purporting to be cutting-edge insight, from the industry’s “leading thinkers” at this year’s Cannes Festival, like a latter day, hairier Martha Gellhorn I can report from the frontline that this sort of smoke-and-mirrors propaganda is not restricted to the written word. People actually say this stuff, too. And other people clap. Loudly. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. Or, to put it lesss succinctly, the Danish vertical has become unsynergised from the positive engagement factor of the mainstream virtual/emotional experience vector.

And herein lies much of the problem, folks. Language has become a barrier to understanding. As 2009 hauls its broken carcass across the finish line there is a definite funk in the air. The funk of hostility. Peace, or whatever there was of it, has been ripped asunder and the emergence of gauche upstart “digital” as a main player has caused much irritation among the “traditional” set. And it’s all being played out on global marketing message boards and blogs. This is no surprise given the trenchant views of media-types on most matters, either relevant or wildly superfluous. There are, after all, few things that appeal to a marketer more than the syrupy sound of his or her own opinion. That the debate has often become so vitriolic, and personal, is a little more alarming, however. It seems to have morphed into the media equivalent of an East End turf war, but without the samurai swords and Rottweilers.

Superficially the debate has always been, and remains, an “either/or contest”. Unlike Michael Jackson’s skin pigmentation or Tom Cruise’s sexuality, you are one or the other. Or in the words of that great twenty-first century Kierkegaard, George Walker Bush, “You are with us or you’re against us.” We seem pathologically incapable of approaching the discussion in anything other than purely Manichean terms. Traditional is, depending on your heritage, either prehistoric and profligate or fundamental and awe-inspiring, while digital is either the emperor’s new clothes or revolutionary. In this world the two are mutually exclusive. The reality, of course, is far more complicated and any attempt to delineate them is redundant. So, in an effort at clarity, I contend that the crux of this spiteful little mess is not really about real value or superiority, but rather one about perceptions of value and how it is communicated.

Whatever your opinions on the merits or otherwise of digital, one thing that its advocates must admit to is an horrendous and unforgivable butchering of language. It‘s painful to witness and, sadly, has only served to keep digital alienated from the realities of popular marketing and communication. We have become so saturated in a kind of meta-language, a simulacrum of sense that we have made it almost impossible to understand. It has become so removed from conventional speech that it’s like dragging your canoe up the banks of the Amazon and trying to talk turkey with the lost Matis Indians…or something. Marketing has been awash with jargon for many years, and it would be disingenuous to suggest otherwise, but why has digital assumed the role of chief flag-waver for bullshit? It’s impossible to see who gains from it.

It might be sacrilegious to suggest, but could it be because just sometimes the numbers don’t add up? That when it comes to emotion, persuasiveness and good old-fashioned storytelling, nothing comes close to a well-made TV ad or a beautiful, epic cinema spot? Could it be that in falling short of the sheer scale, reach and romance of TV, digital apostles have created an amphetamine-fuelled demi-language that gives the illusion of grandeur? Could all this talk of “multi-media migration” and “cross-vertical communication utilisation” be a subconscious attempt to cloud this issue? This is not to disparage digital in anyway. There is some remarkable, stunning digital work out there, by some wonderfully creative minds. What some brands have achieved through digital is extraordinary and certainly can’t be matched by our offline cousins. Digital does utility better than any other medium. It enables people to act. But what it can’t do, or has failed to find a way of achieving so far, is a deeper emotion. 

Two examples: this 1998 TV and cinema spot is still talked about, by industry and non-industry people alike, in revered tones; and this much awarded 2007 digital strategy and execution is stunning in its scope and its capacity to involve people [NIKE+]. The first is entirely emotion-led, the second entirely practical. Both have immense, possibly equal value to each of the brands. The former is admired by people and builds affinity through impression; the latter valued and builds affinity through efficacy. Yet comparing the two is entirely superfluous. So why do we try? Why does digital insist on attempting to muscle in on a brand of advertising that it cannot match? And why do traditional campaigners insist on belittling digital in such a vehemently supercilious manner? As long as the debate around “traditional v digital” continues along such entrenched battle lines then it will be impossible for digital to look traditional in the eyes and for traditional to be anything other than a swaggering distant relative.

One way to abandon this divide and to de-clutter the “media landscape” must be to call a moratorium on the debasement of a language that has functioned perfectly well without being manipulated into something entirely lacking credibility and authenticity. Any joker can trot out spurious and mercilessly banal media-speak, half-truths and bogus insight. The very best people don’t need to. So let’s demystify what we do and engender a little simplicity; strip back the language that clogs up presentations and blogs; demonstrate a little humility and honesty. Let’s call a halt to comparisons and competition and childish things. Let’s establish a reasonable, logical and intelligible foundation – digital can’t do what traditional can do and traditional can’t do what digital can – and move on from there. Let’s abandon any pretence and antagonism and understand that in their own ways each medium has a huge amount to offer, can work separately or, perhaps more importantly, can work together. Suddenly it all becomes a little clearer.

Let’s move the focus away from the medium and back to the brand. It’s so much more simple. So, forget about vertical communication synergisation; and conversational media integration; and consumer deforestation; and interplanetary bespoke cross-platform noise generation. There is only one brand. Nike, Guinness, Levis, Burger King….there is no separate brand for online and another for offline. The same basic principles, and the integrity that your actions demand, apply wherever it exists. And wherever that might be there should be only four basic questions that need asking: Does the work created communicate the brand message? Does it impart relevant information and/or provide a utility? Is it brilliantly executed? Is it interesting?

Anything more is superfluous and obfuscation. Keeping things simple, keeping things honest and having the rigorous self-discipline to avoid distraction is far harder to achieve than creating self-justifying diversions to cloud shortcomings. It’s why the very best in the industry, irrespective of whether they are from “digital” or “traditional” backgrounds, do simply great work and those that purport to be the best merely end up talking about it.