However my take isn’t quite as cynical as yours (don’t get me wrong, I have plenty of cynicism for the industry). I agree that the lack of specific philosophies about how communication works is due to agencies trying to be adaptive, but not always because people are trying to emulate their clients.

I think (or at least I’d like to think) it also stems from trying to be adaptive to ever-changing brand-consumer-culture-media relationships. Because of that constant change, today’s approach might not work tomorrow. And not only is the world changing, but if part of the challenge of branding is getting people to see a brand in a fresh new light, then we need to always be rethinking how to do that. To take one example, Disruption can be a great tool, but once everybody is ‘reframing the category’ isn’t that not very disruptive anymore?

So maybe that’s why agencies don’t often commit to brands being build one particular way – perhaps good agencies try to be schooled in many possible ways of building brands, to always think up more, and to pick the right approach for the brand and the moment in time. It’s not being all things to all people, it’s being adaptive enough to understand culture, consumers, brands and media are constantly evolving and so problems require evolving solutions. An agency who always used the same creative look for every client wouldn’t last very long; why should strategy be any different?

Your ultimate point is a good one, though – if this truly is what we’re up to, we probably need to get better at articulating why not being married to a specific philosophy doesn’t mean we have no philosophy at all.

thanks,
Jason

Very interesting post…
It is my longest e-mail to this blog, therefore my English limitations will show even more.

After The Fall of Adverting and the Rise of PR (Ries 2002), The End of Advertising as we know it (Zyman 2003), Life after the 30-second Spot (Jaffe 2004), etc. we can ask ourselves: are we doing the same kind of forecast than “Internet will kill TV” or “TV will make Radio obsolete”?

I think that PVRs and the massive advertising clutter definitively change the way we should do TV advertising. I totally agree with you, Grant, there’s nothing like TV (or Internet video spots) to manufactures brand meanings. The question is less if TV can carry brand meanings than if TV is still a mass media. The teens spend more time on the net than on TV; many specialize Channel erodes popular TV Channel audience; PVR, iTunes and other on-demand TV provide the most popular shows without advertising interruption…

What many TV-advertising-bashers forget is that people still tune the Super Bowl more for the ads than the game. (People in Montreal even pirate their dish to get the US spots) In that regards, I think that Madison & Vine (Donaton 2004) is an interesting book (too long, but still interesting…). The tie between advertising and entertainment is more and more preeminent in the media planning of major clients.

On Lovemarks amazing sells:
Because the advertising in the 80’s was all about creative (even if often irrelevant), many ad agencies business leaders are ex-creative. They are not that much ready to R.I.P. TV advertising and they like to read anything that could reassure them that advertising is still a creative driven business. Lovemarks sold so many copies because it is one of the rare optimistic points of view on our industry. Even if I found the book less miserable than you did, Grant, I totally agree about its poorness strategic contribution. Reading it make one feels like he can seek the brand-nirvana and that it’s every man responsibility to preach the good word on advertising vitality.
Having in your hands a true Lovemarks (a brand that your customers will choose despite reason) is like 50 years of marriage: you realize when you are there (I guess) that you did something right, being yourself along the way is more important than the quest of reaching the status.

On Ad Agencies:
It might seem ridiculous but ad agencies are really poor when it comes to do their self-branding. Like many clients they have, they are not able to choose one clear position and they try to be relevant to every targets, with the risk of reaching none. Ad agencies managers still use the 50’s strategy of giving to clients an account exec that doesn’t rock the boat too much. Please listen to the client, make him comfortable in the agency… Don’t dress like him too much, he might think he can do the job himself instead of hiring us.

Many Madison giants are weak, not only because the advertising business is in a shift that many have a hard time to embrace, but also because those same branding gurus didn’t do nothing for their own brands. In a rising competitive market (with less geographical constraints then ever before) the giants might have to do like Coke, and offer specific solutions (with an entire brand profile) for specific targets.

With agencies that do whatever the clients ask, without concern for their own brands… there is no surprise that businesses are less willing to pay the strategic/thinking fees and turn themselves to small creative shops around the world.

Despite all, I’m positive that TV ads aren’t dead, that the customer’s capacity of skipping the ads will force clients & agencies to do better ads, and that branding will more and more tie itself with design and entertainment.

Piers, nice point, these guys throw off so much charisma, we give them credit for innovative marketing, even when they are in fact quite conservative. Ah, great brands are blinding! Thanks, Grant

Tom, I think Apple managed to get several dimensions going at once, and this is a measure of great marketing, no? Thanks, Grant

I stumbled (thanks to Alex) upon a most terrific blog, The Blog Sits at the (intersection of anthropology and economics) and in particular a post titled, Madison Avenue and the Doppelganger Strategy The post is written by TBSAT’s author Grant

Not even aesthetics or the brand experience; à la Starbucks, Apple, JetBlue, Nokia, etc.?