September 13, 2005

it wasn’t the tip that hit the titanic

zzzzzz7654268.jpg
From a recent blog-related con­ver­sa­tion in the gaping­void com­ments:

Andreas: “On a more serious note, the ad agen­cies are lear­ning and lear­ning fast.”

Andreas, I’m not sure if I agree.
Why not? Because blogs, when done well, are CHEAP and EASY. Agen­cies are in the busi­ness of selling stuff that is NEITHER.
The thing is, the adver­ti­sing industry is being unwi­llingly chan­ged from the outside, not the inside. Like I said last January:

Goo­gle Adsense wasn’t inven­ted by Young & Rubi­cam. Mova­ble Type wasn’t inven­ted by Leo Bur­nett. The Clue­train Mani­festo wasn’t writ­ten by John Hegarty. I could go on for pages…
It’s the old biz school maxim: the rail­road com­pa­nies didn’t get into air­li­nes. The horse and buggy com­pa­nies didn’t get into auto­mo­bi­les.
What will replace the mono­lithic agency model? Another mono­lith? Or lots of dif­fe­rent little new models?

The big agen­cies can react, but they’re inca­pa­ble of making the first move. Ergo, any­body who pays big agency money to make blogs for them is either a fool, or is being rip­ped off. Just my opi­nion.
[PS:] Blogs are just the tip of the Clue­train ice­berg. It wasn’t the tip that hit the Tita­nic.
[FURTHER READING:] “The Multi-Billion Dollar Sui­cide Pact Bet­ween Clients And Television.”

18 Responses to “it wasn’t the tip that hit the titanic”

  1. Hugh — you are cer­tainly on the right track, but you need to go further. Most dis­cus­sions about the “future” use defi­ni­tions and assump­tions based on what we know NOW.
    Defi­ning tomo­rrow with today’s rules only gives us a par­tial image of what tomo­rrow will actually be like.
    And — it is IMPOSSIBLE to accu­ra­tely pre­dict the future as I wrote on 06 Sep.
    To take this dis­cus­sion where it needs to go, we need a new lexi­con. New defi­ni­tions. New names for things. Things that pro­bably don’t even exist, as we speak.

  2. Scott W says:

    “The thing is, the adver­ti­sing industry is being unwi­llingly chan­ged from the outside, not the inside. … The big agen­cies can react, but they’re inca­pa­ble of making the first move. ”
    News­flash: the “adver­ti­sing industry” is made up of more than the “big agen­cies”.
    There are plenty of nim­ble folk out there, unen­cum­be­red by bureauc­racy, who can get it. “Guys in paja­mas” don’t have a lock on get­ting it (although that belief cer­tainly suits your per­so­nal pro­fit model). Gran­ted, the big­ger they are, the farther they usually are from having a clue, but your pes­si­mism is, well, … pessimistic.

  3. m says:

    blogs are not easy… I’m on my third and I know that wri­ting something inte­res­ting and sti­mu­la­ting nearly every day is hard. Unless hel­ped by a brain dead job with not enough to do then one can post away like mad.

  4. Jeff Veit says:

    I think that this is being com­pla­cent…
    In most mar­kets, the big com­pa­nies don’t inno­vate well, but they are the ones that own the mar­ket and make the most money. They do this by follo­wing just behind the inno­va­tors, hoo­ve­ring up the stuff that works best and then deli­ve­ring to their cus­to­mers.
    Some thoughts
    You said: “Agen­cies are in the busi­ness of selling stuff that is neither.” Well, that’s true, but blogs don’t neces­sa­rily have to be cheap. It’s usually true that the first few gene­ra­tions of a pro­duct is cheap, but it’s not neces­sa­rily true that it stays cheap. For exam­ple — look at com­pu­ter games — once writ­ten by one per­son — now using teams of hun­dreds.
    One way of ram­ping up the cost of blogs might be to pay to create an ecosys­tem, rather than a supers­tar. TV can afford the glossy pro­duc­tion values because the pro­du­cer to con­su­mer ratio is strongly weigh­ted towards con­su­mers. You could reduce the pro­duc­tion values and that ratio by crea­ting many, many dis­cus­sions about a brand (the ecosys­tem). Each would be read by fewer peo­ple, but the net effect might be the same.
    Another way might be to create a Martha Ste­wart figure.
    I think that the values of a space are embed­ded in the beha­viours of those who inte­ract in the space. If that’s a bit metaphy­si­cal: before the huge growth of the inter­net I used to read Use­net. After­wards I couldn’t. The peo­ple in the space no lon­ger wor­ked to the same rules. At the moment blog­ging is a niche area com­pa­red to TV, but it’s gro­wing quickly. I’m not sure that it yet has enough mass to main­tain the current ethic. I can still ima­gine that pro­fes­sio­nal copy wri­ters could change the rules of blog­ging.
    Jeff

  5. Scott Reynen says:

    “Why not? Because blogs, when done well, are CHEAP and EASY. Agen­cies are in the busi­ness of selling stuff that is NEITHER.”
    You define agen­cies in such a way that they could never have a clue, and then act sur­pri­sed when they don’t have a clue. What were you doing at the WK blog in the first place if you really have no hope for an agency blog? Rubbernecking?

  6. An agency doesn’t write with your voice. It doesn’t con­nect with your cus­to­mers. It doesn’t lis­ten when they’ve got a pro­blem. It doesn’t help them get the most value from your pro­duct.
    An agency’s value is like the value of a bricks and mor­tar dis­tri­bu­tor. It “breaks bulk” and “carries cre­dit”. Out of neces­sity, it inter­fe­res with the rela­tionship you have with your cus­to­mer.
    Agen­cies just “mes­sage” to your “audience”.
    Ptooie!

  7. Inte­res­ting stuff.
    Hugh, I agree that the big agen­cies in par­ti­cu­lar have pro­blems tur­ning around. Watch any big ship in action and you’ll see why. Iner­tia. Ingrai­ned habits. Pro­tec­tio­nism.
    Howe­ver, for every dino­saur not get­ting it there are many, many new agen­cies that do — my own inc­lu­ded. And even the dino­saurs are taking notice. I recently recei­ved a pdf docu­ment on blog­ging and the new mar­kets from O&M that was as insight­ful and refreshing to read as anything that makes the rounds in the blo­gosphere we all know and love.
    Do you remem­ber the 1990’s? We had lots of new media agen­cies spring up, using almost the same ter­mi­no­logy that many of the blog­gers use now. They sha­red the same con­vic­tion that ad agen­cies would be dead within the decade, that they were not get­ting it, that they would never be able to offer a simi­lar ser­vice.
    What hap­pe­ned? The big agen­cies watched, lear­ned and then pulled out their che­que books and bought the talent they nee­ded to sur­vive.
    The new rea­lity in adver­ti­sing isn’t about the battle of the tools. And blogs are a tool, let’s not for­get that. It’s about honesty, inte­grity and, pro­bably most impor­tantly, rele­vance to the consumer’s needs.

  8. charlie says:

    you ask: ‘What will replace the mono­lithic agency model? Another mono­lith? Or lots of dif­fe­rent little new models?’
    you’ve already answ­red it: you and me.

  9. hugh macleod says:

    “It’s about honesty, inte­grity and, pro­bably most impor­tantly, rele­vance to the consumer’s needs.”
    Then we’re really scre­wed. Heh.

  10. Jeff Lang says:

    Here’s what it looks like when a big agency makes a blog:
    http://www.juicyfruit.com/?fromEmail=yes&emailSection=hercules_landing&blog_day=39
    I’m with Hugh.

  11. AdPulp says:

    A New Mar­ke­ting Service

    “Any­body who pays big agency money to make blogs for them is either a fool, or is being rip­ped off. Just my opi­nion.” –Hugh Mac­Leod While I tend to enjoy Hugh’s take on things, on the above point I couldn’t…

  12. Pro­found thought of the day

    From Hugh:
    Blogs are just the tip of the Clue­train ice­berg. It wasn’t the tip that hit the Tita­nic.
    Bingo!
    Tech­no­rati Tags: blog­ging, /Hughtrain, /cluetrain

  13. Scotty says:

    Oh sweet jesus @ the juicy fruit “blog.” That has got to be the WORST attempt at “spea­king to the peo­ple” that I’ve ever laid eyes on.

  14. Jeff, while I agree with you (that Juicy Fruit blog IS an abo­mi­na­tion if ever I’ve seen one) one bad blog does not mean that all blogs crea­ted by ad or new media agen­cies suck.
    Look, the truth is: Blogs are the fla­vour of the month, or maybe the year. As a result, blogs are highly visi­ble. It’s only logi­cal that this visi­bi­lity attracts the mar­ke­ting folks. Will they be get­ting it right first time round? Of course not. Will they learn? You can bet the farm on that.
    Look at Mic­ro­soft ver­sus Apple (Sorry Hugh ;)
    Is Apple bet­ter at inno­va­tion than MS? Of course they are.
    Is MS more suc­cess­ful in the mar­ket? We all know the ans­wer to that one.
    Mic­ro­soft suc­ceeds because of two rea­sons. Their pro­ducts don’t suck badly enough to make switching easy and they LEARN. Every release, every update is making the pro­duct bet­ter.
    The same, in my opi­nion, applies to ad agen­cies. They have some terri­ble cle­ver peo­ple wor­king for them (ok, there’s also a fair share of idiots, I know, I know) and they will learn, adapt and evolve.

  15. I don’t agree. I mean sure, there are agen­cies that do blogs for show. But there are those run by the youn­ger ones (like myself) — and we do know what it means to blog :)
    I have a blog myself — not a cor­po­rate one, but sho­wing con­nec­tions with my com­pany. And if a cus­to­mer came to me and asked for a blog­ging cam­paign, I would know what to do :)

  16. dumiak says:

    ..can real blogs pee?

  17. What do think about niche blog con­sul­tancys like weblogs work?

  18. hugh macleod says:

    Ale­xan­der, I have no real opi­nion. Yet.