The Need For Speed

I’ve recently found myself perusing the day-to-day differences between the marketing industry when I started my career in 1992 and today.  And I think it boils down to one word – speed.  As a college newbie I remember coming to terms with the fact that much of my account executive job was managing paperwork between the agency team and the client.  From months before the campaign, through the launch, during the programme and at the end of the activity.  Proposals, updates, status reports and analysis documents were constantly ping-ponged backwards and forwards.  Sometime quickly, sometimes very slowly.  But back then quickly meant on a weekly basis.  These papertrails underwrote the activity of the marketing industry.  Activity that was gathered, prepared, nurtured, planned – often in excruciating detail – before being launched into the market.   However, today’s markets are faster.  Which means marketing needs to be faster.  Including the systems and processes that keep the wheels turning.  So what’s driving this need for speed?  A while back Johnnie pointed out to me that customers now have the technological advantage over companies. Anyone who boots up their corporate laptop and then goes to make a cup of tea while the processor sorts through a million security patches and firewall protocols, will understand this.  Compared to the ease with which individuals can draw upon free web power or download new applications, corporations are technically hamstrung.  Which can lead to a disconnection with customers.  ‘We no longer feel we are immersed in our customers’ world,’ a manager from a mega FMCG company told me, frustrated by his IT department's refusal to let his PC access social networking sites.  But turbo-charging the speed at which the marketing industry works isn’t a trivial fix.  Go-faster stripes aren’t enough.  Corporations and brands still...

...crave the time to consider strategy and prod powerpoint plans.  And they covet the perceived security of doing so in a black box.  As ever, the answer isn’t to go from one closed extreme to the opposite open end of the spectrum.  It’s about taking the same elements and finding a new blend.

Several client engagements I have worked recently on have been prompted by large corporations being caught out by the need for speed in modern marketplaces.  One media company told me of their horror as they watched a small mistake on their part get picked up by people-powered network news, become part of the mainstream news agenda and travel around the world.  A cycle that fed on itself for a few weeks causing havoc inside the business.  By the time they had cranked up their own internal systems, the feeding frenzy was in full effect.  ‘We didn’t have the opportunity to nip it in the bud,’ my client observed regretfully.

Part of the challenge is that when the marketplace is spinning so fast it’s hard to tell what’s going to grow and what’s going to just drift away.  Everything starts with a single tweet.  No memes look interesting when they begin. They don’t wait for next month’s committee meeting for the permission to grow.  Which is a problem if a brand reaction requires approval from the brand steering group, the minutes of which are reported a week subsequently.

Recently, I’ve had the opportunity to try some new processes that are more in keeping with the pace of today’s networked marketplaces. Instead of the internal ping-pong reporting that drove everything when I was an account executive, the systems that have worked best allow immediate action followed by continuous real-time assessment.  The shift is not unlike the difference that Clay Shirky points to when he describes the need for journalism to move from filter then publish to publish then filter.

And while it may seem scary and difficult, I can report that it’s much more satisfying than adding a response to a month-old blog post.  Better to stutter along in the live conversation meeting new friends as you go than craft the perfect retort, only to discover that everyone has left the party.

Comments

[Brad Bell]

What you seem to be talking about is somehow altering the industrial process of production by hierarchies of specialists to make it fit digital tools that are optimal for individual processes of production by a few generalists.

Internet media means communication is no longer expensive. Getting a hierarchy of people to decide what to say is expensive. (The cost of communicating with the world is about the same cost as communicating internally.)

[James Cherkoff]

Thanks Brad, yes that's the issue. The big problem is when the market is constantly ahead of you and you can't keep up because of your internal processes.

[Rory MacDonald]

Yes, but what is the alternative?
Ill thought out responses from unqualified individuals which are then capable of destroying a multi-million brand?

Has your client who "didn't have the opportunity to nip it in the bud" considered that if they did, they may have just created an even greater mess. As I have heard you say yourself James, it is hard enough to control where your own stones land in the pond, let alone controlling the ripples from others' hurlings.

Any large corporate that has teams of lawyers working on communications is going to be foolish to create a "rapid response" team to "nip in the bud" any gossip and rumours in the online world. It would be very wise to listen out for weak signals and warn the lawyers, but engaging instantly could create serious liability.

And to be honest, who in their right mind follows a corporate brand on twitter anyway. I have seen all the fuss about Habitat rejoining Twitter. "I know, I am going to clog up my iPhone with tweets from a pseudo-designer furniture store." - WTF?

[James Cherkoff]

Ah yes, alternatives indeed Rory...

My client's experience was enough to convince them that they can never be shut out of the 'conversation' again and there's no doubt it was the tipping point at which they decided, rightly or wrongly, to dive into the social waters. In fact, the legal team were comparatively willing to join them. Others, less so!

I agree with you that corporate Twitter accounts are a bit spooky. However, the larger 'conversational' trends look here to stay. It's interesting that a good few of my engagements begin with a crisis of sorts. To date, that seems be the only time when senior folk engage with the space. However, more recently, the motivations have been more positive.

Oh, the stories I could tell! ;-)