Is it about Taxonomy?
Sep 26th, 2007 by Simon
Apologies for the obscure picture – I was searching around on Taxonomy and found this stunning pictogram of the similarities at early embryonic stage of different vertebrates! Sourced from this rather informative site on classifying life.
Anyway, back to the usual topic… Comms. In this case, digital work.
We had an evening session at WCRS (hosted by our Head of Digital, Laurence Parkes) to discuss the award-winning digital work from Cannes. Which you can peruse right here. And, needless to say, there’s some cracking stuff in there.
But it did prompt a lot of discussion about whether an online soap (like Brawny) is up to the standard of Nike+ (more of a Brand Utility or Product in its own right). Which then got some people thinking that doing ‘entertainment’ online isn’t good enough either. And, soon enough, you’ve reduced online to one possible outlet. Which is all wrong. At least, I think it’s wrong.
My fellow planner – Roisin – suggested that maybe there was a need for some taxonomy – so we start to judge one game against another – rather than judging a game against a viral ad. You could break down the entries into categories and then look at them in more detail. Which is interesting.
But it got me thinking about the fact that some ideas online keep on cropping up – the games, for instance. Or the ‘message sending’ devices. And the bespoke scare mails (like I want to see a ghost, which is freakin’ genius). Because you sort of get less excited by seeing ‘another’ one. And I wondered if it’s harder to keep on doing something new online. Although you could easily accuse TV ads of revolving around a series of ideas – it’s just how well they’re executed.
But, the more I think about it, the less I see this as the problem. Truth is, sending messages is something we all love doing. Playing games isn’t going to stop being fun. And something that makes you laugh, scream or think a bit will always entertain.
So, maybe we do need to compare like with like in digital more. Generate a reasonable delineation between different types of ideas. But we also need to look for how well it’s been done (added to what the underlying mechanism is). Because the people that do it better will continue to captivate audiences and generate interest. And that’s what we all want to achieve, isn’t it?
Like other media, people will soon joke that there are “no new ideas” in digital. But that won’t stop there being BETTER ideas!
There’s an interesting thought there about better ideas. Technology is fickle and there sometimes seems an overly pumped up desire to do tech for tech’s sake alone. I’ve had teams say “Well, that’s been done before, we want something new.” Then they bank on the newness of an effect or technology and not an idea behind it. I like the Taxonomy thought…it might also be a way of looking at agencies and their evolution.
Familiarity isn’t always a bad thing, especially when thinking about consumers. If they know what they’re getting, vaguely, and they know they liked it last time, then they’ll engage again since the last experience was positive. It’s our job to push the second experience further therefore, not simply be new for new’s sake.
In a world that is becoming increasingly short of attention span, patience etc, advertisers are as guilty of wanting the next big thing before really exploring fully the possibilities of what’s in front of them already.