SXSW is a great place to learn about the existing and upcoming opportunities in the technology/interactive space. In that regard, the conference is an absolute must and I believe continues to be highly relevant for all marketers. Technology will present itself, apps will emerge and Austin will continue to be weird.
You may have read or heard that this was the year that SXSW “jumped the shark” and was no longer “cool.”
I heard this myself while I was there. And, after a few days, I started to believe that the reason many vets likely felt it wasn’t as “cool” was because marketers have changed the questions they’re asking when presented with new technology.
It’s no longer just about “what” – what’s the next big thing? They want to know, and rightly so, how these technologies can be used for business and what impact they can have on their brands as a whole.
It takes a lot more thought to close that loop and answer these types of questions. And, admittedly, I can see how that takes some of the sexiness out of the space.
I found myself considering this a lot. Probably more than I should have as I was surrounded by Dr. Who-esque phone booths and guys controlling skateboards with their minds.
Then it dawned on me - perhaps this was the year that SXSW made “the pivot.”
The Pivot
In the lean startup movement, “the pivot” is a turning point at which a company truly evaluates its business model and makes effective use of resources to reduce the chance of failure.
It doesn’t mean, though, that you’re changing the idea, technology or ultimate vision.
In SXSW’s case, the pivot was an acknowledgement of the changing makeup of its attendees. Like it or not, the audience now includes an increasing number of brand-minded marketers. Digitally savvy ones, to be sure, but not the hardcore tech-minded type that SXSW is typically associated with.
More importantly, the pivot was also an acknowledgement of the fact that brands and marketers are asking more of their digital partners these days than simply showing them cool tech. Interactive shops are being required to understand the implications of their actions on the overall positioning of the brand.
SXSW organizers realized this and tailored sessions appropriately.
Many of the sessions I chose to attend revolved around content strategy, brand “ownership” and contextual relevance. Each was either directly or indirectly trying to answer the questions of “why?” or “how?” Why is this experience appropriate for these consumers? How can this be both an experience in which a consumer finds value and at the same time reinforces the brand’s promise?
It wasn’t just the sessions, either. This disconnect between pure tech and business was prevalent in many of the debates and conversations in which I participated and witnessed.
SXSW was littered with folks peddling their new mobile apps. Some seemed valuable, but many seemed frivolous and begged the question “why?” Why would anyone use this app? What need is it serving? How can brands leverage this? Last but not least, how will this be monetized?
Tough questions mean work. A lot of it.
These aren’t new questions that are unique to interactive/digital. While I’ve spent my entire career in this space, I’m not naïve enough to believe that we have been (or should be) insulated. These are questions that traditional marketers have been asking and answering for years.
At least the good ones have.
SXSW made a pivot this year. This pivot is a wake-up call to the entire industry, especially those within the agency community.
At the end of the day, marketers are going to need to evaluate their business models. More importantly, marketers need to scrutinize and select which of the growing digital opportunities to embrace and which to dismiss.
Interactive or full-service? Neither? Both?
So, who is best poised to answer these questions for brands, keeping in mind clients are becoming justifiably frustrated with going to different agencies to cobble together one cohesive strategy.
Assuming that agencies, either full-service or interactive, are the answer – there is a lot of work to be done. And it’s work that entails more than throwing around the word ‘integrated’ before all of their offerings.
Interactive agencies have their work cut out for them. They need to infuse marketing fundamentals into their organizations. They need to be able to answer the difficult questions that follow explaining what they can do.
They also need to be able to execute print, POP, television and radio – areas traditional agencies have been playing in for 50-plus years. And, they need to be able to place all that work.
This isn’t just building on a new discipline and new offerings. It requires a different mindset and thinking. Some digital agencies are making this pivot successfully. Many are not.
Full-service agencies, on the other hand, may be better poised to answer these questions. Having been built upon the core principles and fundamentals of true marketing – starting with the consumer, understanding the competition and the client – full-service agencies have no reason to not be the go-to agency for all things marketing, including digital/interactive.
But this comes with tone caveat. Full-service agencies must continue to steer their evolution to truly absorb, understand and integrate digital while leveraging collective experience and knowledge that already exists within their organization.
Adaptation is critical. This means identifying how to train the people that are already experts at answering the “Why?” and “How?” on what the possibilities (and constraints) are that exist within the interactive space.
On paper, this seems like a smaller hurdle than training an entire organization that may be experts on what is possible but may not be as strong on how to apply it in a way that achieves meaningful and measurable results.
This is the path SBC Advertising, as an agency, has committed to. And, while there have certainly been bumps along the way, we feel like we’re going down the right path. I say “going” because the interactive space is constantly changing, so it’s an exercise that will never be “finished”.
What does it all mean?
This sign, posted throughout SXSW, explains it all.
Initially I just liked the snarkiness of it and thought it was clever. But, it started to become the theme of the conference for me. Consumers have already started declaring. As marketers we need to start listening and take heed.
Digital agencies can make the pivot. Traditional agencies can make the pivot.
We just need to commit.
When I was just a pup (hair and all), I remember going to a CAB at the Marriott Marquis on Times Square and seeing new cable networks beginning to emerge. I remember thinking "Food Network? Yeah, that will last about 2 months." Wrong! The point is that it can be very difficult to predict what will be embraced AND have longevity. I remember Roger Blackwell (who later served 6 years for insider trading and obstruction of justice) telling a massive lecture hall at OSU that the #1 objective for marketing is if a product or service "fills a need." I think that this still holds true. In my opinion, joining "Branch Out" when you are already "Linked In" is not really filling a need. I would also couple filling a need with the ability to generate revenue, which should dovetail automatically when you fill a need. The bottom line with marketers always has been and will continue to be better targeting, more engaged consumers and raising revenue. Even if "being interesting" rides the wave of constantly evolving digital technology, it will only continue to "be interesting" if a need is filled; and that doesn't mean a Me Too strategy with bright and shiny objects. Hence... The Pivot.
ReplyDelete