Fast Strategy

Walker Media’s Phil Georgiadis and Mark Syal, and M&C Saatchi’s Richard Storey and Simon Dicketts were voted the winning team in a live (fictitious) pitch for the COI at this week’s IPA Strategy Conference with Times Media for arriving at a great strategy and fast!
One of the greatest pressures on our industry today is to meet the demands of arriving at good answers fast. During the conference strategy-at-speed was tested with three teams who competed against each other to answer a fictitious brief given by Peter Buchanan, Deputy Chief Executive of the COI, on establishing a dog owners’ register in the UK.
Phil Georgiadis’s team took 37% of the audience vote with their winning strategy which recommended creating a physical symbol of ‘responsible dog ownership’ in the form of a silver rosette which would be attached to the dog’s collar. They suggested that the scheme should be renamed M.A.N (Merit in Authority over, and Nurture of, your dog) allowing the adoption of the line:‘M.A.N. A dog’s best friend'; a clever inverse of the usual ‘dog is man’s best friend’.
Key things to come out of the conference included:“When all three teams were asked would they have pitched better if they’d had more time, aside from fine-tuning and making their solution to the brief more rigorous, the answer was essentially…no.” (Guy Murphy, Chairman IPA Strategy Group, and Worldwide Planning Director, JWT, and Chair of the day’s proceedings)
“If clients could brief a multi-disciplinary agency team all at once, as has been the case today, they might get quicker answers to their brief.” (Phil Georgiadis, Chairman, Walker Media)“In order to do things quickly you have to know what the objectives are at briefing stage. These should be clear and agreed business objectives, and unfortunately the consensus from the audience at this conference today is that agencies rarely get this.”(Guy Murphy, Chairman IPA Strategy Group, and Worldwide Planning Director, JWT,)
All three teams only had three crucial hours to come up with their winning pitch. The voting was close and in second place was communication consultant Mark Earl’s team with 35% of the vote, followed by CHI’s Johnny Hornby with 28%. The winning team was presented by Claire Myerscough, Development Director of Times Media, with holiday vouchers worth £10,000.
Said COI’s Peter Buchanan, “It was a challenging brief in a fast-paced environment and the teams had no knowledge of the brief beforehand. It was fascinating to see what could be achieved in a short space of time. ”
Throughout the morning, whilst the teams prepared for their afternoon pitch, leading strategists from across the industry elaborated on how developing strategy fast is changing the way we do business and presented their top tips for how they think at speed.
So what do you think about strategy-at-speed? Is it possible, will it get the best results? We'd love to here your thoughts and comments.

Les Binet's Presentation

The Debate Result: Is the digital revolution killing TV advertising?

It was a night of battle that promised much in the way of fighting talk and swagger, but ended in hugs agreement rather than fisticuffs.

Les “fucking clever” Binet (a moniker applied by the evening’s chair, Rob Foreshaw), the diminutive genius of the planning industry squared up against Matt Dyke, his sort-of-colleague, to debate the statement “digital advertising is killing TV advertising”.

With over 70 in the audience for the evening, all baying for blood, the contest had all the hallmarks of a classic face-off.

Les kicked-off the debate by setting up and swatting down some of the received wisdoms of our industry, much-quoted by media pundits.

First up, the idea that people don’t watch TV any more: The IPA’s Touchpoints research putting-paid to that one, as viewing has held solid at 3.7 hours a day amongst all adults for the last three decades. Time spent viewing TV amongst teens has likewise barely changed in the past two generations, Les contends. Not only that, but commercial TV viewing has actually risen – as the BBC’s share of audience has fallen. Looking into the crystal ball, while delivery mechanisms might change, viewing will stay flat or rise.

Next up, the idea that audiences are fragmenting and that TV is therefore becoming less efficient went under the statistical microscope. And once again, Les waded into battle with his numbers, and, once again, came up on top. The price of media has fallen faster than the audiences have declined, the charts showed. The cost to reach 1,000 people is cheaper now than it has been in real terms, was the argument.

What we have seen, the argument went, is increased competition leading to lower prices – while that may be bad news for media owners, it is good news for advertisers and brands, Les argued: “TV has never been in ruder health” was the declaration from the stage. Once again looking to the future, he claimed, any ad-avoidance will likely be reflected in the price of media, so efficiency will not be compromised by such technologies.

So, by now somewhat PowerPoint-fatigued, we made it to the critical point of his argument: that there is no better medium than TV for conveying emotion, engaging audiences and getting brands talked about. This in cases where the creative is strong – at least.

Les pulled out the numbers from IPA Effectiveness papers to show that there has been a substantial increase over time in effectiveness where TV has been the lead medium. He argued that TV is the market in which a sales effect can be readily seen – unlike so many other channels of communication.

It is this ability to create a shared, low-involvement entertainment experience that the medium we think of as TV must preserve, Les said. The challenge he left us with was that, as the costs of media space fall, lowering barriers to entry, so the quality of advertising is likely to drop. Only real creativity will cut-through.

To make a reposte to this figures-laden attack, Matt took the podium to with an argument that had two key points. First, that “TV advertising is killing TV advertising” due to a dearth of quality. Second, that in a hyper-connected world, we all have a wealth of information at our fingertips about companies and products and that the power of brand image is diminished as shared knowledge and word-of-mouth take precedence.

In support of his first point, Matt pointed out that TV advertising has never been so despised: while 32% of people in 1991 agreed that “the ads are as good as the programmes”, just 15% did so last year. The dearth of quality is the biggest contributor to our “switching off” and loathing of interruption.

Consumers, he argued, love good brand ads and will actively seek them out, view, discuss and dissect them online. Marshalling an ad-land favourite to his aid in his argument, Matt pointed out that Honda’s “choir” work was viewed 3 million times online and much-debated. TV, he argued, is spending too much on frequency, not enough on quality.

When an ad is viewed online, he went on to claim, it is four-times more effective than an ad viewed on TV.

So, Matt surmised, TV advertising should be used to “seed” creative and emotional ideas, giving consumers the opportunity to turn to other media to engage further and explore on their own terms.

The second element of Matt’s argument was that of the decline in the power of the brand image. Where we once carried information and knowledge about brands, products and services around day-in, day-out, we now access it “on demand,” was his contention. Hence, those who come into a market for cars will turn to the web first in search of information and shared experience, denting the power of brand image and reducing its primacy.

No one new model will rise up to replace TV’s leadership, but rather, many models will take its place. At their heart will need to be an investment in experiences – engaging consumers in content rather than holding them at bay with glossy image. Matt concluded arguing that digital is killing all advertising – gradually stripping the marketing and spin away to leave authenticity, brands stripped bare and left to parade the internet for all to see.

The positions established, the Q&A kicked off. And it was through the probing of the audience that the poles came together.

The classic pieces of work in the digital environment, it was agreed, were spurred by traditional TV work – or by brand image.

From Pampers’ credibility to offer parents advice on childcare to Honda’s work stimulating a rush to the web to Sony’s ability to build a community of fans around its Bravia work, brand TV advertising has been a driver.

Both speakers had to conceded that, ultimately, they ended up in a position of agreement: that quality is where the investment needs to be made, rather than frequency. They may have disagreed about where the ultimate balance of power might lie between TV and digital, but came to the conclusion that one would be unlikely to wipe out the other wholly. As Les said at the end of the evening: “we didn’t really disagree, it’s all merging and complimentary”.

Is the digital revolution killing TV advertising?

DDB's Les Binet, European Director, DDB Matrix and Matt Dyke, Head of Planning, DDB London are to debate whether the digital revolution is killing TV advertising at the next IPA Strategy 'Head-to-head', sponsored by Times Media, which is to be held on 1^st August 2007 at the IPA.

Matt Dyke will argue that it is no surprise that the more savvy marketers are turning to the web instead of exclusively TV due to the freedom from time constraints, BACC regulations, lower media outlay and direct interactions or feedback from consumers. Les Binet, on the other hand, will put forward the case that as evidence suggests, so far the shift to a digital world has made TV more effective and efficient.

Says Matt Dyke, "Unless TV radically changes the way it allows consumers to choose content and interact with it, TV companies will struggle to continue generating the revenue they have previously enjoyed."

Says Les Binet, "My guess is that new technology might change the nature of TV advertising a bit, but it won't kill it, and it might even make it work better."

Come along to find out whose argument wins out. Book your tickets early as this IPA debate is likely to be another sell-out. It will take place at the IPA, 44 Belgrave Square, SW1x 8QS, on Wednesday 1st August 6pm-8.30pm.

Tickets cost £15 + VAT for IPA members and £30 + VAT for non-IPA members.

For further information and to purchase tickets for the debate complete the attached registration form and return to Adah Parris on 020 7245 9904 or at adah@ipa.co.uk

Dragon's Den

Thanks to everyone who attended yeseteday's event. Over the next few days we'll start to put up highlights of the event. In the meantime if you have any comments on the event please leave them below. The first 20 will receive a copy of the Venice Festival Best in Show CD featuring the world's best media ideas courtesy of Marco Rimini.

Enter the Dragon

The IPA Strategy Group, with Times Media, would like you to join them on Monday 21st May at the Mayfair Hotel to witness whether our industry can really cut the mustard when it comes to developing truly business building ideas.

Six agencies will brave a grilling from a panel of senior clients as well as an all-powerful voting audience, which could include you. The day will be facilitated by Evan Davis, presenter of BBC2's Dragon's Den and BBC Economics Editor.

Competing presentations will come from all sides of the communications industry and will include Richard Storey from M&C Saatchi, David Walsh from Mindshare, Simon Hall from Hall Moore CHI, Matt Dyke from Tribal DDB/DDB London, Craig Mawdsley from AMV BBDO, Richard Lennox from JWT and Michael Moszynski from IS. Each of them believes that their agency has a particularly compelling story to tell, what you think counts but ultimately its what the dragon's think that counts.

If this wasn't enough, we're also going to cast our eye abroad and see what business building ideas have inspired the likes of Jon Steel from WPP, Axel Chaldecott from JWT, Adam Morgan from eatbigfish and George Bryant from AMV BBDO and Marco Rimini from Mindshare.

Tickets for IPA members cost just £150 + VAT (for IPA Members £200 + VAT for non-Members) which includes lunch. There are limited numbers remaining so to be guaranteed a place, call 020 7201 8224.

Blog School

So Richard Huntingdon and I decided that it would be a good idea if we ran a blog school. I think perhaps Richard is better qualified as I am a 'blogger-lite'. However, it was my idea so he's kind of stuck with me. The idea is that the session falls into two areas: 1. How planners can use blogging as a complemnentary tool and 2. How we can help advise our clients on the best way to utilise blog technology as part of a communication strategy.

I think we are going to do this anyway but it would be good to hear from planners to understand whether this is something that has any value?