Two days ago, I attended a Canadian ad industry award show. What I noticed is that a large portion of the submissions for Digital AOY were made-for-Facebook “viral” stunts or fake apps with clever names that not a single human being has ever used.
This suggests that the term "Digital" has taken such a beating over the years that it is no longer understood and therefore no longer useful. Accordingly, I have heard it suggested that we abandon the category entirely and collapse it into other categories, namely Advertising and PR.
But that would be to ignore the fact that the world of bits has made a whole new form of marketing possible. And so Canadian marketers need a category that rewards the likes of Nike+ (which reinvented the relationship people can have with brands), Beats Music (which resulted in a $2 billion buyout and became Apple Music) or Taskforce (which reinvented insurance by lowering premiums for people who take preventative measures) because these things don’t just change behaviours, they change cultures. And they don't just build sales for clients, they build factories.
There is no doubt in my mind that there are Canadian agencies innovating with technology and building sophisticated original systems that consistently deliver significant value to human beings over the long term on behalf of brands, thus dragging the industry kicking and screaming into the 21st century. I know because, as of very recently, I work at one of them.
So we need to reward this kind of work in order to incentivise Canadian agencies to keep making it.
And so, I propose we acknowledge that there is a difference between 1) Systematic Work 2) PR Stunts (that may or may not use technology) and 3) Advertising (that may or may not be on digital channels). And I propose we introduce a new term for the category of work that doesn't fit into PR or Advertising categories. You guessed it: “Systematic”.
Let's take a moment to outline two very simple criteria by which to judge the work that would be entered into a category called "Systematic":
IS IT DIGITAL? Does it involve the rearrangement of the digits 1 and 0? Does it depend on software for its very existence? Did the people behind it write a single fucking line of code? If the answer is "no", then it ain't Systematic (and BTW it sure as shit isn't Digital). The following shouldn't require clarification but, just because this drives me crazy: videos that are essentially Just For Laughs Gags for the cause du jour that tweens Like on Facebook are Advertising at best and Dog Walkers at worst, but in neither case are they Digital (or Systematic, for that matter).
IS IT USEFUL? This one might be more contentious, but for the sake of carving out a clear distinction between the Systematic category and the PR category, let's say that people have to use it, or else it's not Systematic, it's PR. Rule of thumb: If it's not what you made that's great, it's the fact that you made it, then it's PR. Now that’s not to say it’s not good. Or indeed, to say that it’s not actually better - Talking Points often achieve objectives that Utilities cannot. But it is simply to say that it's not a system, it's a story.
And that's it. Two criteria. Pretty simple.
Now I admit, there will be some grey area.
Like, what if something is very useful but only a little bit digital? Personally I love ideas made possible by analogue tech. But, even though it uses technology, if it doesn't exist in the world of bits, let's say it isn't "Systematic". Truth is, it’s probably PR anyway: more about the fact that you did it, than what you did.
Or what if it's very digital and only a little bit useful? Well here's the rule of thumb: Did users get what they wanted out of it? Is there a demonstrable output? Was it an experience that delivered genuine value? Better yet: did people come back and use it a second, third, fourth, tenth, thousandth time?! Now THAT'S useful.
To clarify for luddites who inexplicably take issue when anyone makes a case for any form of marketing that emerged post-Mad Men era: I don't think Systematic work is the solution to every problem. To the contrary, I am of the opinion that, for campaigns work, 9 times out of 10 it is better to do something very talkworthy (a story) rather than something very useful (a system) as I have outlined quite clearly here.
But if award shows are the industry's way of communicating its value set to its members, and if there isn't a category that recognises great Systematic work, then we aren't incentivising agencies to build platforms that deliver the most impact in the form of demonstrable behaviour change, not to mention the most benefit to clients in terms of lifetime customer value. And we'll end up as a national industry known for its "viral videos" and fake apps instead of its bold innovations and useful systems. And that would suck.
Your move, award shows.