Well said.

But perhaps it is not such a stark world where the McLuhanites will overthrow the Bernbachians is the underlying sense one gets in the article.

Thankfully, what endures in the new world of changing mediums is that shaping brands continues to require creation of meaning.

And to create good meaning the Bernbachians will need to acquire McLuhanistic sensibilities of a gyroscopic view of mediums as opposed to a single screen view of the world; and the McLuhanites will probably need the Bernbachian sensibility of craft and storytelling if they wish to create compelling narratives to truly bring the mediums alive.

The new world will not belong to those who privilege one way of seeing over the other but to those who with equanimity will create a world where context and content seamlessly merge to create meaningful brands that human beings will desire to consume.

Subodh

Thanks.
I teach graphic communication at Birmingham City University in the UK and have been looking for a clear description of how advertising is changing. You've just helped a lot. CliveC

If you really look at what Bernbach preached, what work he did and in what context he did it you will find someone who should be a patron saint of the digital revolution and would if he were alive today be one of its biggest advocates.

Bills ad agency DDB (I don't work for them by the way) came at a time when advertising was dominated by phony, unsophisticated jingle based advertising, to sell a car you simply showed a shiny happy couple driving a cadillac and that was enough.

Bernbach did not just do 'funny' that completely misses and trivialises the point, what he did was change the way advertising talked to people, he believed that people were not idiots and that to persuade them you needed to talk to them, have a dialogue with them.

You look again at some of DDB's work at this time, it was ground breaking and most of it not at all some sort of 'funny' ad with a tagline at the end (check out Avis, Esso, even VW, and look at the strategic stance taken by them).

Again you have to remember TV was a new medium and Bill took it and used it in a new way, exactly the same spirit that is needed today.

Another tired rant that digital harbors is the traditional 'creative team'.

We have had the creative team with us for over 50 years it is easy to knock this and put Bill down as the typical ad man that does not like collaboration.

But that is looking at what Bill did 50 years ago through the eyes of someone in the digital age.

If you look at the facts and the context you will see that Bill was in fact a radical champion of collaboration.

Before Bill copy writers and art directors sat on different floors, it was a conveyor belt system, the copywriters wrote something which was sent to the art directors to illustrate.
Bill completely changed this and put them together into a team. When you look at it in its true context you realise that this is just the same radical 'flat' (and correct) model proposed here.

Also remember Bill was not a creative, and Paul Rand never worked at DDB, so this view of anti collaboration is the complete opposite of the truth. Unfortunately 50 odd years of some not so good ATL agencies and a changing media landscape have clouded the facts of what Bill actually did.

The bottom line is the point made here about changing media and we need a changing creative mix to deal with it is obviously correct. But to make the point it should be based in fact and informed argument, and digital lets itself down too many times by attacking ATL based on cliches' and a knowledge that sounds like it comes from watching episodes of mad men.

Bill, if you really look was just like us (digital creatives, of which I am one), and would see the internet as his chance to finally achieve what he could not fully in a press or TV ad, to have a persuasive dialogue with the consumer.

By all means attack some ATL agencies as they are truer to the picture that is set out here, but don't throw Bill out with the bath water.

Thanks. This had some great insight.

@ dbedwood:
I don't think Nick's knocking Bernbach as much as you seem to think. He's pointing out that Bernbach totally got all along the necessity of registering on people's radars - just he didn't have any inkling that something might happen (www) that made that whole thing of engaging/conversing so much easier and m0re palatable to all of us

@ Nick:
I love your article: the one thing you don't tackle at all is the difference between PUSH/PULL activity - - Bernbach, McLuhan and you are all right about speaking to the right people in the right place at the right time with the right message (or story) - but all this rational 'getting noticed' stuff is only c20% of the story. 80% of decision-making's emotional, rather than rational, & whilst you've written a great article here you're failing to reference the way most comms work - on a weird, back-of-the-brain level - and the difference between Low- and High-Attention Processing.

Robert Heath is the guy who brings it all together, and muddies the waters gloriously. If you work in advertising/marketing/comms and have never heard of Heath - shame on you -
www.adliterate.com/archives/RobertHeathJuly06Admap%5B1%5D.pdf

It's a whole world of mad, strange, terrible psychological pain and complexity out there - good on you, Nick, for making it seem so manageable. But it isn't! And hey, that's where your planner comes in, with a bit of luck.

Let;s do some dirty planning/creative collaboration, then.

Lots of love,

Fatima (a planner) xxx

Nice article. But there is something missing here. I think we get to the execution too quickly as the way for integration. If we go back a few steps and think about the role of planners, we will have a better way to integrate. They are best at highlighting is the emotional territory that brands need to play in, instead of the functional one. Looking at it this way we can truely drive integration around the consumer insight and the emotional territory that the planner (and others) highlight as the best for the brand. This central piece will then drive creative teams from all over. Art directors / copy writers can deliver what to say in their media, designers will deliver the aesthetics of the brand and technologists will address the need of what you can do for your audience that personifies that emotional territory.
I think Nick has the perfect example at R/GA.... Nikeplus. The emotional territory is the drive and motivation of running and being a better runner.... they created a brilliant utility to deliver this. The copywriters / art directors created a great ad to personify the emotional territory and how the utility delivers it....The media have identified the best channels to truly drive this and designers have gone out and made new clothing/shoes and visual aesthetics as well as technology (ipod / new wristband) that also personifies this.
I think this is the best example of integration.... all singing from the same audience hymn sheet and delivering the best in class in each field.

check out some other views here
http://thingsdonotchangewechange.blogspot.com

There is a lot of wisdom in what Nick is saying for the simple reason is that the ad biz began to take itself too seriously, thinking it was the message. Ad guys are merely the in-betweener who put it together, nothing more. I think what Nick is saying: check your hubris at the door.

Interesting response here from Knitware: http://www.knitwareblog.com/a-response-to-the-next-creative-revolution-00346/

I am a huge fan of Mr. Law and respect pretty much everything he has to say, however I disagree with his ideas about the diversity of teams in our industry.

Idealistically he is 100% correct, however in real practice we still need to go out and mine the ideas, to look for them like gold and diamonds and to bring them in and communicate them in the most creative ways possible. No one team member is going to consistently come up with new ideas and even the story teller role is limited to the exposure they have gotten in their lifetime.

The old guard knew how to tell a story, they were immigrants, they were refugees, they were idealists who were laying the foundation for a new world, however we are the spoiled great grandchildren who are still living off of the fat of our forefathers, we need to somehow find our voice and speak from that place genuinely.

This is why the user generated content trend has lasted so long. Its genuinely raw. That is what the old Mad Men had over us, they told stories the way people wanted to hear them. We tend to repackage everything and pay little attention to the lack of substance in our campaigns.

YES! We do need a new role of the story teller, the narrative craftsman who can weave the tale in an interactive and entertaining way that translates to the mediums that we are now executing for.

BUT...

In all respect, Mr. Law, I think your being a bit too idealistic. I agree that the creative tent needs diversity and that has always been the desire of the entertainment/ad/creative world, to capture the hidden moments and human nuance that makes us all laugh, cry and think.

To tell a story and to involve those who you would never think would allow themselves to open up and shine a light on those small dark spots we call intrigue. To celebrate our humanity through creativity and to ultimately sell products and services based on the obvious needs our complex human race and its many facets.

However... it is our jobs as creatives, technologists and producers to find these rays of light, and then to put them on a stage.

They are NOT in the tent nor do they belong in the tent, they are hidden gems out there ready to be mined. We need to extend ourselves beyond the confines of our offices and to glean the stories that are out there and to retell them in the ways only we as a creative industry can.

That is what makes a good creative better than the next.

Storytellers and stories worth telling are the clovers in the field for us to find.

They are not under our desks or in our offices, they are walking around in the streets and fields of the world.