Effectiveness and the power of the ampersand

This morning the IPA is launching the 21st edition of Advertising Works - comprising the winners from the 2012 Effectiveness Awards. I was very kindly invited by the IPA to provide a few paragraphs to this latest volume on what we have to learn from these cases. These are they.

While some might have predicted (and perhaps even wished for) its death, for many good reasons - most notably, that it works - TV advertising isn’t going away. So it is not entirely surprising to see TV dominate these stories of effectiveness.

That said, while the ‘traditional’ and the ‘digital’ have at least in some quarters regarded each with suspicion (and occasionally outright hostility), in this latest collection of effectiveness stories, we’re seeing smart agencies and clients harnessing what happens when TV and digital come together. Crucially, for demonstrable commercial gain.

John Lewis for example, led its unlocking of the nation’s tear ducts with TV. However what might have been deemed a good ol’ fashioned campaign plan (and there’s nothing wrong with that) was deliberately orchestrated with an eye on social channels, with the advertising running in highly social programmes, i.e. those that generated a high amount of twitter conversation.

In contrast, Walkers led its bid to get us to eat more crisps at lunchtime with live events designed to produce on- and offline news content and conversation. Judicious use of TV both fueled the intrigue around these stories and joined the dots, revealing the story behind the news reports.

Examples such as these should encourage us to explore the whole spectrum and variety of TV/digital combinations.

Moreover, instead of the tired, clumsy, unhelpful blanket labels of ‘traditional’ and ‘digital’, they encourage us to be much more imaginative and specific in defining the role of different campaign elements in shaping people’s attitudes and behaviours.

Rather than just think of TV as being the primary vehicle that we ‘blow out’ in secondary channels, we can for example, think about TV:

as SIGNPOSTING... directing people to other destinations and interactions.

as IGNITION... for a longer experience or programme.

as FUEL... intensifying interest in content experienced elsewhere

as EXPLAINER... elaborating the purpose or motivations behind other interactions.

etc.

And we can get more specific about the contribution and role of digital interactions:

as PROPAGATING... giving people things to SHARE.

as INVOLVING... giving people things to DO.

as INFORMING... giving people resources that answer QUESTIONS.

as AMPLIFYING... giving people things to further EXPLORE.

as FULFILLING... giving people the means to turn their interest into PURCHASE.

etc.

‘TV’ and ‘digital’ are quite clearly not mutually exclusive opposites. The IPA’s own DataBANK has already demonstrated that campaigns that utilize both online and TV achieved a 10 per cent increase in effectiveness success rate. And with these cases we have yet more evidence for the power and (crucially) the effectiveness of ‘and’.

This feels like progress. Though as the ancient Sufi wisdom advises, “You think that because you understand ‘one’ you understand ‘two because one and one make two. But you must also understand ‘two’ ”.

Nonetheless, whichever end one starts at, the fact of the matter is that we’re still starting with channel bias. It is still a perspective that asks - what can digital add to TV? Or vice versa.

So perhaps it is time to erase the increasingly unhelpful distinction between ‘TV’ and ‘digital’ and focus on what really travels across platforms, channels and touchpoints - ideas.

These winners remind us that while they by no means have the monopoly on the outcome, digital interactions can help make our ideas properly three-dimensional ideas. That is, they can extend the physical and mental real estate an idea occupies in people’s lives, they can extend the life of that idea across time, as well as the depth it has:

And perhaps that’s the question we should be asking not of channels and touchpoints, but of our ideas. In other words what - in the light of the business challenge and audience - can we do to give our ideas more relevant Time, more Space and more Depth?