Planning types

Is blogging killing planning? this is the post from IF! today.

We were at last night's industry prizefight in which two heavyweights of the plannersphere sparred without either managing a knockout blow.

The debate, sparked by this now infamous post, raged over the motion that blogging was killing planning. In the 'yes' corner was Grey London's John Lowery, wearing what can only be described as an outrageous jacket. In the 'no' corner was John Grant, founder of St Luke's and wearing his qual research shirt with 'Yes, No, Maybe' plastered over it.

John Lowery kicked off the debate with a well put together speech. The central tenet of his argument being that whilst planning blogs spewed out ideas and idle pontification they lacked the intellectual and statistical rigor that the discipline requires. He also argued that many planners, particularly the more junior were likely to fall into the trap of introspection.

John Grant's argument wasn't a direct answer to Lowery's, Instead he argued that there was no way of measuring the effect of such a new medium on the discipline of planning. Grant also pointed out that the 'advertising' industry was doing itself no favours by attacking a medium that threatened it very own existence.

Once the opening salvos had passed the debate moved into a more ideological territory which harked back to the dawn of planning; on the one side those who believed that numbers were the key to good planning, whilst the other argued that great creative ideas could be honed for target audiences in focus groups. Whilst Lowery represented inspiration coming from solid data, Grant argued that clients needed something to push them beyond this: ideas that took their brand further.

Does this go to a deeper root - a generational one? Are younger, newer planners of the idea-first variety, and older ones from the 'let's start with the Nielsen' camp? It's certainly my impression, which is why I like generalists - planners who can come at things from both paths. And that's because client cultures vary and seem to gravitate towards different planning approaches (or more accurately, sometimes planners have to find a way to get traction). John Grant won.

Corporate Silliness

from: new york, ny to: Dublin, Ireland - Google Maps
Without making every brand look like Innocent, wouldn't it be nice if marketers - and their agencies - just had more fun with their products, services or websites? Wouldn't it be nice if they realised a bit of silliness makes everything a little bit more human and interesting. BoingBoing point out that Google Maps suggest you swim the Atlantic to get from New York to Europe. Lovely. Would take about a month, apparently.

Dear Campaign

Thought I'd send this to Campaign letters in response to their article on DDB integrating its planning department.

Now, don't get me wrong. I love DDB planning. I hope it's not patronising to say that there are at least 2 planners there I'd hire tomorrow if I could. But it does amuse me when Campaign announced the radical reorgaisation of a big blue chip network agency planning department. Obviously, it's nice to see planning at the centre of integration. But there are many smaller, more agile and independent agencies who have been doing interesting things for ages, without the fanfare.

At Chemistry, we have spent 3 years hiring planners with core skills in direct, digital, brand and advertising, and they learn (through training, direction and, frankly, just working together) the skills of the other. The result is a blended, ideas-centric, solution-neutral planning function that punches well above its weight in client reputation surveys.

So, maybe we are entering a new era of integrated planning. Or maybe what I'm really railing at is Campaign's epiphany, or apparent limited interest of what's going on outside the top 10. But I blow a raspberry at the networks who are just now getting it. And welcome the competition of course.

Screen collision

Hearing Kevin Roberts talk last night about his new book, it's interesting that he's trying to own the idea that we're moving to a screen-based media culture - smaller screens, more pervasive screens, etc. Frankly, every half decent planning or media presentation since the inception of the colour mobile phone screen, the ipod and the gameboy have said the same thing. So no props to Kevin for originality then.

However I think there's an impending collision between ad agencies and direct/digital agencies about who is best placed to create content for these screens. Maybe you could factor videogame developers like EA, and even users themselves, into the mix as non-tradtional competition. Do direct agencies have the confidence and skills to create compelling film-based ideas across multiple screen platforms? Do ad agencies understand how intimate and personal these channels are to people? Who will win?