March 28, 2007

Not to, but with

Filed under: advertising, marketing, talkmarks — Simone @ 2:16 pm

This is the first Talkmark post (yeah, I’ll get rid of the crappy “Hello World” someday did it 🙂 ). It’s not intended as a manifesto yet, ideas are still too liquid in my mind. Anyway this blog is meant to be a discussion board, at least for some time, to dig in how marketing and advertising are evolving and if we will still be using those concepts in ten years.

Thanks to my friend Stefano for sending me a link to this clever post from Bob Garfield on AdAge:

Mass advertising flourished in the world of mass media. Not because it was part of God’s Natural Order but because the two were mutually sustaining. You’ve read the Ten Commandments; not one of them is “Thou shalt finance hourlong dramas” — nor is there a word in there about scale. So why assume that either must transition to the new model? Not only is it economically nonsensical, it squanders the very nature of the digital universe, the ability to speak with — not to, but with — the narrowest communities and individuals themselves.

The bold-italic is mine. Not to, but with is basically what I have in my mind as the very core of Talkmarks. Again, maybe it simply won’t turn this way. Something’s going on, I’m just gathering information.

 If you wish to participate to the conversation, feel free to drop me an email.




  1. Late as usual, I am finally posting my comment on the article I shared with Simone.

    This first post will only be about creativity and advertising (merely because that’s what I’m paid to do), but later on there will be room for discussion on the larger implications of what simone is suggesting, in terms of marketing, and business in general.

    I agree with the spirit of Garfield’s view, in that brands will have to speak with, not to, consumers. Or, better, with people.

    Despite this, some of his toughts are flawed by a shallow view.

    People don’t hate advertising. People hate bad advertising.
    Just like they hate bad movies.
    The difference is, if you don’t like a bad movie, you know where they show it, and when, and you’re not going to watch it.
    In the case of commercials, if you don’t like an ad, you skip it.
    And since you don’t know when or where a bad ad will be aired, but you do know that most ads are mediocre, you skip them all.
    Moreover, when bad ads interrupt good content (and that’s not always the case), you are legitimately pissed, because you want your content back.

    Does it mean ads are over? Let’s see…
    Does it mean movies are over, if for a while people don’t like going to theater? It probably means you should start shooting better movies.
    In the case of ads, you better start doing ads people will want to see.
    And, if you have to interrupt a good content, not only they should be as good as the content, but they should also add some value in that content experience.

    If you look at things in perspective, ads are an info-taining content like any other. And if you do it interesting enough, people won’t mind being exposed to it (in the proper ways and places), and later will actually pursue it. (check out what axe did at )

    Yet, will agencies have to reengineer? Absolutely.
    Are agencies aware of it, and likely to do it smart, or will they reach a sort of balance only after having fired most of their people, as if that would ever be a wise thing to do? I’ld bet on the second option.

    And in the meanwhile, I’ld bet on small, informal agencies that don’t spend their time celebrating the view on advertising their founder had some centuries ago.
    No wonder Crispin, Porter&Bogusky has just won the Nike account under pitch.
    But there is time to talk about that…

    Comment by EsseA — April 26, 2007 @ 10:45 am

  2. Great comment, I agree there’s still a lot to understand (that’s the reason why this blog is here). Still I’m trying to foresee what’s coming, I know it won’t take 1 year, but I see a real paradigm change in the air. As I said, I’m still gathering informations. 🙂

    Comment by Simone — May 2, 2007 @ 6:27 pm

  3. Sniff. Sniff. Sniff. I just may get the whole world blip’d!

    Comment by Ty Graham — May 3, 2007 @ 11:55 pm

  4. ??????

    Comment by Simone — May 4, 2007 @ 6:00 am

  5. Philip Weinreb

    Comment by Joann fabric coupon — December 6, 2010 @ 10:58 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: