Some of Mark Ritson’s claims around media are ‘dangerous’ says media agency exec

How exactly is it “dangerous” to be presenting the facts that way?

Mark presents a compelling, logical and considered argument when in full flight.

We need more senior opinion leaders like him calling bullshit on the rhetoric that digital is taking over the world

My Uber driver on Saturday night told me his day job was “digital marketing”.

By the end of the trip I knew that:

– videos belong on YouTube
– lots of people are on Facebook

Disruptive thinking forcefully put and robustly challenged can only be good for the industry. More please, Prof. Ritson.

“Facts as we interpret them”?
Oxymoronic!

I think Peita is correct around some of Mark’s comments – he shows a very ‘Us vs Them’ mentality, when we should be looking at how they can work together.
Every medium has advantages and disadvantages, but I don’t think all brands are fully aware of what these are at the moment

Pacey says: “Most of these media planners…have no training in marketing and no training in media, the new generation.”
Why the hell are they being employed or given planning roles if they have no expertise? This is exactly why there is so much cynicism about digital – most of the alleged experts are faking it.

He’s offending all the right people.

The problem for the industry here is not many of us can match wits with a Ritson… including those mentioned above. I like what he’s doing as we need more spirited debate.

Go Mark. Its time someone called BS.

I’ve said it before, and i’ll say it again.
The biggest issue is the time it takes to plan out campaigns now, with a gazzillion media choices! And the reason it takes so long is because of the outdated systems everyone uses to brief, plan, buy and report. Creating compelling media plans with umpteen choices and sophisticated flighting is difficult at the process level. No one knows what is happening, and the iterations of media plans is chaos. The whole industry is suffering from “systems fatigue” yet NO ONE is talking about this. Everyone has their heads buried in the sand. But I’m telling you, it is the reason we have such churn in the industry. Good people come into it, see the horrifying processes they have to endure, and say F##K that!!

I don’t get Prof Ritson’s digital metrics bashing when TV metrics are based on data from less than .08% of Aust homes.

No-one has come forward and presented a compelling case for why Ritson is wrong. That says a lot about the leadership at Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, Instagram and many others who prefer to sit on the side lines and comment rather than enter the debate. He’s won over plenty of fans and he has influence in the C-Suite. Like other marketers, I’m fed up with the number of strategists Facebook continue to push in my direction. They’re a sales function and offer little else – certainly nothing you’d call strategy, just trend-oriented tactics.

The tipping point for me was when our media agency tried to sell me a skin for 1 day on well know site for over $100k, quoting ridiculous and quite obviously unrealistic numbers. There comes a point where you know you’re being ganged up on. Good on Mark Ritson for providing an alternate view and keeping it real.

You tell ’em P.P. –

Alex, Tim. Why don’t you sponsor properly having this out. Let’s get some media agency heads, CMOs, media owners across all platforms and Mark and have a fact based discussion about what does and doesn’t work. An evidence based discussion is what’s needed not blustery opinion. Mark argues very well but he uses facts to make his points and that’s why he’s compelling. If you have an alternative point of view, bring the facts to prove it. Otherwise it’s just your opinion.

It’s really not a debate between old media and new media, whatever they are.

What all of our clients engage us to do is to find the best channels to help them sell more stuff, in the most cost effective and trusted way. Anyone who thinks the answer starts with “digital” may have forgotten that.

Here’s what a person with real clout thinks about the media world these days: https://shift.newco.co/when-5-billion-customers-shift-their-habits-you-shift-with-them-1b65f8c92ea2#.1iyid01a5

Its amusing that Ritson thinks of himself as a disruptor. Mark, in fact you are the status quo, it is digital that is doing the disruption. You cite P&G pulling spend from Facebook as an example of how bad digital is . . . you may want to read the article referenced above. But of course Mark, you know better.

Mark Ritson’s commentary is great for the industry. He’s smarter, better informed, and more articulate than just about any commentator in the industry in recent years. Raising the level of the debate has to be a good thing for the industry as a whole; we all know that the media agency category is tainted right now, and our clients, staff and potential recruits deserve high quality, informed discussion. We don’t always have to agree, but we do have to have the ability to put forward cogent, persuasive arguments if we don’t.

I don’t think Prof. Ritson has said that digital is not a worthwhile medium at all, or suggested that it is unworthy of a place on today’s media schedules.
All he has done has shone a light on some of the measurement ambiguities and suggested we have another look at what problem we are trying to solve and the best way to do so. Surely any media professional would be delighted to engage in a considered conversation around media effectiveness?

The lucrativeness of lobbying for these decaying edificises is matched only by the stench of the decrepid horde, lined up in solidarity to deny the inevitability of change.