How to Ritson: A beginner’s guide to denial, dismissal & downplay
In this guest post, Dan Monheit, deconstructs some of Professor Mark Ritson’s recent arguments about the digital ad industry.
If you’re an industry enthusiast like me, there’s no doubt you’re also wondering how someone as intelligent as Mark Ritson (Adjunct Professor, PhD in marketing) can be so loudly, proudly and outlandishly anti-digital.
Dan Monheit
The very same digital that’s democratised the world’s information, started revolutions, connected billions and afforded brands their biggest marketing opportunities of a generation.
While I’m no professor (just a couple of lowly degrees and a decade building an agency), I have taken the liberty of pulling together this handy ‘How to Ritson’ guide in the interest of helping others wrap their head around it.
LOLZ.
That’s a long rant trying to defend what has become the immeasurable bullshit of the digital industry. A little proofreading wouldn’t go amiss either…
More concise article would be helpful.
Cue countless b@tching backwards and forwards about who’s right and who’s wrong, when the truth as always is somewhere in the middle. For a communications based industry we continue to show little interest in getting together and reaching a real solution.
What an absolutely pathetic, childish way to perform character assassination.
Analytical and without bringing Mark’s character into question is a “pathetic and childish” approach?
Would hate to see how you handle analysing and debating points of view. Something tells me you’re not impartial in this conversation.
Ritson has clearly decided jumped on the bandwagon of people with deeply conservative and change-averse beliefs repositioning themselves as being iconoclasts. Also see Byron Sharp.
You have picked up on a lot of it here. At the foundation of it are a lot of straw-man arguments, which seem more credible when doubts can be placed on the validity of digital metrics.
It’s not that he is necessarily wrong in what he is saying – of course TV still has a lot of life in it, but to suggest that it’s as strong as ever without acknowledging the fundamental changes taking place in terms of how people watch TV is pretty poor analysis. Similarly, Sharp clearly articulates a lot of truth. But it’s the over-simplification and obfuscation that bugs me.
I think we’re still yet to hear credible, evidence based counter claims to many of Ritson’s arguments.
I don’t agree with everything he says but the anti digital moniker slapped on the likes of Ritson and Bob Hoffman just doesn’t stack up.
They’re not anti-digital, just anti-digital bullshit.
I trust Mark Ritson’s analysis more than poor Dan Monheit’s.
I have read Byron Sharps book – its excellent in its depth and analysis. Driven by facts and not opinions, some solid science.
In any other area of science, individuals submit their ideas, theories, and papers and through the collective wisdom of their colleagues, these are critiqued in order to advance the field of study. It’s a great model that ultimately solves problems.
So along comes Ritson with views that challenge us, that make us uncomfortable, that make us challenge the propaganda we are fed by agencies and the trade press, that make us question the stories we are telling our clients, and instead of looking to advance the discourse with a view to ultimately improving the things for all of us, along comes an article like this where the author takes on a victim mentality.
Ritson doesn’t hate digital. He hates the lies, the constant stream of BS and the agenda.
…. and Mr Ritson says?
i think he will say nothing. Mr Monheit doing his work (admirably) for him here.
Digital marketer tries to defend ineffective digital marketing with long winded ineffectual rant.
Then sighs and goes back to his whitepaper on snapchat and millenials.
Mark Retkson 🙂
I have discussed this many times with Mumbrella. Mark just needs to go on stage with someone else (or multiple people) who can provide another intelligent point of view. Instead of being up there unquestioned, let’s have a real debate.
This article is a good step in that direction but again it’s just a one sided volley back to Mark vs an actual conversation and consensus. I think Mark subscribes to the “dont let the truth get in the way of a good argument” and without debate his arguments are lapped up as gospel.
Every stat, every argument or point of view should be questioned. You should go into each brief or plan un-biased and open minded. But instead we get told digital = over-hyped vs everything in marketing is over-hyped. There are just too many vested interests from too many parties and it’s impossible due to the logistics to get the real answer.
But we’ll get closer if we stop listening to noisy people without question.
Ash to be fair to Ritson he did “go on stage with someone else who can provide another intelligent point of view” – it was last Fridays ADMA debate on social media with Adam Ferrier in which he did exactly what you propose here for us. Ritson smashed it and Ferrier had nothing. N-o-t-h-i-n-g.
You say “without debate his views are lapped up as gospel”. Nonsense. He debated social with one of the most senior social marketers in Australia and had 90% of the room voting that his argument was the persuasive one.
Not sure what your point is….
Adam is a brilliant planner. But he isn’t exactly a recognized leader in digital.
hey John
I wasn’t aware of the ADMA debate (I don’t follow the goings on that closely) so can’t comment on what went on there.
But as the comment below I dont consider Adam Ferrier a senior digital/social marketer and I doubt he would either.
My point was (which I thought was clear) we need more two sided debates and less one sides opinion articles (like this one and all of Mark’s before). That way we can get a more rounded debate.
Facts and figures can be biased when you cherry pick the one you want. Bias is dangerous and leads to bad habits.
You make some great points, but this also from someone on the agency side of business who tell clients what they want to hear and that is almost always not always the full truth.
This is all fun but credible long term stats are very hard to come by – especially in the digital space. Really … stop trying to validate digital by dissing valid research and get your own. We all know radio and TV rate. No one is saying digital does not. Just try to avoid the current flim flam and come with somethig as credible and longterm/credible as radio and TV .
In the interest of accuracy OzTAM would like to correct some factual errors in the opinion piece above.
The 84.3% figure for viewing on TV sets cited from the Q1 2016 Australian Multi-Screen Report comprises only broadcast TV content watched live or played back through in-home TV sets within 28 days of original broadcast. http://www.oztam.com.au/docume.....0FINAL.pdf
Please note, it does not include “You Tube, Netflix, digital films, DVDs, Apple TV, everything …” as suggested. Nor does it include broadcast TV recorded and played back through the TV set beyond four weeks from when the material went to air.
OzTAM’s metropolitan panel – covering Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth television markets – currently comprises 3,500 homes (not set top people meter boxes). There is a meter attached to every TV set in panel homes, so across OzTAM’s metro panel that equates to more than 7,000 meters. And of course there are an additional 2,135 panel homes in regional Australia which are administered by Regional TAM.
This information is available on our website at: http://www.oztam.com.au/TheOzTAMPanel.aspx
Also, with the 50 per cent increase to the number of households in OzTAM’s in-home TV panel next year, OzTAM will be sampling the behaviour of more than 10,000 individuals every day. With Regional TAM similarly increasing the size of its own panel by 50 per cent, in 2017 Australia will be the largest per capital people metered market in the world.
Sylvano Lucchetti
Director of Technical Services
OzTAM Pty Limited
Surely the most embarassing thing here is that a senior agency exec (who advises clients) isn’t across basic details like OzTAM and the multiple screen report…
Ouch! Hey Dan, where you at bro?
Wow!
Fancy sticking your head out of the bunker and not understanding any of the data and facts. There are so many I’ll go with just the first one.
“People watching Netflix, Stan, YouTube, Apple TV, live sport via subscriptions apps (NBA, MLB, NFL), illegally downloaded movies and TV shows, along with dozens of other options, are of no value to local advertisers.”
FYI, if a person watches (say) Netflix on an IPTV or mirrors it from another device to their TV screen, that is NOT included in the 85+ hours a month of TV viewing (in fact it goes into the ‘other TV set usage’ bucket along with watching DVDs, game playing etc.).
Next, most of the other sources you refer to are in the 16%. But as you say they have no value to local advertisers!?!?
So, remember to take the gun out of the holster before firing because you just shot both your feet off.
As someone who has made a living as a “digital marketer” for a long time, I was prepared to hate Mark up front based on all the hysterical headlines written about his presentations. However, when I recently watched one of his sessions in full, I was amazed at the similarities between what he’s saying and his approach, and the way we used to “sell” the digital channel back in the 2000’s when digital was all just a fad. Firstly he questions the metrics being used to “prove” how brilliant the channel is, and then he moves to an zero base budgeting approach, using an audience centric method of comms planning. Question all metrics, use your specific audience’s media consumption habits as a starting point for channel planning, and use the right mediums and channels to create the right communications engagement with your audience. Whilst he generates headlines by his “attacks” on digital channels, what he proposes as a solution is something that should be at the heart of every (digital) marketer – understand where your audience are, what they’re doing and why, and then go after them in the appropriate channels. Not every channel solves every marketing problem – and if you don’t have any specific vested interest in a specific digital channel, it’s all very good advice, even for digitally focused marketers.
Hi, this is great and is among the few ones where someone is challenging what prof Ritson is saying with some argument instead of merely dismissing it as a rant.
I do wish Dan had spent more time on the other data points also and not just on Ritson (like what Byron Sharp says, or why Pepsi, P&G reduced digital targeting spends, why media metrics differ across media and the viewing scores don’t mean the same thing, how FB has admitted to lapses in measurement etc.)
Irrespective of what Ritson & others are saying in their colorful way, digital spends are ballooning away. A bigger initiative by media buyers to fix issues both with digital & conventional media measurement should have been the result instead of trying to prove who is wrong or right.
This discussion should contribute to that too hopefully
Interesting article and get where the author is coming from, but as someone who’s worked both brand side and media side (in multiple types) for the better part of 15 years, I think we all need to take a step back and look at the data and the way the average person out there consumes media (which is inevitably what Mark is saying here).
I personally believe that most forms of media are effective in their own way and all have strengths, as well as weaknesses. Whist online or digital media is to some extend “accountable”, there are still may holes in the metrics and more needs to be done, (see 100’s of articles on last click attribution and econometric modelling as an example) as it does with any measurement metric as there is no one perfect tool.
Like Alex says in the comments above, media as an industry (agencies and media outlets alike) probably need to start working together more and finding actual solutions to problems for their clients, and not fighting against each other, especially in a area as complicated as measurement metrics.
I for one welcome some healthy debate if it gets us closer to the truth – whatever that may be!
Let’s clarify the facts on radio measurement. The GfK radio surveys have a robust sample size of 60,000 per year. 80% of respondents complete a paper diary and 20% an online diary. The diary methodology is used throughout the world and is recognised as the gold standard. Importantly, the data has been consistent over long time frames, is nationally representative and contains extensive demographic information. In addition to this, 25 surveys were conducted in regional Australia this year, adding tens of thousands of additional participants. It is a shame when other sectors feel the need to criticise proven and well accepted methodology.
Radio is a great medium and has it’s place in a marketer’s budget but let’s not continue the misleading numbers game.
Those 60,000 people you refer to are measured for exactly how long each? Is it a week? A Month? All year long? How many actually contribute to each ratings period?
Talking about Gold Standards is laughable – this particular one is loved by the industry because in markets where other methodologies exist the good old survey results in figures far higher audience figures than metered/passive ways of measuring.
I can help here JS.
The 60,000 people complete a ‘quarter-hour diary’ for a week. That data is ‘rolled up’ into eight ratings surveys.
Regarding Gold Standard, you seem to completely misunderstand what is meant by that term. The Gold Standard is basically a set of algorithm rules to calculate ratings, reach, share, profiles etc, so that no matter which software processes the raw data they get the same answer. The Gold Standard passes no judgement on the quality of the input data, but verifies the consistency of the data that is output. It is increasingly common practice around the world, and Australia is amongst the world leaders.
And to preempt any comments on the use of diaries as being archaic, and how we should be using electronic devices such as meters, smartphones etc. instead, as a general comment electronic devices (ironically) do a good job of collecting information oh ‘how’ we listen to radio but as they only measure a sub-set of the listening population they don’t do a particularly good job of measuring ‘how many’ people listen to radio. I do see a future for combining recall-based diaries with electronic measurement in some form of hybrid system that we ae yet to work out how to implement.
Thank you for the clarification on Gold Standard Mr Grono. Consider me duly educated on that matter.
Back to the actual measurement for a sec though – so are you saying that radio measurement essentially averages out to just over 1,000 people being measured each week (let’s call it 1,500 to account for non ratings periods)? Is that a fair assessment? Isn’t that an awfully small sample no matter how representative it may be? It’s certainly a far cry from the 60,000 figure that, surely we can agree, just might be a tad misleading?
It’s certainly a lot less than the 10,000 that TV measures continuously all year long. It’s also a lot less than the 8,000 or so that digital has as a continuously measured panel but I guess the name of the game being played is ‘mislead through quoting the biggest number’ and this post was just joining the masses and leading with an erroneous, potentially misleading (but large) number.
It’s a shame when industry leaders decide to counter what they perceive as misinformed attacks on their medium with their own set of misinformation. It smells of hypocrisy.
We need better industry leaders and better dialogue than this.
JS, you raise very good points, it is a tad more complex than that, but you are basically correct in your assessment. As was I in impartially explaining what the 60,000 meant.
For further comparative explanation, the national sample size in any one week is in the order of magnitude you referred to, which is in the same vicinity as Morgan and EMMA (which are regarded as very large samples).
Radio then releases data accumulated over successive weeks of sampling in order to get a robust reporting sample which ranges from n=1,750 in Adelaide to n=2,400 in Sydney and Brisbane (the more important descriptor of sample size). And yes, these are sufficient for the data reported. And yes they are independently continuously audited.
There are positives and negatives to this.
First, it does mean that audience measurement on a day-to-day basis for trading purposes isn’t possible. The costs would be prohibitive without some form of automated/electronic data collection, which as I alluded to in my previous post, doesn’t at the moment do a good job of reporting the total volume of listening. It would a trade-off of getting daily data but on (non-representative) sub-set of the reality.
But it also means that each week surveyed is basically representative of a ‘typical’ week of radio listening, as it is not affected by the vagaries of radio station marketing activities, stunts, prizes and give-aways that try to achieve short-term share gains.
Also, as any statistician will tell you there is a difference between a sample (e.g. radio, Morgan, EMMA) and a panel (e.g. OzTAM, RegTAM and Nielsen Online) and comparing their respective sample sizes alone is just one aspect of the efficiency and effectiveness of their relative merits. For example, a large panel that is poorly recruited and managed (and I can safely say our media panels are in good shape) is open to numerous sources of bias that would exist every day. By re-sampling on a week-to-week basis (theoretically) inherent bias is ameliorated (though of course self-selection bias in the new weekly sample may occur). I suggest we take any further debate on this offline – my email is easy to find.
I’m sure we’d all like tens of millions of dollars for larger samples, bigger panels, sexier data capture – but that level of funds is not available so we have to work with what we have.
Here’s the thing…you (the author) are trying to over simplify things in exactly the same way Mr Ritson is.
The fact is, its not that simple….there is NO CORRECT answer.
To argue either way is purely nonsensical.
TV is powerful? absolutely it is.
TV Works? YES it does.
TV is having challenging times? You bet your a**e it is.
Digital is powerful – absolutely it is
Digital works – YES it does
Digital is the answer to all of our questions? No its not.
Any agency that is pushing clients one way or the other without a cohesive argument (backed up by data) is not performing to its mandated duty.
The reality is we need all of these touch points, to differing degrees depending on the target audience, the message, the product, the creative etc etc.
To argue otherwise is to show ignorance in the face of an increasingly complex landscape.
This is all great fun and top marks to Ritson for starting the conversation but the continuing debate about one media channel versus another is increasingly a side issue. Yes, there’s loads of great telly, yes, You Tube is very convenient, yes, vigilant is great and there’s an interesting conversation about the multiplicity of “screens”.
I’d suggest a far more important issue for the advertising sales industry would be to spend some time and effort understanding in the new world what mix of channels and which types of “advertising” combine best to deliver actual, tangible results for the people funding all this apparent experimentation. The clients.
Obviously when I saw “vigilant”, I mean “digital”. #oops
What a terrible article.
Why not actually provide some evidence-based counter arguments to Ritson’s claims, instead of going off on a profanity-laden, ill-conceived rant? Engage in a discussion, rather than trying to trash the man.
The likes of Ritson and Sharp aren’t anti-digital at all, they’re just calling out a lot of the rubbish we see perpetuated in this industry.
Loving the whole debate – it’s long overdue and both sides have merit (good piece Dan btw) and it’s a welcome change from the media network propagandists. That said, this debate would be better served in a more open forum where gross generalisations (of which i’ve been guilty of a few) can be challenged.
And when we have done that, maybe it’s time to look at the institutional fraud that is media transparency….just a thought
I work in digital marketing and I think its healthy to have people challenge the hype.
Prof. Ritson has valid points to make and he has arguments that demonstrate a mis-understanding of how digital platforms work but ultimately I believe his argument is reductionist to the point of being irrelevant.
As with any form of marketing, performance comes down to the individual brand, its application of the available tools and the execution.
For every brand with a vapid social engagement strategy there’s another that is using digital to drive online and offline sales very effectively (and efficiently).
As an industry, we should be talking about how brands and customer experience can function across channel rather than pitching one up against the other.
If someone asked you to name your 5 favourite ads of all time, how many would be a facebook post, a tweet or a digital campaign of any sort? And if you asked a punter on the street what would they say?Case closed.
Case not closed. It appears you haven’t understood the goal of marketing (and therefore advertising): it is to get your product/service considered and eventually purchased. It has absolutely nothing to do with people’s favourite ads but rather with how effective advertising and other marketing activities are at delivering on those goals.
Interesting, kinda, but also kinda fails to address the issue raised by Ritson (however clumsily). Digital is still being talked about in boardrooms as though someone invented it about 18 months ago, and as always when vendors have the attention of the board, the cow dung piles high.
I don’t see anyone doing a good job of assessing the opportunities across media, there is a lot of bias supporting the extremes.
Keep an eye out for them cowboys
So glad this got written… Long overdue…
As for the ‘ask yourself this’ level of argument… Lordy what a classic example of the false equivalency going on here… What the hell does that hypothetical trump-style test have to do with actual business results?
I’ve bought plenty of things via digital channels I can’t remember and can recall plenty of ads from brands I’ve never had and dealings with…
Ah the naivety of the cyber hustler. Assuming because someone has a device in their hand it disrupts their TV viewing. Ever consider the large screen might be disrupting the usage of the handset?
In terms of advertising? You’re dreaming mate – and don’t take my word for it – there’s countless real-world research and empirical lab-based user testing to prove this out – even a fellow countryman Duane Veran has been demonstrating this for years.
—–
TV is most often the common factor when people are multi-screening, but it seems the TV is the screen that misses out. The smaller screen people hold in their hands more often than not relegates the bigger screen to the background.
Dr Varan said research undertaken in Perth during the past decade increasingly supported this assertion, with the growth of smartphones and tablets strengthening the trend in recent years.
“For example, in one study we found that if people only used the TV as their screen then their recall of ad messages the day after was as high as 60 per cent,” he said.
“But if you gave them another device as well, recall of the TV ad collapsed to less than 10 per cent.
“This is now the biggest problem the advertising industry faces … and they don’t even know it yet.”
—-
https://www.businessnews.com.au/article/Media-s-multi-screen-challenge
That was over 2 years ago and you people are still denying the problem as opposed to looking for a solution… meanwhile… Facebook..
While both Ritson and Monheit are getting caught up in flinging about largely irrelevant data points around total reach or impressions or social media followers, what clients are looking for is a well thought through channel plan, that delivers to their objectives, bought at a price that delivers significant ROI. It’s utterly pointless to compare the performance of an instagram post to a TV spot, or a radio ad to Facebook. They perform completely different roles. Or they should.
Brand equity (or whatever we’re calling it these days) is the sum of the parts. Not just an ad. Not just an influencer post. Not just packaging. It is all of those things and more. To say one channel is bad and the other is good is a ridiculous conversation to be having. Some channels are better than others at pushing the levers associated with long-term memory forming…others to delivering short term effects or “personalised activation” or god forbid “a bit of fun” (assuming you also have an offer worth the consumer’s time and creative that isn’t terrible and is fit for purpose…which is a whole other rant). It’s not a competition. It’s a tool kit. Don’t use a hammer when you need a screwdriver.
It’s interesting how this article simply seems to be an attack on Mark Ritson and his point of view, without bothering to provide logical counter-arguments. Contrast this with Ritson’s views which are backed up with plenty of data and examples.
I don’t recall Ritson ever saying he is ‘anti-digital’. My view is that he’s ‘anti-digital-wankers’, and from my experience, the industry appears to be awash with them.
I enjoy Mark’s tirades, by I do have to take his arguments for what they are worth. Great for headlines, and a room full of people with a TV bias (which is still most people) like myself do enjoy it, however Dan has some good points.
1. Mark accuses digital types of suggesting truths that they simply don’t. No credible digital marketing person has believed in always on content as a driver of reach, something Mark is obsessed with.
2. Mark’s argument is all around zero sum budgeting. Good luck with that Mark, and good luck to the brands that try it. Ask around and get the full facts. It fails most of the time. Don’t take my word for it, or Mark’s, do your own research.
3. Mark’s arguments for TV are based on the big lie around TV viewing: it presumes that when the ad break comes on, people stay in front of the TV. This is the greatest fallacy of all, and one that Mark does not address. I would love this to be discussed but no one has. I want to know my TV advertising is viewable and what the real eyeballs are.
4. For those that talk about the TV ads being more memorable, tell me, if the point of advertising is reach and frequency (and this is questionable) then how is this working for legacy brands in the last 15 years?
5. People that criticize Dan for attacking Mark . . . hardly. Mark does himself a disservice, and a disservice to his valid arguments, by his name calling across social media channels.
6. Have a think about how you came across Mark. Was it on a digital platform by any chance? The irony is that Mark’s trolling is only possible because of the channel he tries to discredit.
7. Many of Mark’s efforts revolve around trying to sell a cheap marketing course. I mean cheap not as a dig, but as a fact. Not judging, good on him, just saying. He is a hustler, everyone has to make some coin.
8. Imagine 2 brands launch. Same industry. Same offering. If you think that TV is going to be a better channel that digital to grow awareness from an ROI perspective, go for it.
9. Why is it, with experts like Mark advising them, that so many brands with a huge head start, and mastery of time proven ad techniques using TV, have fallen by the wayside and lost out to digital brands across so many industries? And I look at the brands that Mark has advised, they don’t seem to be going too well. Some simple research and digging beyond the headlines causes me concern.
The problem as I see it is that Mark has an opinion around a channel of which he understands little, and he makes assumptions around practices from a decade ago. Dan has clearly touched a nerve as has Mark. If you don’t want to skew towards digital, don’t. If you have a bias towards TV that’s ok too. The fun thing is that the results at the end of the day do speak for themselves.
I appreciate this level-headed and diplomatic approach to responding, rather than the knee-jerk reaction so many others have employed. Nice one mate.
3. Correct – not everyone watches TV ads. But that does NOT mean that NO-ONE watches the ads. And yes, everyone does go to the toilet during ad breaks – but very few go to the toilet in every ad break. The BIGGEST thing that happens during ad-breaks is that people change channel (which the TV ratings cater for). Most research shows that 8%-10% of people leave the room. There is no robust data on other usage/distractions that I am aware of.
But I suppose you slavishly watch all the online ads. As you read this, ask yourself (i) did you notice the ads on this page (ii) did you have other pages open in your browser?
4. You ask what reach and frequency has done for legacy brands in the past 15 years. You seem to think R&F is a recent TV-only concept. Well it has been around since the ’80s. Not the 1980s but the 1880s with Ebbinghaus’ seminal work. It long precedes the electronic age. It worked back then and it works now, and it will work in the future. It’s called communications planning.
Great debate! A large portion of digital is snake oil, returns little and misses the big branding solution. As many companies who have swung to a majority of difital are starting to find out. On the other side it is great to see OzTam getting involved. The elephant in the corner is how is so much money spent on TV advertisjng based on an incredibly small sample base?
It’s not “an incredibly small sample base”. It’s a statistically appropriate sample base and in fact could be described as “robust”. People with phd’s in statistics work these things out you know. So unless you subscribe to the “post-truth” movement of 2016, we need to focus on the issues and not create them.
Statistically appropriate = a reasonable balance between cost and accuracy that is accepted as a currency by industry participants.
P.S. people with PhD’s in statistics were also predicting Hilary to win the US election … except they got it terribly wrong. In fact they got it massively wrong with a far larger sample than we are talking about here. It’s not quite an apples to apples comparison but my point is statistics is usually right but certainly not infallible.
Actually most statisticians got the election result right. Hillary won the popular vote by a wide margin, just as the polls predicted. What most did not factor in was an adjustment for the vagaries of the electoral college.
And “statistically appropriate” means it is a valid number from which modelling can be derived within an acceptable margin of error. The current TV panel is far larger than required for this purpose.
I remember when Peugeot did a digital-only launch. Don’t think they sold a car. Back to TV it was.
Both of these are examples of the industry culture of spending a lot of time talking to raise your own profile. Is anyone doing any work for the client these days?
Oh dear. I truly feel that most comments above are getting lost in the weeds and missing the point. Mark Ritson has thrown the proverbial cat amongst the very cosy pigeons and understandably there has been much chirping and flapping. But the chirping is mostly subjective counter-attack and the flapping is merely indignant and largely factually-incorrect rhetoric. Shame.
As a few commenters above have rightly said, this industry badly needs disruptors like Ritson. Yes, he’s imperious and some of the charts he uses to make headlines are in themselves just narrow fragments of the whole story, I suspect he doesn’t care. (Which is a shame because it undermines his position and allows the Army of Righteous Digital Indignation to rise up and attack). I believe his aim is fundamentally to stir things up and drive the conversation. There are simply too many sheep and nowhere near enough questions. We are in an industry where creativity, passion, opinion, ideas, contradiction and data should meet in a fascinating mixology to drive client solutions. The sector is in my opinion, a poor shadow of that, skewed by .
Many brands (note, I don’t say all) are being planned and bought by an army of relatively inexperienced digital specialists, extremely passionate about the narrow slice of the communications solution that they are “qualified” to respond on, but have absolutely no idea about the other 90% outside of their skill set. Even if they had the ability to question, they don’t have the remit or the time. They’re just too busy and have too many things to handle them all to the degree they and their clients would like. Marketers and C-Suite are to blame for driving media agency fees down to stupidly low levels and still expect better outcomes from smaller budgets and less qualified media practitioners.
Dan’s approach to attacking Ritson personally was, I believe, a missed opportunity to have a meaningful debate about the effectiveness of various media. But can we at least agree a few things:
– TV isn’t dead but viewing patterns are indeed changing and especially so for millennials and below. However, research from right around the globe proves it still has significant value for brands and moves the dial when utilised correctly
– Digital is an incredible channel. It has qualities that other channels do not and should be used in appropriate ways at measured weights, with full data driven insight into the target audience’s use of it.
– All other traditional channels have their own merits and may or may not be used for a marketing campaign depending on their efficiency and effectiveness for that target audience
There is no absolute right and wrong for all brands and all audiences. To go into bat with a singular argument that any one channel is all that matters is purile and dangerous.
More cats please.
Funny I saw Ritson speak last week and at no stage did he advocate against digital, he merely suggested that many lazy assumptions are made about the reach and efficacy of digital and whilst it remains an important part of the mix, focussing solely on a social or digital strategy is to ignore other channels – often to the brands detriment. In fact towards the end of his talk he suggested there are some clients he would advise to allocate 90% of their budget into social/digital and others less than 5%. Pointing out that many marketers are being led by self interested digital agencies armed to the teeth with misleading data is not bashing digital, its simply pointing out that brands should be tracking ROI on their marketing spend across all channels and measuring results themselves to continually evolve and refine their own marketing strategy.
Every single presentation I’ve watched from Ritson, he goes to great lengths to clarify that he’s not anti-digital – just the way buyers and marketers pile in on it becuase they think they have to. I get the feeling Ritson’s main quarrel is with the lack of critical thinking rather than having anything against online marketing
Why do agencies push digital so hard? Superficially it’s to be in the vanguard of change, but in reality it’s to do with their bottom line, not their clients. Follow the …..
Mumbrella put on the debate.
‘Real world’ Ritson vs Dan ‘the digital native’.
We want blood….
must I post this *again*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXBqzpExvrk
Scoffing at digitally-led business building is just neo-luddism