People who understand digital get how it has changed how they think about the role and reach of communication. It is a deep and structural change. But, this new thinking doesn’t turn out to be very digital – in fact, digital has very little to do with the digital things we do.
Let me try to explain this: Thinking doesn’t start with digital, but digital has changed how we think …
If we are to see where we are going, we need to stop looking backwards (As Mcluhan points out and which still is a very valid statement).
Sure the past is proven and safe, and the future is, I don’t know – and nobody does. Looking into pitch darkness or a glaring burn-out of white is the most interesting thing about it.
Short-term solutions are artificially excepted, but seldom a good answer.
If you are truly considering solving the problem, it is not solved in a week – or six. It demands attention from the brand long-term, with permanence. Which means intelligent, diverse communication often – but not always – integrated into the business decisions.
Even the strongest brand impression through pulse-based advertising does not stand the test of time. There are plenty of examples where huge dents have been made to brands through faulty business decision, but where the brand fades back into place within a matter of months or years – and this would also be true for pulse-based advertising.
Anything created within a week, or six, is temporary. It is only through permanence we are able to create a valid and lasting difference. (See Adrian Ho’s take on this here).