What's Old Is New Again and Again and Again ...

By Paul Isakson

I recently reread Marshall McLuhan's The Medium is the Massage and it reminded me of how it seems we're doomed to repeat ourselves throughout time. Over and over and over again. Earlier this year an article in The Atlantic asked, "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" Others have reported that text messaging is having the same effect on kids. Seems Socrates had this concern about the alphabet:

"The discovery of the alphabet will create forgetfulness in the learners' souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves ... You give your disciples not truth but only semblance of the truth; they will be heroes of many things, and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing." Phaedrus (The Medium is the Massage p.113)

That's not all that is painfully similar today. Another piece, this time from McLuhan himself, speaks directly to the challenges facing most brand marketers and their advertising agencies:

"Societies have always been shaped more by the nature of the media by which men communicate than by the content of the communication ... Innumerable confusions and a profound feeling of despair invariably emerge in periods of great technological and cultural transitions. Our 'Age of Anxiety' is, in great part, the result of trying to do today's job with yesterday's tools–with yesterday's concepts." The Medium is the Massage p.4-5

There is no doubt that the internet has changed things. This is only going to amplify as the mobile web becomes much easier and better to use. Yet here we are working with marketing ideas, processes, approaches and staffing structures based on a model that is no longer the main media through which we communicate and discover information.

I think it's time we really start changing all of this, don't you?

I think it's time to stop approaching everything exactly as we have because that's what we know and are comfortable with. I think it's time we took a hard look at the way our marketing departments and agencies are structured and what skill sets we've been recruiting for and consider new ways to work based on the way people are communicating and discovering information. I think it's time we stop interrupting people's lives with annoying messages and start helping them make their lives just a little bit better and a little bit easier.

How can we start?

By working collaboratively to find the best solution to the problems facing our brands instead of prescribing the same old antidotes.

[image by nic0]

_______

Paul Isakson is a Colorado farm boy who became an account planner, currently based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. He is passionate about helping companies find smart and innovative ways to be more relevant and meaningful to the people who use their products and services through creative ideas grounded in cultural, consumer and business insights. Paul writes a blog that aspires to inspire, prod and provoke a better future for the brand building business, Tweets to share both what he's doing and good things he comes across, and likes to discover and catalog bits of randomness.

Comments

[Cory Hendrickson]

Thanks for another wake-up call Paul. I agree with what you're saying, and I believe most who read this will also agree. The problem is not realizing this - the discussion started in earnest back with the Manifesto from Locke et al. The problem is how to get those calling the shots to change. With a lack of adequate metrics to demonstrate comparative success, it's tough to turn any heads. After all, it's easier to keep your job when you try to do the same thing better rather than branch into something new.

Looking forward to hearing what you have to say on Tuesday at Bev's.

[Carolyn Ann]

So what you're saying is that the chicken comes first, but the bosses want to see the egg?

Correct me if I'm wrong - but aren't you saying that the bosses need to be bolder? Instead of sticking to what they know, they should be branching out into the unknown? I'd agree, but I do know that getting such a decision takes a lot of politicking! (And not a little "okay, I'll put my job on the line". Indeed, that can be essential - if you're not willing to bet your job, why should your boss bet theirs?)

I strongly disagree with your statement about collaboration, though. To make a mark you have to be as bold as the idea you're suggesting. That doesn't, can't, happen with collaborative efforts. Collaborative efforts tend to run toward mediocre solutions; at best, they'll embrace something safe. The rewards you hint at will migrate to the few who are bold enough to ignore the collaborations, and do what they think might work. And yes, there will be a few failures (and lost jobs) along the way; that's the nature of risk.

The nature of it all is that the business that sticks with the tried and true will eventually be overtaken by the upstart who doesn't know the rules, never mind ignore them! Collaborations have never been that innovative.

Carolyn Ann

PS I'm not sure that the medium is the message [sic]; I can never get past the basic problem with that book: it's *almost* surreal. It's almost many things, but it never seems to become anything.

[mcluhan prophecy]

McLuhan's influences Wyndham Lewis and James Joyce were engaged in a debate regarding time based versus space based philosophies. Lewis was anti Bergson and B's time based ideas. The time based stuff does have an inevitability to be trapped in the repetitions of cycles.Lewis advocated a way out. Space. In other words every moment has the chance to "make it new!"
That's it in brief.. McLuhan tended towards Lewis.
MP

[paul isakson]

Cory - Thanks for taking time to comment. I completely agree. It's an old conversation. One that has its roots far beyond Cluetrain. And I mostly agree with you on the, "With a lack of adequate metrics to demonstrate comparative success, it's tough to turn any heads," point.

Honestly, all of it is something I'm tired of talking about and if I could go back and re-write what would appear here, I would. I know those of us reading Valeria's blog don't need this reminder. It was what was on my mind as I sat down to write the post from having just finished re-reading McLuhan and was reminded about how old this conversation really is.

Anyway... Thank you for taking time to comment and please be sure to come say hi after the presentations are done on Tuesday.

[paul isakson]

Carolyn Ann - I hadn't thought of it as the chicken/egg example, but I suppose you could say that - chickens being the new structures/approaches and eggs being the new results.

As new DNA testing and research is showing us, the chicken didn't start as a chicken at all but evolved into such a thing. (http://rurl.org/10mm) I suppose that's how all of these changes are going to come about as well - evolution, not revolution.

I am saying that the "bosses" need to get bolder. And I agree, it won't be easy for this to happen. It will require significant structural changes across the organization. Most people won't change until/unless they have to. Even then, some hate change so much that they will move on to a place that doesn't require them to do so.

As for collaboration, it depends on the purpose for it and what kind of people you have involved in it. Not all collaborations lead to mediocre work/results at best. Clearly your experiences with them lead you to believe what you do. I have had experiences on all sides - some worked brilliantly, some failed miserably, some resulted in mediocrity.

My purpose in using that word here was to encourage clients to engage their agencies earlier in the process and have the agency use their creative horsepower to help bring about real change. Of course, if the client isn't willing to make the changes, it doesn't matter.

This post got a little soap-boxy and I wish it hadn't. As I said above, I'd probably have written something else had I not just finished re-reading "The Medium is the Massage." But, what's said is said, so we'll just have to go with it. I'll be the first to say that I'm just as guilty of talking about the need for change more than being effective at making it happen. I'm trying to do more to make it so and talk less. We'll see how successful that turns out to be. HA!

Thanks for the comment and for the challenges to the need for collaboration vs. someone just going out and making it happen. It's a very good push.

[paul isakson]

MP - Thank you for the background on McLuhan's beliefs/theories. I hadn't heard that before and I'll certainly be looking into it more.

[Helge Tennø]

Personally I really enjoyed the post, especially the two quotes at the beginning and how they extended on the rest of post.

I'm not sure we need to boldly go where no client or brand has dared to go before. I think the need for change will hit and be so natural that the desire for metrics isn't even needed in order to convince.

My personal experience at least have been that the possibilities opening up is something the clients have been looking for (but not knowing where to look), and us helping them see the possibilities is the only key we’re having to turn.

(Of course we need metrics, but it isn’t the key :o)

I also think there are two fundamental flaws in today’s’ advertising landscape.

There seems to be a dismissal of the truths that affects any other business we work for – the need for change. A large part of the traditional advertising community seems to think that we – and the channels we produce content for, as the only organism in the universe, are not affected by the Darwinian laws of evolution (most responsive to change).

The other thing is the fundamental belief that the human brain does not change –and by that the tools we apply in order to “talk” to it will also stay the same. Well here I agree, but the problem is that 30 years of research have taught us a lot more about the brain than we used to know, and it is this knowledge that leads us to see and believe in new mechanisms, not the brain altering it’s instinctive passions.

- So, I really do agree with you’re thoughts, and what we need is action. I think the best way to start will be to continue collaborative exploration in the field, between blogs. To connect eager clients to these thoughts and to start changing, or building, new agencies from the ground up.

Not changing it’s business model has left the advertising industry as the knight without arms and legs in one of the Monthy Python movies. There is still a refusal to see the opportunities and all the people not content with being just storytellers should get out of Dodge quickly.

That’s painting it black and white :o)

[Karen Hegmann]

Paul

Thanks for bringing up Marshall McLuhan. I remember walking through the "Coach House" at the University of Toronto wondering how the home of such a visionary could have been left in such a sorry state!

I agree that we have to start hiring people based on the new way of doing things, but at the same time I don't think we should forget about a person's ability to forge and maintain relationships.

If McLuhan is right, it's not technology itself that has an impact on our lives, but the effects of that technology on our senses, psyche, etc. Technology means that people are under even more pressure to perform and be available 24/7. Unfortunately, people and processes can't move as quickly as technology and organizations are always playing a bit of "catch up." The future will tell whether or not they can match the pace of our new world, or if outdated ways of thinking will leave some organizations to go the way of the dinosaur.

[Serge Lescouarnec]

Paul

Great piece.

Is the 'medium is the massage' typo voluntary just to remind us how information can be massaged and spinned whether in the business or political sphere?

Take care

Serge
'The French Guy from New Jersey'
http://www.sergetheconcierge.com

[paul isakson]

Helge - Thanks for leaving your comment. I'm far behind on things outside of work, so I apologize for the delayed response here.

I agree with all that you are saying. Especially with the need for action.

Always wonderful to hear from you and get your thoughts. Thank you again.

[paul isakson]

Karen -

Thank you and as I said to Helge - sorry for the long pause in this reply comment.

As for hiring, I think there is a balance to this. We need new thinkers and people who understand today's communications tools and approaches, but we also need people who have experience in managing the complexities of guiding and growing a brand. We don't want to repeat the mistakes of the past in new ways and it almost always takes an experienced person (with an open mind of course) to help spot these things and guide the inexperienced person away from them.

As for the dinosaur analogy, I have always liked what Russell Davies said: http://rurl.org/12iu - The dinosaurs didn't have a choice. Businesses do.

I think people and processes can do a good job of keeping pace if the right people and processes are in place. Not many have this yet, but I think more are trying. Let's just hope their efforts are too late or too slow.

Thanks again for your thoughtful note.

[paul isakson]

Serge -

According to the Wikipedia page for "The Medium Is The Massage" the incorrect spelling (made by the printer) was done purposely by McCluhan to emphasize his point - http://rurl.org/12iv.

I didn't see it as my place to change it, but probably should have used a [sic] to note that it is the "correct" spelling.

Thank you for the compliment on the post.