Saatchi & Saatchi on Bloomberg

[Desiremakesmeweak]

I watched the Executive Chairman of the global leading ad agency Saatchi & Saatchi today on Tom Keene's Bloomberg business morning show.

He said a few interesting things about the state of today's marketing. Pretty much everything he said amounted to the value of, for instance, writers here being able to gain numerous readers and followers by having an emotional or empathetic dimension that was in tune with a lot of people, or at least a particular selected group of people.

I'm not sure if the mainstream ad agencies will ever accept that they need to be 'locking-in' to the types of creative people in places like Lit (they should, but whether they will easily move or not...?), who know how to go after a certain audience and have the genuine ability to attract their interest. This is a different, let's say, 'skill' compared to brand-building or devising visual and video adverts that communicate a particular product or brand 'message.'

To some extent it is a shame that there are so many people who feel compelled both to fabricate the numbers of their readerships and the 'favoriting' and so on, and then go on and lie about these numbers in threads too - it's really very clear to anyone who has the least bit of web and computing (and other) knowledge and skill that so much of this apparent self-promotion IS faked when you peel away certain contrivances from the aggregations of these numbers.

Because it makes interaction by the big league ad companies with those writers who can get the real audience that much more complicated. And that's a big shame.

I think one of the genuine tests of whether or not a writer has a complete handle on their audience is when they can predict with fair accuracy the numbers of initial readers based on the themes they use and other, let's call them 'proprietary confidential' variables per story.

This site, by by-passing the old system's commercial gatekeeper filters and letting the reader have a truly open 'democratic' choice of what the want to read, and what they enjoyed reading, is a perfect example of what Kevin Roberts was alluding to. Freely moving foot traffic, as it were, is distinctly different from the mass commercial market audience that has to check out 50 Shades because that's all they're given (relatively speaking).

 

[sr71plt]

I think there's a difference in wanting a lot of readers (in which case you'd do all of the self-promotion, much of which is easily discernible as SELF-promotion--and cheating) and wanting to attract the attention of the "right" readers for the specific niche(s) you write to. What I see as unfortunate on the Lit. forum is bashing going on on the premise that if you don't have high views/ratings/comment numbers and favoriting--even if you have to cheat the numbers yourself and manipulate the numbers of other writers, with Lit. providing avenues for you to do so--you are a failed writer. Some are happy to be connecting with the "right" readers for specific niches.

I'm not sure if this connects with the OP, as I had a bit of trouble figuring out what it was trying to convey.

 

[SamScribble]

It may be too early in the morning, Desire, but I'm not sure what you point is.

 

[Sammael Bard]

..... I had a bit of trouble figuring out what it was trying to convey.

It may be too early in the morning, Desire, but I'm not sure what you point is.

Glad to see I'm not the only one.

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

Well, yes - I think I was still a bit overwhelmed by what he said and the way he said it.

Roberts is a modern-day god - certainly of the commercial world when it comes to advertising and marketing. There are huge HUGE mega corporations that cringe and shudder before his every little word on occasion.

To try and encapsulate it more clearly:

he said the whole world of commerce and marketing had changed radically with the increased and wide use of the internet.

He said that previously, marketing numbers (response levels, even sales) to a large extent were forced by the mechanisms of the channel control nature of the media.

And he said the power was now in the hands of those who could actually achieve real, unforced, positive attraction from an audience basically of freely choosing volunteers who without persuasion or manipulating, sought out the ideas, messages, narratives, themes and then became hooked by the specific content and style - and he said there was no place to hide by the 'experts' of yesteryear who were reliant on the controlled channel effects of previous kinds of media.

And what this meant was that such creative content people had the ability to achieve empathy with an audience of 'free volunteers,' basically.

To me he just plain sounded like he was talking about the kinds of writers here who can accurately judge their own audience, their own following (I won't say niche, because he implied this kind of following was the 'front edge' of hardcore, genuine marketing success), and virtuall almost 'pick and choose' the numbers of views based on their sensitivity to 'hot button' writing styles and techniques.

Jesus, this guy was not very far off product placing in some of these stories here from the manner in which he said things... 'sexy, attractive, emotionally empathetic, EQ, IQ, TQ.' (His words in quotes).

This is probably THE most powerful, important guy in advertising and commercial media in the world.

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

And he basically extended his message to cover all media - books, film, music, everything.

 

[sr71plt]

Besides thinking from what you've given of the man that he just likes to fill the air with words, sorry to burst his bubble but you don't successfully promote all categories of media--or even subcategories of media--the same way.

Sorry, but even at your second go at this it doesn't come across as English to me or give me something I think I can understand enough to discuss.

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

I'm not saying he was straight out lying on every point just to get noticed on the show, but no doubt he was being provocative and pushing a few things to extremes to underscore the dramatic changes in the world of media and marketing today.

I think he was making that very point you raise - except that he was saying IN THE PAST there had been highly evolved and differentiated ways of marketing through different delivery channels of media; but he WAS saying that this HAD changed now.

He said the internet was a 'megalithic monolith,' as it were.

And this is one of the most important minds in the commercial world today.

So I'm listening to him even if you are seemingly dismissing him. For whatever reason that you have to do so. Unless what you're saying is that I'm not describing the thrust of his argument so very well.

I'm not Kevin Roberts!

Crystal clear communication to the widest spectrum of the world is not my job; it's his!

I thought he made a lot of sense, frankly. And I think things will unfold the way he suggests, with significant positive impacts.

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

Deleted message - same message sent twice.