Increasingly, agencies are beginning to realize the importance of having strong digital capabilities—and it’s not just the little guys.
Despite a highly successful relationship with Wieden+Kennedy, Nike has invited other agencies to pitch the digital work for their running-shoe account. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that Nike cited “dissatisfaction with the agency’s digital expertise” as the main reason for their decision to seek a more web-savvy agency. According to Trevor Edwards, Nike’s vice president of global brand and category management: “Gone are the days of one shoe, one advertising campaign. Now you’ve got to engage consumers on every level.”
Despite 25 years of close partnership with W+K, Nike decided that the agency didn’t provide the best fit for their new line of innovative footwear, Nike+. These shoes contain a sensor that communicates with iPods, enabling users to track performance. This information can then be synced and shared via Nike’s website. By integrating their technology with Apple’s, Nike stands to reap tremendous rewards. Apple sold 21 million iPods in the first quarter of fiscal 2007, bringing their total to 90 million in worldwide sales.
And yet, Nike is signaling that this confluence of two mega-brands still needs an agency that is in touch with their target base. The former head of Saatchi & Saatchi’s L.A. office, David Murphy, puts it bluntly: “If people aren’t embracing digital they will get left behind; clients are already there and they are gravitating to agencies who get it.”
This bold step, coming from a marketing leader, will hopefully encourage other brands to see the urgency of growing brand relevance online. There are clear signs that this change is already taking place. A recent survey by the Association of National Advertisers asked 100 senior marketing officials to list their chief marketing concerns. “Integrated marketing communications”—the marriage of digital and traditional media—vaulted to #1, up from #4 a year ago.
We think that Nike’s unexpected shift constitutes further proof that space150’s multi-dimensional, consumer-centric approach is perfectly suited to today’s marketplace.
I found this post a little irritating. Besides being an obvious attempt to align itself with Nike, it is a direct rip of other, recently published, industry insight. I found myself wondering 2 things:
1) What is multidimensional about Space 150s solely interactive approach?
2) Why did the author of this post think a media/advertising focused audience would find an obvious regurgitation of this months Ad Age feature (and the cited Wall Street Journal article) a strong demonstration of thought leadership?
Touche’, Pinochet! Regurgitating yesterday’s headlines coupled with feeble attempts to pose Nike as a client is anathema to true thought leadership.
In an increasingly digital world, interactive marketing will continue to erode the power of traditional advertising. The Nike case is a particularly high-profile example of this trend. While we were hardly the first to mention this story, we have been practicing the ideas behind it since our inception seven years ago.
That said, we would like to point out that we are more than just a digital agency. In our work for the Ivy Hotel, which was featured in an earlier post, we came up with an identity that encompasses both on- and offline experiences. In addition to Ivy’s website, we are responsible for their print as well.
“In an increasingly digital world, interactive marketing will continue to erode the power of traditional advertising.”
Dear Nostradamus: thanks for the RAH-RAH speech about the future of marketing. Lets just assume that was an intelligent comment and move on.
The fact that you cited a recent, single example of undefined “print” work (Ivy Hotel) as ‘case in point’ that Space 150 is “multidimensional” seems to prove my point more than yours. So…thanks.
That said, I’m not trying to make a sport of teeing off on you, I just get a sort of gross feeling when I read posts like this one. I suggest getting away from the poseur’s approach to thought leadership, and the thinly veiled attempts to sell yourselves in EVERY post. Sell yourselves when you talk about your work, I think that is as it should be. If you have industry insight, or a particularly Space 150 P.O.V. on an issue—I’d love to read about it. Frankly, I find your blog notably lacking that sort of content.
The Fair Isaac blog seems to demonstrate great talent on the part of Space150. Pinochet, did this not satisfy your appetite?
Not really what I meant.
I love to see the Space blog do the following: - Show (and brag about) Space 150 work - Let the readers know what Space 150 is thinking about/demonstrate space 150 industry insight
I think if they did those 2 things in something like a 50/50 split, this would be a much more interesting blog, in addition to being a compelling case for hiring them.
Currently, it seems, the blog shows work, and (in the case of the Nike post) regurgitates other thinking in something like a 80/20 split.
While I agree that Nike’s shift of ad dollars from traditional to digital speaks to the correctness of Space 150’s business model, I see Nike’s announcement as secondary evidence to support Space’s position. Wherein the real news concerning this topic, and Space 150’s validation lie elsewhere, with larger implications.
Google’s announcement that they are moving forward with a TV inventory auction system makes clear the feeling at the world’s largest internet company regarding the future of advertising. I am not sure that Google expects any sort of revenue or inventory initially, but as Google has done so many times before, they have strategically placed themselves ahead of the curve. Google is betting on the evolution of the advertising industry to a point where the archaic model of buying TV inventory will vastly different. J&J (a 3 billion + media spender) is sitting out the TV upfront to assess their spending on digital and emerging media etc… Google is anticipating the eventual decline in demand for tier 2 TV inventory (important note: neither Google nor I seem to think that networks with top tier shows are going to struggle to fetch the outrageous CPM’s that they are accustomed to, this is due to the fact that despite the rise in popularity of DVR’s a majority of tier 1 programming is still viewed 1st run (live).) However, the loss will be felt in the 2nd and 3rd tier networks, cable providers and shows. The void created by this shift in ad dollars will force these networks to succumb to the ad auction system that will put into place a free market for their TV inventory, replacing the good old boys club of buyers and reps. Google is clearly counting on a major, industry wide, shift of dollars away from TV, resulting in the need for this product to maintain revenue to smaller networks and spot TV. When supply exceeds the demand in TV inventory, buyers will demand a free market bidding system, because the brands that enable their budgets will refuse to continue to pay an arbitrary rate for impressions, when other media will provide vastly more efficient and effective advertising. I see where the dollars are going and where the smartest companies in the industry are hedging their bets, and I’m with them.
Frequency, the once all important metric, is going to fade into obscurity and be replaced with measurements like page views, CTR (actual engagement by the consumer) + interaction time. Space has the right position in the market, and is offering a service that more and more brands will be requesting. I think that Space should be proud of their position, but at the same time, Space needs to appear like the innovative company that it is, as opposed to regurgitating articles and bandwagoning. Nike’s shift of ad dollars is indeed important, but it is just one move in an industry where far bigger players are starting to rethink their overall marketing strategy.
Fair Isaac blog? Where?
@JT: Possibly a reference to the Fair Isaac blog post Evolution as Dance: space150 and Fair Isaac