I agree that brands need to increasingly co-create value and that it is this activity which will “inspire more than mass consumption [and instead] communicate ideas that inspire action, and participation”. I disagree however that advertising is the primary vehicle by which this should (or indeed will) happen. Rather I beleive it will be a number of business functions which can propoerly harness the opportunity of social media.

As you’ve read in my ‘Bonfires and Fireworks’ blog post (http://www.rmmlondon.com/archive/social-media-is-the-bonfire-to-advertising-fireworks/) I argue that advertising deals in what I term “Fireworks”: big shiny campaigns that raise awareness of a product or service. They may be brilliant commercials but even the best commercial burns bright and short (like a firework…). They have no longevity and have limited ability to co-create value with an audience.

In contrast “Bonfires” are in for the long haul, they are activitites a brand or business run for a long time and can work across a number of different business functions. Moreover, these bonfires are achieved through the effective use of social technologies (otherwise referred to as “social media”). See more on this here: http://www.rmmlondon.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/social_objectives_activities_metrics_091211.pdf. It is these bonfires that I believe hold the key to enabling a brand or business to co-create value with an audience. Marketing (and advertising) can play a part in a bonfire but are in no way the only kind of bonfire a brand or business can cultivate.

For example: a brand can co-create value via an online R&D group which helps create a better product. This has a benefit for the brand as they have a better product to sell (which should, hopefully, make them more money) and has a benefit for the audience as they can purchase a product that better meets their needs. Of course the brand might choose to market the product as “by the people for the people” but this is an example of a firework springing forth from an existing bonfire. A good real-world example of this in action is the PR hype around the Dell Outlet Twitter feed which has made Dell $6million+ The activity was designed to help the audience better identify Dell deals and thus shift more Dell PCs (win-win for both sides). The activity can hardly be called a marketing activity however, it’s success turned it in to a PR story which further fuelled the popularity and thus success fo the Dell outlet Twitter feed via marketing functions (namely PR).

All this doesn’t mean that advertising is redundant, brands still need to create mass awareness and advertising still does this best of all. However, I think it’s a fallacy to beleieve that advertising is the vehicle by which brands and business can begin to co-create value. Instead I beleieve the route to the co-creation of value is through existing business functions realising the power of social technologies.

I’m not sure your article actually answered the question. “Is Advertising Worth Saving?” You defined a new marketing reality that could be loosely akin to the purpose of advertising now. i.e. using the power of the web to promote trial of products and services and loyalty to the brand that offers them. But what of advertising as it exists now? Is there a place for the SuperBowl Spectacular? Will there be enough demand in future for this kind of content to make it worth agencies assembling and retaining teams of content producers ready to spring into action?

If you look at what the more innovative agencies are doing, they are getting involved in ‘brand applications’ on behalf of their clients. i.e. Crispin’s Domino’s “BFD Pizza Builder” or RGA’s Nike ID Online Running Management tool. They are also handling a lot more of the production tasks for these kind of marketing assets that when they simply brought a director and their production team into to handle it.

That surely is the ‘future’ of advertising. Build applications and get your customers to use them to improve the products and service they get from your company.

On another note, the Patagonia example of 36,000 resumes per job opening sounds impressive, but what does that fanaticism really do for Patagonia? Apple and Facebook have vast communities of people building applications for free that make their products so much better. How many iPhone apps will be launched this year? How much more loyal will they make the iPhone customer who begins to execute many life tasks through the apps that live on their phone? You see Apple’s advertising moving in that direction too… simple handheld pieces that no only show how beautiful and elegant the device is, but also how cool and functional the interface is, usually through the demo of a particular iPhone app.

It’s easy to participate with brands who do things I feel strongly about. But if every brand demands that I participate, I may well wind up feeling overwhelmed. Right now we’re talking about a handful of brands doing very special things. And those brands will grow and thrive for all the reasons you mention. But I keep wondering what happens in all those low-interest categories, to all the non “Prom King” brands.

On a similar note, what happens when we’ve got a market full of Prom King brands? Right now, Threadless and Etsy and Zappos and the like stand out because they’re the only ones doing it. But soon enough there will be competition. And they will all be engaging and empowering and storytelling and all those other buzzwords.

So then how do we distinguish one from the other? I “know” the difference between Coke and Pepsi because advertising tells me that one cola flavored sugar water is for the young and hip and the other is warm and fuzzy.

As the market you describe matures, companies will fill different niches in the same space. How we distinguish between them– what form their brand image advertising takes — is anyone’s guess and it will be interesting to see it develop. Will it take the form of old-fashioned brand advertising, the high-level Cadbury Gorilla/1984 type stuff that still seems to have emotional resonance? Or is that model last century’s news?

It will be fascinating to see how it all develops.

@Garrick – I hear you about the tonnage and scale that comes along with advertising, the reach of traditional broadcast advertising is huge. I think what all companies need to understand is that there are always a small number of users who are willing to do more for your brand than others. Whether it’s the 1% rule or 10% rule there is some sub-set of users that are passionate enough to help your company create value. The combination of traditional advertising reach, with increasingly more important and valuable ways for customers to participate is a blend that more advertising agencies need to understand.

There are signposts: CNN now incorporates news from citizen journalists via iReports, Zappos eschews advertising for great customer service, etc.

One quibble: I don’t think the ad agency, record industry analogy holds water. It’s much more macroeconomic than that, for sure, and when so many industries are hurting advertising gets hurt.

For Fortune 500 marketers you still need to have tonnage and scale. You have to reach those indifferent consumers (people). There’s still a big role for this, though maybe not the 30-second spot

At Bridge Worldwide, we’re trying to spread the word a concept called Marketing With Meaning. In a nutshell, the concept is that “in a world where people have the power to avoid advertising altogether, we must create marketing that they actually choose to engage with – marketing that itself improves people’s lives.” Check it out, and I’d love your feedback.

http://www.marketingwithmeaning.com

(re: mentos Youtube videos)
Where was Diet Coke’s Ad Agency on this? Whatever an agency does become in the future, at its core it should always be an expert on the “communication culture” of the customer. Their job is to tell the client how to fit into that culture.