Interactive is better than digital
I was catching up on ad news from the UK this morning on the Brand Republic site, when the title of a blog post caught my eye.
“What is digital?”
This is a great question I think, especially now that most of us are watching digital TV.
So what is the answer?
According to the Brand Republic post, digital is an outdated term, as is online and, although they consider it the closest, interactive.
I’m not sure I completely agree.
I’ve said on many occasions that good direct marketing is truly interactive. Way more interactive than a few clicks of a mouse.
Of course these days a lot of digital work is also a much more interactive than a few mouse clicks.
Which means, I think, that interaction is something we’re all looking to achieve with our work. Regardless of the medium.
As for the question what is digital?
Guess the Brand Republic post was right – it is an outdated term.
So what do we call it?
posted by Stan Lee at 4:08 pm
3 Comments:
I'm confused. Isn't digital a medium? And if so how can it be outdated? There are still digital media.
What we do on those media or that medium might vary. Sometimes it's advertising. Sometimes it's a form of DM. And sometimes it's something much bigger and better and more powerful, yet to be defined, like Nike +. But it's it still 'on' digital?
I am fully prepared to be contradicted, in fact I hope I am :)
The problem is not what to call it; digital is the medium (as Angus points out). Maybe the challenge for agencies is:
A. To leave a term alone; it doesn't need changing just because it has been around for more than a couple of years.
B. To build a true capability and understanding in-house. As was pointed out in the article, an agency that doesn't have digital capability in-house is not in the same headspace to truly use the medium. It is almost impossible to come up with great digital ideas if you don't know what is possible, if you don't live and breath it.
ENGAGE-O-TRONICS! (tm)
Post a Comment
<< Home