Advertising from the Inside Out

Working at Mullen provides PR practitioners with a unique perspective on the ad game. There are few PR shops where it’s possible to participate in ad agency new business from the brainstorm to the pitch meeting and see the creative evolution of ideas. For that matter, I don’t know of another PR shop where you can have lunch in the gourmet cafeteria and sit with the creative director or the CEO of a top advertising agency. This is not the usual situation of most public relations professionals, to say the least.

What’s the benefit of being a PR staffer embedded in an ad agency like a war correspondent embedded with the troops in Fallujah? For one thing, the creativity of the place is contagious and informs the way we PR folks think about how to create innovative marketing programs for our clients. Like our advertising brethren, the PR team at Mullen wants to push the envelope of creativity. We’re not in opposition to advertising; we’re all part of a marketing continuum that is constantly in flux and adapting with the times.

After all, PR gets consumers to believe in brands and take action, just as advertising does. The main difference is that we rely on the media and others to tell the stories of our clients, and advertising ultimately has more control over the messaging (I would love to guarantee placements in all of the outlets my clients want to be, but that’s not how it works in PR).

This unique insider perspective enables some interesting interactions. When people ask me where I work, I tell them Mullen. They naturally assume that I work in advertising, but I usually clarify that I work in the PR department. The nuance of how the agency consists of a range of disciplines is lost on most people, and I’m fine with that because the difference in what we do is not that extreme.

Internally, I’ve had some moments where an account service person will ask me what I do. I tell them that in some respects I do what they do; I lead accounts and make sure my clients are happy. When I talk with someone in Direct I also tell them that I create direct mailers on a regular basis. When I talk with Analytics, I explain that I am responsible for measuring the success of our PR campaigns. And the Creatives at Mullen scratch their heads when I tell them that PR writes all the copy for our press releases and other marketing materials. You could say that PR does what all of the other agency departments do, but we do it for less money.

Watching Mad Men on AMC I’m always amazed at how segregated ‘60s agency Sterling Cooper is (and I don’t just mean racially). There’s a hierarchy with the Creatives at the top of the pyramid and the account service people down below. When Pete Campbell in account service dares to come to the table with some creative ideas, he’s smacked down by creative director Don Draper for violating protocol. But should an agency rely on its Creative department alone to be the idea engine for clients? Clearly the answer is no. And at Mullen there are creative people in all departments doing creative work.

To understand how just how much today’s ad agencies differ from those of the ‘60s, I suggest reading “Then We Came to the End” by Josh Ferris. It’s one of the most insightful books on modern agency life. In the book, a character explains that at an agency there are “Creative Creatives creating creative creative.” Beyond being a fun tongue twister it’s actually not true. At Mullen we’re all creating creative creative, and I think that being an integrated marketing agency makes us different, and better.

The Interface Is Everything

The writer Will Self went back to using a manual typewriter several years ago and was quoted saying "I think the computer user does their thinking on the screen, and the non-computer user is compelled, because he or she has to retype a whole text, to do a lot more thinking in the head.” This comment got me to contemplate how future generations will reflect on our so-called “cutting edge” technology of the keyboard, laptop and mouse, and even things like this blog. Will the communications tools that we’re using seem as obsolete as charcoal on a cave wall?

From the rock slab to the scroll, the quill, the printing press, the ballpoint pen, the paper, the e-Book and beyond, the methods of capturing thoughts has been constantly evolving. And as the technologies have evolved, so has our manner of thinking and communicating. Is texting shorthand (LOL, BRB) on a cell phone an evolution of our written language or a giant linguistic leap backward? As Will Self suggests, are our computers, our instant access to information everywhere (see Cha Cha.com), making us somewhat dumber because we don’t have to work as hard? Or is the opposite true? Is the language evolving? Just read some Chaucer to see how different our current language is from Olde English.

Maybe the answer to this question is a matter of age. My dad has zero interest in exploring the new Apple store on Boylston, and I have to be removed by security guards when I try to move in. But, then I think about people like Jobs and Gates who are not that much younger than my father, and how they’ve been constantly evolving alongside the technologies they’ve brought to the market. So, maybe it’s not that older folks can’t understand new technology; it’s just that it’s tough to teach an old dog some new tricks. I’m sure John McCain wants to look Internet savvy when he’s using “The Google.”

Which brings me to the question of what’s next for communication? What will eventually flummox me so much that I will refuse to learn it? The advent of touch computing is on track to eliminate the keyboard, and speech-to-text and voice recognition will radically alter the interfaces of every device we own. The accelerometer in the Wii may become a part of how we control our televisions and other devices with body motions. The Internet itself will evolve considerably so it’s a more seamless experience (try 800-GOOG-411 if you want to see how the voice-controlled Internet will feel). Everything will be wireless.

Thirty years from now the world that I will experience will be radically different from the world today. I will be older, but I think there are plenty of old folks now who have shown that advanced age doesn’t mean turning into tech Luddites. I think about director Sidney Lumet and how he went 100% digital with his filmmaking as soon as it was possible and rejected film. I think about music legend Peter Gabriel and how he’s been able to capitalize on digital downloads with his various business interests (he recorded the first 100% digital album in 1982). So, I’m planning to keep up with and embrace the tech trends, because it keeps you young, even when you’re old.