Do You Want to Look Cool or Make Money?

O3 World founder and Partner Keith Scandone was recently featured in the Philadelphia Ad News as a thought leader and asked to give his outlook on where the industry is heading in 2012. There were some great insights from everyone involved, pick up the issue for more. We've reposted Keith's piece below in it's entirety. Enjoy!

If you have the option of looking cool vs making money which would you choose?

If it were me, I’d be shooting to accomplish both at the same time. Although in order to answer that question, look no further than your marketing strategy. Is it centered around the big idea? Or is it centered around metrics and conversions and access in relation to the big idea?

Advertising agencies have traditionally been tasked with creating a big idea, and then worked on getting it out there to gain awareness and sales. And while the end goal still remains the same today, the “getting it out there” has become a lot more difficult...and a lot more technical. And because of the technical nature of everything related to advertising these days, from ideas, to execution, to making money, the technology teams should become a lot more cozy with the creative teams in the upfront strategy of a project.

Take a non-profit organization for example. They may be looking to showcase their mission by creating a compelling story about who they are and what they’re doing, in hopes that their story will connect with people and encourage them to donate. While there’s nothing wrong with that line of thinking, if they focus on just the story, and dismiss the actual process around the accessibility or viability in regards to how people donate, than they may very well be looking cool...but are they making money?

Or, take a consumer brand. They may be looking to garner as much attention through social media as possible, in hopes of creating brand engagement, and in turn, brand loyalty and new customer acquisitions. While there’s nothing wrong with that line of thinking, if they focus on just followers, retweets, fans and likes, and dismiss their mobile presence, or their web presence, or how all of these tweets, likes and content impact search engine rankings, than they may very well be looking cool....but are they making money? (Getting fans alone is not a real business metric by the way)

Or, ask Piperlime/Gap/Banana Republic/Old Navy/Athleta how cool they felt when their very nice looking, generally quite functional, ecommerce website was inaccessible all day during this past Black Friday. The shift to technology is certainly nothing new, but its important to take notice that the shift is still happening. The ad industry went from purely traditional, to traditional with a splash of digital, to a split between traditional and digital, to now digital with a splash of traditional. And its not just happening within the ad industry of course, as all businesses are trying to find ways to integrate their technology teams and initiatives with their marketing ones. It’s not just about connecting consumer outbound marketing ideas with technology platforms. It’s now escalated to connecting those outbound ideas with companies internal technologies. So while that non-profit website not only looks good, and has the right content management platform, and hosting environment, and ecommerce solution, and mobile accessibility, but it also integrates with their customer relations management tool, so that all of the data they are collecting is being aggregated and automated for easy access and easy deployment.

From a marketing executive’s perspective, that is the “Integrated approach” they’re speaking about, where they say they’re looking for synergy amongst mediums and technologies, and it should be the solution we’re all looking to provide. Our industry often gets caught up in the showcasing how cool we are, and how cool we can make the client appear, and how holistic our approach is. We talk about being user experience experts, and content strategists, brand stewards, social media gurus, and delivering an adaptive design solution. And while these terms actually do mean something and are an integral part of the process, (except for that guru term), they also mean nothing if your focus isn’t on the entire solution where a conversion is taking place, and where you’re measuring the effectiveness of that solution.

While it seems backwards to many people, it might not be a bad idea to start with the functional requirements, and then add in as much cool as possible, while still maintaining the integrity associated with ease of use, integrated functionality, and accessibility.

Or...just ask yourself, what would Apple do?