i read with interest the inaugural speech of the new ipa president, rory sutherland. as you’d expect there is much to commend in the address; from a challenge to the industry to demonstrate its social as well as commercial values, to a rallying call for our various specialisms unite for the common good.
one bit that really caught my eye though was his reference to ‘human understanding’.
it's so refreshing to hear the word human in a marketing context, rather than consumer, target, or data – which is even less personable.
marketers, especially direct marketers, should never lose sight of the fact that the ultimate arbiter of our labours is our fellow citizen; a living, breathing sentient being, not a number on a spreadsheet.
so why do we trot out impersonal labels? and worse still, those ubiquitous bits of ‘marketing speak’, like the way some folks make strategy precede or follow another word to try and make their point sound more, well, strategic. i doubt some are fully understood judging by their random use. even common parlance, like ROI, can have several interpretations depending what you are measuring.
i suppose its part of our identification, a rite of passage, or tribal mentality. and miraculously it would appear that the higher you go the more phrases you can use and, quite possibly, the less sense you make.
refreshing our use of language could ensure our industry focuses on promoting and selling products and services in a way that puts people (and human understanding) at the heart of communication, not numbers. making it more straightforward and direct will also bring to the fore the responsibility we have to consider what value any given campaign may have to another human being. this should lead to even better and more relevant work. that way we might also save ourselves from the ‘junk mail’ jibe, whatever the channel.
this change in language can start whenever an agency and client meet. it should permeate briefs and presentations. every industry creates jargon to act as shorthand to facilitate sharing ideas and thoughts quickly. ours is no different. but over time the lectionary increases, meanings change and use becomes a barrier to real conversation. in my view it gradually dehumanises our endeavour.
sutherland goes on to suggest that human understanding is actually what we should sell in the future. again I am sympathetic to his view. but the challenge is that we can’t sell if clients don’t want to buy. so the industry, client and agency, needs to meet on this point together.
so will our next appointment at entire be a data planner, flash programmer or behavioural psychologist? therein lies the conundrum.
i firmly believe that we should return to real language – communicating clearly without the need for ‘marketingese’ that masks real dialogue.