Media-neutral planning - what is it?

Rebecca Morgan, Board Account Planner, BBH

The new Holy Grail according to marketers is 'fully integrated media-neutral planning'. Curious when in some respects media-neutral planning already exists. We might not have called it that, but it is evidenced nevertheless, in brand ideas such as Seduction for Lynx or Progress for Johnnie Walker. They are ideas which have been explored not only across a variety of media, but also across geographies - they are truly media and geography neutral.

Given this, the crux of the issue seems to be ensuring that great media-neutral brand ideas don't simply get brought to life in the old familiar ways - and that integrating them isn't just about creating matching luggage around a TV execution.

So, whilst we should continue to pursue integration as an ideal end point, I'm not sure that when it gets beyond the core brand idea 'media-neutral' planning is the right way of looking at things. There are a number of reasons for thinking this: 'Media-neutral' suggests a level of detachment and uninvolvement that seems at odds with the planning process. It carries the implicit assumption that all media are equal which is clearly not the case on basics like reach, required investment, measurability. No wonder clients default to TV when other media options such as sponsorship and PR have such unreliable measurement systems.

'Media-neutral' suggests planning in the abstract - a theorist's world where clients' objectives don't exist and we aren't actually making stuff. As soon as you have objectives and want to make something then you need to be 'media positive' not 'neutral'. It is also undeniable that some brands better suit certain types of media - e.g. Levi's and visual media.
Finally, 'media-neutral planning' seems to suggest that it is best carried out independent of those involved in execution, but experience shows the opposite is more often true - the strongest 'media-neutral' brand ideas can result from close upfront collaboration of planning with creative and media. The days of isolationist planning are over.

This is not merely nitpicking over terminology. My conclusion is that beyond brand idea level (where it is already happening) the concept of 'media-neutral' planning is, like a tragic hero, fatally flawed.

So where does that leave us in the great integration debate? It seems to me that it leaves us returning to the more fundamental question of how to truly engage consumers with brands. So allow me to re-frame 'media-neutral planning' - think of it as 'consumer engagement planning'.

Given the nomenclature, this is obviously about knowing the consumer. However, it is knowing the consumer in the round - so not only the basics like attitudes to the category and brand but also how they spend their time and what else in their lives competes for their attention. Secondly, we believe in the role of 'fame' in engaging consumers. In this context fame is potent because it creates shared excitement and active involvement - there is a magnetism to fame which means consumers want to be involved, be part of the community.

Ultimately, this leads to a new way of thinking about brands, media and integration. It demands that brands have an idea capable of creating fame - an idea where there is something consumers will want to latch on to and take away.

It means thinking of media more broadly - as channels - and re-calibrating the way we judge their suitability and effectiveness. So it is Opportunities To Engage versus OTS; message receptiveness versus transmission; involvement versus exposure. Effectively, the fame and engagement mode of thinking leads to a format shift - from interruption to content, where content offers greater value for time. The interesting thing is that this doesn't rule out the 'old favourites' like TV, radio, print, it just redefines how brands should use them. So instead of only making a TV ad it may be more engaging and fame generating if we made a TV programme. Hence the Johnnie Walker short films which run on TV stations across the globe.

In integration terms the 'fame engagement model' takes us way beyond the matching luggage syndrome and closer to the integration practiced by entertainment brands. They seem to be light years ahead. They recognise that integration should be horizontal not vertical, it is about amplifying the idea and building excitement - not just repetition. So Big Brother and Pop Idol extended the core idea through magazines, mobiles, web - with each taking a fresh angle and engaging consumers with new content. A far cry from simple 'points of contact' model which results in the idea being stuck on bus tickets and pizza boxes.

All this places new demands on planning and planners. It means we need broader knowledge of channel options - planners need to be as comfortable discussing the strengths and weaknesses of sponsorship/programming/magazine content as we are of TV, radio and press. We need to work with others in defining better ways of measuring both channel and content - unless we can demonstrate to clients the delivery of a programme or book versus an ad then this is all academic.

Beyond this, real life practice of our approach has highlighted a number of interesting 'lessons': This level of integration is extremely time consuming, so how to manage without taking your eye off the ball? Some media agencies aren't overly eager to see the value in all this because it potentially diverts money away from their traditional relationships. We need to accept that we often don't have control over all the channels (e.g. PR, call centres) so the ability to achieve true integration is questionable. It's also possible that some of those channels we can't control have the greatest influence on brand - retail branches for example.

Ultimately when it comes to executing you still need to start in a medium - John Hegarty continues to believe that an idea will always have a natural home where it finds best expression, even though it may be extended and built beyond that using many channels. This is where 'media-neutrality' just seems an excuse to delay thinking about media.

Finally, despite the breadth redolent in fame and engagement planning we have found that there remains an enormous value in advertising as the start point. This is because the format of advertising forces condensed thought and distillation of the idea, which then makes exploding and evolving it through other channels much easier in the long run. It also accepts that consumers still want and expect a brand to engage with them in a concise and focused way - anything else is expecting them to do more than window shop.

(c) Account Planning Group 1995-2002