One Comment

  1. Looking at this from an advertising executive’s point of view [which I’m not, otherwise I’d have hanged myself by now], I’m saying “How can we do something that lets us use this ‘social media’ buzzword thing and appear all hip and cool and groovy but still look like we’re the ones providing The Valuable Input so we can keep charging A Lot Of Money.

    So… We get a developer to spend ages constructing a fiddly JavaScript-driven site just to view the entries — when users would be happy just to scroll down a page of images with “vote” buttons.

    We get a Panel of Big Name Judges, so we can explain how our knowledge and experience allows us to choose the one which properly reflects brand values — when, as you point out, people are quite capable of picking their own.

    Take either of those away, and there’s two less reasons for the ad agency to charge their massive fees.

    While the ad agency may well say their aim is to maximise value for the client, in practice their real agenda is to maximise what they can bill the client for Innovative New Services.

    And they get away with it because none of the executives, in the ad agency or at the client, actually use any of these new technologies themselves. Because if they did, they’d soon see through the sham.

Comments are closed.