Kitcatt Nohr Digitas

In the marketing village, the thing we call ‘integration’ has been a hot topic of debate for at least a decade now. Despite this, there still seems little agreement over how best to plan campaigns across the multitude of marketing disciplines at our disposal.

Thankfully, some much-needed fact-based analysis has now been published on the subject of integration. It’s by no means conclusive. But it does add more light than heat to a fierce marketing catfight. An achievement which is noteworthy in its own right.

It comes to us courtesy of the IPA. Its whole approach is unsensational and almost scientific. It’s called ‘New Models of Marketing Effectiveness: From Integration to Orchestration’. With a title like that, Dan Brown need have few worries about his airport sales this summer.

I describe its approach as ‘almost’ scientific quite deliberately. The methodology isn’t flawless. The analysis is based on the IPA’s case study databank, which comprises 256 case studies derived from the last seven years of its annual Effectiveness Awards competition.

It’s not a huge sample size. And the sample frame is slightly skewed by the fact that, until recently, digital, direct and promotional agencies (and their clients) were under-represented in this competition. Also, I know from bitter experience that not all clients are happy to have their successes (and secrets) disclosed in such an open forum.

However, in our imperfect world, the IPA databank is probably the best public domain repository of communications strategies and results we have. And it has certainly provided a rich hunting ground for Kate Cox, John Crowther and the other luminaries who have authored this study.

The report identifies four models of integration. The first is ‘no integration’, which requires no explanation. The second is ‘executional integration’ (the ‘matching luggage’ model, where all communications in all channels look and sound more or less the same).

The third model the authors describe as ‘idea-led orchestration’. This approach involves organising a campaign more loosely around a single creative idea. The fourth and final model is ‘participation-led orchestration’, where the campaign is organised around some form of experience or consumer participation, across multiple channels.

The report is rich is analysis, covering everything from which product categories tend to use which model, to how certain models have proved more or less popular over time. All of this is very interesting, but what really captured my attention was the report’s dissection of the relative effectiveness of each model.

In my experience, many clients (and not a few creative directors) exhibit a fondness for matching luggage which rivals that of the late Monsieur Louis Vuitton.

Executional integration makes for painless creative reviews and delightfully straightforward board presentations. For the simple reason that it makes it easy for non-marketers to see what the creative director and the marketing director have been doing for the last twelve months. All the communications are the same colour. The logo is in the same place. And the headlines all sound the same. Job done.

However, the IPA report offers one very big and – for some – surprising insight into matching luggage model. Yes it works. But no better than the ‘no integration’ model. And appreciably worse than the model of ‘idea-led orchestration’.

Specifically, the matching luggage model delivered a large hard business effect in 72% of cases, while the ‘no integration’ approach yielded similar results in 74% of cases. Meanwhile, the ‘idea-led orchestration’ model delivered results of a similar order in no fewer than 79% of cases.

Why is it that the ‘idea-led orchestration’ approach appears to deliver bigger hard business results more often? No definitive answer is offered by the report. But I suspect it’s because, in this model, each medium is allowed to perform to its best advantage. Whilst still benefiting from the ‘2+2=5’ effect of repeated exposure to a core idea.

Ask any creative, and they will tell you that there are things you can do on TV that you just can’t in print. And vice versa. The same is true of web, radio and direct mail. This stands to reason. Have you ever tried to fold a TV commercial? Believe me, the adherents of the matching luggage model have.

Perhaps there’s also something else going on. The advocates of the matching luggage approach often refer to the ‘surround sound’ effect they believe is delivered by their uniform messaging.

However, there’s a problem with this analogy. As any hi-fi bore will tell you, the genius of surround sound is that each speaker actually delivers a different part of the soundscape. The sounds they emit are subtly different. For the listener, this creates a more realistic and intense experience.

Maybe, at some deep neural level, this is similar to effect achieved by the ‘idea-led orchestration’ model of communications.

But what of the ‘participation-led orchestration’ model? How does this approach perform?

At first sight, the results don’t appear too encouraging. This model delivers large hard business effects in just 38% of cases. Though when this approach is employed with existing brand users, the figures are more impressive than those achieved by any of the other models.

My personal theory is that, in too many cases, we are expecting uncommitted prospects to participate in a brand without providing them with a large enough reward for their participation, either in terms of entertainment or utility.

In other words, consumers’ participation is not something that can merely be demanded. It needs to be earned. We might return to this on another occasion.

For the time being, however, it’s one more piece of useful learning that we would be well advised to carry around in our mental set of matching luggage.