‘Splitting creative and media. It’s the dumbest thing we ever did’
Cummins&Partners global CEO Michael McConville explores why Telstra's CMO Brent Smart’s remark at MSIX about the separation of media and creativity being "the dumbest thing we’ve ever done" resonates.
That’s a direct quote from one of the most respected figures in Australian marketing who was on stage at last month’s MSIX event.
This person has a wealth of experience in both the agency and marketing sectors, with a reputation for both creativity and impact.
Though we don’t know each other, I hope he won’t mind me sharing this. That person, of course, is Brent Smart.
Now, plucking this one quote out of many at the said event might feel a bit self-serving, especially given my role in an agency that admittedly has creative, media and experience in the shop. But honestly, that’s not the only reason I highlighted it. I chose this quote because it genuinely made me happy to hear someone with such a strong (and welcome) voice say it in such a refreshingly not-so-self-serving way.
I’ve pondered why it stuck with me in the weeks since I heard it said. And it stuck with me – I think – because it made me positively uncomfortable. I realised that when creative and media were physically, structurally and emotionally separated, it was the point at which we all started to use what would become an over-used, pleading buzzword. One that continues to be overused to this day, probably more than ever before: Integration.
(Some of the many meanings of this word can be found in the below, which even AI got broadly right):
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not knocking the buzzword. Integration is important. Vital. But as has become a reality in today’s world of politically charged language, the more we throw it around, the less it seems to reflect what we’re actually doing. And when we all use a version of the word for different purposes and meanings, it all gets muddy, quickly.
You see, the fact that we have to say it so often goes a long way toward signalling that it’s not happening as routinely as it should. We say it regularly because everyone knows it’s demanded and should be happening, and just saying it can give a sense that it is. But it’s sometimes a seemingly invisible part of what we do, which means it can be harder to see if it’s occurring. Or not.
And that is an issue. If we were genuinely integrating so regularly, we wouldn’t have to say the word with such regularity. It would be typical, humdrum, expected, unspoken.
There’s a more accurate term for what’s really been happening since the split between media and creative: Disintegration.
(Again, AI got this broadly right)
This separation of media and creative was the point where things began to unravel. So whenever a new discipline was required, the starting point was for it to be separate. Disintegrated with a hope to integrate; quickly. But the reality is that integration would often take years.
This shift has influenced everything we’ve done since, surfacing whenever we chase the new and figure out how to define, market, and monetise new opportunities—whether challenges or threats.
This one act at a specific moment in time led to a new set of relationships and entities:
The relationship: ‘Broken up.’
The entities: ‘Frenemies’.
And we accepted this as the new status quo.
Even after the point at which this happened, when holding companies created ‘client-villages’ (such a friendly term) to market and monetise this new model, disintegration became the accepted norm without anyone really noticing.
Except for marketers.
Brent Smart
Marketers could see it all happening, but not quite in real time and perhaps a little bit in slow motion. But those who could see it felt they had to quietly, and frustratingly, accept it, unsure how to solve the problem as it became embedded in our new culture.
From that point onwards, it started getting a lot harder to do a lot of things. And especially hard to define and galvanise people around a common goal and purpose.
Where agencies once helped clients set and achieve a singular goal, things shifted. Each agency or discipline began needing its own version of the goal, and from that point, they often veered off on separate paths—hoping they’d align in the end. Sometimes, they did, but rarely with the clarity, timing, or punch the hard work deserved.
We all know we’re guilty because when we’re not working to a deadline, we all discuss the need to be disciplined and stay true to a single-minded idea, warning against straying from it to avoid diluting its value. But too often, we only provide that advice when it’s our idea – and not one from ‘frenemies’.
Inevitably, the next partner says the same (obvs when others aren’t around), and marketers with all the best will in the world find themselves unwittingly managing the jostling and politics they never signed up for in the first place. The result: One idea gets spun into multiple versions, tailored to suit each party’s agenda. All this happens under the guise of “discipline-specific” needs when in reality, it’s just another tug-of-war.
What’s surprising is how quickly the splintering begins – and once it starts, it rarely stops.
Adam Ferrier at MSIX 2024
Sadly, the marketer finds it boring – and rightly so. Unfortunately, their focus is drawn to things outside of the work itself, which is disappointing for them, given that the opportunity within the work was what made them want to take their gig in the first place.
They then find that too often, the best politicians win out, and others are left scratching their heads, wondering why the work wasn’t all it should be. Perhaps they never realised that those motivated by politics aren’t chasing great work—they’re chasing a personal win. Not a team win, but their own individual victory.
Then, when the work is done, and we’re in the project wash-up, one unspoken truth emerges that people don’t find the words to say: too much time was wasted on politics. The work suffered because energy was drained trying to force integration between parts that, if we’re honest, never wanted to be integrated in the first place.
Sadly, it turns out, disintegration suited quite a few of the parties involved, so long as their idea won out. But even when their ideas did win out, the work turned out to be a bit shit anyway because there wasn’t enough time, goodwill or energy left to execute something that really did require a village.
A bit sad, isn’t it? Sound familiar?
Of course, it does.
No matter what side of the equation you reside on, much of this likely feels familiar. Experiences like these have become more common as the rise of “integrated” elements over the years—like social, CX, shopper, performance, retail media, the tech stack, and AI—have each grown into major pillars of their own. There are more parts to integrate, yes. But there is no extra time, money or expertise to make it all work afresh, so it’s a slog to integrate with few winners. So, too often, it’s a failure.
When looked back at this way, these failures seem inevitable. One party is either trying to integrate into an existing model. Or the model is trying to bring an outside element in. But too regularly, nobody is uniquely responsible for making it all work afresh. It’s a tack-on to everyone’s pre-existing jobs. And let’s be honest; not everyone wants to play ball.
And for those purists – the marketers, the business strategists, the ones most enthusiastic about keeping things tight – theyare forced to spend their time holding everything together when they should be focusing on making the work truly exceptional.
With the benefit of hindsight, this goes some way to illustrate that ‘The breakup’ of creative and media wasn’t designed to serve marketers better. Or with a greater degree of specialism. ‘The breakup’ wasn’t for the benefit of most marketers’ experience. It was for the benefit of agencies trying to market and monetise. To sell more services at a deeper level. And hardwire relationships for the long term, with data at the core.
While the above may sound bleak, it’s not all bad. In many instances, connecting separate parts is a huge benefit. It’s often best-in-class. It just requires the choice to truly connect with partners (or ‘frenemies’) and shoot for combined excellence. To hark back to Brent’s latter comments and recent work, the benefit of putting these elements together properly is there for all to see. It works way more powerfully than the alternative, told above. For me personally, the greatest experiences of my career were these moments of brilliant, connected integration between partners. But sadly, too often, these moments are the domain of the top-10 advertiser with the budget and swagger to demand it.
The proliferation of new, specialised services—and an Australian drive for deep expertise in everything—means that this topic has risen afresh. It’s becoming too much for most marketers to manage so many separate parts. And if it’s not manageable, it’s not practical. Let alone effective or efficient.
This hurts everyone. Marketing teams can’t handle so many specialists, and agencies can’t sustain the staff for services only a few clients need. And if the thing that’s supposed to make all the parts more significant than the sum – integration – isn’t led by people with a real specialism in that field, it turns into a messy, complicated process that drains more energy than it delivers results.
Maybe it’s just time to apply some of the advice we often give partners and clients:
Do fewer things better.
Simplify complexity.
Lead with purpose.
Integrate around goals.
Then, integrate around ideas.
We all say these things but struggle to live them out, mostly thanks to the way we’re organised. We’ve unwittingly set up structures that inhibit our ability to create what we hope for brilliant, single-minded, business-changing work.
It’s also getting harder to simply define what ‘brilliant’ is to each of us; especially across so many teams. Because if we miss that step, we’re already stumbling.
I know this all sounds a bit grim, but as anyone who knows me would say, I’m hardly a negative individual. If anything, my relentless optimism is exactly why I’ve been pondering this mess.
So what? What to do with all this?
Start by recognising our inherent, broader industry challenge:
Our words are all around integration, but most of our energy goes into managing the fallout from systemic disintegration.
We’ve been spreading our efforts across more partners, platforms, departments, and people, causing budgets to suffer. And we can’t carve out extra time or money to make it all work.
Once we acknowledge this, the choice is clear: To integrate or to disintegrate.
Once each party’s decision is made, the next steps will vary widely depending on who and where you are.
And no, the answer isn’t necessarily to consolidate all your work with one agency (though I’d say that if I were being self-serving).
What it does mean is that we should all start practicing a bit more of what we preach:
Do fewer things better.
Simplify complexity.
Lead with purpose.
Integrate around goals.
Then, integrate around ideas.
I would also like to add this last one, which I have always believed in: to start at the end.
Start by defining what your end outcome should be. Whether that’s a financial, creative, professional or emotional outcome, it doesn’t matter. They’re all valid and valuable. But without doing that, you won’t know what you’re integrating around. You might be missing some of the right skill sets, processes or systems for deep integration.
Stop overusing the term and pretending we’re integrating when we’re just generally working together. My son’s basketball team are generally working together, but they’re not a professional outfit, as we’re all supposed to be. Integration requires expertise. It’s a specialism, not a generalism.
Pick what you’re integrating around – start with your end goal. Then, drive integration led by that goal around a core idea, with a unified team. A team that knows how their parts combine to create something greater than the sum. Something fucking brilliant.
It sounds simple, but most of us aren’t set up for it.
So, in this time of industry disruption, take a beat and reset. Let’s make sure we’re all equipped to be great partners and teammates, no matter where those partners sit. And play a part in reintegrating our industry.
Because the alternative is to continue adding to its disintegration. Which simply diminishes our value at a time when we need to cement it.
And that’s not something I want on my shoulders.
Keep up to date with the latest in media and marketing
Great and honest perspective.
The last people I would want controlling my media investment is a cohort who are obsessed with self-aggrandisement in the form of awards, and dismissive of any form of science / measurement.
Every media plan would consist of 90 second TVCs and some 60 sec cutdowns.
User ID not verified.
Yes, the law of unintended consequences, and yes, for everything that is gained often something is lost. But anyone reminiscing misty eyed about integrated and collaborative sunlit uplands of full service agencies past clearly did not work in their media departments. Channel selection dictated by the creatives? Check. Pitch meeting ran long so just present the flowchart? Check. Apportion large chunks of budget to showcase vanity ad formats? Check (and file the D&AD award submission). Tolerated as second class citizens at best, media was regarded as a discipline akin to accounting, the function to which it was most often seated alongside. Any notion that the past 30-years’ massive investment in media craft tools and software, let alone talent, would have/could have occurred under non-unbundled regimes is pure fantasy. I am not saying that a pendulum swing recalibration is not needed. It most certainly is. However, to do so requires a near-complete overhaul of current client briefing and agency communications development processes. And just how good these days are 99% of clients at briefing? Don’t get me started…
User ID not verified.
Didn’t Telstra have the opportunity recently to bring creative and media back together under one roof? Does that make Brent Smart really dumb? Or does it just prove he doesn’t really believe it is the right thing to do?
User ID not verified.
Ok mate.
User ID not verified.
Could not agree more. I was in the media dept at GP when Zenith was created . We never thought through the unintended consequences of the split – it was accompanied by enormous self interest.
User ID not verified.
Speaking of breaking up???
User ID not verified.