Comments for Sawdust

Comment on Digital people. by phil

phil — Thu, 17 May 2012 14:39:22 +0000

Cheers Phil. I’m going to keep re-reading that New Scientist article until I understand 50% of it.

Comment on Digital people. by Phil Dearson

Phil Dearson — Thu, 17 May 2012 13:30:22 +0000

Thanks for the link, Phil.

My hope is that all this is a phase and that, in say 5 years, people in agencies who don’t understand digital or creative won’t be working in agencies any more. They won’t be qualified to participate. An understanding of digital in society will be table stakes.

There’s certainly a difference when we talk about digital specialists though. For the time being there’s still a need for people with depth of experience (I’m thinking of Boches’ T-shaped people here).

Anyway, we’ll all be “quantum people” soon if this qubit teleportation research develops: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21811-teleportation-record-heralds-secure-global-network.html

Comment on Digital people. by phil

phil — Thu, 17 May 2012 10:45:49 +0000

Thanks Craig. See the reply to Andrea.

Comment on Digital people. by phil

phil — Thu, 17 May 2012 10:45:06 +0000

Thanks for taking the time to comment. It is a bit of an idealistic post to be honest. These labels are just too useful in everyday business life to expect people to drop them. The problem comes when repeated use of these terms as business shorthand insidiously affects thinking. It’s more an issue with couter-productive shorthand like “community”, “engagement” and “influencer” that can directly affect strategy. “Digital people” is more of a bugbear than a major problem.

Comment on Digital people. by Craig McGill

Craig McGill — Thu, 17 May 2012 09:32:46 +0000

A good post, but something to consider is that if we all try to claim “digital” then that can lead to confusion in the eyes of clients who might think “well, if they do digital then they can do SEO, web design, audio, video” which then leads to problems when said person/firm can’t do it.

(I know that’s not what you’re getting at here but it is something to bear in mind. Yes, we may all be digital now – or should be – but the client may see that digital as different to us.)

Comment on Digital people. by Andrea

Andrea — Thu, 17 May 2012 08:51:53 +0000

I recently went to talk to some very lovely people who don’t want to brand themselves as ‘digital’ or ‘creative’ and they were telling me about the fact that they still get meetings where clients come in and say they want to say ‘you are the digital people’ as a sort of moniker that they feel comfortable with.

It’s particularly annoying to be pigeonholed like that and I will tell you it’s even worse at an individual level, nevermind agency-wide. It’s not what they call you, it’s what you answer to though

Comment on Brewdog versus Diageo. Why Goliath never had a chance. by phil

phil — Wed, 16 May 2012 08:55:25 +0000

You conspiracy theorist you.

Then again, maybe you’re onto something…

https://twitter.com/#!/BrewDogJames/status/200648563728977920

Comment on Brewdog versus Diageo. Why Goliath never had a chance. by Anna MacLean

Anna MacLean — Tue, 15 May 2012 21:02:23 +0000

Well put, Phil.

It worked out so well for BrewDog that a part of me wondered if they’d had anything to do with the whole thing happening! Or have I been watching too many episodes of ‘ScanDrama’ lately? ; )

Comment on Brewdog versus Diageo. Why Goliath never had a chance. by phil

phil — Tue, 15 May 2012 17:59:49 +0000

They do actually – http://www.facebook.com/BrewDogOfficial.

Even if they didn’t, the point stands that strong visual content works well across all social channels.

Thanks for taking the time to comment.

Comment on Brewdog versus Diageo. Why Goliath never had a chance. by Peter

Peter — Tue, 15 May 2012 17:30:10 +0000

“Visual content is vital conversation fuel in social channels, particularly Facebook.
Brewdog has a sense of rectitude.”

But Brewdog don’t have a Facebook, do they?