‘Real-time’ isn’t the same thing as ‘now’

The care my son receives on his days at nursery is second to none. I cannot think of anywhere else I’d rather he spent his days. As with all great things, though, there’s a minor quibble. When it comes to paperwork, the place isn’t quite so great.

On Thursday last week I was handed a form to fill in, asking for the changes we wanted to make to the days of the week he attends. These changes would take effect from September. Only problem was the deadline – Wednesday. The day before I’d been given the form.

Now, it doesn’t seem like a big thing. But a decision about which, and how many, days of childcare you need is actually quite an involved one. Think about it properly and you end up trying to predict the shape of two adults’ working weeks for as far as 18 months away. That in turn prompts thoughts over what job you might be in, or want to be in. Where’s your career going? Might you want to have another child? What about moving house?

Answers by yesterday please.

In reality, of course, these questions are just the stuff of life. But I found it fascinating how quickly I was contemplating disproportionately major issues as a result of an apparently innocuous question, though one that I was nevertheless obliged to answer, and to answer quickly.

Having some sort of consensus at home about our medium term plans helped. Happily having just had another baby those are pretty fixed for the time being, but it’s clear how important it is to have constant discussion and efforts to agree on what the priorities are for ourselves and our family. We know where we stand, but if we didn’t then that deceptively simple question might send us into a tailspin.

Dealing with questions thrown at us in the present is easier if we know how they fit it to a wider, longer-term framework. This is as true for businesses as it is for people. Knowing the direction of travel means we’re more likely to keep to the route and take the right turns.

This, essentially, is strategy. But it’s been somewhat buried, I think, in our rush to have conversations with clients about ‘real-time’ planning. We all urge our clients to ‘do’ it, high on a sugar rush of social media conversations and buzz monitoring data. But how is it done? How do we afford it? How do we get clients up to speed?

And most importantly, why?

Because, of course, we’ve inevitably started to conflate this with the most immediate, identifiable and measurable ‘real-time’ activity we see people/consumers doing. Real-time planning has become synonymous with social media, and most of the discussion is reduced to a pretty superficial version of what it could be. Because we can now see stuff happening, we become desperate to do something about it.

Instead of being interested in business performance, though, we get distracted by brand-related buzz. Might this be because it’s this kind of stuff that gives agencies more license to make more advertising? Or, if we must, ‘content’?

I suspect so. Like many buzzy concepts its currency among agencies has outstripped understanding of its nature, and its application to clients’ business. Which means we’re all talking about it, haranguing clients about it, while missing the  substance of what we observe.

Once again, it seems, technology has rung the bell, and agencies have proved themselves as Pavlovian as ever. I hope we don’t have our gaze stolen from the real potential benefits. Or indeed from the kind work involved in bringing them about.

Real-time planning will be incredibly valuable to some organisations. But it needs to do two things. First, it should resonate more deeply within businesses, so decision-makers can see the impact of becoming more agile. Second, it requires the capacity to react and respond to momentary incidents, as they arise, and the ability to evaluate what they mean. Do they represent an opportunity or a challenge to the strategy. You might want to react when trends in your business start to emerge – but only if you know whether those trends are good or bad for long-term strategy. You might want to capitalise on something cultural, or a new insight about the way your customers are behaving – but first you need to be clear on what that new development really means for the brand or the business.

So the key is having more, and new, stakeholders on board.

We can’t react to ‘now’ if we don’t know where we want to be in the future. And we can’t do it if those of a different view of the future aren’t included.

Which is why, just to be sure, I double-checked about the nursery with my wife

Who’s in charge here, anyway?

Had some more thoughts on the back of the idea of Aristocracy vs Democracy. Obviously, as the (very kind) person who commented on that post suggests, any purely ‘black and white’ approach to these sorts  of questions is probably unwise. It’s dead easy to be provocative, less straightforward to deal with the endless shades of grey that really make up considerations of all things structural.

But I’m betting organisational conundrums are top of most agency bosses’ to-do lists right now. Along with harnessing creativity, I would imagine the biq question is how precisely to deal with the huge changes wrought by technology, currently rampaging across all businesses, and asking massive questions of how agencies should effectively provide the diversifying services that will help them remain relevant to clients at all stages of readiness.

How should different departments work together? How should people in those departments be hired. How do agencies cope with the polarising need for people who specialise in ever-more-micro areas of expertise, and for generalists who can pull all this stuff together and make in tangible to clients?

The Pixar CEO mentioned something powerful in this area. He said that successful companies should be inherently unstable. The organisation that tries to scenario plan, or to second guess every little thing that’s going to come its way, can only get it wrong.

Businesses cannot prevent problems. They can only solve them.

It’s astonishing how few organisations get this, or at least seem to. Even (or rather especially) agencies remain transfixed by old ways of doing things, even as they lecture clients on the need to adapt, and pride themselves on a bespoke approach to each client.

Alright, many now have social media departments or teams, there to advise progressive clients, and liberate slow ones. Some media agencies may be getting into creative and/or production – since what good is the insight that real-time data can tell us, if it’s not put to some tangible application that a client can appreciate? Otherwise, we’re just making them feel bad about how slow they are.

But these innovations can sometimes feel like bolt-ons. We need specialists at first to grow adjacent opportunities, but an agency needs to properly assimilate these practices if it’s going to be the very model of a modern business.

And it’s not just the ‘new’ off-shoots, either. Some media agencies, for example, have ‘strategists’ as well as planners. I’m not sure I understand this. Are they better planners? In which case, why wouldn’t we just make the rest as good? I have a suspicion that agencies are only really as good as their worst practitioner, as the best cannot be spread around, and all clients (and partner agencies) have the power to enhance or degrade an agency’s reputation.

Which brings me back to Aristocracy vs Democracy. The rule of the few vs the rule of the people.

Here’s the thing. I believe that in this age, neither ‘Social’ nor ‘Strategy’ should exist as departments. They are skillsets. They become effective when they are diffused throughout the company, so that they become ways of thinking as much as they are specialisms. They should be democratised, rather than segregated and protected.

I cannot think of one client who doesn’t need strategic and social insight to inform their communications. By sidelining people with these skills, we prevent them having everyday contact with clients. This means we not only fail to encourage new ways of thinking across the business, we also miss a huge opportunity to normalise these essential skills as our bread and butter services.

I understand the grey areas – not least remuneration. But soon enough the issue will become black and white whether we like it or not.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 52 other followers

%d bloggers like this: