The first topic was: "Are digital agencies blinding clients with science?" This looked at issues such as can a campaign be called successful if it has only earned 100 Twitter followers - even if they are thought of as highly influential. Is click-through rate really a meaningful measurement of success and is digital better based purely on the fact that it can be tracked.
The speakers for the opposing team were Ivan Moroke, Arthur Charles van Wyk and Matthew Buckland. The speakers from the proposing team were Nikki Cockcroft and Andy Gilder. There were some very interesting points made by both sides of the debate.
The proposing team argued that one must consider that in marketing digital is merely a tool and that digital "ninjas" cannot drag clients into the 21st century by using stats and measurement with no meaning to back up their entire campaign. They also made the argument that the complexity of the digital tool and digital platforms are not the client's problem and thus it is the agency's responsibility to educate them fully on what is happening and how their brand will be affected by a digital strategy.
They continued to say that that digital marketing is still about the people and not about the technology and this is what those using digital tools need to remember. A bold statement was that there is no such thing as a social influencer but merely popular individuals who are targeted in various digital platforms. Addressing the point of measurability they argued that although it is the most measurable tool in marketing it is currently in a mess due to its fragmented nature, all platforms need to be somehow funnelled together to speak one language and that is where the challenge lies. A very interesting point was brought up that Facebook was never created with advertising in mind; it was created with the idea of connecting people and that is what agencies need to remember when using it to further their brands.
The opposing team raised the point that no agencies are not blinding their clients and if your audience is 400 people then having a twitter following of 100 is good; it is all relative to the brand in question. Any company that blinds their client into using digital is looking at having a very short-lived relationship with that client and agencies want long-lasting relationships. But there will always be schemers who will try to blind their clients to make a quick buck. It is still about integrated campaigns where digital works alongside traditional tools. Addressing the point of measurability that is not the only reason that digital is so popular it is also innovative and not limited. It's the bad agencies that blind clients with stats and make things more complex than they need to be.
The opposing team won the debate and the overall conclusion was that agencies are not blinding their clients, digital is a measurable tool and will continue to be used for that reason (amongst others) as well as the fact that there will be chancers but they will never having lasting relationships that actually matter.
The second topic was: Who wants to be a giant in a Lilliput? Is South African digital work really world class. This debate was between the African Council of Digital Producers (ACDP) and the Digital Alliance (DA). The ACDP held that South African digital work was not up to scratch and local agencies need to stop messing around. On the ACDP side was Graham Warsop and Jason Xenopaulos. The DA argued that not only is South African work commensurate with regional budgets and deliverables; it is better suited to local marketers and users. On the side of the DA were Rob Stokes and Mike Sharman.
The proposing team brought up the most obvious argument that if you look at the fact - international awards - South Africa have none (except for the Carling Be The Coach campaign). They added that great work changes behaviour and how much of South African digital work actually changes behaviour in the same way that international brands are doing it. This is by no means a reason to stop "punching above our weight", but we aren't there yet even if the potential is. They appealed to the audience to go out and do work that would make them proud as well as their country proud.
The opposing team made the very valid point that although important, awards aren't everything and that there are many international companies that are using South African agencies to do work for them and are doing so because they trust them. So doesn't that make us world class?
The general consensus of this debate was that although South African digital work isn't world class yet, we can get there we just need to aim for the top. It was also agreed that our country's infrastructure in comparison to international countries is setting us back, but this is no excuse.
The final topic was: Building long-term social communities is more important than creating expensive conceptual campaigns. The proposing team consisted of Dan Pinch and David Moffatt and the apposing team consisted of Nicholas Wittenberg and Jacqui, who filled in for Isis Nyongo.
The proposing team argued that having people 'liking' your brand is proof that they actually care and that they value your brand. Social media can be used to listen, respond and improve and when another economic crisis hits us and agencies are cutting their budgets, social media will still be free. They argued that the campaigns are short lived and are budgeted for only a few weeks or months, then your audience wonders off to find something better - the next campaign. It boils down to short sales vs long-term relationships. They call it "campaign thinking". But they do agree, social media needs to work alongside traditional media and money does need to be spent.
The opposing team stated that Africa is a mobile nation, if you look at the number of Facebook accounts in South Africa vs the number of sim cards, it is clear to see where they are at. They used the example of people calling their Facebook friends "just Facebook friends", these friends are not people that they would go and have drinks with - and this is what is happening to brands on Facebook as well. It is about reaching the masses in South Africa and that is not going to happen on a social media platform: it is going to happen by playing on their level.
After the debate it was decided that although social communities are important, money needs to be spent and other tools used to create valuable campaigns and long lasting relationships.
