It’s a long, long, long time

Route’s managing director, James Whitmore, examines how technological innovations in the way we communicate have evolved throughout history, from an Edwardian Royal Mail to today’s Google Glass – and asks how much, in this digital age, has really changed at all.

“I remember when my computer took ages to crank up – and, I had to go to the shop to buy something.” Thus spake a youngish chap at a presentation I witnessed recently.

My first experience of a computer was translating an equation into binary code, punching holes in a card, inserting it into the machine and finally translating the output back into numerals.

To add insult to injury, I then had to complete the calculation “long hand” to check that the process had run correctly. I also recall being able to telephone a retailer and place an order to be delivered to my home.

That perspective differs with age is hardly news.

Recent coverage of the IPA’s agency survey highlights the finding that only around 5% of agency employees are older than fifty. I don’t think it too unreasonable to assume that the numbers are similar for the other sectors of the communications industry that are not represented in the study.

I therefore assume that 95% of those reading this are younger than me. As a member of the ‘one in twenty’, how do I see the world differently, if indeed I do?

I guess that the single area where one most often gets suspected of being an old fart is in the area of technological change. Not ejaculating expressions of wonder at each increment in the march of digital progress can swiftly mark one down in the estimation of those who have not seen it all before.

Technological advances make things quicker before it makes them cheaper – it may or may not lead to better results. What it very rarely does is alter fundamental behaviour, by which I mean basic human action.

In Edwardian London, the Royal Mail had reached such a fever pitch of efficiency that there were as many as nine postal deliveries each day. It was perfectly possible to send a note and receive a reply during office hours. You could mail an order to the shop of your choice and be assured of delivery before the close of business.

What the office worker of one hundred years ago probably did not do, was copy his correspondence to each of his colleagues as well as, for good measure, all his known associates. He would not have been able to afford the stamps.

(Email is perceived as being largely free of charge. This greatly speeds and increases the volume of communication. It might not make it more efficient. It is tempting to speculate on the gains to GDP if people were asked to pay for each addressee of every email.)

The long view adds perspective. I shouldn’t for one moment suggest that business worked better at the start of the twentieth century. At the same time, how we do things today is not necessarily a fundamental leap just because it is powered by electricity.

Once upon a time, bibles were so big that it took two monks to lift one. They were the original desktop resource, with access limited to a few specialists. With the advent of the printing press, the book became portable and universally available. The journey of computers from the desks of the few to the pockets of the many has been far more rapid – but it is the same journey.

Generally speaking, you can relate new stuff to the old. For example, Google Glass is essentially a head-up display for normal folk. Jet fighters have boasted HUDs for over fifty years. Travelling at the speed of sound whilst trying to kill people who are trying to kill you, the technology offers fractional but critical time saving to the highly skilled pilot. The same functionality has been available in cars for over twenty-five years. It hasn’t caught on.

Time horizons are shorter in advertising but perhaps longer than we allow. Another recent IPA initiative, Les Binet and Peter Field’s report on the short and long term effects of advertising, is a timely attempt to alert us to the increasing penchant for short term effects, largely driven by the supposedly ‘measureable’ nature of much ‘connected’ communication.

You cannot have positive long-term effects without the short term. But positive short-term effects do not automatically lead to positive results in the long term. You must therefore eye both when you set out on a particular course of action.

Chasing the next quarter’s targets with finely tuned brand response mechanisms will only go so far. You do not create a dependable customer base and long-term brand preferences overnight. The required emotional priming builds over a number of years. It is a different form of communication that leads to fame. A consistent creative connection with consumers will harden price and improve profitability.

The tragedy is that old timers will know this anyway. They will not just know the theory; they will have seen and experienced the practice. Whippersnappers may nod to the theory but gloss over the application.

It is naïve to favour a channel simply because it purports to give immediate ‘real-time response metrics’. Yet for many this is the fashion.

By way of example, much ‘return path’ communication in the ‘mobile space’ relies on some sort of consumer reward. “You do this and I will give you that.” Pavlov did it with dogs. If we are so desperate to prove that the technology works that we resort to bribing people to interact in a pre-ordained way, are we really moving forward at all? Leaving aside what it says for the long-term pricing of a brand. Woof woof.

It is avowedly exciting to experience such rapid change in the application of technology to all forms of communication. Care is needed to ensure that it is not an end in itself. Form and function are only the means by which we communicate and act. What drives action is behaviour – and in many respects that is immutable. As in all things, balance is the key.

Everything changes but it fundamentally stays the same.