The communications industry, which has been based on two fundamental flaws, is in the process of adopting a third.  This is coming as a consequence of “New Media” gurus misinterpreting the importance of new communications tools.

For the sake of those who haven’t read some of my previous posts on communications, I believe the communications industry is based on two basic errors in logic.

First of all, the business is based on how people use time, which is crazy.  The client really doesn’t care how busy or not the people in their agency may be.  They care about whether they are receiving – at a minimum – the value that they expected.  Despite the fact that clients want to buy value, they are charged for time, and time sheets not only drive billing, but remuneration, bonuses, and evaluation of the success of the firm as well.  That is stupid.  Maybe there’s another word – I don’t know what it could be.

Second, the industry has defined itself on the basis of distribution channels, which is also a mistake.  Thus “ad agencies” or “ad practice groups” are so defined because they pay to buy space and/or time to use a distribution channel owned by someone else.  PR firms are defined by virtue of the fact that they try to distribute a message by earning news space or time on someone else’s distribution channel.  Events marketing uses an arena or some other venue.  Digital communications is all about using digital distribution channels.  But in the final analysis, the only issue that is relevant about any distribution channel is whether it is as efficient and powerful in getting a message to an audience as any other distribution channel.  The client doesn’t really care about the distribution channel per se; they care about whether the message reaches their audience.  Clients’ real goals aren’t to be on network TV or YouTube or on someone’s blog – their goals are to increase sales, get more votes, launch a product, etc.  Nevertheless, the industry has allowed itself to be categorized by separate silos (either as free-standing businesses or “practice groups” within agencies) defined exclusively by distribution channel.  That’s stupid too.  That isn’t how the communications industry should be defined.

Now let’s look at the newest fundamental flaw:  the over-exaggeration of the importance of “New Media.”  But first, let’s give social, interactive, digital and other forms of new media their due:  they have changed, and will continue to change the way communications is executed from now on.  Granted 100%.  New Media is changing communications the same way the power drill changed the furniture industry:  wonderful and new tools that absolutely should be understood and fully exploited.  But they are tools, not fundamentals that should redefine the industry.

New Media gurus are using their new media tools to spread the word about how important those tools are.  In so doing, they are proving the value of the tools, but they are also communicating a message that will ultimately fall because it is so over-exaggerated.  And when that happens, we’ll be reminded of the priority of message once again.

But in the meantime, who’s falling for the hype more than anyone else?  The communications industry itself – just as it fell for the other two fundamental flaws noted above.

While being seduced by a hype, the industry is also missing a much more significant revolution: as journalism dies or morphs into some sort of neo-journalism, those businesses that currently define themselves as advertising or PR or event or digital or whatever agencies will need to morph into content providers without any bias to any particular distribution channel(s).

As that happens, the most important value communications firms will provide will relate less to how a message gets to an audience, and more to whether the content being provided is of such value that it can compete successfully for the time and attention of the people you want to reach.  Only if and when that can be answered “yes,” will the issues of which channels should be used and how the message should be packaged become important and critical questions.  But they aren’t the priority questions.

The Priority Questions Are About Content.

The over-exaggeration of new media is reshaping the way the industry is defining itself.  The third flaw is being added.  And it is being added at precisely the time when the focus should be on the value of the message.  That doesn’t make sense.  Why does the communications industry have a tendency to not make sense?