Meet the Author

Companies always want to be cool, but few companies actually are. Most are predictable and boring.

If you're predictable and boring, and you ask an agency for cool, what you'll get instead is slick.

Cool requires only one thing: Be unique and do interesting things. Companies that are cool embrace their quirks. They don't find the latest trend and hop in front of it like a dude desperate to lead the parade. They add to the culture and remix it; they don't exploit it. The more you learn about a cool company, the more interesting they are.

Slick is different than cool. Slick looks like cool from across the room, but as soon as you talk to it, you realize it's just a veneer. Slick companies are the farthest thing from interesting. They're more concerned with appearing cool than being cool. It's a short term gimmick, and it never works for long. Once the veneer cracks, you're back to square one. Like Mitt Romney saying, "Who Let The Dogs Out", your customers can smell the inauthenticity.

So if you're a boring company looking to become cool. Don't expect that a slick flash website or cutting edge social media campaign will do the trick. You'll be slick, but definitely not cool.

There are two theories of history. The "Great Man" theory states that history can be understood by looking at the impact of extraordinary individuals over the course of world events (Hitler, Napoleon, Cromwell, etc.). This theory is contrasted with the "World-System" theory. The "World-System" approach proposes that history can only be understood by properly examining macro-economic factors.

Advertising history generally espouses the "Great Man" viewpoint. In advertising lore, these giants of advertising (think Ogilvy, Bernbach, or in modern-day, Bogusky) shift the course of advertising history, and, through sheer charisma and willpower, they change the paradigms of the industry.

This leads me to the core question of this post: Does interactive need a Bill Bernbach to lead us into the next generation of digital marketing?

The short answer is yes. Digital marketing is ripe for the right person to take the mantle of creative leadership and drive the industry forward. This person's agency will move beyond the execution/production role that so many interactive agencies have been relegated to, and realize the opportunity that presents itself to the agency that can master the art of interactive narrative, culture crafting and customer persuasion.

But, there is a caveat. Bernbach wouldn't have thrived to the degree that he did without the social and cultural context of his time-period. So, you can't underestimate the impact of external factors on world events.

That being said there are several external factors currently driving our industry:

• Tactical Execution Is Becoming Commoditized.

  Interface design, search marketing, and development are all facing downward cost pressure as crowd-sourcing and in-sourcing eat away at the margins. The top 10% of talent will always be valued, but the bottom 90% are worth a fraction of what they were in the past. Mediocre work will not be rewarded.

• Digital Agencies Are Evolving.

  Digital agencies are either evolving into "production" houses, or "idea" agencies. The few and lucky might become both, and that is where the next Bernbach will come from.

• Traditional Agencies Are Creating Digital Capabilities.

  The idea that you have to hire a "digital" agency to create interactive marketing will become less and less common. Companies like Crispin Porter - Bogusky already have greater in-house digital capabilities than most of their digital counterparts.

So, how can someone become the next "Great Man" of interactive?

The answer is simple, but it won't be easy. This person must create a digital agency that is more than technicians; they have to master the art of interactive storytelling and persuasion. They have to develop a capacity and a passion for creativity that pushes the industry to create work on a new level. And most importantly, they have to figure out a way to use the medium to create and effect culture on a larger scale.

There's an old saying in boxing:

"A round is not a round, and not all miles are created equal."

There's a huge difference between merely going through the motions of your workout, versus attacking your workout as if you're life depended on it. Two people can do the exact same workout, but the amount of blood, sweat, and tears they put into it can be entirely different. It's simply a matter of intensity. A mile is as hard as you make it.

The same is true of your day-to-day work. The amount of effort you put into it is directly proportional to the end result. You can't expect to become an exceptional designer/writer/programmer without exerting exceptional effort. Sadly, there are no shortcuts. The road to success is paved with intense, focused, hard work over an extended period of time.

Exceptional people make exceptional effort. It's rarely about talent; it's almost always about intensity.

Over the last three weeks, I've noticed a decrease in my productivity. Instead of accomplishing two big tasks off of my to-do list and multiple small tasks each day, I've only been averaging a single large task each day. As I mapped back my performance to my calendar, I noticed an immediate correlation between my productivity and the number of meetings I participated in that day. Any day with more than one meeting resulted in a decrease of my productivity by more than half. Even if it was only two meetings, my productivity plummeted.

Now, we've never been a meeting-centric organization, but I do end up getting pulled into a lot of unnecessary meetings. So moving forward, I'm implementing a new rule for myself. I'll only participate in one scheduled meeting per day (not including lunch).

Is it possible to be President of a company and not get stuck in non-stop meetings every day? I guess we'll just have to find out. I'll let you know how it goes.

We've all heard: "Live each day like it was your last." But, for some reason, we never associate this idea with our lives at work. Recently at LessConference, Cammeron Moll recounted a great story about a husband and wife couple who owned a design agency (if you know the original source of the story, please share in the comments).

One day, the husband died. It was sudden and unexpected. The wife was grieving her husband, she walked into his office and she started to clear off his desk. Sitting on top of the desk was a collection of all his recent works. The work left on his desk was some of the best he'd ever created. He'd died at the peak of his creative work. She found comfort in the fact that when he died, he was still as passionate, and creative about his work as the day they first met. She could see her husband in the legacy of his work. She knew he would be proud of the work he left behind for them to discover.

If you were to die suddenly, what would be your legacy? As you leave your office, ask yourself, what did you leave on your desk today? Is it something you'd be proud of?