The whole is less than the sum of its parts

I bought a nice bottle of red a couple of months ago.

First time that had ever happened. First time I’d ever bought a bottle of wine from a shop and been delighted with my purchase.

In fact after many years of failure, I was starting to lose faith in my patented Wine Selector System (A x B - C = How Good The Wine Is, where A is the price, B is how funky the label is and C is minus 20% if it’s a screwtop).

But then, as I say, success.

I remember the wine well: a Grenache Shiraz by Rosemount (I had given it bonus points, D, because of the way the bottle became square at the base).

And then, by jingo, it happened again.

A week later (I’m not an alcoholic) I went and bought a different bottle of wine. And that was delicious too! A few days later (hey, it was for friends, not me) I bought a third bottle. Different again, delectable again!

I’d cracked it. Somehow, I’d discovered the skills of an expert sommelier, able to divine a top tipple better than Simon Cowell can sniff out bland boy bands.

It was fantastic, this sudden ability to discern fine wine from cheap plonk.

But at the weekend, after yet another success, the truth dawned on me.

I haven’t gained the ability to glance at a supermarket shelf and tell good bottle from bad at all. My abilities haven’t changed – my palate has.

All of a sudden, I simply like wine. All of it. Whether it’s Chateauneuf Du Pape or Blue Nun. Communion wine, Le Piat D’or, Lambrusco – I’ll gargle it all and declare I can taste a subtle hint of British strawberries, a whiff of fresh peat and just a soupcon of shoe leather.

I’d assumed I was making better choices, but in truth, my gob’s just got less fussy.

Now, with the barest hint of a contrived link, I’ve been thinking about something else people sometimes make a poor assumption about. Integrated campaigns.

The poor assumption being that it’s always better to integrate different communications.

But... what’s the point of an integrated campaign?

I would suggest that the reason to integrate different media communications is so the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. So that, for instance, someone sees your TV ad and your press ad and your email and then gets your mailpack – and as a result of getting your message four times, responds.

Which sounds both logical and wonderful. And if that’s your audience’s experience, then you’ve definitely got a campaign. And it should certainly be integrated.

But… what if that’s not their experience?

What if 80% of the people getting your mailing haven’t seen the email? And 95% have never – and will never – see your TV ad? Is it still a campaign? Should those three different communications still be ‘integrated’?

Personally, I don’t think so. At least, not automatically, which seems to be the assumption nowadays.

I think charities sometimes fall into the trap of thinking what they’re doing is a campaign, when actually it’s just a bunch of media that happen to be running at the same time. If you haven’t got the spend of NSPCC launching ‘Full Stop’ then the chances are most of your audience won’t see a campaign. Most will just see one medium.

And if they’re just seeing your communication in one medium, then I think that medium should play to its strengths. Some of which you might have had to forego if you were making everything integrated – which I’ve seen happen lots of times. You have a great idea that works for direct mail, but because it only works in that medium, you can’t use it, because “It wouldn’t be integrated with the poster campaign”. The poster campaign that approximately 0.001% of your mailing audience will see. 

So I’d never automatically assume integration is good.

If the figures suggest most of your audience won’t see more than one or two ‘impressions’ then it may not be worth bothering with. Because you’ll do something which looks integrated to you, when you’ve got the work spread out on the board room table, but which won’t be seen like that by the audience. 

Yet because your ‘integrated campaign’ has forced all the different media to look and sound alike, ignoring their individual strengths, each will perform individually worse than they would have done if they’d been able to go their own way (within the confines of the overall proposition and your brand).

Which leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. Unlike, say, my wine choices.

Right, I’ve got a large glass of Babycham with my name on it.