As communications (or conversations as we’re now calling them) become more complex, so too does it strategic development.
Account planning. Connection planning. Interactive strategy.
All three are critical to ensuring the best conversation possible.
But what the hell are they?
That’s the question I’m often asked by junior planners or planners in study.
Here’s the most basic breakdown:
Account planning is about relationships: We spend time finding the right things to talk about to build the right relationships between things.
Connection planning is about context:
We spend time understanding the experience the ideal consumer goes
through in the shopping process and identify the proper media and
messages for each stage of that process.
Interactive strategy is about behavior: We spend time answering the question, “what do you want people to do next?”
Now
it’s not to say that context is solely the preserve of CP and
relationships solely for AP. Any great strategist operates/thinks on
all three levels simultaneously. However the demands of each strategy
and the fast pace of the ad business mean that people need to be
devoted to each one in order to properly meet deadlines. But again,
just because you focus on one doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be fluent in
the other. That said, the future of strategy is filled with planners
who can step into any of these three roles and competently develop
strategy for each. So while these represent job titles, we should start
thinking of them more as ways of thinking about a problem.
ACCOUNT PLANNING
Account planning, the most widely known and practiced strategy, has a ton of blog space devoted to it’s history, principles, practices and future so I won’t spend anytime on it.
CONNECTION PLANNING
As
best as I can tell (and feel free to help me with my story because I
know it’s not 100% right), connection planning started percolating at
the turn of the century when the idea of media expanded. Media became
anything that carried information. That’s when we started getting the
Mini on top of a Suburban to promote “small.” 
I think it was around 2004
that the conversation started shifting towards experiences. Agencies,
looking to move beyond the TV ad, started touting the experiences they
could produce by integrating all these media around specific targets.
“I Love Bees” and “Audi’s Art of the Heist” are examples of this.
Because of this short evolution, the connection planning process goes as such:
#1
Identify who does and should drive the business. Who currently drives
purchases? Who influences those purchasers? Is there are another
segment that could be more profitable?
#2 Identify the brand
experience. What stages are there in the purchase process (even ones
that go beyond purchase)? What do people seek/value at each stage? What
are their current sources of information? Does the brand properly
deliver on those informational/experiential needs? What is the mindset
at each stage? Where are there opportunities for the brand to improve
the entire experience?
#3 Identify what types of media will be
more effective for each stage given the consumer’s mindset and
information needs. This isn’t about picking media vehicles like TV,
newspaper or outdoor billboards. This is about being media agnostic by
describing the characteristics a body of media will need to properly
connect with the target and deliver the information. Again, media can
be anything. So if I tell a creative team that “informative media” are
important at X stage, they have more room to think of interesting media
than if I had told them “Brochures are need here.” Same would happen if
I tell them “we need grassroots media here” vs. “We need to develop
some wild postings.” The idea is to leave room open for innovation of
media vehicles rather than just innovation of content. For more
thoughts on types of media read John Grant’s book After Image.
#4
Deliver the info to creatives after the idea. The one weakness of
connection planning (though manageable) is that it can info overload
for creatives. My suggestion is to let the creatives develop an idea
first then provide them the CP learning so that they can figure out how
their idea fits in the experience needs of the consumer. It’s a bit
like gardening. Let the seed you plant sprout first. Then give it the
lattice to guide its growth.
INTERACTIVE STRATEGY.
Interactive
strategy is interesting. It’s probably the most misunderstood strategy
as it is the newest one to come under the wing of ad agencies. If I had
to guess, I think most agencies see IS as data analysis and
optimization of online behavior. This includes a lot of search engine
optimization, banner placement optimization, conversion rates, etc.
Lots of data, like I said. And sure this is important part of
understanding the online space and finding insights, but this is a
sliver of what IS offers to ad agencies.
Here’s how I look at
it: IS is the glue of integration. This is the strategy that links up
everything agencies do – online and offline. It’s about designing and
creating functionality and mechanisms that spur action among the
consumer to visit other executions, visit a showroom, play a treasure
hunt game, share a video, participate in an event, customize a product
online, invite a friend or opt into a newsletter – for example. Like I
said earlier, it answers the question, “what do you want people to do
next.” In short, IS finds ways to pull your consumers further into the rabbit hole.
That
said, I think “interactive strategy” is a misnomer. It immediately
makes you think only of the online space. This style of strategy should
be called participation strategy because “getting people to do the next thing” is not limited to the online world.
I hope more of us start blogging about CP and IS/PS. Each is a rich territory for development and new ideas.
LINK













