There’s a lot of focus today on technology, metrics and social media in marketing departments. Given the pace of digital innovation, it's inevitable. However, it’s also directly responsible for a lot of really dull and often juvenile marketing gimmicks and advertising.

In a Business Week article, titled “The Demise of the Mad Men,” Jeff Bussgang, a partner at a venture capital firm, says that the nerds are taking over advertising.

With the rampant digitization of advertising and the explosive growth of performance-based marketing, the nerds are taking over advertising...

The advertising agencies are thus in a structural box, a classic case of Innovator's Dilemma. Meanwhile, venture capitalists and entrepreneurs smell blood. Young companies are going directly to CMOs to mine their marketing budgets. And marketers are more aggressive about experimenting with new media with the help of niche consultants and technology providers.

The problem with this scenario is you can’t bore people into buying stuff.

When applied to advertising, technology still requires creativity to connect with people and persuasion to sell product.

In a previous post, “The new creative revolution: Is the writer, art director partnership coming to an end?” I argued that the new creative team should be an idea and tech team.

The system is no longer efficient, effective, or valid. As with so many other things, technology is making it redundant.

In this day and age, doesn’t it make more sense that an advertising idea person is teamed with a technology person?

We think so and that’s what we’re doing. We team a strategic planner with a creative idea person and a technology person in what we call a cell. The cell is the key contact and collaborator with our clients. Integration is achieved at the point of planning and each person in the cell is free to collaborate with whoever they need to execute. This is the foundation of our structure and what we believe is a more relevant model for the 21st century. We also recognize that not many agencies can do this. Especially the large ones, organized as they are around silos.

Heavy investment in an outdated organizational model makes it difficult, if not impossible for large agencies to react and change based on the new realities of marketing. However, that doesn’t mean all agencies. Smaller innovative agencies and younger start ups are not encumbered by the old way of doing things and can structure themselves accordingly to take advantage of all the digital opportunities out there. And by doing so, offer marketers something they can’t get from either digital agencies or the large traditional agencies: A seamless merger of both, resulting in far better and more effective ideas.

Referring to the same article, Ad Pulp doesn’t agree with much of what Bussgang has to say either:

The reality is ad agency holding companies can go away and the ad agency business will be fine, no, better than fine. For one, there are thousands of independently owned agencies today. Wieden + Kennedy, The Richards Group and RPA are the biggest and most well known indies, but as Bussgang suggests, "young companies" are increasingly being invited to the big time marketers table.

It would be easy to deduce from Bussgang's article that "young companies" and "niche consultants" with "big ideas" are ready to rock. Given the rise of shops like Wexley School for Girls and Creature in Seattle, and countless others around the world, I have no fear for the marketing communications industry. Like media itself, the agency business has exploded into a multi-channel offering. The trick is to know where to look, and to have a knack for assembling teams from a variety of disciplines.

In fact, Bussgang doesn’t seem to agree with himself:

The only saving grace for the industry may be that their remains great power in the Big Idea. Great creative can still move the needle and provides the direction for all that whiz bang, targeted, performance-based execution.

Tactics, technology and the nerds that come along with it can help make advertising better, but will never replace experience, knowledge and good old fashioned creative ideas. Why? Because, although technology may change, people don’t.