Why creative-media integration remains a white whale.
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are mine alone and do not reflect any policy, strategy, or opinion of any client or employer — past, present, or future.)
Every agency pitch meeting today is guaranteed to include three narrative beats:
Let’s talk about #3.
To date, I’ve been in the middle of five good faith efforts at creative-media integration: two local, one regional, two global. All for Fortune 50 brands. All involving dozens of interagency people. I’ve sat on both the creative agency and media agency sides, trying to bridge the divide in the name of superior effectiveness.
In principle, creative-media integration has made sense since the birth of advertising. But as an industry, we’ve been simultaneously touting its benefits while degrading its possibility for decades. AI, big data, digital, programmatic, social media, cable TV, holdco disruptions—be damned.
It remains a white whale.
But maybe not for the obvious reasons (e.g., typical interagency politics, egos, misaligned business models, etc.). Let’s hold those constant for now—assume them inevitable.
For the record, I believe integration is still worth trying. Any integration is better than none, and magic can happen—just not consistently or sustainably. Here’s why:
Mishaps Make Unicorns
Bluntly, it’s lucrative to climb the natural, linear career ladder at either a creative or media agency.
Manager → Supervisor → Director → VP within creative or media. Specialization tends to increase salary.
But the talent needed for creative–media integration are the ones who, at some point, fell off that ladder—or jumped off it—in hopes of some deferred gain. These are people who’ve powered through at least one uncomfortable, fish-out-of-water career move. And there’s only a narrow 3–5 year window where this kind of switch is even feasible—before mortgages, kids, and real-life risk aversion make it too costly.
Imagine a brand planner learning to read a reach-frequency curve for the first time. Or a media activation person explaining how in-platform limitations affect an ECD’s big idea.
The irony? Integration depends on assembling enough of these misfit unicorns—people our industry systematically discourages from ever existing.
They’re out there. But they’re systemically rare AF.
The Day-to-Day Reality
Everyone can recognize a cool idea in a big presentation—creative, media, and clients alike.
The problem lies in the unspoken, day-to-day priorities: the actual job of being a creative person vs. a media person.
In their day jobs—away from the big client presentations—creative people obsess over the idea, the message, the execution, and how it all works together.
Meanwhile, most media people can do 90% of their job without knowing, caring about, or influencing any of those things. And so they don’t.
Media teams often plan and buy inventory without knowing the message—because the creative isn’t ready, because it’s not perceived to matter, or both. On the media side, so many other levers and constraints must be considered that the prevailing belief is: as long as the creative is of “average quality,” it doesn’t matter. And to be fair, many platforms and best practices reinforce this: creative is cosmetic; reach is king. They might as well be buying to place blank white squares.
Creative people believe just the opposite: all media is wasted if the message is irrelevant or uninteresting.
Creative agencies also operate with a “make” mindset—every step drives toward producing and shipping a “thing.” Media agencies operate with an “optimize” mindset—where there’s no beginning, no end, nothing to ship.
This mindset difference may seem harmless, but it’s actually insidious. To a creative, “optimize” often means adopting proven best practice—which is the enemy of bold, never-been-done ideas. To a media person, “make” implies a finality that justifies the required effort and pain. But if there’s no end, then why suffer?
The Client Factor
Here’s the hard truth: most clients don’t fully understand the integration they’re asking for—and many don’t actually want it.
Why? Because many clients are specialized too—often transplants from either creative or media. They can’t connect the dots either. They’re not unicorns, either.
Second, integration requires a willingness to encroach on others’ territory. That means influencing your colleagues’ decisions—and being open to theirs. Silos are safe. Silos are efficient. Silos are comfortable.
Finally, not only is integration harder—it’s slower. More coordination, more learning curve, more negotiation, more unknowns, more justifying to their bosses. Clients say they want integration. But when the clock is ticking, they go with what they can deliver.
Ultimately, integration is the last thing AI and data will fix—because it’s the most human thing to fix.
Not because the tech can’t.
But because most of the humans involved can’t—and when they can, they won’t.
And so the white whale laughs.
///
Creative + Consulting + Tech + Media + Cultures
2wWell put! It's two contrarian mindsets and business models, content vs form debate since 300BC.
Executive Director, Experience Strategy, EMEA at Landor
1mo'Ah, Bartleby,' I said, 'this is the last time I’ll ask: will you integrate the media plan with the creative strategy?' 'I would prefer not to,' he whispered.
Serving up strategic cold-cuts in a world of lukewarm hot-takes / Strategy @ Quality Meats Creative:
1moAs someone who’s jumped between media brand comms I can attest to the frustrations involved in bridging the two The wonky analogy I use is simcity and the sims Media agency people are playing simcity, they see the infrastructure and the buildings, but the people are just little dots Creative agency people are playing the sims, they’re focusing on linear stories at a human level Being able to hold both things in your head at the same time is tough