The Gilded Age of Integration

Integration is a devilishly tricky concept to pull off.

The idea and appeal of integration is obvious - a collection of disparate parts, working together, to achieve something greater than each is capable of independently.

The challenge arises in actually realizing the true promise of the concept, because so many things look and sound like integration, but are merely a fragile jumble of smart/interesting/clever things piled on top of one another.

Integration - for communications ideas - is only realized when each interdependent component, each decision, each stakeholder orchestrating the campaign, is both coherent with one another (e.g. conceptually, stylistically, strategically, and distinctively similar and aligned), and additive to the overall system. It's not enough to be either coherent or additive, both work together to unlock the incremental benefits of integration.

Using multiple channels for a campaign does not guarantee integration.

Trafficking the same core creative assets across placements does not guarantee integration.

Tapping into a sole source of data for targeting does not guarantee integration.

Integration requires more than simplification. It may be tempting to think that integration is the result of ruthless simplification down to a single core expression of an idea. Making something simpler may make it easier to make it coherent across different parts of a plan, but it is also limiting. Aiming for coherence accomplishes the same benefit, things are recognizably contributing to the same idea, but also facilitates more expansive creative applications that build on top of the idea.

Each piece must be coherently part of the same structure, and additive. Each part needs to adapt to fully fulfill its role within the campaign: creative must be fit for format, appeal to a slightly adjacent audience or community, create a fascinating tease to set up the later twist/reveal, build a familiar asset to be referenced by others as social proof. Each thing is different, connected, and adds up to something bigger. Repetition alone across components does not multiply, let alone exponentially increase, the potential of a system.

It works the same for the integration of teams or collaborations. Each component part must be part of a coherent system - aligned in intent, be able to create a shared language with nuanced meaning, and common understanding of the world - and additive, each piece adding incremental perspectives, talents, or depth/stability to the overall system.

Proximity does not guarantee integration.

Sequence & process does guarantee integration.

Setting a direction does not guarantee integration.

Teams - those that perform well, far beyond simple collections of talent - are all built this way. There's a coherent and collective drive behind their approach and each role adds differentiated value to the team - there's a framework, and then freedom within it to adapt and overdeliver. The give and take and ability to build upon each other makes the shared ambition far more likely to be achieved.

This is a dark parallel, but epidemics need the right conditions to grow. A campaign will fizzle out without coherent, integrated support to give it the exact right nudges to grow beyond it's basic tactics. Teams, partnerships, even agencies, will struggle, without the hard work to build a coherent structure, then empower people to add to it. Then you are able to "infect" a campaign or a team with effective integration; it will spread without you having to constantly feed it, the system becomes self-sustaining.

(OK, fine. That last bit's hyperbole for the sake of the anecdote...integrated systems need a boatload of tending and fueling, but you get the point - a truly integrated idea or team invites in its own energy and momentum).