Are "screens" the most powerful brand drivers? It depends.

Just read a Fast Company article that showcased a debate between Saatchi & Saatchi's Worldwide CEO and Ogilvy & Mather's Exec. Creative Director for the Brand Integration Group. Interesting discussion, but I'm not sure I quite understood what they were arguing about.

I think they both agreed that ideas can start anywhere and I think they both agreed that "screens" (e.g. PC, TV, DVD, movie, Playstation, etc.) were powerful ways to touch people, but I guess they were arguing whether screens were the most powerful driver.

Interesting thought and some really good points follow in the article, but really, who cares? After all, I believe in the beautiful but eternally frustrating phrase, "it depends." When my clients ask me a question, like, "What should we be measuring?" or "What should we have on our home page?" or "Shouldn't we be using rich media for our online ads?" hoping for that simple, succinct, strong stance that they can definitively take to their boss, I unfortunately usually have to say, "it depends." Because it does. Much of what we do in marketing has completely to do with context. What is the consumer like? How do they get their information and entertainment? I mean, how are you going to affect that consumer that gets her news from a newspaper and her entertainment from books or shopping or going to museums? What screen will you use for her?

Anyway, in that way I have to agree more (but not completely) with the Ogilvy guy. He at least acknowledges that other elements can be just as or more powerful. I think he was put in the unfortunate position of almost arguing against screens, but c'mon, they are ubiquitous and a huge part of our lives, so sometimes they are the best option.

That's why discussions like this seem kind of silly. I think both of these guys would ultimately agree with my views. But then, Fast Company wouldn't have a story, huh?