Mark Beeching

What is an interactive agency, and has the definition changed since the boom years of the Internet?

The first time around it was 1990s optimism about all these wonderful things we can do now, so let's change the business model and transform everything. But just because you had a new way of doing something, it didn't mean that it was engaging or motivating to the customer. Then you had the crash and decline, which was great in some ways, because it weeded out a lot of the gung-ho simplistic novelty factor of the Web. Now with the revival of the Web and broadband and with the pruning that went on, there is now much more rigor about being smart about what the customer wants and brand literacy.

An interactive agency is where you both touch the customer, and respond to the customer. It is creative marketing, rather than just messaging.

Can you give me an example of a campaign you've worked on where there was perfect synergy between the Web and other media outlets?

The work we did for the NYC card for American Express with Ogilvy & Mather. The center of gravity was the Web, and about being part of the social scene and helping people to go places. People could take photos of themselves at various places and post them online. We did the Web work and O&M did the outdoor work. We built up a local buzz and a community brand, and then you were physically in the landscape. So here you had a new card, the super local viral community of the Web world and that spilled over into the real world, the New York landscape.

What are your views about the way photography is being used online?

If you look at pornography on the Web, you get the two extremes. You get images getting even more manipulated and airbrushed, but then you get the "readers' wives"-type image where people are striving for authenticity. It's like going from soaps to reality TV. It is happening all over the Web and not just in porno, this double trend of stuff being Flash animated, an artificial cyber world and then people wanting a more real, less polished disposable, behind-the-curtain type of image.

We've just done a shoot for the AMEX Centurion black card with the Paris-based Jessica Antola [a former PDN 30]. It is the card where if you don't spend $350, 000 a year, they take it away from you. We photographed all over the world. Forget aspirational: these people are already there. It was super glossy but we didn't want the photography to be staid or formal, it had to be shot in an authentic way. So even in super premium photography, we are looking for the real.

Do you think photography can have as much impact online as if can in a magazine?

Everyone these days has a super-sexy sleek little printer, so to what extent are people looking at images online? More importantly, one of the killer applications of broadband is sharing photography. So not only can it now have immediate impact, but you are a participant, rather than just a passive onlooker. Digital and wireless have released a new energy about photography, and people are finding new ways to document what they see.



True, but doesn't the accessibility of the medium mean that it is going to denigrate serious professional photography?

It is very interesting because I've been looking a lot at blogs and their photographic equivalents. When you see so much shitty photography on the Web, it brings into sharp contrast what makes great photography. It is a leveling medium and everyone has access to it, so real talent rises up. The democracy of the Web brings out quality.



So you think advertising photography is still going to have the necessary impact?

Yes I do. It puts more of an impact on photography having real value; rather than just grabbing attention. You now have to earn the customer's attention. It has to have more content and substance and not just veneer.



What do you look for in photographers you hire?

A point of view.



Do you think online advertising has a bad reputation?

Rightly so. Half the problem is that a lot of advertising is about shouting louder, rather than listening harder. I was on a panel and everyone was talking about what makes compelling online creative, site takeovers, etc. It wasn't about compelling advertising; it was about how could we compel people to see our creative. So it seems that we are still shouting at people who have paid for access, even though the medium is much more intimate and task-oriented. You can't just simply ambush the user.



So is it getting better?

It's uneven. Forty percent of the advertising on the Web is spent on searching keywords?not good for photography. We are helping people find what they are looking for, but how are we going to stimulate desire? That's the big challenge.

For example, we also did a campaign for the Open Small Business Network of American Express. In the evolution of the campaign, we used David Collins, the creator of Queer Eye For the Straight Guy. So we used the Fab 5 in these really great entertaining short films which people could watch online. Yet there was a kind of disconnect where you just sat back and watched. We then did a series of photo essays, rather than film, on five small business owners from across the States. The stills were put together in sequence and set to interviews. I felt that it suited the campaign more. Broadband doesn't just mean streaming video and film; stills can be a more preferred and interactive way of getting people involved. It is a lean forward, rather than a lean back experience with the user driving the pace and the narrative.



What trends do you like/dislike in advertising photography?

Like: Real people. Dislike: Photoshop. Meaning that I hate the way not very good photography is being spruced up and tried to be made more interesting.



What is you favorite piece of technology?

Radio. It gives me the best pictures.