Last week I posted about the Kony 2012 campaign promoted by the non-profit group Invisible Children. Since then, the video is being called “the most viral video of all time” by Mashable and has reached 100 million plus views. In the wake of this online phenomenon, many critics have come forward discrediting not only the campaign but also Invisible Children.

One common criticism revolves around the finances of Invisible Children, specifically the amount of money that actually goes to direct services and their lack of financial transparency. Several sources have noted that only 32% of Invisible Children’s funds go to direct contributions. In response to this criticism, Invisible Children’s CEO Ben Keesey released this video http://vimeo.com/38344284 as a follow up. In it he says, “Any claims that we don’t have financial transparency, or that we’re not audited every year by an independent firm, or that we don’t have financial integrity, just aren’t true.”

Another claim is that the Kony video is over simplifying the issue and promoting slactivism. For those who don’t know, Urban dictionary defines slactivism as “engaging socially in activism that requires little or no effort as part of a lifestyle or self-identity”. Is this a complicated issue? Absolutely. Is more action required than watching a video? Absolutely. But the fact that people are watching the video, sharing the video,being inspired, talking about human rights and foreign policy…that is what matters.

Another most upsetting (in my opinion) claim is that Kony 2012 is a representation of the white man’s burden. We could get into a whole other debate that I am very interested and passionate about… but references to race and imperialism are a stretch here. This is about a few people who were influenced by another individual’s struggle and story, and felt compelled to share it.

Keesey notes that Invisible Children bases their business around three areas- media, advocacy, and development.  They aim to create compelling content to raise awareness; to motivate people to become engaged advocates; and then apply their resources on the ground. With regards to those key principals, the Kony 2012 video was a complete success.

Though Crispin, Porter + Bogusky’s Jeff Benjamin had some big shoes (Alex Bogusky’s) to fill, he offered some valuable commentary on the importance of creativity in breathing life into any online experience, even if it’s just a banner ad: [paraphrased] It’s not about the different types of boxes we can use. Rather, it’s the what we put into those boxes that matters.

The fourteen-line constraints of the sonnet and the rigidity of iambic pentameter, Benjamin reminded listeners, arguably enhanced Shakespeare’s creative genius. More specifically, brilliant creativity within the context of widely recognizable form, Benjamin seems to suggest, has the capabilitiy of resonating more strongly with a broader audience than more novel forms of creativity.

A different spirit, however, was championed in the paneled session “Why Can’t I Sell Games to My Clients?” – particuarly, by Gaia Online’s Chris Davis. Standardization of advertising forms (e.g., banner ads), Davis argued, is the killer of creativity. Gaia – which calls itself an “online hangout, incorporating social networking, forums, gaming and a virtual world” – offers brands opportunities to integrate messaging and experiences into their online, virtual world (which caters largely to teenagers). Beyond novelty, gaming reportedly offers competitive advantages to tradtitional advertising: longer engagement, a captive audience, and more natural interactions with brands (if executed well).

So which side is right? Which is more important to engaging audiences—creativity or form? Both views, in a sense, are right, I think.

Creativity – and, more practically, content – will always be king. Regardless of the medium it may utilize, any sticky message must hinge on a good idea. And, for most audiences, messages conveyed through standard forms may be more identifiable as messages they should (or shouldn’t listen to). But, the ‘standard’ forms of messaging are constantly changing; what is novel today is ‘standard’ tomorrow. Mobile marketing, for instance, is becoming an increasingly ‘standard’ (and, indeed, necessary) notion to understand. Mary Meeker predicts our content consumption of the mobile internet will surpass PC-accessed internet usage by 2014.

Beyond content, however, creativity also characterizes the identification of relevant, new opportunities to engage important audiences. Thinking ‘outside the box’ is ever-important in a world where people – namely, the younger demographic – are increasingly immune to and cynical about straight-ahead, traditional messaging, even if told in an interesting way. And, more importantly, where brands can find their audiences (cough, social media) and, hence, the forms they use to reach them are changing dramatically (e.g., the rise of the mobile internet). That is, it isn’t enough to think about what stuff to put in a box, if no one cares what’s in it. If the recipient is no longer accepting the package, it’s probably time to try a different method of delivery (okay, enough of the box imagery).

A key insight, I think, came from Jack Morton’s (woohoo!) Matt Jones (who filled in for Ian McGonnigal, who unfortunately couldn’t make it, on the gaming panel): advertising is too antiquated a word to capture what’s going on. Today’s consumers require authenticity, honesty and relevance of (most of) the brands they support. Experiences – whatever content they consist in or form they take – must embody these qualities, if they wish to capture audiences’ imaginations and touch their hearts and minds.

Perhaps, then, neither the box nor what’s in it is important, and it’s more about evoking a desired behavior from the person receiving it (the last time I talk about boxes, I swear).

A shout-out to my OMMA companion, Bruna Maia!

I read this great post titled “When I grow up I’d like to be more like a start up” on one of my favorite sites: Made by Many. It’s an interesting read about how traditional agencies got rid of all the “makers”— and how they need to change and act more like start ups (autonomy, engineers at the top, etc.) or be surpassed by the tech companies who could replace agency relevancy (hello! Foursquare).

Traditional agencies would love to bring some of these uber-makers inside the castle walls – but how’s that going to work? Unless agencies can find some way of giving these start-up punks some skin in the game, what’s in it for them? Why would they? They don’t need agencies, because they’re busy replacing them.

What do you think of this argument? If you were starting out in your career—who would you rather work for?