This post was originally published on Medium.

I have longed cringed at how the mainstream media reports on the technology industry to the public. From use of randomly-selected synonyms to just downright misunderstanding of particular technologies, it’s sort of embarrassing to the reporter (usually someone who calls themselves a “technology reporter”) and the publication.

The latest examples come courtesy of The New York Times. I was alerted to this via a piece on BGR by Yoni Heisler titled, “The New York Times’ latest Apple hit piece is embarrassing and downright lazy.” Disclosure: I am a subscriber to The Times because I support their journalism. Their political reporters in particular have done a tremendous service to our country over the last couple of years. I usually trust what The Times writes about politics because I am not an expert in it. But the two pieces mentioned by BGR, about screen-time apps, and the editorial about Apple’s supposed monopoly are downright silly, because I do know a thing or two about technology and Apple.

Privacy, Security, and Violation of Terms

The premise of the article is that Apple has “removed or restricted at least 11 of the 17 most downloaded screen-time and parental-control apps” over the past year. There are quotes and POVs from app developers and parents, and there are a couple quotes from Apple defending its actions. This is the full quote of what they printed from Phil Schiller, Apple’s marketing chief:

In response to this article, Philip W. Schiller, Apple’s senior vice president of worldwide marketing, said in emails to some customers that Apple “acted extremely responsibly in this matter, helping to protect our children from technologies that could be used to violate their privacy and security.”

When the article broke, an Apple customer wrote to Tim Cook who had Schiller respond (emphasis mine):

Unfortunately the New York Times article you reference did not share our complete statement, nor explain the risks to children had Apple not acted on their behalf. Apple has long supported providing apps on the App Store, that work like our ScreenTime feature, to help parents manage their children’s access to technology and we will continue to encourage development of these apps. There are many great apps for parents on the App Store, like “Moment — Balance Screen Time” by Moment Health and “Verizon Smart Family” by Verizon Wireless.

However, over the last year we became aware that some parental management apps were using a technology called Mobile Device Management or “MDM” and installing an MDM Profile as a method to limit and control use of these devices. MDM is a technology that gives one party access to and control over many devices, it was meant to be used by a company on it’s own mobile devices as a management tool, where that company has a right to all of the data and use of the devices. The MDM technology is not intended to enable a developer to have access to and control over consumers’ data and devices, but the apps we removed from the store did just that. No one, except you, should have unrestricted access to manage your child’s device, know their location, track their app use, control their mail accounts, web surfing, camera use, network access, and even remotely erase their devices. Further, security research has shown that there is risk that MDM profiles could be used as a technology for hacker attacks by assisting them in installing apps for malicious purposes on users’ devices.

When the App Store team investigated the use of MDM technology by some developers of apps for managing kids devices and learned the risk they create to user privacy and security, we asked these developers to stop using MDM technology in their apps. Protecting user privacy and security is paramount in the Apple ecosystem and we have important App Store guidelines to not allow apps that could pose a threat to consumers privacy and security. We will continue to provide features, like ScreenTime, designed to help parents manage their children’s access to technology and we will work with developers to offer many great apps on the App Store for these uses, using technologies that are safe and private for us and our children.

Here is a layman’s summary of the above. The parental control apps that Apple kicked off the App Store were using a technology intended for large corporations to control their company-owned devices. This technology gives the corporations purview over, and access to all their devices’ location info, app usage, email accounts, web history, camera usage, and network access, and can remotely wipe their devices. In other words if an end-user installed one of these parental control apps that used MDM technology on their child’s phone, that app developer had access to all that information, and would be able to control and wipe that phone.

The Times and the general media have been lambasting YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter for allowing users and other entities to stay on their platforms and abuse their policies. From hate speech (white nationalists, Alex Jones) to huge privacy gaffes (Cambridge Analytica), the media and the public have demanded these companies take responsibility and action, and prevent such episodes from happening again.

And yet, when Apple does take action here—when about a dozen or so companies release so-called parental control apps on the App Store using Apple technology in a way that violates its policies and gives access to thousands of iPhones belonging to kids, The New York Times has a conniption.

Apple does not have an issue that there are apps that compete with its own apps in the App Store (Apple Music vs. Spotify, Pandora, SiriusXM, iHeartRadio, SoundCloud; Safari vs. Google Chrome, Opera Mini, Firefox Focus). That’s what a vibrant developer-centric marketplace is: competition. But when an app violates its policies, Apple should be able to act.

Who Owns a Marketplace?

The second piece referenced by the BGR article is an op-ed by The Times’ Editorial Board, “Why Does Apple Control Its Competitors?”

First the op-ed compares Apple to Microsoft. Kind of ironic since Apple was on the brink of bankruptcy in the 1990s:

Apple’s management of the App Store is also dangerously reminiscent of the anti-competitive behavior that triggered United States v. Microsoft, a landmark antitrust case that changed the landscape of the tech industry.

Then the piece complains about Apple’s control over the App Store marketplace and its fees:

But Apple’s operating system for mobile devices makes it almost impossible to get an app outside of the App Store that will work on an Apple phone. Ultimately, the company controls what a user can or cannot do on their own iPhone. Apple also takes up to a 30 percent cut of in-app revenue, including revenue from “services” fulfilled in-app — like buying a premium subscription or an ebook. Because all apps go through the App Store, this 30 percent cut is nearly unavoidable.

Apple doesn’t ban apps like Amazon Kindle or Spotify, which compete with Apple Books and Apple Music, respectively. But the 30 percent fee still stings. That’s the reason you currently can’t buy a Kindle ebook through the Kindle mobile app. Spotify, a much smaller company, now pays Apple between 15 and 30 percent of its in-app revenue in order to serve streaming music to its premium subscribers. Spotify recently filed a complaint with European regulators, accusing Apple of anticompetitive practices. In the United States, an antitrust lawsuit pending before the Supreme Court alleges that the 30 percent cut drives up prices for consumers.

Let’s try this analogy. Suppose Apple is a department store. This department store has products lined up on shelves and racks, organized by sections and aisles so customers can find what they’re looking for. This store has endcaps that feature certain promoted products. What The Times is asking is this: Why can’t any company that wants to sell in Apple’s department store just set up shop inside the store and sell direct? And why should Apple make 30% gross profit on selling each item in the store?¹

If Apple allowed any product inside its department store, what if the product is shoddy and doesn’t work? What if there’s a safety issue? What if a seller wants to line the shelves with porno magazines? This tarnishes the reputation of Apple’s store. Customers will start to think Apple doesn’t care about the quality of products it sells, or that the store is now inhospitable for families with children.

(If the department store analogy doesn’t work for you, what about a farmers’ market? The App Store is the market and the developers are the vendors. Organizers of farmers’ markets decide who to allow in to sell, and what they can sell.)

A core of The Times’ monopoly argument seems to be around the fact that the App Store is the only place to get apps that work on an iPhone:

But Apple’s operating system for mobile devices makes it almost impossible to get an app outside of the App Store that will work on an Apple phone. Ultimately, the company controls what a user can or cannot do on their own iPhone.

True. But time and again Apple has argued that its thorough review process is critical to prevent malicious and low quality apps from appearing in its App Store.

And consumers face compatibility or “walled garden” scenarios with lots of things they buy. Printers need specific toner cartridges. Coffeemakers only accept certain shapes of pods. Video game systems can only their own cartridges or discs. In all these examples, including iPhone, consumers can find workarounds. But use at your own risk and don’t go crying to the manufacturer if your product breaks as a result. Fair enough, right?

And finally…

Even if we take Apple at its word that it was only protecting the privacy and security of its users by removing screen-time and parental-control apps, the state of the app marketplace is troubling. Why is a company — with no mechanism for democratic oversight — the primary and most zealous guardian of user privacy and security? Why is one company in charge of vetting what users can or cannot do on their phones, especially when that company also makes apps that compete in a marketplace that it controls?

Short answer is because Apple created the marketplace and controls the rules. eBay is a marketplace and controls its own policies, banning the selling of body parts, government IDs, and Nazi-related artifacts. Airbnb, Uber, and Upwork are all marketplaces with their own policies.² Why is Airbnb — with no mechanism for democratic oversight — the primary and most zealous guardian of what hosts can and cannot do with their listing? Why is Uber — with no mechanism for democratic oversight — the primary and most zealous guardian of how drivers should behave with their passengers? Why is Upwork — with no mechanism for democratic oversight — the primary and most zealous guardian of how workers should interact with clients?

But again, I go back to the two-sidedness of The Times. In one breath it wants Facebook and “Big Tech” to be better at preventing the viral spread of horrific imagery, by removing posts with said imagery, thus having a tighter grasp on its own platform. And in another it wants Apple to loosen up its control of its own marketplace. Comparing the spread of a video of a mass shooting with App Store policies is crass, I know. But they are sending mixed messages to Silicon Valley.

I actually agree with The Times about how Facebook and other social media platforms must somehow use technology to combat humanity’s most wretched behaviors. They do need to figure out a way to reign in the monster they’ve unleashed.

However, I disagree with their view that Apple must relax its tight control over the App Store, because I want a company that has been the most socially responsible in this age of Big Tech to curate over two million apps in the App Store and prevent me from downloading an app that could brick my phone or expose my private data.

The press plays an important role in our society—to hold powerful entities and individuals to account. However, before lobbing any accusations, before sparking any debate, it really should get its facts straight and understand the material first.

[1] Most retailers mark up the products they sell by 50%. Example: They buy a tube of toothpaste for $2 and sell it to you for $4.

[2] By the way, here are the sellers’ fees for each of these marketplaces:

• Airbnb: 20%, https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/1857/what-is-the-airbnb-service-fee
• Uber: 25%, https://www.ridester.com/uber-fees/
• Upwork: 20%, https://www.upwork.com/i/how-it-works/freelancer/

From an advertising standpoint, I believe Apple has been on fire recently. (Disclaimer: I have been an Apple fanboy since 1985 and used to work there many years ago.) Beginning with the “What will your verse be?” iPad ad that debuted in mid-January, they’ve continued with the “You’re more powerful than you think” iPhone 5S that began airing recently.

When I first saw “Your Verse” on TV it stopped me in my tracks. Using audio of Robin Williams speaking to his class in Dead Poets Society, it features footage of people using the iPad around the world for making music, photography, tracking tornadoes, playing professional hockey, and more. The haunting melody combined with the breathtaking images and Robin Williams’ voice really struck a chord with me. It evoked a deep sense of wonder and faith in humanity. These were real people doing extraordinary things with this product. In the mere three years that iPad has been available* it has created a whole new category of devices and enabled millions of people to do ordinary and extraordinary things.

Here’s the text from the speech:

We don’t read and write poetry because it’s cute. We read and write poetry because we are members of the human race. And the human race is filled with passion. Medicine, law, business, engineering. These are noble pursuits and necessary to sustain life. But poetry, beauty, romance, love. These are what we stay alive for. To quote from Whitman: “O me, O life of the question of these recurring, of the endless trains of the faithless, of cities filled with the foolish. What good amid these? O me, O life.” Answer: That you are here. That life exists, and identity. That the powerful play goes on and you may contribute a verse. …That the powerful play goes on and you may contribute a verse.” What will your verse be?

It ends with a challenge, raising the question for the viewer, “How will you make your dent in the universe?”

And just this week, Apple debuted a similar people-do-awesome-things-with-Apple-products video called “Powerful.” It features people using the iPhone to make music, perform art, video their kids, and more. It’s set against a youthful cover of the Pixies’ “Gigantic.” The film is an anthem much like the iPad ad that preceded it, and about how Apple products have empowered millions of people to do some pretty cool things.

(As an aside, I think “Powerful” is better executed than “Your Verse.” My issue with the first ad is that it had too many cuts in it. And the voiceover did not lend itself to a 30-second or even 60-second ad. Only the 90-second version works. Whereas all the cuts of “Powerful” are just as effective. And additionally interesting, my sources have told me that “Your Verse” was done internally at Apple. I would suspect that “Powerful” was also executed in-house.

As a second aside, this is one of the rarer moments when Apple’s campaigns are integrated, with a strong digital presence. See for yourself: Your Verse, Powerful.)

So what’s the takeaway?

These ads are not meant to convince the non-believers to buy Apple products. Instead, they’re both calls-to-arms for the Apple faithful. It’s their CRM strategy if you will. These ads are meant to inspire “the rest of us” and reinforce that we made the right choice in terms of the iOS platform and devices. These epic films depict a world made better by Apple products which makes us feel good. With Samsung and other Android devices eroding at Apple’s historic lead, this is exactly what they need.

These ads are reminiscent of Apple’s classic comeback “Think Different” campaign. Here is the text of the commercial that launched it:

Here’s to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They’re not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. But the only thing you can’t do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.

As documented in Walter Isaacson’s biography of Steve Jobs, Apple needed to make a statement that they were still a viable company able to make world-changing products. Isaacson writes, “It was designed to celebrate not what the computers could do, but what creative people could do with the computers.” And he goes on to say that this ad wasn’t only directed at the general public, but also to Apple employees who had forgotten what Apple stood for.

And I believe rallying the base is exactly what Apple is doing again.

• iPad was announced January 27, 2010, at MacWorld in San Francisco and began shipping April 3, 2010.

Yesterday Apple announced its third-generation iPad, simply named “iPad.” Buried in MG Siegler’s excellent take on the press event is this statement:

What’s more likely — 5 years from now, your primary home computing device is a PC? Or 5 years from now, your primary home computing device is a tablet? Just two years ago, this question would have been an absolute joke. Now it’s a joke to think it will take a full five years.

In the post-PC world, tablets are becoming the new normal more and more. In just the two years since the iPad was first introduced, we’ve seen it pervasive on airplanes to entertain children, many executives in Silicon Valley walking around with them instead of lugging laptops, and even the President of the United States receiving his Presidential Daily Briefing via iPad instead of a sheet of paper.

How We Really Use Tablets

Rosetta—the agency for which I work—released a study last month around how we consumers use tablets. Consumption and entertainment are still the primary uses of tablets today, but here are some interesting points to note:

• 33% of tablet users (who owned one 12+ months) prefer to read/check email on their tablets
• 38% of them prefer tablets to read e-books, magazines or newspapers
• 34% of them use their tablets at work
• 45% on the go

In other words we’re witnessing the trend of users either adding to their repertoire of connected devices or in some cases shifting away from traditional PCs to tablets. As MG Siegler said in the quote above, tablets are poised to become the primary computing device at home.

But I would argue that place is a misleading distinction. Yes, PCs will likely still be a primary computing device at the office, but maybe it’s the wrong way to put it.

Work/Life, Life/Work

PCs today are not stationary. Almost every workplace I’ve come across in recent years outfits its workforce with laptops. Those laptops are often taken home so that work can be done at home. And here’s the thing: as much as we’d like to draw a hard line between work and home, it’s too fuzzy. It’s too gray.

Workers check their personal emails and Facebook while at work, on their work machines. They IM their friends or watch funny cat videos on YouTube in the office. Conversely they check their work email on their personal smartphones and catch up with industry-related reading before bed.

The workforce of today achieves work/life balance by seamlessly blending the two to get things done. Wherever they are.

Responsive Web Design

Out of this notion of users being connected constantly and wanting access to information all the time, wherever they are, the responsive web design movement was born. Essentially it’s a set of techniques to enable a single codebase to deliver multiple layouts for different screen sizes. The redesign of BostonGlobe.com has become the poster child for this modern and forward-looking approach to designing for the web. It’s about letting users access content from whatever devices they have, wherever they are. And with this approach, content creators are also saving money on operating expenditures because they only have one site to maintain, not two or three. No longer should you need to write a different headline for mobile.

The Impending Future Is Here

With all this data staring at them in the face, it amazes me that when it comes to digital marketing, many corporations still have the traditional view of developing for mobile. They are still stuck on starting with the desktop experience and then dumbing it down for smartphones and tablets. The old way of thinking made sense at the time (three, four years ago?): users on the go have different needs, and the screen real estate is too small to do anything significant.

However, as we’ve become used to having the Internet in our pocket and as we’ve found a place for the tablet to live in our lives, that four year-old thinking is sadly out of touch with the impending future.

432 million users use Facebook on a mobile device every month. Facebook partially attributes the 76% increase from 2010 to the release of its iPad app. With Apple selling more iPads in Q4 2011 than PCs sold by any PC manufacturer, and with annual tablet sales projected to be at over 45 million by 2016, tablets are here to stay and will become more and more prevalent.

Additionally 472 million smartphones were sold in 2011, 46% of the U.S. adult population have smartphones, and 69% of smartphone owners use it for business. Last, but not least: 81% of smartphone users browse the Internet. The mobile web and the notion of content anywhere cannot be ignored.

The workforce of tomorrow will read their work emails on their smartphones and tablets. They will do research and consume work-related content on those devices. And they will go beyond consumption and produce work on those devices.

As designers and marketers, to ignore this is ignoring the inevitable.

With everyone sharing their sweet Steve moments, I have to share mine.

I was working at Apple in the motion graphics group within the Graphic Design department. I was assigned to work on the intro animation for the Mac OS X 10.3 Panther setup assistant. We went through the normal design process with our stakeholders (people in charge of “MacBuddy”) and got to an animation that was essentially swarms of dots that formed each of the different translations of “Welcome” on the screen. And then we showed this nearly-final animation to someone higher at the top—forgive me, I’ve forgotten who this was—and he killed it because the dots looked too much like sperm. OK, they kinda did. (Think about swirling points of light but with motion trails. We tried increasing the motion blur, but it was no use.)

It was back to the drawing board and I presented more ideas. Eventually, Steve got involved and started looking at the animations. Each week my boss would show Steve a new revision of it, and each time we got a little closer. Then on Round 14, the week my boss was on vacation, I had to go present it to Steve Jobs.

He was eager to see this new revision. No pleasantries. No introductions (actually he knew me from Pixar). Just got right down to business. But he did say this to me, “Wow. We spend more time on MacBuddy than Microsoft does on all of its UI.” And then he chuckled.

The presentation was quick and he only had a couple of pretty minor notes. I think I had one more revision and it was finally done.

What my time at Apple and working with Steve taught me was this: Keep going until it’s right. Don’t settle.

Thank you, Steve.

This post was originally published on Bow & Arrow from PJA (my employer) on February 3, 2011.

The New York Times recently published an article about how apps and web services are enabling consumers to customize how they read their online content. From apps like Flipboard and Pulse to services like Readability and Instapaper, users are increasingly demanding to consume content whenever, wherever and however they want.

When Apple introduced the iPad a year ago, many print publishers saw it as a panacea for their dwindling readership. By creating digital editions, they hoped to recapture some of the eyeballs lost to aggregators and RSS feeds. One of the pioneering publication apps was the WIRED Magazine iPad app. Because of its novelty, its debut issue sold 73,000 digital copies in nine days, almost as much as on newsstands. There is a clear desire from users to read magazines on their tablets.

What that first generation of attempts miss though, is they are trying to replicate 20th century print experience on a 21st century device. The magazine apps feel very one way. But the iPad is an Internet-connected device and users on the Internet demand more interactive experiences. They want to copy and paste passages to put on their blogs. They want to share articles via Facebook and Twitter. Using Adobe’s Digital Magazine Solution, Condé Nast is starting to address some of these issues.

Meanwhile apps such as Flipboard are aggregating content and repackaging it for their users. Flipboard presents news items according to a user’s social graph, creating a personalized and highly relevant news stream. Additionally, the app presents this content in a unique way: as a paper magazine. The visual is striking, yet it still holds familiarity with users since it loosely mimics the experience of reading a real-world magazine, with the benefits of interactivity. And so far it has been a hit with users, even earning an [App of the Year](http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-calls-flipboard-ipad-app-of-the-year-2010-12 “Apple Calls Flipboard “iPad App Of The Year"") award from Apple.

Different kinds of content demand different kinds of packages. For example as a designer, I—along with most designers and art directors—flip through magazines such as Communication Arts and Print, and peruse blogs and websites like LovelyPackage.com and SmashingMagazine.com. Seeing something cool usually sparks an idea for whatever we’re currently working on.

To get through the hundreds of design-related sites out there, I use RSS feeds to aggregate this content for myself in Google Reader. Unfortunately, because I am so busy, I am not able to keep up with all my feeds. I may manage to check it only every few days. And I dread seeing that “1000+†number next to my unread items.

So last year, when the iPad was introduced, I decided to find a solution as an independent side project. I knew that an app on this large dedicated canvas could be created to serve this need of efficiently consuming visual inspiration. I teamed up with a developer friend and we started work on DesignScene.

We set out to create something that designers would enjoy using and become part of their daily ritual. We had two primary objectives:

• The UI must serve the content and the audience. It has to be beautiful and show off visuals well.
• The content must be relevant. There’s a glut of design-related websites and blogs on the Internet. Let’s help designers navigate through them.

The UI we designed is sparse—a simple grid that takes advantage of the screen real estate afforded by the tablet. Users flick through the various grid cells to see an assortment of images. They can enlarge the images to fill the screen or read the accompanying text from the original source via the built-in web browser. DesignScene surfaces up the latest inspirational images of not only design, but also architecture, photography, art and so on. The content is a curated list of sources and—as a whole—has an editorial point of view to enhance discovery.

It’s been two weeks since DesignScene launched. [This was originally posted three weeks ago on the PJA blog.] So far we’ve had great response from users and media. We built social sharing into the app and we can already see hundreds of discoveries being shared on Twitter. Our users are interacting with content in a way that was not possible just a year ago.

“1000+” should be a familiar number for Google Reader users. My RSS feeds have been neglected in past months. Emails from AdAge.com, Creativity-Online, and links from friends go unread and unclicked. I’ve just been running 100 miles per hour at work. This is not to slam my current employer (because I truly like working here), but more of an observation.

If we creatives are always so busy with projects, and never take the time to look up, take off our headphones and find inspiration, our work will suffer. Our work will stagnate. Our work will suck.

So this is a reminder to myself (and to other creatives) to take a bit of time each day to remain inspired. Surf the web. Watch TV. See a movie in a theater. Listen to new music. Read a magazine or a book. Go to a bookstore. Go to a museum. Go hiking.

Eric Baker spends 30 minutes every day scouring the web for inspirational images. He shares them regularly on Design Observer.

And I’ve started to try to gather images and links that delight me in a couple of Tumblr blogs (ELT and ___ is awesome.)

This is also a reminder to managers of creatives: you must let them play. You have to structure your organization and processes to allow creative folks time to recharge and get inspired. Google’s 20% time is a great example of how structuring some R&D/inspiration time can yield results. The Scotch Tape and Post-it Notes were invented by engineers at 3M during their 15% time. Or taken to the extreme, Stefan Sagmeister closes his studio every seven years for a yearlong sabbatical to get inspired again.

Now how can I get someone to pay me for a sabbatical?

There’s been a lot of chatter in recent weeks about how so-called “digital” agencies are or are not ready to be the lead for a campaign. But I think the question is a little off.

Instead the question should be “Why are clients splitting up campaign work based on tactic?”

Despite the maturing of digital agencies such as Razorfish (for whom I work), R/GA and AKQA, today’s clients are still sending digital work to digital agencies and traditional work to traditional agencies. And equally bad is having a third company plan and buy their media (sometimes there’s a traditional media agency and a digital one). Why is this bad?

OK, the end-zone is down that way 50 yards! Make sure you talk to each other along the way. Now go! [Download PDF]

I’ve seen it time and time again: if you want an integrated marketing campaign, how could you possibly brief all the companies and hope they work together and come back with something good and cohesive? The agencies will pay lip-service and say they’re collaborating, but there’s only so much collaboration that can happen in reality. Each agency is moving fast and really has no time to talk to the others. Plus there is always unspoken political jockeying for protecting the work each agency does have and trying to steal more business from the others. I strongly believe that this model is inefficient (money and time), makes agency people insane, and creates less-than-stellar campaigns.

What should instead happen is the client needs to brief one agency who will create a singular idea and execute on that idea across different tactics and mediums. Therefore the messaging, art direction and strategy for the campaign are cohesive.

Let the one Agency bring in specialists as needed to serve the idea. [Download PDF]

Agencies should not be labeled “digital,” for digital is only a tactic. I’d say the same with “traditional.” What clients should ask for is strong strategic work that drives results. Let the agency—regardless of its label—decide on who to sub-contract to if necessary.

When we see clients trust their agency and its vision, we witness great work all around:

• TBWA\Chiat\Day + Apple
• Crispin Porter + Bogusky + Burger King
• Goodby, Silverstein Partners + Sprint

Oh wait. There isn’t a “digital” agency on that list. But there soon will be.

Further reading:

• Why Digital Agencies Aren’t Ready to Lead
• Why Digital Agencies Are Indeed Ready to Lead
• What if we held a controversy and nobody cared?
• Digital must be anchored at the heart of agencies

Please feel free to use the above diagrams which I’m making available through a Creative Commons license.