There’s a theory in evolutionary biology called “Punctuated Equilibrium” (wikipedia article) which postulates that most species exist in stasis for most of their geological history and that evolution, when it occurs, happens in a relatively short space of time.

The Punctuated Equilibrium theory provides a good analogy for how we marketers evolve our art. We remain in stasis for as long as possible and then frantically adapt, only when we must, in an explosion of opinion until things eventually settle down.

We want to carry on as we are, ticking along nicely, getting more refined in our knowledge and abilities, merrily spending away and receiving whatever returns are due. But then something changes. And we have to re-learn what we do and how we do it. We’re uncomfortable. We resist the change until we see those brave few who went over the top start to flourish.

You will not have missed the fact that we’re in period of massive change, one that is shaking our industry to its core. We’re in the punctuated part of our equilibrium, with the punctuation, of course, being done by the internet (aided and abetted by the mass availability of cheap and fast internet access).

It’s confusing out there (here?). The pace of change is so vast that it’s incredibly hard to keep up. New technologies come and go. New “rules” of communication are made and broken. Brands rise and fall. And others stay pretty much as they were, seemingly immune to the changing context (perhaps they’re marketing’s equivalent of the evolutionary masterpiece that is the crocodile).

However, it feels as though we’re starting to come through the “worst” of the change. Although there’s no doubt that bewildering technological developments lie ahead of us, it seems that some of the big cultural shifts of this current “punctuation” are behind us, or at least settling down.

We know this because, to paraphrase Clay Shirky, the technology gets culturally interesting when the technology itself becomes boring. And much of the technological tsunami that enabled the internet to get social is now dull and culture has had a good chance to play with its new toys. Take YouTube as an example. The technical ability to stream video is no longer interesting – but its social and cultural implications are epic (YouTube to broadcast IPL live, YouTube to offer movie rental of selected Sundance Festival movies).

How then has our thinking evolved to better suit our context? What new gene mutations do we have that will help us survive until the next fundamental change? (This may well be with the mass availability of cheap and properly fast internet access.)

Well, we’ve remembered that it’s all about the human stuff. “Consumer” is anachronistic as it talks to a passive, bovine mass rather that the quick, connected, social and expressive humans that are our customers. If people aren’t talking about our products or advertising, it’s not their fault. We are finding ways to bake “social” into our companies, brands and marketing. We’re playing nicely.

We’ve rediscovered that marketing is a lot more than advertising and putting messages in paid-for media spaces. In the ad-cynical world with its fragmented, if not shattered, media landscape, simply shouting is not good enough. We have to be interesting. We need to deliver an exceptional customer experience. (Here's a clue as to how you could go about being more interesting.)

We’re realising the power of an entrepreneurial spirit. We’re “always in beta”, trying lots of different things with the expectation that many will fail in the hunt for the glorious, magical success that is out there.

So we’re coming through the “punctuation” nicer, smarter & nimbler. There’s plenty of work to be done as the dust continues to settle, but it seems we have some solid foundations on which to build.

If you have any observations about how our art is changing / needs to change, then please get in touch via Twitter (@jamesdev).

There's a tremendous kerfuffle being played out in social spaces about an Australian ad for KFC. No complaints at all when aired in Oz, but a right old ding-dong kicks off when the ad was loaded to YouTube and viewed by our chums from the US. Here's the ad...

It turns out that there is a negative stereotype to do with African-Americans and fried chicken. Also the Australian chap in the scene doesn't help by describing his as an "awkward" situation, which can easily be interpreted as not enjoying being surrounded by folk of a different skin colour. (I'm left more bemused by why the guy thinks he's in an "awkward situation". Being surrounded by happy West Indian cricket fans isn't exactly the same level of "awkward situation" as being in the wrong end at a football match is it?)

The implication is, of course, that the world can now see your ads and other forms of marketing without you ever intending them to. So do ads need to be rigorously checked for cultural sensitivity across the globe now? I'm going for a "no", with a caveat to not be daft about it or deliberately insensitive. "Yes" would surely be a recipe for blandness?

Whatever your opinion on this KFC debate this "awkward situation", with plenty of negative PR for KFC in their home country, highlights the need to be listening to chatter in social spaces. If things go awry, it's much easier to have a voice if you're already part of the conversation.

There's links to more debate including YouTube responses from both US and Australia in this post from Mashable.