On Strategy vs Tactics

Lately I've had this same conversation with several people on this same topic, and it continues to interest me exactly where people draw the boundaries between semantics on the subject. Some may say that it is irrelevant, as it's nothing more than use of words, and some people use them one way, and others another, but I think it's vital to have a common concrete agreement on the meaning of these terms, especially in this industry as it is changing, evolving, and in dire need of a common language. Not only for the sake of those who practice, but also for the clients, who no doubt want to see agreement on the matter, by which they can then determine the good ones from the bad ones.

If you don't care to read on, the short version of my opinion on the matter is quite simple.

Strategy, is the "what are we trying to do" of the equation, whereas Tactics are the "How are we going to do it" (with Execution being the actual doing of it").

As the terms strategy and tactic are rooted strongly in the military, I've often tried to use sailing analogies to give a concrete example. The strategy is usually decided upon by the captain, and comes in the form of the what (i.e. We're sailing to find the new world) and the tactic comes in the form of the navigator or first mate (i.e. "We're sailing south-west for 1,000 leagues) and of course responsive tactics also come into play (i.e. We'll avoid that reef by sailing to the north winds for a day, then south again). And finally the execution is all those who make it happen, the deck hands the rowers etc..

The analogy may contain some flaws, but overall, I think it does the job of conveying the concept.

So how does it relate to the digital marketing and advertising industry, and what should you be seeing when you look at a strategy versus a tactic?

Strategies can be constructed at many levels. Yes, you can have an overall brand strategy, and you can have an online strategy, and you could have a content strategy. But they all still need to be distinct from tactics, and there's a good reason for this. You see, a strategy should have the ability to be successfully completed even with a change in the tactics underneath it. You should be able to stick to the strategy of "sailing west to the new world" even if the winds die down and you have to row to get there. Tactics should be interchangeable and elastic in their use. Strategy should not be, this is why a strong strategy is important. This is why having insights (i.e. The world is round, and there is a giant body of water, which should contain land somewhere in the middle of it) is key to developing strategy.

As Mark Pollard puts it in his blog post on getting into strategy (about half way down):

I believe that the guts of a strategy should be explainable in a matter of sentences. If you pictured me pointing to where we need to go, I’d rather tell you where we’re going than explain to you how my body manages to get my index finger into the pointing position.

And I think he is bang on with his summation of strategy. A lot of people feel the need to qualify evidence of industry by producing excruciatingly long documents and powerpoint decks which all try to "explain" the strategy using hundreds of bullet points, multitudes of diagrams and pictures, all detailing what is in fact supposed to be a high-level sentence or two.

If you or your client requires you to "show you working" on how you got to your strategic conclusion, that's fine, do that, but don't waste time by using your working AS the answer.

I recently had the pleasure of reading through Wieden+Kennedy's awesome brand strategy for Old Spice, which lead to the now renowned work in the form of awesome television and digital work. The presentation for the new brand position is amazingly sparse in detail, yet gets it's point across potently. And it all becomes summarised in one simple phrase: "Old Spice is the authentic essence of the male being".

Now, I understand that brand strategy and digital strategy can be very different beasts. But that does not for a moment mean that we need to create a level of complexity when trying to "sell in" our strategy for it to be effective. Digital strategies can be just as potent through simple explanations as brand strategies are, they can take on simple forms which then allow for tactics to be inserted underneath which deliver on that strategy, while being able to be modified if market conditions, technology platforms, or the consumers change.

If my digital strategy for a bank is "educate customers in a simple way using humour", then I should be able to execute that tactically in a number of ways, whether by responding to questions on Twitter, putting videos up on YouTube, or creating games for Facebook. The tactics change, but we know what we're trying to do strategically.

I dearly hope that at least some people agree with me on this distinction, and why it's important to make, but I'm open to hear other people's thoughts on why they think I'm right or wrong.

Let me know in the comments.

Cheers.