The Instagram aesthetic is dead, long live the Instagram aesthetic

Heartbroken latte

I have seen a lot of people sharing Taylor Lorenz’s great piece about Instagram’s perfect aesthetic being "over" (the general idea is that influencers are now raking in more likes for posting unedited, candid pics). Though it holds some truth and is full of compelling examples and fun quotes, I must say the article misses two major things.

The first one is that the imperfect, messy aesthetic Lorenz is describing has been around for years, thanks to Snapchat’s huge influence over pop culture. The irony is that when Instagram successfully cloned Snapchat’s Stories feature in 2016, they also copied its "perfectly imperfect" aesthetic and quirky mindset (for French speakers, here's an article I wrote back then about this aesthetic change). The Stories format, which favors ephemeral, immediate, as-candid-as-possible picture sharing, was meant to become the counterweight to IG's hyper-crafted pictures. It eventually became more than a mere counterweight: its massive success introduced the "messy aesthetics" which have thrived on Instagram ever since, through memes and influencers, small or big.

The other important point is that, even though pastel-coloured housewares, exposed bricks walls and flare effects have become less popular, there is still no such thing as authenticity on Instagram. Even the messiest picture is as painstakingly curated or distorted as the heavily filtered ones. The bad flashes, the quirky outfits, the faces — every detail one posts is there to show how cool, "non-self conscious" one is.

There is still no such thing as authenticity on Instagram. Even the messiest picture is now as painstakingly curated or distorted as the heavily filtered ones.

As human beings, everything we share or do collectively is more or less staged to send more or less subtle messages. Therefore, it’s no surprise this universal behaviour is dialled up on social media. Even when we try to go unfiltered, we end up trying to distort reality to our benefit. Take again Snapchat, the O.G. of messy aesthetic: the app popularised sharing bad pictures and silly jokes, but also made applying all sorts of embellishing effects onto your face mainstream, eventually leading to what some call (in an oversimplifying way) "Snapchat dysmorphia".

 

If the original Instagram aesthetic is over, it’s because it’s been 1) killed by Instagram itself and 2) replaced by another aesthetic, which isn't more authentic at all. Whether in the real world or online, we just keep applying lenses onto our lives.

The ONE thing that could actually work out in the Accenture/Droga5 union

Like everyone in the advertising industry, I’ve been trying very hard to wrap my mind around Accenture’s surprise Droga5 acquisition, announced on Thursday.

I have seen tens of (more-or-less nuanced) analysis pieces and hundreds of (not-so-nuanced) comments on Fishbowl and Twitter about it. I’m certain you have too so apologies in advance for this one; I’ll make it quick.

Apart from the irony that, while every advertising pundit declares the agency holding model dead, the already 450,000-strong Accenture is building up a brand new one from scratch, I remain skeptical about the consultancy’s ability to integrate, let alone nurture, Droga5’s and other independent shops’ creative culture. Don’t get me wrong: I am confident Accenture will leave maximum freedom to its ad agencies roster. However, consultancies’ model is about plugging in different know-hows to devise frameworks and scale them up, while sheer creativity is often messy and difficult to replicate at scale, which means it could get inefficient in the long term.

However, it has suddenly struck me that maybe we naysayers are too focused on Accenture’s shopping spree's impact on the “mere” communications industry. If one takes a step back, there’s actually one field in which a Droga/Accenture collaboration might work tremendously. A field that could be much more profitable: actual consumer product development. And by “actual”, I mean real, tangible BtC products and services, not two-day workshops and fancy innovation units developing disruptive ideas but which remain mostly PR-oriented.

Chutzpah and rigorousness, ideas and execution

This is one field neither consultancies nor agencies have managed to fully explore. As communications and consulting people, we are very good at explaining why other products are incredibly successful or fail miserably. The thing is, we seldom invent them ourselves. It is because most of the time, we only cover one portion of the value chain.

Actually, consultancies have the ability and the discipline to secure a business plan, then prototype and develop services, plus the clout required to take ideas up the decision ladder. On the other hand, communications people have of course creativity and chutzpah on their side, but also something else that is often overlooked: the ability to deeply understand people and dig up insights to exploit. Except this time, consumer knowledge would not only be used to adjust communications about already existing products ­ — it would be the very basis for new products. If put together, both sides could finally cover the complete value chain and transform R&D across numerous industries.

Of course, this is a very long shot. To work, such a venture would mean hiring people from very different backgrounds than advertising, consumer research or consulting. It would mean bringing more engineers, scientists and retail experts in so as to turn neat PowerPoint concepts into real-world products. And above all, it would mean taking much more financial risk. But still, being able to fully externalize R&D for major brands or even create one’s own products could represent an incredible payoff in the long run. Could the next Glossier, the next Airbnb, come from a communications company?