I’ve always been a big believer in brands courting a diverse portfolio of independent makers of cool stuff; the modern version of a benefactor of work.

Here’s a $5k grant, go make more amazing things.

or

Lots of little.

or

Iterative creation.

or

Whatever you wanna call it … It is what’s required.

What’s also required is a risk/reward compensation model: The idea of asking a client for $500K and going off to develop 100 ideas (or whatever) is a bit far-fetched. Getting the cash to develop them (however much it costs) and getting paid upside on the results of those that work is probably more realistic.

For me I think this has the greatest opportunity to work when it’s fitted into an agency model as a service offering. Basically taking mike’s process of developing and implementing “100 ideas” fast and offering it to clients when it is most appropriate.

I can see how “100 ideas” works in some situations based on client initiatives, but I struggle to see the ability for an agency model to be built on doing just this. I guess you could be super-specialized and be the go-to agency for this type of approach, but then who at the end of the day makes the initial recommendation to a client that gets them to you in the first place?

It’s a big leap for a business to do it this way, and as a result it requires a HIGH level of trust that a client must have in their partner is for it to work. That type of trust, IMO, isn’t given typically to first-time partners. It is built over the long-term. Which…. sorry, this string just got pretty long… is why I think the approach is better suited as one of many services, rather than the only service, you can provide a client…. I have already thought of 3 initiatives I’ve worked on in the past that this would have been great for!

Think back to the ’60s. Mary Wells Lawrence put her Wells, Rich, Greene agency on the map not by doing an ad, but by redesigning the uniforms that Braniff stewardesses wore (and they were called stewardesses back then) and painting the planes all sorts of psychedelic colors.

At some point though they got derailed into focusing exclusively on craft and clients began to view their value as the ability to choose the exact right shade of blue.

We need to get back to the days where clients want to pay for ideas and where the ideas are deemed more important than the executions that flow out of them.

Mike, Bed et al are offering a good blueprint for getting there.

@Matt – There’s a thin difference between being in the business of selling thinking, and being in the business of selling ideas. Ideas on their own are fragile things that need nurturing. We sell strategy that comes with frameworks for idea development. I’m not sure this is something that creative agencies are set up to be competitive at.

Which dovetails nicely to @Mike’s comment – his model is specifically meant for agencies that want to stay on the production side of things. I still don’t believe that is ultimately scalable, though I’d love to be proved wrong.

This should definitely be considered by every agency out there.

I see my idea as an alternative for agencies who want to stay in the business of creative, just with a different product.

But there are still clients out there engaging agencies to do work. And those clients are used to getting ideas for free and paying for execution. It can’t be said enough… the trick of the immediate future is going to be reframing every conversation around ideas and letting execution take a appropriate role (whether large or small).

At any rate, this conversation is fascinating. I love that we’re still talking about it.

it will take a while, but i think we’re headed to a better place.