responding to the agency of the future
February 9th, 2010 • posts i've written
Yesterday I posted a little… tiny… miniscule really, tome of my personal prognostications on the future of the advertising agency, entitled who says the future needs an advertising agency?
And I was honestly and completely taken by surprise at the amount of interest and attention the post received (more than 400 retweets as of last night) – along with the many, many, brilliant comments left by old and new friends across the web.
The commenters did an excellent job of sniffing out questions I forgot to ask myself, pointing out avenues I left unexplored, and calling me out where they think the pooch was screwed. Below you’ll find excerpts from a few of those comments and a reply or two from me – apologies for not including more of the comment itself or more comments from the post (I had to leave room for a few hours of sleep last night) – I highly suggest digging in to the original article and the thoughtful comments that follow. In all seriousness, I’ve never posted anything that received such a high quality and quantity of responses together. Thank you, everyone.
Many people echoed the sentiment of this comment left by Steve Poppe:
Perhaps I’m personalizing a bit, but good agency thinkers “only care about the brand.” If you have lived and breathed a brand for years, you know that losing the business is like losing a pet (didn’t want to say child). I’m still pissed off about poor brand decisions and missteps made by clients who moved on years ago. Good agencies take their brands personally. They may not like the clients and kvetch a lot, but they do like the brands. The good agencies (trad., dig, other) get close to the product and the consumer — and it is this closeness that creates work that really sells.
Steve, I have no doubt that there are people in the industry that truly do feel empathy for their clients and their companies as you clearly do – and if I did have any such silly doubts before, plenty of other commenters have attempted to relieve me of such an ignorant belief. My original statement was probably too incendiary for the sake alone. I’m reminded of a boss I once had: Jim Meyers, President of Imagination Publishing in Chicago. Jim has an amazing curiosity for his client’s business – from the industry they operate in to the names of everyone in the organization. Moreover, I find myself these days working alongside very young and very brilliant thinkers who seem to have their very self-worth entwined with the health of their client. Maybe it’s those I keep running into from the middle lane, that have been working away for too long for the wrong reasons (simply for the paycheck) that have lost that ability to empathize. Thanks for the comment.
Christian reminds agencies to ask the very smart question of what business are we in again?
Change your mission statement. The mission statement of the GM was “We build cars.”
That’s not a mission statement that would have allowed for the innovation that is needed now. Their mission statement should have been “We bring people from A to B.”
Regarding the notion of the agency as a data collector and insights engine for the brand, James Cooper admitted with a bit of frustration,
The trouble is that’s really hard work, and *really* boring. And for the most part people got into the business because they like having fun and can get away with being lazy.
Alan Wolk asked:
As for your idea about platforms: it’s intriguing and certainly a more interesting future than being an executioner. But here’s a question for you and everyone else: Is there a danger of overload with platforms? Will there be a point where we so saturated with platforms that the cost of getting a new one in front of people and getting them to interact with it becomes prohibitive?
Great question Alan, and one you ultimately answer in your comment when you say, “it may mean we’re looking at a marketplace similar to the current TV landscape, where shows become hits for a brief period of time before fading off and being replaced by the new new thing, which everyone accepts as the natural order of things.” Isn’t it funny how we accept the natural order of things right up until the point where we start profiting from the thing? By definition, gold rushes end – if not, we’d call them gold endurances. Bad pun, I apologize.
Edward Boches on conversation strategy:
Good points (though your strings are showing a little bit) that agencies have to change. It seems to me that most, other than the big, fat ones are, however. I am in Minneapolis right now at a small digital shop Hello Viking. They are building platforms, writing software, etc. One thing is that not all clients are here yet. The smart ones, PG, etc are. In fact Facebook has told me that they are getting the idea of conversation strategy way before agencies get it. So you are right about that incredibly important point. One thing I think you miss, however, is the need for that aforementioned conversation strategy. It is important as the platform you refer to. And that means agencies, who have always shat on the PR folks who know how to engage and influence through conversation and interaction, better open their eyes on that front, too. No way a digital developer or a creative team will have either the knowledge or the confidence from a client necessary to do that job.
Edward, I bet we’ve had the same conversations with Facebook – that’s one of the examples I was drawing from as well. You’ve mentioned my strings in your comment and on your posterous account, and I just want to be very open and direct with you because I take that kind of accusation very seriously… Frankly, I’m a much more advanced model of puppet than you’ve come to suspect. Batteries, my dear friend, are the way of the future. Strings are soooooo one-point-oh.
In all seriousness, I have nothing to gain by writing my post other than the attention of smart people like yourself (and your delicious brain that comes with you), a bit of attention for myself and the rest of my thoughts here (may I suggest collecting them like Pokemon?), and the opportunity to go deep on a topic with my obsessive compulsive mind (which keeps it away from assessing the thread count of my sheets at night). Alright, so I do have a bit to gain, but unfortunately, Undercurrent nor I have figured out a way to monetize this blog… yet. But I get what you mean though – and I do hope I can rally a few more likeminded people over to my side of the fence, maybe a new client too, and therefore sustain the place I like to spend the hours between 10am and 6pm everyday. That wouldn’t be bad, no?
Mark Lewis nails the campaign to the wall:
Another point you did not mention is the campaign focus of agencies. Because of their reliance on old marketing models, agencies tend to look for one big answer which can be replicated across many channels. I would argue that modern, web enabled commerce demands many smaller efforts. This takes a different model in terms of payment and organization.
Rayna offers a perspective from the client-side:
I’ve worked for large CPG brands, in the position of working with outside agency partners of all specialities (i.e., digital, media, traditional, PR, and the ‘full service’) and have to admit that some brands create some of the challenges for agencies that you speak of. Larger brands tend to hire a ‘cast of thousands’ when it comes to agencies — dividing work amongst numerous companies (that are not related)– and most don’t play well. Further, many brand managers are not always knowledgable about how best to work with agencies and get the best work from their partners.
Rayna’s absolutely right, the brand plays a significant part in today’s troubles. It’s a market after all, and maladies exist equally on the sides of supply and demand here. I would have liked to address this more in the post, if only I had had another week dedicated to writing it.
Internet friend and fellow Mad Person, Helen Klein Ross aka Ad Broad weighs in, too (her full comment is worth the click over to the post):
Agree with you that agencies are still dissing digital, what could be clearer proof of this than the parade last night of $3 million URL-less spots?
And I think David Gillespie provides a nice statement to close the comments out with:
All I can say is bring it on; advertising has had it too easy for too long.
When we envision the future, we confront ourselves with our own estimations of fate – and we can either choose to work towards or against this fate in front of us. Whether you agree or disagree with my personal reflection on the future, I think we can agree that both of us have a good deal of work ahead. The passionate exchange on the original post (and hopefully this post, too) seems like a great way to revive our spirits and begin the work again.
Thank you for inspiring me.
Related posts:
- who says the future needs an advertising agency?
- a week dedicated to fans and the future
- fans are the future of digital marketing
5 Responses (add your comment)
-
-
Bud, great post and intellectual kindling. Nicely done sparking this fire.
The part of the discussion I think that’s missing thus far is that the ad agency is a construction to organize resources around a type of industry. Today’s ad agency is largely a legacy model fit for mass media — a few messages through a few channels to a large audience, repeated over and over.
But the media landscape has changed so now we have mass media, micro media, niche media, games, apps, etc. Audiences of millions and audiences in the single digits.
The media model has evolved and the constraints that led to the ad agency model have changed. But the organization model of the ad agency has not kept pace.
So we’re no longer living in a world where a few messages through a few channels to a large audience is the only way to do business. It’s one way but this artificial scarcity creates strains when it’s applied to contexts where it doesn’t fit.
And besides, now we can create in abundance, get feedback, iterate and create once more. I think the future is reflective of Boyd’s Law of Iteration: speed of iteration beats quality of iteration.
-
Bud:
I’ve learned that if you want lots and lots of engagement either put “crowdsourcing” in your headline or the “future of advertising.” All good stuff here. Did not mean to insult you. Or accuse you of anything. (And I don’t think you’re manipulated by others.) My real point was that everyone, all of us (I supposed myself included) craft all of our arguments from the perspective of what we do and sell. Obviously RGA is all about the platform and the death of the campaign. You guys are a bit about that, too. And yes, the platform, with its earned attention, is essential to future success. Though I wonder whether the agency that creates that digital experience can be the same one to figure out the positioning and what the brand stands for. Strikes me that the future agency will be good at three things: a driving brand idea (not too narrowly focused as to be limiting and definitely not confined to a message); the ability to bring it to life in something other than a campaign (platform, experience, utility); and finally, one that’s really good at the conversation. Ad agencies (traditional) are all about the first with the message. Digital shops are good with the platform. Social media agencies (if they’re more than smoke and mirrors) understand the conversation part. The reason the latter matters is that both a message and a platform are something that exist in between a brand and its consumers. But eliminate all of that and what’s there is dialog, connection, conversation. It’s a different skill set. Many of our peers and contemporaries are great at making or building things, or crafting messages. They’re not good at direct interaction and communication. So, does an agency learn to master all three? Does a client curate and choreograph the necessary skills? Will there be new models and skill sets? My original point, yesterday’s comment, is that it’s easy to make an argument from the perspective of what we sell or do for clients. Totally agree that traditional is dying and old line agencies are becoming irrelevant. Also agree that the platform matters. But even that may not be enough. Great conversation. Thanks for the inclusion above. -
Bud,
I have tried to get tekkies and creatives to embrace each other in two “agencies” so far. To no avail I’m sorry to report. Inevitably silos are formed and built higher and stronger on a daily basis. I’m beginning to think the two can’t coexist. Hopefully I’m wrong. I think our future depends on it.
-
These articles on agency models are often frustrating, because:
1. They’re often too negative
2. They usually miss the point.
The universe is simultaneously expanding and contracting.
Integration is the key to success as the elements become more fragmented and plentiful.
So when guys like Jaffe and Greenberg say things like the better model is going to divide the idea makers and the technicians they’re missing the point.Sometimes there’s no true beginning or ending of the process. And how many times have you “backed” into a strategy based on a terrific execution?
for example: messaging people might say to media people… “oh, that type of banner is now available? Good. Let’s build one of those”
i.e. the concept may be spurred by the execution possibilities… and if conceptual people aren’t exposed to the technical people, then they miss too many opportunities.
So, in my opnion, it’s not big ideas in one company and execution of those ideas in another company.
The answer is true integration of the concept thru execution fostered by alignment of goals, open communications and teamwork. Want to know more about how we do it go to http://www.thephelpsgruop.com or http://www.pyramidsaretombs.com
Joe Phelps
The other elephant in the room is the client – the agency of the future will surely be the one that they demand.
To some extebnt at least, the shortcomings of the agency of today are reflections of some clients’ willingness to outsource their responsibilities, some clients’ belief that marketing has to mean advertising, and some clients’ obsession with spend as the arbiter of their suitability for career progression.