Comments on: responding to the agency of the future http://whatconsumesme.com/2010/posts-ive-written/responding-to-the-agency-of-the-future/ marketing meets culture Fri, 03 Feb 2012 07:22:17 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Joe Phelps http://whatconsumesme.com/2010/posts-ive-written/responding-to-the-agency-of-the-future/comment-page-1/#comment-6470 Joe Phelps Wed, 10 Feb 2010 19:47:40 +0000 http://whatconsumesme.com/?p=4549#comment-6470 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 www.thephelpsgruop.com or www.pyramidsaretombs.com Joe Phelps 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

]]> By: Stan http://whatconsumesme.com/2010/posts-ive-written/responding-to-the-agency-of-the-future/comment-page-1/#comment-6413 Stan Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:50:14 +0000 http://whatconsumesme.com/?p=4549#comment-6413 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. 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.

]]> By: edward boches http://whatconsumesme.com/2010/posts-ive-written/responding-to-the-agency-of-the-future/comment-page-1/#comment-6412 edward boches Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:36:09 +0000 http://whatconsumesme.com/?p=4549#comment-6412 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’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.

]]> By: James http://whatconsumesme.com/2010/posts-ive-written/responding-to-the-agency-of-the-future/comment-page-1/#comment-6403 James Tue, 09 Feb 2010 16:51:37 +0000 http://whatconsumesme.com/?p=4549#comment-6403 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, 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.

]]> By: John Dodds http://whatconsumesme.com/2010/posts-ive-written/responding-to-the-agency-of-the-future/comment-page-1/#comment-6395 John Dodds Tue, 09 Feb 2010 14:39:23 +0000 http://whatconsumesme.com/?p=4549#comment-6395 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. 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.

]]>