Why Digital Agencies Are Indeed Ready to Lead
They Understand the Technology, the Speed of Iteration and Analytics
| |
| Jacques-Herve Roubert | |
So why does the debate continue? Does offline or online really matter to an oblivious consumer who's only interested in "no-line" communications? Are we spending too much time focusing on who should lead and not enough asking: What's next?
Ana Andjelic's DigitalNext post, provocatively titled "Why Digital Agencies Aren't Ready to Lead," mentions several reasons why digital agencies aren't ready to lead, one of which was their lack of experience in the business (as compared with the "decades of experience" that traditional agencies are known for). I'm sure there are instances where decades of experience can directly translate into success, but there are certainly instances (uh, Lehman Brothers?) where deep roots had no bearing on their ability to produce -- and produce well. Furthermore, a certain percentage of the individuals now working and thriving in digital agencies came from traditional agencies.
Additionally, most of the world's most ingenious inventions were not created overnight, but took years of hard work, research, observation, trial and error, and collaboration to fine tune. The digital ecosystem has required much of the same exploration -- and, in most cases, into technologies that are new to all of us. As James March himself said, "Exploration involves being an amateur for a while, but only as a step on the way to being a professional."
And while the structure of an interactive agency may often mimic "one big crazy family" (by the way: Whose family isn't crazy?), how could making sure everyone's opinion is heard be a bad thing? Most interactive agencies subscribe to the notion that you never know where the big idea or concept will come from. Sometimes the big idea can come from the exploration of a new technology or method that enhances consumer connection.
Here's why:
- That was then, this is now. Like it or not, the days of the ingenious, 30-second TV spot are over. Today's creative ingenuity lies within the idea, the technology, the concept, the innovation and, perhaps most important, the Holy Grail: consumer connection. Word of mouth is more prevalent than ever and interactive communities have an increasingly louder and more influential voice and are stronger (and sometimes the only) sources of breaking news stories. No one understands this better -- nor is better equipped to handle the swift demands required -- than the digital agency.
- Teaching an old dog new tricks. The "new trick" is immediacy. It's about faster response times and the concept of immediacy. E-mail, IM, Twitter, Facebook, cellphones -- all of these technologies set the stage for consumers wanting and expecting immediate responses, not to mention, immediate access to products and services. Traditional advertising agencies are not adapting to this mentality because they are still working with processes and organizational structures that were developed in a time when the internet and the concept of immediacy simply did not exist.
Digital agencies understand that brands are being held to higher-than-ever consumer expectations. The plethora of data we can garner from a $50,000 media buy can leave traditional agencies' heads spinning with insight and analysis. The truth of the matter is: Interactive agencies are forcing traditional agencies to integrate with digital media to better track and measure campaign results through custom URLs, short codes, etc.
- Kickin' it old school. Not only are the days of the 30-second TV spot gone, so too are the traditional advertising agency gurus like David Ogilvy and Bill Bernbach. Today, those figures have been replaced, instead, by financially backed entities. Rather than exploration and exploitation, digital agencies need their own gurus and legends that can lead by example.
Five or 10 years ago, I might agree with the argument that digital agencies weren't ready to lead, but after sitting at the table with other agencies for the past decade -- traditional, branding, public relations, marketing -- it's clear that digital agencies have proven their value, not to mention their ability to innovate, inspire, and create the big idea.
Perhaps the synergy and balance between exploitation and exploration is off kilter for digital agencies, but more and more we're starting to see the agency structure itself change with new hires in technology and social media. And marketers are noticing:
- According to Media magazine, AKQA was named the lead agency for Nike India earlier this year.
- Precor named Ascentium its agency of record in October 2009. According to Forrester's Q2 2009 Interactive Agency Wave, Ascentium "received the highest client satisfaction scores in this year's review." The assignment with Precor includes strategic planning and execution of all offline and online campaigns.
- McAfee hiring Tribal DDB as its agency of record in 2008. This assignment included all TV, print, outdoor, and digital.
The balance may not be there today, tomorrow or next month. The truth of the matter is digital agencies have earned their right to sit at the head of the table because they've brought what consumers and marketers are looking for: new innovations in measurement; flexibility and nimbleness; and, most importantly, ideas that bring what a magazine spread or 30-second TV spot cannot.
| ABOUT THE AUTHOR | |
|
Now president-CEO of Nurun, a global interactive marketing agency, Jacques-Hervé Roubert began his career in advertising at Havas Conseil and subsequently held senior executive positions with BDDP and Young & Rubicam. |
|
RSS Feed›› DigitalNext
Most Recent Posts 
- Going Mobile for Hopenhagen
- What Do Matt Lauer, Social-Media Experts and My Kid Have in Common?
- Jamming for the Hungry
- We Still Have Plenty For Which to Be Thankful
- American Cancer Society Builds on Birthday Effort
- Google, This Side of $100 Billion
- We're Raising Superheroes, So Can You
- Sorry Rupert, News Content Is Not a Google Killer
- Tipsy Turkey Brought to You by Georgi Vodka
- AOL Kicks Running Man Out Of Bed
- 'Giving Thanks': Helping the Hungry
- More Asians in TV Spots? It's About Time
- Is the Promise of Viral Success Holding the Ad Industry Back?
- JC Penney's 'Doghouse' Returns
- Autism Speaks Hosts Chicago Fundraiser
White Paper
The New Female Consumer: The Rise of the Real Mom
This Advertising Age and JWT white paper explores what multiple generations of American women want when it comes to family, work and life in the 21st century, decades after the women's liberation movement.
Bob Garfield
Verizon Exiles IPhone to Island of Misfit Toys for the Holidays
Too-Cool Apple Now Finding Itself on the Receiving End of Competitor Ridicule
Special Report
America's Hottest Brands
Advertising Age Honors the Top Brands of the Year -- and the Brains Behind Them
3 Minute Ad Age Video
Wal-Mart CMO Reflects on The Chaos of 2006
Marketing Side Was 'Out of Control' He Says
Special Report
Marketer of the Year: Hyundai
The carmaker won handily in our reader poll, besting Walmart, McDonald's, Lego and Amazon
Ad Age Video
Eddie Murphy's Long-Term Effect on Ad Agency Diversity
The Video Story of Dallas' Marcus Graham Project
Weekly Online Poll
Will small digital-production shops working directly with clients turn big digital agencies into unnecessary middlemen?
White Paper: 2010 America
What the 2010 Census Means for Marketing and Advertising
2010 America explains what you need to know about the biggest consumer market-research project of the decade: the 2010 U.S. census. Demographics expert Peter Francese, author of this highly readable Ad Age white paper, analyzes what the census will reveal about the changing face of consumers.
Most Read Most E-Mailed
Most Read Most E-mailed
Be part of the celebration at The Ad Age Media Mavens Awards Luncheon
Sponsored by ESPN. Join the world's leading media strategists for a celebration of creative thinking, innovation and a look at how the best are preparing for 2010. More
(What is RSS?)
I haven't seen much evidence that digital agencies are ready to lead brands where they need to go, anymore than I've seen traditional agencies capable of leading their brands for at least the last 10 years. Sure, the digital shops get the technology, but the smarter ones will tell you that it's not about the technology.
One of my favorite quotes is from Anne Busquet, former CEO of IAC and American Express, which goes "It's not the age of the internet, it's the age of customer control." Yet the debate rages on amongst you BIG ADVERTISING types about whether the internet guys or the TV guys get to be in charge. Guess what: none of you is in charge. Nor should you be.
So where are the customer control shops? Right here, for one. I built my company on the idea proposed by Sergio Zyman in The End of Advertising As We Know It, that marketers need to accept the responsibility for driving strategy themselves, instead of abdicating that leadership to their agencies. Then, they should surround themselves with experts who can help them develop various parts of their brands.
We represent the model of the future because we are so much closer to the consumer than most agencies even think is possible. And we make it our job to educate our clients and bring them in on the conversation, rather than mystifying our value by making it seem like creative voodoo or technological wizardry.
But I'm not saying agencies like ours should be in the lead. I'm saying the conversation about who's in the lead is not really worth having. While that conversation is happening, consumers are getting further and further away from us all.
--Josh
http://rebelindustries.com
The reasons for this are many and you pointed out some really good ones regarding where the energy, ideas and innovation is coming from. But the basic underlying reason is rooted in the business model of the big traditional agencies more than anything else. The traditional business model is based on revenue streams from media, not direct billable hours. This means that to be successful, agencies were forced into thinking about media as the prime distribution channel because that is how they make money. Digital agencies are not boxed in that way and as a result, they are able to look more broadly across channels and take a more customer-centric approach to communication than a media or product based approach.
Devotion to gathering customer intelligence across multiple channels online, offline and emerging social channels and then applying that to create customer experiences which produce trackable and measureable results is the key to our success at Ascentium and I believe that same can be said for the other great emerging digital agencies as well. The big agencies are saddled with the innovator's dilemma and while it won't be the end of them, it certainly erects a big speed bump to innovation.
We shouldn't confuse tactics and channels for strategies and ideas. We need all of them, and we need them working together.
I always thought that meant SEO and Social Media (like getting things popular on Digg).
Evidently many are classifying it as firms that do media spends for google adwords and paid placement.
Should Digital be leading? Clearly the answer is yes... but only if you define it as the prior rather than the latter.
Making a robust campaign to get things to rank well become popular on social media sites and getting other bloggers to embed a viral video takes planning and by all means has the tendency to become a lead agency.
Throwing up a flash based site that doesn't rank and throwing 200,000 into Google Adwords isn't digital... and no they shouldn't be leading anything.. because that's nothing more than a media buy.
Ditto to TimGeo-- It is not an either or...it is all. If you have all read the reports on Network buys- the numbers are the highest ever - so commercials are not dead. The issue is correct as Tim said - it is the thinking /strategy behind every communications in all media.
My first business professor many moons ago had one idea that defined his marketing introduction course. He would ask this question at the beginning of the course, "What is the definition of a product?" By the end of the semester, you had better know the answer, or he would not pass you. The deceptively simple answer was, "whatever the customer wants it to be."
That is basically making the same case as Josh, which is that the customer/consumer is really running things these days. Most of the time, we marketers and agency types just get in the way.
Agencies need to stop the constant, self-centered whining about who is in control, or not. The more we say WE are, the less we REALLY are.
One more thing: I was amused that Josh would quote Sergio Zyman as his inspiration. Sergio's New Coke fiasco really showed that he did not understand the reality of the marketing equation and who truly yields the power (he mistakenly thought he did!). And most of his pronouncements and writings since that historic marketing mistake have demonstrated more that he is an old school marketing guy who is more concerned with burnishing his guru status than actually practicing breakthrough marketing.
But, then again, perhaps old Sergio has learned a thing or two in recent years. Stranger things have happened.
It seems relatively simple to me. Some agencies are capable of leading some are not. This has to do with calibre of people and thinking not whether someone knows how to code a site or write a TV spot.
In two years time the word digital won't exist. (I'm really hoping that's the case anyway.)
I fully agree that those who see every marketing challenge though the lens of a 30-second commercial are not helping their clients. I also believe the same must be said about anybody who views all solutions through the lens of any single discipline, including digital.
What marketers are increasingly demanding are people with the expertise and skills to think across multiple platforms. That's the best way to truly connect with consumers. The new normal in marketing must rise above advertising vs. digital, traditional vs. non-traditional, online vs offline.
Today at Barrie D'Rozario Murphy, teams are creating ideas across online advertising, social media, sales promotions, street teams, and yes, some very good print and television. A highly traditional advertising agency might not embrace Twitter as the ideal way to promote airfares for United. Likewise, a digital agency might not hire roving street teams to promote eBike test rides for Best Buy. If you are not biased toward any one discipline, all these ideas are in-bounds.
And therein lies the point. We need to stop worrying about which discipline has the best seat at the table. The client will likely give that seat to the agency creating the best ideas.
David Murphy
http://www.bdm.net/
It is about BALANCE. Using the right strategy and execution at the right time and the guidance we give to our clients. I come from a creative and design background, but quickly understood that without the technical knowledge — and much more importantly the technical know-how, our ideas and creativity falls way short. A broad understanding of multiple sides and the ability to use those resources creatively is what will ultimately prove success for us as advertisers and more importantly the clients that we serve.
I was not a philosophy major in school, but I would say being "...open to everything, and attached to nothing" will allow us to be truly multi-channeled in not only our sometimes falsified, and often convincing advertising and marketing campaigns—but to be leading simultaneously and leveraging the power of both in such great balance that it creates real finesse.
No matter what the campaign is, whether it started by a great idea or gained attention through some other psychological phenomenon, it is the finesse we apply to all aspects, and this is achieved through balance of both sides. We are quickly learning that those without both the right brain and left brain advertising philosophy are a dying breed — and we need to merge these two sides of and as TimeGeo says "...we need them working together" ! well said.
I believe that all agencies are missing the leadership boat as few are able to demonstrate both strategic thinking capabilty as well as excellent tactical thinking. Digital agencies are still falling down in their ability to manage large projects/programs over time. This requires strong project management expertise & technical expertise along with the ability to produce a great idea.
The reality is that all of these abilities may not be available in one agency whatever you label it. But why is that so bad? We in the agency world created the expectation in our client's mind that they should try to find all things in us; no one says it has to be that way. Isn't it a better business model to be consitently great at some aspect of this quickly changing consumer environment instead of trying to do it all?
The problem is the creative and strategy isn't the same.
You can't lump them together as it's akin to saying newspapers ads and 30 second spots on Cartoon Network are the same thing.
Sorry guys... any agency that feels they are the same isn't ready to lead it.
Consider this: The product is a delivery device for your Value Proposition. Our job, as marketers is to connect with people who might appreciate that value proposition enough to part with currency for it.
Now consider all the options for communication: Direct Mail, Radio, Outdoor, Television, Newspaper, Telephone, e-mail, Websites, Social Media, Mobile applications etc.
Put yourself in the mind of prospect... would you rather develop a relationship with a company or product to which there is only one direction for the communication to flow? Ever tried to express your ideas to your television or a billboard?
When considering the future of marketing, imagine what people really want. They want that value delivered in exactly the form that makes them happy. They don't want to be sold to. Its all inevitably interactive. One way communication is a giant robot with a megaphone, nobody loves.
Anyone who wants to start a dialog about interactive marketing, we are doing it and doors are open. www.magnity.com
In many cases, there is no difference between traditional and digital. By that I mean that the big digital agencies have brought the old world (read: traditional) thinking into the digital realm. Their processes are outdated, as are their view of how the world works.
Just as the old advertising agencies are misguided in thinking that we're still glued to our TV sets waiting to see Mr. Whipple squeeze the Charmin, the digital guys are misguided in thinking anyone gives a damn about clicking a banner ad or playing with your Facebook app.
That kind of talk will get you slapped around here. Because we're living in a world where consumers don't believe what they're being fed, so they ain't eating it. They just don't care. No technology is going to fix that, any more than increasing the budget for your super bowl ad is going to fix it. This doesn't mean you won't find statistics that people actually do sit through ads or engagement metrics for branded content. But don't let those things fool you into thinking you're in charge.
Ishown said "companies must be nimble enough to go where the buyer already is interacting." True, but going there is only the tip of the iceberg. First, you need to be able to answer some tough questions like: Why would anyone want us there? Are they going to let us in? What do we have to contribute to the conversation? When we help companies build Twitter or Facebook pages, we start by challenging them on why anyone in his right mind would spend a minute interacting with them in that environment. Most brands don't have that answer.
Hey caprityme: I think you're right about Sergio. But the book is spot on in its analysis of what's happening to our world and where to go from here.
--Josh
http://rebelindustries.com
The fact that the average CMO tenure is often measured in months, not years, speaks to a profound level of dysfunction within the broader corporate culture. Clearly, the last several decades have seen a slow atrophy, and a shift of power to the nominal servants (i.e. agencies).
But now that people have realized that a brand's image is formed by a constellation of factors that go beyond *any* agency's purview (e.g. embarrassing lobbying drives, toxic products, sub-par retail experiences, abusive practices, mass layoffs, etc.) it should be explicitly clear that real brand authority belongs with - and only with - the company itself.
After all, that's who the shareholders invested in. Unless the agency actually bought a piece of their client's business, they should avoid saying they "own" a major part of it.
You don't own it. You handle it. That's a big difference - and not one that should be lost on any profession that is deeply concerned about how different word choice leads to different impressions.
Obviously, external creative and media companies will - like outside legal counsel, auditing firms, and separate logistics providers - be able to go on doing good business with companies of all size, even after Marketing Chiefs, as a class, get their mojo back.
But to say you 'control' the brand is an act of serious overreach. Savvy agencies should use that language about as frequently as savvy employees talk openly about how they 'control' their bosses - especially when real control would mean taking responsibility for a constellation of factors that no agency could ever manage, even if they wanted to.
So for the record, the person sitting at the head of the table is not from the "digital side" or from the "analog side". No, the person at the head of the table is the one carrying the checkbook that got both sides to sit down at the table in the first place.
Moreover, both sides should realize that "traditional" vs. "digital" is not a categorization that applies to actual customers, their goodwill, or their money.
If you're dealing with an agency that hasn't figured out this part, its pedigree is irrelevant.
Digital agencies will be ready to lead when and if they hire extremely smart, talented and proven conceptual thinkers who truly understand branding and the importance of client relationship.
A CD is a CD no matter where you put it and big ideas are media-agnostic.
Tito
titomelega.com
Twitter: @titomelega
http://www.linkedin.com/in/titomelega
The fact is that we just want an equal seat at the table and have the ability to help formulate the digital aspects of the campaign and make the decisions from a digital POV and get paid for it equally.
Traditional agencies take a million bucks from the client for a website and then bids out the project to a digital shop for a quarter of what the client is paying. Brands can come directly to us and get 10 times the work they would get by going through the traditional agency for a quarter of the cost.
Digital and Traditional need to work side by side without traditional dictating how the relationship should work.
In my close to 15 years in digital I have seen the most ridiculous and amazing retarded decisions made by traditional agencies on how to design, develop, execute and maintain a website or digital campaign.
You hire a plumber because you don't know anything about plumbing, you hire digital for the same reason.
Over the past 15 years we have been absorbing the brands, the agency culture, the process and the games that are played each and every day and have learned how to manage our own work directly with the client.
I am so proud of shops like Firstborn and Big Spaceship who have realized that they no longer have to be whipping posts and that having a direct line to the brand is the best way to produce the best work.
Traditional agencies are great at what they do and digital is great at what they do, only question is why are CMOs still going to traditional shops for digital work?
Its not about who is leading its about walking SIDE BY SIDE.
At the same time, the post and subsequent comments continue to demonstrate the complexity of the issue. It's difficult to even define a digital firm. And it's getting increasingly difficult to define an advertising firm too. And it's even difficult to define who handles digital on a single brand.
When you ask, "Are Digital Agencies Ready to Lead?" one can't help buy wonder, "Lead What?
The question might be, "Are Clients Ready To Follow (Anyone or Anything)?" In many cases today, clients are not even following the traditional ad agencies.
Many big clients continue to segregate and silo their own forces. The client reps handling digital have little contact with the client reps handling advertising, the client reps handling direct marketing, the client reps handling events, promotions, multicultural, etc. And things get even more complicated. CMOs may delegate the responsibilities they don't understand and/or want to deal with – plus, their average tenure of about 18 months makes it difficult for any firm to develop the relationships required to lead. And let's not forget clients who shift their business to new firms every 18 months.
Consider the chaos. For example, Goodby does digital branding work for Sprint. Euro RSCG handles the digital direct marketing for Sprint. DDB handles work for Wrigley, who just decided to dump Tribal DDB. How many digital firms do advertisers like MillerCoors or Anheuser-Busch/InBev employ? Beside the basic logo guidelines, is anyone really integrating the efforts?
Plus, as others are recognizing, digital firms and advertising firms are working off different business models and revenue structures. If traditional advertising agencies appear to be "leading," it's mostly because they continue to consume the lion's share of the marketing budget. One tends to spend the most time with the people you are paying the most money to. Too bad digital agencies didn't think to charge clients for a landing page what traditional advertising agencies charge for a TV spot or even a print ad.
Finally, to continue my unfocused rant, if digital firms are not ready to lead, why does Ad Age award Global Agency of the Year to firms like Tribal DDB, and depict guys like Robert Greenberg among its illustrations of industry leaders?
This entire debate seems like a pointless exercise. The answers are completely unique to individual firms and clients. You can't apply stereotypes and blanket statements to anything.
Agencies who hold on to legacy revenue models built around 30 second spots and print ads need will eventually recognize that media consumption habits have changed. Digital agencies focused entirely on web development will become frustrated when small mobile only "agencies" appear on client rosters.
Three solutions
1. The agency world needs to invest in real research and development.
2. We need to dramatically increase pay scales and reduce complex agency models full of fat.
3. Attract world class talent and abandon the holding company model.
Good digital ideas are based on interaction and consumer value. Good traditional ideas are based on a compelling message. Both work to deliver a brand perception and ultimately a positioning.
The quality of an agency (digital or traditional) is how well you craft/manage that positioning. Brand ideas and positioning should be translate across mediums in compelling ways. Any agency who can do that is fit to lead.
Brian Chiger | AgencyNet
www.ANidea.com
@brianchiger
Are digital agencies poised to sit at the "head" of the table and ready to lead? No. They have earned a seat at the table, but in my opinion the client always sits at the head. However, seated to the client's right, should be the agency partner who has developed the best program to achieve the goals for that particular campaign regardless of the medium. Media planners, event marketing and promotions agencies, traditional, and digital shops should always have an equal voice.
I agree with Andjelic's assertion that traditional agencies offer a much deeper level of planning and insight in addition to their experience and years of battlefield tested success. Sure, digital agencies are nimble and adaptive, but traditional agencies understand brands and marketing challenges in a way that digital agencies don't. There are a few exceptions with some agencies that "heavy up" on the front end of an engagement to better understand the business objectives and goals of a program. However, most of them have positioned themselves as downstream production partners for the execution, which is where they have had the most success and won the most awards.
Sure the model is changing, but it hasn't evolved to the extent that digital has become the linchpin for every advertising campaign. The "big idea" isn't about pushing the limits of technology or using the latest version of Flash. It's birthed by looking at a set of problems and developing the best holistic approach towards solving them, regardless of the medium, which might not be digital.
I would love to know what percentage of people now working and "thriving" within digital agencies came from traditional agencies. If these digital agencies are successful as the result of that shift, perhaps it's because these people bring with them a more thoughtful approach towards addressing campaign objectives and a deeper fundamental understanding of advertising and marketing. The importance lies in creating a smart campaign supported with the right marketing tactics that lead to "success as defined by your client."
This debate has been waged for a few years now and it's getting stale. Here's a novel idea, how about an article about advertising and real "convergence" in the not so distant future. Perhaps at that point the digital agencies will be better suited to lead the charge.
"The problem is the creative and strategy isn't the same. You can't lump them together as it's akin to saying newspapers ads and 30 second spots on Cartoon Network are the same thing."
Yes, they are. Those are all channels. Even the product itself is a channel. You just hone the messaging to each.
In all three places I've worked with a few people who are ready to lead, and many people who are not.
IMO, the most important characteristic isn't the depth of experience in brand issues or technology. What matters most are brains, ears and heart.
1) Brains: the ability to understand the business challenge and express what needs to be accomplished clearly?
2) Ears: the ability to listen carefully and evaluate which strategies, tools and tactics are most likely to be successful.
3) Heart: having the courage to sell the right ideas up the line, and the people skills to inspire a wide-ranging internal and external team to do the right things, especially when most people who think they deserve to be in the driver's seat won't be.
It doesn't matter much whether you're at a traditional agency, a digital agency, or the client side. If you have brains, ears and heart you have a good shot at leading the process. If you have a big ego and a "me-first" attitude, you probably won't.
It's a channel... but it's not a like or even similar channel. Because making posts on a company blog is the same thing as hanging a sign in the front door?
People comment on it, they cut and paste it and throw it into e-mails.. they discuss it on site or via trackbacks, throw it one twitter.. make fun of it on Youtube... post it in forums.. reply on their own blog.
It's not just the channel man.. it's the entire Station.
I'm willing to argue that you don't need any other channel... mostly because the "channel" we are discussion happens to have 50 million sub channels in it.
And of course it's evident that just the strategic thinking and good ideas give the best solution and give the rights to any agency to lead.
BUT the question is: Are any agency - who is good in strategy- ready to lead if it is not expert in digital adverting?
To this question the right answer is NO!
And from this viewpoint the digital agencies have the clear advantage but just in case they have all the capabilities to use all the other media as perfect as the "traditional" agencies could do.
Gabor Csizmadia
t:@csizmadiagabor
By the way, digital is not a channel, is not a medium, is not a department etc. To quote a former colleague, "it's like the air we breathe...it's all around us and part of everything we do." Best term I can come up with to define that is "thingamajig."
Discipline doesn't matter. There are plenty of "traditional" agencies who shouldn't be leading anything.
When the very dynamic of the agency > brand relationship is being turned upside down these days, how can any blanket statement, any absolute or either-or mindset apply?
Many brands have different needs at different times with different "partners." What one shop can truly handle it all, and why is lead/total control being held up as the Holy Grail here?
- This idea that consumers are in control is Thought Leader™ 101 logic—but it's inaccurate. Consumers may control the experience they have with a brand or how they respond to bad customer service, and they may even help shape product development to a degree, but let's/don't/not confuse that with the consumer having a say over everything a brand needs.
A Mt. Dew can design or Lego product suggestion is not the same as being able to create the messaging that a brand needs across all its media channels.
- Brands only buy ideas? Wish reality matched the sentiment.
I've watched several brands bypass thinking from both small traditional or digital/interactive shops that blew away what the larger incumbents had come up with. The brand clung to their need for the comfort of a big shop because they felt the smaller shops couldn't handle the heavy lifting. THAT falls on the brand, stuck in their large agency mindset.
Also, because of either legal issues or existing contracts they're sometimes locked into with agencies, brands do not and will not take ideas from just anywhere.
Brands have always been owned by the customer, what digital provides is an opportunity to engage.
The ad agencies are in the exploiting mode, the digital in the exploratory mode, the people who own the brand are the consumers, but the responsibility for making it work are the company producing the "product"
The lead agencies in the future are more likely to be consultants.
As part of the transition in agencies, has anyone noticed the human resource passage from Traditional ad agencies to Digital agencies?
As far as I see from the job applications for my agency, I see more and more very bright minded people applying from the traditional side of the advertising world. And of course we do encourage and welcome the best ones fitting our expectations.
Hence, hiring such traditionally experienced bright people will help digital agencies to absorb the traditional agency qualities with much ease for completing the full transition. This will give a greater advantage to digital agencies in the race of becoming the New Generation Agency against the traditional ones.
Köksal Abdurrahmanoglu
follow my Tweets @Koksal
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Join us where we discuss the Future of Advertising at
http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=2090773&trk=hb_side_g
The elephant in the room however is that this age old debate of integration has moved on and isn't just about advertising, direct and digital coming together any more but a much wider array of brand touchpoints.
Consumers don't care about advertising as we knew it. Touchpoints like packaging, experiential, product design and service design are now as, if not more, influential in many cases (consider the Apple packaging or Virgin Atlantic lounge experiences) but what chance the lead ad agency getting that if they're still struggling to understand 'digital'.
Pity the poor client with 8 or so agencies to rustle together and keep aligned around, NOT the brand, but the consumer.
It's not a media planning task but a new type of creative strategy task - requiring a creative, people focussed version of the big four consultancy groups who are slowly moving in on adlands dinner as it is.
The concept of Master Planning for Brands taps into this and may deliver a brand framework, a book of insights and/or opportunity map for the brand. All based on consumer insight - a blueprint, a hymn sheet for all to sing from that all stakeholders can align around and not reinvent the wheel, again.
http://bit.ly/MasterPlanning
From my vantage point, the so-called traditional agencies failed to understand the value of digital and it's role in an integrated program and the digital agencies are simply repeating the error from a different angle.
Think that about says it all.
That said - the word IS changing - just not yet. It is still in flux, many castles must crumble first (and heads must roll)
One more thing - non-digital and digital alike do not know SHIT about how business really works. I spent a few years as CD at FILA - that was eye-opening. Until you do client side for a while, you know nothing (or very little).....You really need to see how a business actually works - it is more than a website or print ad.
MAMUS
ACTA NON VERBA!
1) the majority of adults in the U.S. have little or more than a high school diploma and most of them spend little or no time on-line.
3) on-line reach is more fragmented than any other major media
3) Veronis Suhler Stevens Communications has reported that for adults, the average time spent with media breaks down as follows:
35% Cable TV
28% Radio
24% Broadcast TV
7% Internet
6% Newspaper
Of course, the internet is 'hot' if you are trying to reach a well educated, affluent, younger consumer; by all means, go digital. For the majority of most product categories, take another look at the stats above.
Remember the story of the foolish man and his son who were leading their donkey to the market? The man responded to every passing comment, kept changing the way he was doing things to please each neighbor, and ended up losing donkey and all.
The moral? Amid the excitement of 'listening to the consumer voice' brands have to discipline themselves to ask 'who is this consumer? and do they have anything worth listening to?'
That's the problem with the romance of "immediacy" -- I can't think of anything more foolish than 'corporate spontaneity.' Who is the voice that will speak for the company? The tech for a teen and a titan may be the same, but the impact isn't. If you doubt it, ask a shareholder.
We've been working across disciplines for a few years now, translating new media for classic marketers. Most times, it's the client who isn't ready -- not ready for open communication, not ready for the continual attention that must be paid and investment in iteration that must be made, not ready to let go of the reins. Other clients can't wait to be 'early adopters' – often with little thought to the long term goals amid their eagerness to appear cutting edge for its own sake.
But if you look at the sites whose 'best practices' we all study – Amazon, Jet Blue, or Fresh Direct – what you're looking at is a long term commitment to gradual iteration and development. They listen to consumers, think, test, and keep what works. They also make sure that every aspect of the company behind the site is oriented toward that same customer satisfaction. I'll never forget that the owners of FreshDirect drive around on Thanksgiving with a truck full of pumpkin pies and baked turkeys just in case someone's order didn't arrive right.
That those sites have the successes they have is testimony to their discipline as marketers – not their willingness to respond to every passing tweet. The culture on the client side has to be ready.
We're helping clients monitor the social conversation and respond appropriately - does that make us 'digital' or 'traditional'? It makes us both.
I agree with part of the thinking in your article, Jacques, i.e. the part that suggests 'digital agencies have come of age, and should not be considered secondary to traditional advertising agencies.'
Where I disagree, though -- I believe that no specialty agency can claim leadership in marketing today and tomorrow.
Our customers have become a mosaic of proud individuals. Our media have democratized. Our purchase channels have proliferated. Even the distinction between on-line and off-line has blurred into insignificance. And all these trends show no sign of slowing.
An average Fortune 500 corporation today invests in more than sixty different marketing categories, across more than twenty agencies, and across more than 2000 annual marketing programs.
My firm has worked with several of the largest marketers in the world, and I can tell you that the largest slice of any of their marketing pies – is less than 25% -- of the total marketing investment.
You're right, Jacques, we cannot ascribe future marketing leadership to the traditional agency ... but neither can we ascribe it to the digital agency, not even those as impressive as the ones you run ... (nor, for that matter, can we ascribe marketing leadership to PR nor CRM nor Media nor any other specialty category nor agency).
Marketing leadership today is steadily evolving toward the entity that generates profit and growth, regardless of the number of specialties involved. This evolution is not complete, but it's well underway, and it too shows no sign of slowing.
Marketing leadership must manage profitability up and down the enterprise(business units, geographies, channels), across the spectrum of marketing investments (over sixty types for an average large corporation, and along the lifecycle of individual customers (from prospects to customers to upsell to retention).
To say it simply, marketing leadership today and tomorrow -- belongs to generalists (not specialists).
This takes nothing away, Jacques, from your exceptional digital agencies.
But your question -- 'which specialty agency leads marketing?' -- is not the right question.
The right question is -- 'which generalist entity can lead companies to profit and growth, across the marketing spectrum?'
Greg Banks
President
Javelin Marketing Group
It is a lot of comments,
this is the digital era, but a powerfull subject is going to move a lot of people around, is just like that. The most creative ones could lead digital or not.
They need to be, and they will be, but today they're still not.
I think it's fair to say that digital (not the shops, but the channel) has found it's way to the center of the connection map - it is the new and improved CRM. And shops that respect and understand this will earn their place "at the table," be they traditional, digital, or even design or promotions led.
Core competency will no longer determine where we sit at that table, the demands of a categories specific customer/client interaction will. Beverage catergories will likely want more influence from agencies closer to campuses and nightclubs; sneaker companies will turn to partners more intimate with emerging and future trends.
What clients are really going to be evaluating with respect to who is on their agency partner roster is whether you are FAST or DEEP. The former will be built to create and react to many marketing threads, in real time, 24/7. The latter (and likely smaller) of the two, will serve as brand steward, mining perspective and insight from the plethora of data and insight uncovered by the former. Neither will lead franky, that burden and honour will reside (as it always has) with the CMO, of a newly emerged marketing department the will in time reveal itself.
As Anne Busquet, former CEO of American Express states so well: "It's not the age of the internet, it's the age of customer control."
Dave Hamilton, Toronto
http://bigorangeslide.com
That these discussions happen again and again shows we've got a long way to go as a professional community. Jacques-Herve Roubert brilliantly wondered if we should spend more time asking: What's next? When considering other enterprises' opportunities to take greater roles in the marketing mix, shouldn't we be asking: Why not?
If this is the truly a "great debate that has consumed our industry", we all need to grow up.
Digital v. traditional bilge may sell mags (maybe?) and fuel blogs/twitter, but great clients look for great ideas and the ability to deliver on them from their partners who want a seat at their "table".
Bring them or go home.
Than teen boys, 12-17.
Anyone who thinks it's all the same hasn't worked with both types of creatives under one roof. Sure, clients don't care what it is as long as it sells. And creativity can make a real and measurable difference. But, it's a turf war and there is a line that has been drawn.
Ana making a statement that Digital has no leadership ability is the same type of contentious remark that we have herd one too many times. It deepens the divide among people who should get along. We didn't start this fight and the reason why we have digital shops today is because many of us on the other side were tired of being treated like the red headed step children of the agency world.
The truth is, the overwhelming majority of people do not understand – because as you recognize, they have not worked in both disciplines. One quick indicator that someone really doesn't get it: Making statements like, "A big idea is a big idea." Indeed, one major challenge involves the penchant for judging everything by traditional advertising agency standards. That was partly at the heart of Andjelic's inane post, and it continues to infest all other discussions. What makes it so ridiculous is the realization by even traditional advertising agency professionals that the traditional advertising agency business model is obsolete – or at least flawed for the needs of today. So why the hell are we holding it up as a gold standard? I don't subscribe to the notion of using terms like oil and vinegar. Rather, I say it's simply football and basketball. Two different games with different rules, different players, different arenas, etc. No need to place value judgments on anything. They are both highly entertaining sports, and one will not likely replace the other.
"Think that about says it all."
Genius.
When Jonah Bloom sought to defend his questionable decision to publish Andjelic's original pap, his argument included:
"It gets at a sentiment I've heard expressed by many big brand marketers ('execution is a big problem in digital') and that I strongly believe is a very real issue..."
Um, yes, it is a real issue. But this is often another case of people applying the standards of other disciplines to digital. A lot of the big brand marketers are used to the schedules of traditional advertising – and worse yet, direct marketing and other below-the-line disciplines where overnight turnaround is the norm. Anyone who has toiled in the digital space, dealing with the typically clueless big brand marketers, knows that schedules and budgets are squeezed with no rhyme or reason. It's difficult to create production standards when the clients are usually incapable of living up to their ends of the bargain. Yes, some might argue this is true in traditional advertising too. But clients are more used to producing traditional advertising. Digital remains the undiscovered country for a lot of big brand marketers, despite anything they might tell you. I've seen a lot of digital firms try to manage client expectations in a highly professional style displaying total leadership, only to get reprimanded and even fired because they couldn't satisfy the unreasonable demands.
OK, now i'm done.
I had already commented on the previous article, Ana Andjelic's, "Why Digital Agencies Aren't Ready to Lead". And my POV has only strengthened in the last couple of weeks.
I think one of the problems might be that everyone is slanting this with a "leader" angle. What about partner? We could be entering into an era where the "shops behind the curtain" move downstage and their once client "agency" moves upstage. Meeting in the center for equal billing.
Alexander Rea
@alexanderrea
www.alexanderrea.com
Most of these comments focus on who is more deserving of the client's attention (and budget) and not on who delivers most value to the client.
This is wrong because deserving to be at the table and leading the marketing charge should only be a function of who delivers most value to the client.
As long as both digital and traditional agencies continue to recommend strategies that align with their own profitability model and not their client's, there will be no resolution of the debate.
The client is also at fault here. They are only too often silent.
The job of delivering greater value is enabled by the client's understanding of its own business model and value proposition.
And this means that the Marketing suite needs to move beyond "brand obsession" to a deep understanding of the company's business model, as well as an understanding of the agency's own profitability model (bigger TV budget, anyone?)
In our experience, we see it as the marketing client's role to define the business objectives in order to optimize profitability and then hire the right agency or agencies to deliver on those objectives.
Plus, clients need to be vigilant about aligning their needs with the right service suppliers who can not only service them properly but remain in business doing so for the long haul.
Only this way will the right agency type be ready to lead.
More here: http://www.widerfunnel.com/marketing-management/the-right-question-is-the-client-ready-to-optimize
Digital Agencies might understand these elements because they mostly relate to the digital realm, but business is much more than that.
The digital world is a parallel world, but the offline world has also touchpoints for consumers, online is taking over offline, but that doesn't mean they'll do better. Change in integrating offline/online and traditional/non-traditional is key.
Vertical companies are perfect if they want to strive in a particular part of business (like digital focus), that does not mean they can lead.
Gianluigi Cuccureddu
www.agoramedia.co.uk
www.agoramedia.co.uk/blog
Tommy's initial point asking "Lead what?" sums it up for me. Half the battle is in explaining innovations of any kind to clients - especially big global brands. As someone who consults with agencies of all sizes and types, I've also seen that merging internal disciplines is incredibly tough, so no matter what we profess to be as the new, new, new thing to clients, it is going to subtended by a healthy dose of confusion followed by daunting prospect of having to re-engineer processes that have existed for years, some of which continue to be successful on some levels.
TV is not dying, print media is not dead, radio and DM are not obsolete... they are just transforming. And beyond what technology itself can provide, are real world experiences that cannot be replaced, not by digital OOH, ARGs, cloud computing or anything else that we've manufactured -- albeit beautifully -- to enhance those legacy experiences.
"Social media", or the process of "socializing media", should find a way to permeate any and all forms of outreach that are appropriate, instead of being viewed and implemented as another vertical channel in the agency-to-client handbasket.
Bottom line: the brand should lead the entire development process, and defer to those who can enable and enhance their particular needs in very particular ways, at specific times when they are needed.
With that said, I think new methodologies and content development strategies such those you see emerging with transmedia will erase many of these creative, strategic and media designations, and put the focus on providing business solutions... solutions that can come from just about anywhere and from anyone who can qualify their thinking.
Gunther Sonnenfeld
@goonth
http://timnolan.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/industry-bread-butter/
I am very interested in keeping this dialog open and running. Thanks all.
Max Kalehoff, wrote a poignant article entitled: the biggest opportunities for brands to leverage interactive marketing ( http://www.attentionmax.com/blog/2008/04/1445.php ), which quite eloquently distills this thinking:
For most businesses, the Web must become your brand hub. The Web site is the anchor for a range of critical actions in the consideration and purchase funnel. It is where search engines discover brands and where they direct prospects. It is the currency of pass-along when others wish to refer or recommend you. It is where the most engaged prospects learn about your brand, or fail to learn what they need to know in order to engage further. It is often a critical repository for collecting names, demographic information, purchase intentions and behaviors. It is a listening mechanism and interaction platform when customers do wish to engage. For many businesses, it's where transactions actually take place, and services are rendered. It increasingly is where people turn when things go wrong, and the place where problems are corrected, or not. It is where companies have the choice to engage intimately with customers, or instill a cold, faceless façade. As the marketplace increasingly goes digital, the Web site should play a central role in leading a company's key customer performance metrics to drive overall marketing strategy.