Why Digital Agencies Aren't Ready to Lead
They Lack the Balance of Exploration and Exploitation
| |
| Ana Andjelic | |
Look at the typical digital agency. It excels in exploring new horizons. It supports a flat and loose organizational structure in which a developer has access to the CEO. And it makes sure everyone's opinion is heard. It's one big crazy family.
Digital agencies are having a ton of fun experimenting with ideas, technologies and strategies to find new alternatives superior to obsolete ways of doing marketing. That's what they do best.
The problem is, this is the only thing they are doing.
When they are asked to actually follow through on their ideas, they often come up short. It is because they don't know the business of marketing (or want to know it, for that matter), and they rarely have the organizational structure or past practices to guide them.
This comes at a cost. Digital agencies impress clients with their passion, drive and technology know-how. Clients then say: "You gave us a lot to think about." Which often means that the account is awarded to someone else. Where digital shops fail is giving confidence to the client that all this momentum will be indeed executed in a well-led marketing campaign.
All of this is not new. It is already described in organizational theorist James March's exploration vs. exploitation dichotomy. The best companies have the optimal balance between the two; those less successful are doing too much of either.
There certainly are places around that represent an uneasy mix of exploration vs. exploitation: Digitas, Razorfish and AKQA. They are sort of stuck in between recently acquired marketing knowledge and their digital savvy, trying to combine them to sometimes embarrassing results (think Razorfish's Laundry Fairy, for example).
If digital agencies excel at exploration, traditional agencies thrive on exploitation. A traditional agency is risk-averse, accountable and systematic. It knows its business inside-out. It knows its clients' businesses and executes campaigns reliably. Its people hang out with the CMOs. A typical traditional agency has decades of experience.
This, too, comes at a cost. A traditional agency, organized around exploitation, ends up doing the same thing over and over again. For every marketing challenge, their solution is "better creativity." This is not surprising: If an agency spends all its time making sure that everything goes efficiently, that leaves it with little time to experiment. And then, even if it wanted to do things differently, it would be met with its own organizational inertia.
How is the exploration/exploitation gap closed? Like most things in marketing, it comes back to the client. As much as people like to talk about the agency of the future, it will never happen until the client gets there first.
Shorter client-agency alliances, smaller budgets and faster review cycles create a more competitive environment that forces everyone involved to be more alert. When relationships are unstable, shifting and temporary, it's the balance that counts. That means not only having innovative ideas, but also executing them swiftly and flawlessly.
Until digital agencies show they can strike this balance, they are also the ones who don't get it.
| ABOUT THE AUTHOR | |
|
Ana Andjelic is a freelance strategist and did her Ph.D. dissertation on digital branding. You can follower her thoughts at I [love] marketing, where this piece was originally posted. |
|
RSS Feed›› DigitalNext
Most Recent Posts 
- JC Penney's 'Doghouse' Returns
- Autism Speaks Hosts Chicago Fundraiser
- The Invisible Hand of Agency Culture
- Buffalo Soldiers Wings & Things
- Publicis' 'Boost' Wins Create for a Cause Contest
- A DigitalNext Challenge: What's Your Favorite Consumer Mobile Application?
- BCS Enters Twitter: Beat Down Like Notre Dame in a Bowl Game
- What Kind of Agency Are You?
- Vice Finds Oil in L.A. for Palladium Boots
- Scuzzy Bubbles Are Filthy Little Pervs in Method Video
- The Coming Darwinism of IPhone Apps
- Behind the Redesign: Virgin.com Mixes Social Activity and Lead Generation
- How Black Friday Can Be Brown Friday
- Trees for Troops: Helping Military Families
- Your Experience Is Your Biggest Hurdle
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
Marketers as Media Companies: A Disruptive Trend Revisited
Ad Age Editor Jonah Bloom at the ANA Conference
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?)
Having said all of that, God knows the traditional agency world (with a few exceptions) could use an injection of genuine risk-taking and good old fashioned experimentin'.
I don't know who these "digital agencies" you are referring to. I have a degree in art and design and I understand creative. I have also studied the evolving world of marketing for 10 years. I partner with my client for strategic business solutions. And I am programmer.
This article sounds like sour grapes to me. Though, you did a good job of hitting all the false stereotypes. I am not worried about you and the rest of the dinosaurs. This economic meltdown already has put a lot of you out of business. I don't think I have seen a single Web designer out or work.
I can't say that I share the same negative sentiment of others in this thread regarding your post - I think you raise some great points, but I would add that perhaps these issues are systemic across all agencies within the landscape.
Particular to 'digital', I think Sapient has done an excellent job of adopting and implementing a model that focuses on business solutions for clients, and much of this is predicated on a strong fundamental understanding of brand marketing functions, as well as operational dynamics that can affect a company's ability to reach audiences and drive sales. Basically, Sapient acts as a management consulting outfit that has the ability to translate business needs into multi-disciplinary marketing functions, all of which are data-driven and mostly built on ideas that are agnostic as well as scalable.
In general, it seems that 'digital' agencies need to consider (among many other things) three primary drivers:
- The development and deployment of 'adaptive' versus 'disruptive' technologies; as Nick Law puts it, the difference between 'fitting in' and trying to 'break through'.
- How these technologies become a part of business offerings for the longer term, and in a bigger context, how they provide cultural value
- How experiences are no longer restricted to 'offline' or 'online' functions, but rather ideas that can live anywhere and indefinitely (think of utility in this sense).
Best,
Gunther
@goonth
To simplify things: the point of this article is to discuss the organizational shape of digital and traditional firms.
Digital firms: Great at figuring new stuff out. They have proven that. What they are not good at is old knowledge, simply because they don't have it.
Traditional firms: A lot of old knowledge, some of which is still very relevant and useful. They have proven to have old expertise through decades of their marketing work. What they are not so good at is gathering the new knowledge.
A person doesn't need to spend a decade in each to figure this out.
The "typical digital agency"? Please. How generic and stereotypical can you get? Next you're going to start ranting about the "typical copywriter" or the "typical account person." You spout nothing but dated stereotypes to try and sound like you actually know what you're talking about.
Here's a tip: No one believes you.
Maybe you should actually do some research on the people at Digitas or AKQA before you incorrectly cite their "recently acquired marketing knowledge."
Maybe before you call traditional agencies "risk-adverse" you should research how shops like Goodby reinvented themselves to meet today's digital requirements.
What a bunch of pablum. AdAge, do yourself a favor and get some credibility back by firing Ms. Andjelic before she can embarrass you further.
believe me, my only concern is that anyone might take you seriously.
how are digital firms great at figuring new stuff out? most of their offerings are not really new in their arena. take a look at digitas, razorfish, tribal ddb, etc. they are not really creating new stuff. the bulk of their output is highly traditional for digital firms.
the cutting-edge digital firms (e.g., r/ga) are introducing new stuff. but on the flipside, the cutting-edge ad shops are introducing new advertising stuff. your generalizations and comparisons don't hold up.
at some point, the small-minded people like you need to stop comparing advertising firms with digital firms. if you spent any time in the former, you'd realize they bear little resemblance to the latter. clients certainly don't view the two as similar – for most traditional clients, digital shops are like direct marketing, promotions, and events shops. they're just part of the below-the-line enterprises.
a person doesn't need to spend a decade in each to figure out you are inexperienced.
http://blog.enginedigital.com/digital-marketing/do-digital-agencies-know-marketing/
@mrstephenbeck
here's some free advice:
read outliers by malcolm gladwell. in it, the author presents the 10,000-hour rule. simply put, gladwell contends that a person requires 10,000 hours (or a decade) of practice in their field to be deemed an expert. if you have some spare time between writing your ph.d dissertation and mindless blog posts, you might want to survey the experts at advertising firms and digital firms. you'll find that gladwell's formula holds true in most cases.
based on your writings and perspectives, you appear to be about 9,999 hours short of expert credibility. hang in there, little engine, you'll make it. but please stop trying to present yourself as an expert. you're not fooling any of us.
Then what about old digital agencies (ours has been developing for the Web since 1994) or new traditional agencies -- are they exceptions? If not, then why not, and if so, then this is really an argument about experience, not agency types, and it can be summarized as: the longer you stick around, the more you learn. Got it.
It would make for a great little column if James March's exploration vs. exploitation concept aligned neatly with digital vs. traditional, but it doesn't. Not by a long shot. Instead you end up creating artificial categories and then using them to mount sweeping generalizations.
Doing so contributes nothing to the discussion of what digital and traditional shops can learn from each other. Both agency types include a wide range of sensibilities from highly experimental to highly accountable, and neither type deserves to be painted with so broad a brush.
I agree that there are alot of small shops out there that are producing digital campaigns without the marketing knowledge. However, there is a place for these shops in the world, as long as clients understand that they are hiring executors and not thinkers.
But to say that the industry has not evolved and that there are not digital agencies that have spawned off of traditional firms by the people who do "get it", is insane.
In Minneapolis alone, there are at least 6 agencies that are very well equipped to lead the charge of any global marketing campaign and posses great talented people with a rich history of the business of marketing.
I don't even understand the statement about "a flat and loose organizational structure in which a developer has access to the CEO." It is stated as if it is negative. The structure that is the opposite to this is the one most of us with traditional agency backgrounds have escaped because it doesnt work. As a CEO, I hope that everyone always has access to me because if the best idea comes from the mail room, I want to hear it. It will then be brought into play and fleshed out by marketing professionals.
The document located at http://www.antidotex.com/about/WhyAntidoteX.pdf was written by us with the purpose of separating us from the others and it is self-promotional, but it is more than that too. It is a good paper on the differences of these types of agencies, but keep in mind that there are many types of agencies, some traditional, some digital, some hybrid. Within each of these groups, there are good agencies and bad agencies. Within these there are some that are ready to lead the charge and some that are not.
Comments like those found in this post serve no purpose but to target and hurt the digital agencies, but in reality they hurt the traditional firms. If this closed minded thinking is how traditional agencies think, I would opt for the more creative marketers; perhaps the ones who recognize that good ideas can come from anywhere and a strong digital agency that is in the business of marketing can define the strategies, execute the tactics and get results.
Paul Nealy
Managing Partner
Antidote X, Inc.
Minneapolis. MN
Wow!
Ms. Ana, nice article! It's always nice to see different views. It's not right or wrong when one gives their view on a matter. What is wrong is to give ones personal opinion on it and make is seem like it is right.
Have a wonderful day!
I grew up in a business where the "agency" was, in every respect, the full partner of the client marketing group and often of the CEO. Today ancient relationships are sacrificed (a very few exections like Chevrolet and Campbell-Ewald, bless them both, are the proof of the pudding.
Instead of engaging in extreme belly-button staring, I respectfully suggest that the serious players in this industry look carefully at the dysfunctional structure they have created and give real thought to the following:
1. Develop/nurture independant, non-public, agencies that encompass ALL the key strategic and executional disciplines that clients need and want. (Agencies don't need to be public. They need to be innovative and inciteful.)
2. Find a client company where there the top marketing person is likely to have a tenure longer than 20 months.
3. Invest with sweat and brilliance in an explicitly long-term relationship as opposed to serial dating.
4. Make the business fun and intellectually rewarding again.
I chose to pick it up because a) I read Ana's stuff and I think it's often smart (even when I disagree with it); b) 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; c) I think it's exactly the kind of provocative stuff that gets people debating an issue.
What makes me sad is when we can't debate this stuff without attacking each other rather than the issues. Is it right to call for someone to be fired because you don't agree with them? I suspect I would think you're very wrong about many things (and vice versa, naturally), but I wouldn't wish unemployment on you simply because you don't share my views.
Jonah Bloom
You lost me in the 4th paragraph... and you came off as very insecure by the 3rd...
up and coming digital media agency: http://www.redshiftagency.com/
really great about staying informed and creative.
Ana's post is very, very insightful and it's the very knowledge that the majority of digital shops don't understand what they lack is what seems to always fuel the resentment to this kind of statement.
I've been in the "digital" industry since the beginning as well as other more traditional agencies prior and there is an absolute lack of understanding (and often a pure dismissal) of the larger lens that digital agencies must look through in order to take their eventual lead seat at the table.
We love to point out how much "traditional" firms lack in understanding, but generally don't enjoy when the mirror reflects our own faults.
Excellent post. And kudos for having the courage to speak it.
So what's the answer? Build a hybrid agency! It's all about performance (one of the 16P's) and to think like an apple that has changed the world on 3 different occasions.
1. In the Garden of Eden.
2. Landing on the head of Sir Isaac Newton who said,
"If I have ever made any valuable discoveries, it has been owing more to patient attention, than to any other talent."
3. Created in a garage by what's his name, Steve Jobs who said,
"Innovation distinguishes between a leader and a follower." and
"Why join the navy if you can be a pirate?"
Are you willing to change? If you say yes, then you will be in a position to change the world one client at a time. Digital or traditional be inspirational and go beyond generational.
A shame that most commenters can't separate out your main point from other items that they seem to be taking just a little too personally. With the exception of R/GA, there is no other digital shop or agency that has or can consistently take a seat, and a leadership role, in the client's boardroom.
Faris Yakob gives a good advice to brands who want to do their business online: "be nice, or leave" - but what about the people working for those same brands?
http://www.revolutionmagazine.com/news/964347/Agency-bosses-old-change-resistant-claims-Sorrell
@mrstephenbeck
tws
I wasn't calling for her to be fired because I disagreed with this post. I called for it because the last two columns of hers that you've posted are full of sweeping generalizations (which for the most part are false), falsehoods masquerading as "facts" and boatloads of hubris from someone who hasn't accomplished a thing in this industry.
Slamming places like AKQA because they only have "recently acquired marketing knowledge" is so false as to be ridiculous. Looking down her nose and tsk tsking Jeff Goodby? Laughable.
If you want "provocative stuff that gets people debating an issue" I highly suggest you find someone with the intelligence and credentials to begin that debate. But as long as you keep publishing Ms. Andjelic poorly written, poorly researched, know-it-all (but really knows nothing) articles, you're doing AdAge and all your readers a disservice.
This has absolutely zero to do with tolerating a different opinion and everything to do with your tired, false, overly-generalized, stereotypical premise.
Ana may not be right; in fact, many of her points may prove to be wrong once put out to pasture, but isn't this a good thing? Put it this way, would you rather have an article talk at you, or, would you rather have one light a fire under your ass and get you to speak out? (like you have here...)
On the topic of 'agency hubris', some of you, honestly, need to step down from your ivory tower. I work with plenty of people who came out of big agency environments and they'll tell you that after spending years within the ranks and in the trenches, they have relatively little to show for it. I personally stayed on the independent side, and eventually went out on my own, so that I could actually create and build stuff and not be encumbered by some of the bullsh-- being slung around in this thread.
What makes you an 'expert' on something like digital (which is a term for debate in its own right) isn't so much where you come from, where you sit, or how many 'campaigns' you've done, but what you are doing RIGHT NOW.
The harsh reality of this digital landscape is that you either adapt or you die, it's that simple... and ultimately the point of Ana's post.
Gunther
@goonth
For the record, only one person called for Ms. Andjelic's firing. Most of us know Ad Age does not often pay people for re-posting their blog content. Or even for contributing on Ad Age blogs.
As for the alleged attackers, it should be noted that Ms. Andjelic started the attack. Her thinly veiled disdain for advertising agencies attacks nearly every professional in the business with negative and incorrect stereotypes. She even attacks nearly every professional in a digital firm by branding them unready to lead. Her subsequent responses to the comments confirm her inexperience and general ignorance.
Last week, Ad Age published an editorial that stated the digital field needed a new kind of creative. Yet here we have Ms. Andjelic re-hashing the same old advertising versus digital argument – and doing it in a stupid and abusive style to boot.
Surely you don't expect us to believe you can't see the negativism and inflammatory content in Ms. Andjelic's uninformed rhetoric. Jonah, to show amazement at the responses is a little naïve and/or insincere.
If you want to debate the issues, publish writers who can present the issues versus attacking your readers.
Having worked for the world's largest agencies in New York, both traditional and digital, I can say with full certainty that there is not a single digital agency that fully "gets it." Partially, but not fully. (Not around here, at least.)
This is because a digital agency that honestly and truly gets it would never even call itself a digital agency, and that's the real kicker. An agency that gets it would use any and all means of pushing a message in the medium that best expresses the idea, be it digital, outdoor, television, radio, dancing cheerleaders, or woven onto squares of toilet paper.
Another problem is that instead of hiring people versed in marketing and advertising, these digital agencies hire bearded, L-Train riding, iPhone-toting pop culture enthusiasts, out of fear of being irrelevant. Digital agencies are to insightful advertising as the show "Family Guy" is to insightful comedy.
As someone mentioned here earlier, a digital agency has no idea what branding is, let alone how a true results-based creative process works. They think a Copywriter is someone who slaps on witty body copy to a microsite, or they think an Art Director is one who makes Photoshop mockups of Flash banners. Where did this production-based mentality come from? There is no planning, no strategy, no big idea, no nothing. Clients unwittingly eat this up and pay dearly for it.
Digital agencies are fixated on doing something "cool" with Google maps or Facebook apps, but completely forget that advertising is not simply an executional gimmick. Walk into any digital agency, and they stupidly wax on about the need to have a viral rock 'n' roll video about homeowners' insurance, or a microsite where users voluntarily spend hours uploading testimonials about baby butt wipes. This is what we're dealing with. Talk about bad ROI.
On the flipside, traditional agencies mostly refer to digital work as "banner ads," and think of digital as even lower on the totem pole than radio advertising. Or, they slap on digital executions as an afterthought, such as shoehorning a 30-second TV spot before a Hulu.com video. Digital has not even begun to reach its potential, and I'm not talking about contextual ads based on MySpace interests. Digital tends to be bad because the people who actually who know what they're doing don't want to work in digital. Why would they? The constant workplace disorganization, lower paycheck and longer hours offered by digital agencies doesn't exactly help. Remember, agencies are staffed with people who have lives, families and bills.
There is a happy medium to be found, but "digital agencies" should really get off their high horses because they really, really have a lot to learn.
Glad to see Jonah, the Ad Age editor, stand behind his writer, but sorry he needed to.
I would argue that our the only way our industry will grow stronger is by challenging what we do today and this is all I feel andjelicaaa has put forth in the article. What I've taken away is that there is a long way to go for digital before it will be able to challenge every aspect of the traditional model.
Nice piece
http://dearadvertisin.blogspot.com/
- How R/GA fits into your theory of digital agencies not being ready to lead.
- How a "traditional" Goodby agency "ends up doing the same thing over and over again."
- How agencies like Droga5 can produce great online and offline work consistently.
- How a traditional agency like Crispin is left "with little time to experiment" in the online space.
- How smaller digital shops like Attik can't handle branding and offline work.
- Why Marc Lucas, the ECD at Razorfish, is disputing your claims about the "Laundry Fairy" campaign directly on your Twitter account.
It takes all of about 2 minutes to provide concrete examples and debunk nearly every single claim you make in your ridiculous post.
I have worked at both and I have taken away the creative and strategic marketing approach with me. I guess it's not fair to bad mouth the other side because I have learned so much from them. But, of my nine years in advertising, I have seen way too many shut their eyes and put their hands over their ears when I would share big ideas and strategic vision. I have never been short of ideas and I understand the difference between a strategy and a tactic. I understand how to creative a narrative and how to pull those little emotional strings. But, they didn't want that because they are too busy "leading." Digital and physical should be all the same and we should all understand both ends of it, but that's not reality. It's a real power struggle between two sides and our clients will decide who the winner is.
One last point, we are witnessing the digitization or all media. Magazines and newspapers are in decline. TiVo is killing the 30 second spot (is anyone still make 60 second spots). Outdoor is going digital as well. Direct mail is probably safe for now. People are different, communication is different, and marketing is different. Ride the wave or get sucked under. Digital in now and we are ready to lead.
Ana's post and the resulting stream of comments are fascinating . . . both Traditional and Interactive shops have a tremendous amount to learn from each other. Each has its own clear bailiwicks and each has its own clear challenges. The prognosticators all want to know who is "right" and who will win. Maybe the answer is that both are right and both are wrong; both are winning and both are losing.
After all, it is abundantly clear that no one has definitively cracked the code that leads consistently to cross-channel success and client elation. For every example of a pure Interactive shop integrating into the Traditional arena we see an example of the exact opposite – a Traditional shop successfully integrating into the Interactive arena.
The reality remains that all of the players (Traditional Agencies, Interactive Agencies, Miscellaneous Agencies, and Clients) are running towards something that is still being defined. The reality is that we will all be in this very uncomfortable space for a while.
Well played.
The real question is whether gaining experience is even possible. Things move too fast. By the time someone has 10 years of experience doing something, it's obsolete. Fast, agile teams win because adapting quickly is more important than mastering irrelevant ways of doing something.
Write an article on how to build teams that can adapt at the speed of the internet, and you'll have something worth reading.
These days when clients are saying X,Y,& Z agency told us they can do the work for a less and give us more; letters are arriving from bankruptcy courts requesting your receivable balance from ABC corp; and everyone, openly admitting or not, harbor fear of losing their job; isn't it natural to aggressively refute ones perceived weaknesses?
It seems to me there will always be old school and new school in the industry. When things are good, all making money, it's easy for both to get along. There will be change where the new learn from the old, and the old see things a little differently through the eyes of the new. In times like these, when everyone is on edge, it's a given that tried and true ways will be defended. Will there ever be a perfect agency, maybe, but probably not. Over time the old guard will acquire more digital skills, and the new guard will gain more wisdom, evolution.
When times are tough, people tend to take less risk. They do what they are good at, instead of experimenting. As cash flow does what it's supposed to, flow, there is more freedom to venture out from the comfort zones.
Ana's statements, to me, are timeless. She could have been talking about the 40's, 60's, 80's or any decade when the topic was direct mail, television, or radio, pick your medium.
I agree with timrum: "The reality remains that all of the players (Traditional Agencies, Interactive Agencies, Miscellaneous Agencies, and Clients) are running towards something that is still being defined. The reality is that we will all be in this very uncomfortable space for a while." I'll add, during this process the uncomfortable space is a bit more prickly because of the poor economy.
Just my thoughts.
I would add another bullet to your list: Tribal DDB, who has taken over as AOR for a few of its clients as a 'digital' shop, and whose exemplary work has shown that good business thinking and brand innovation can come from many different places and in many different ways.
Denzil -- yes, AKQA is run by seasoned agency pros and business leaders like Tom Bedecarre -- this is another good example of a 'digital' shop breaking conventions that have challenged us as an industry.
Let's keep the constructive dialogue going...
Gunther
@goonth
"This is not true at all, in a time where all marketers are looking to spend their money wisely, to measure the effect of their brands, digital is already leading, at least in my region-MENA"
Look at the typical digital agency. It excels in exploring new horizons. It supports a flat and loose organizational structure in which a developer has access to the CEO. And it makes sure everyone's opinion is heard. It's one big crazy family.
"That is very true, and we do love being called a one big crazy family because we simply share the same vision and passion towards something that is really growing fast and marketers are exploring the joy of going digital"
Digital agencies are having a ton of fun experimenting with ideas, technologies and strategies to find new alternatives superior to obsolete ways of doing marketing. That's what they do best.
"Because it is the only advertising platform where you can check and optimize, but you can never change your approach to your consumer if yo already printed thousands of fliers, or hundreds of billboards, or spent millions on producing a 30 sec TV AD, and it's not a bad thing I guess to have this fun experimenting in order to improve and benefit the advertising brand as much as possible"
As our Boss always say, Digital is not a standalone but at many scenarios, it will lead because it depends on technology that is always growing and always introduce new fun stuff.
Hossam form Sarmady- www.sarmady.net Egypt
Let's keep the constructive dialogue going? Dude, it never started. And Andjelic is to blame. The woman admits never having worked in an advertising agency, yet sees fit to stereotype them all. She's clearly spent little time in a range of digital shops, yet sees fit to stereotype them all. The funny thing is, she displays all the stereotypical characteristics of the old school ad men she abhors. She is narrow-minded. She doesn't see opinions beside her own. She sees no gray areas – only black and white extremes. She thinks shock value trumps intelligent reasoning. She pushes forward with uninformed ideas, believing that bulldozing arrogance equals leadership. She thinks her ideas are original, but only because she's never personally heard them before. FYI, these debates have been happening for years with people like Brian Morrissey, Randall Rothenberg and others who are infinitely more suited to address them. Andjelic is like the surly intern who sits in the back of a conference room sneering at the stupidity of the professionals – despite having never produced anything of merit herself. By all means, let's have a constructive dialogue. But let's be honest and admit Andjelic is not qualified to even take notes during the proceedings. Send her out to pick up our lunch order while we sort through the conversation.
And, of course, today, where the debate over 'traditional' versus 'digital' should really be a conversation about 'how do we figure out how to work together to achieve the same result for the client, and more importantly, the end consumer'.
Further, can experiences really be siloed? What do any of these designations really mean anyway?
And yes, people like Brian Morrissey and Randall Rothenberg have helped lead the charge, but so have innovators like Robert Greenberg, Tim Westergren, Aza Raskin, Michael Petricone, Keith Ferrazzi and whole host of other folks you may or may not have heard of.
The larger point is that none of this stuff has been successfully adopted long enough for anyone - ourselves included - to puff our chests out and claim that someone like Ana is unqualified to express an opinion. There are academics, and there are business leaders, there are writers, critics, account execs, technologists, planners and creatives... all with different perspectives that matter - right, wrong or indifferent - in the discourse of discovery.
"Send her out to pick up our lunch order while we sort through the conversation."
Dude... talk about bulldozing arrogance!
I submit to anyone who is so myopic in their thinking they they must defer to sweeping judgments about someone's credentials, to sit back, take a deep breath, and ask themselves what they are doing in this space RIGHT NOW, and then join the conversation with a curious mind and a balanced ear.
Gunther
@goonth
Liz
Dated and myopic it might be, but enduring and discrete it is.
So long as we wallow in our careless application of recycled strategies, inchoate use of marketing notions, and the expedient interpretation of research and metrics we will undermine the full value of our contribution to marketing.
Too often digital agencies (and the digital teams of traditional firms) are no more than champions of technology running after markets. Throwing things against the digital wall in the hope that some (anything more than 5%) will stick. That is not marketing. Or maybe it is; we will leave that for another post. Let's not overlook the stellar strategies, models and campaigns coming from both sides of this divide and the contribution they make to our common edification. This imperfect want-to-be-science of marketing is all about creativity, testing and optimizing. However, done without a regard for a measurable business objective reduces it to tentative tinkering.
So back to the effectiveness of your post: all I see are hardened positions and resistance. I hope you elicited more than 5% to espy our full potential.
"Digital agencies are exciting but unreliable."
"Advertising agencies are reliable but aren't exciting."
Yawn.
What next?
"Kids all love the web"
"Adults don't like social networks"
"Americans are fat"
"French people are rude"
"The English have bad teeth"
I can hardly wait for next week's dizzying insights.
If we continue to look at digital shops as places unable to lead... and treat them that way... they'll never get a chance to prove it. We can't all beleive that the leaders at the heads of some of these great digital agencies are not as mentally capable or knowledgeable enough to take on the task. That's just silly.
In short, I think this whole thread is silly. But it made me laugh this morning, so that's nice.
@Jonah, how exactly do you go about writing for adage? I'm sure if you opened the door, half of these more intelligent commenter might have an opinion or two to throw your way. What's the phrase? "Nut up or shut up?"
Agencies spend a lot more time debating, labeling and arguing than Clients EVER do. Clients don't care what you call yourselves, just solve their problem!
David Wiggs
Seattle, WA
As for those of you wondering about how you can reach out to us about a contributed post, it's hard NOT find contact info for Jonah and me. But please, let's keep it an intelligent conversation and not let it devolve into something that reflects poorly on our industry.
Abbey Klaassen
digital editor, ad age
aklaassen@adage.com
To me, the only question that matters to all of us is who can. If I were a client, this Lord-Of-The-Flies bickering would encourage me to think that maybe my only hope is me.
Great comment, what is " traditional " and what is " digital " and do the clients really care?
1. What's the problem or objective.
2. How do we as a marketing company, ad agency, design firm, traditional, digital solve that problem and address the communication objective.
What more is there?
While not speaking for others, I would venture to guess that the venom in the comments results from people being tired of seeing bullshitters fling their crap with such hubris. Repeatedly.
Ana began this debate (and her last one about Jeff Goodby) being as far from "respectful" as you can get. She certainly can't be surprised when she gets little respect in return.
Conversely, digital agencies TEND TO be more about exploration, assuming that innovation in the hottest and emerging digital media will get results simply because being ahead of the curve is new and exciting. Their motivation TENDS TO be more about the doing, and less about the results.
Most agencies, be they traditional or digital, TEND TO be more about selling their clients stuff than truly focused on helping their clients sell stuff. It's not necessarily their fault, it's just the model and how they are compensated.
I stressed the words TEND TO, because there are no absolutes.
Strong leaders TEND TO be level-headed, open-minded, consider all of the information at their disposal, and lean toward what they believe is the prudent course of action, but leave room for experimentation and innovation when need has been identified.
I suspect that there are both traditional and digital agencies out there that TEND TO live up to these leadership characteristics. I would like to think that my agency is one of them, but I'm biased. IMHO, the industry as a whole has a lot of work to do in the leadership department.
someone just alerted me that andjelic deemed my "lunch order" comment as potentially misogynistic. guess she'll accuse me of racism next. please reread my comment and note the intern reference. if she spent any time in a big ad agency, she'd know it's an old school tradition to use interns as gofers. doesn't matter if you're male, female, animal or mineral. at digital shops, the interns are used for photo searches - unless they have flash skills, at which point we put them right on the assembly line to become sweatshop workers. but of course, as she has no true experience at either places - and as she is thoroughly self-absorbed - all countering opinions must be from misogynistic haters. ironically, she's made comments at other blogs that go far beyond ageism (and if there's such a thing as a female version of misogyny, she's a prime candidate).
regardless, it's interesting that she has not responded to critics like copyboy1. it's also interesting to see the dichotomy of responses: those of us who feel andjelic is forwarding uninformed opinions and those who believe she's right and/or within her rights to comment. let's all take a step back. bloom and andjelic opened the pandora's box with a post that attacks and insults professionals in advertising and digital with wild stereotypes. am i not permitted the same privileges to voice my strong opinions and shoot back? why, yes i can. that's the wonder of the web, folks.
Conviction like this can be reasonably respected if the author can defend the points made -- particularly to commenters that belong to the industry and clearly know what they're talking about.
That's really the only opportunity for a saving grace. Those expressing rage -- rightfully so -- can't be guilted into complacence by the editors of AdAge.
You're all wrong.
Sometimes things work.
Sometimes they don't.
Modern is good.
Classic is timeless.
You can't speak of today
without knowing what came yesterday.
You can't claim to know the future
without knowing the past.
Today's expert is tomorrow's hack.
Theaters feared radio,
motion pictures feared tv,
tv feared cable,
traditional fears digital,
and the beat goes on.
If you're smart you'll adapt and be fine. If not, well, that's Darwinism at it's best. Digital, traditional, colonial, whateverthefuck, there will always be room for smarts no matter where we end up. It'll shake out one way or another and the outcome won't be anything like we thought it would be. It'll be better. Or perhaps there won't be an endpoint where we all sit back and say "Aha, this is THE AGENCY OF THE FUTURE". It might just be an ever-evolving, liquid landscape from now on. But don't worry, 2012 is upon us and the end time is near. It all doesn't matter anyway. Not that it ever did. Cure me some cancer and then let's talk.
Look, nobody "gets it." Not me, you or Ana Andjelic. Anyone who actually knows what's going on is way too busy to be m-bating on AdAge. Get back to work people. It's that way ----->
Remember it's customers that make a business successful... clients want more customers. Help them do that through whatever means is happening and available and you'll be considered useful, maybe even necessary.
Now back to work!
Thomson Dawson
www.pullinc.com
www.whitehotcenter.com
Saying this, Two things strike me as missing from the heart of this discussion:
The first regards the fact that everything we're discussing is happening during a financial collapse that's effecting almost every aspect of almost every consumer's life, while, simultaneously, technology has entered and is altering almost every aspect of almost every consumer's life.
These are curious times, troubling times and exciting times but people who make decisions on both sides of the table are mostly engaged in selling what they have in stock, including what they believe to be true. People with interests to protect are protecting their interests. Where they have wagons, they're circling their wagons, and where they are exposed, they seek to limit their exposure.
I suspect the merits of any discussion of so-call "traditional" versus "digital" agencies that doesn't acknowledge the current state of the economy. For example, how do we understand the fact that a great many of today's "senior" creatives, in both shops, have never held a responsible position during a recession, but came of age following the fat days/stock/real-estate bubble that grew after September 11. A time when one did not have to sell a product good or service, because everyone was buying everything that wasn't nailed down.
My contribution, in the form of a generalization based on my experience, is that people in their 50s and 60—those few who remain at the top—cling to their jobs largely by relinquishing their responsibilities to those in the mid-20s to mid 30s, men and women who have spent the last ten or fifteen years of their lives playing with digital toys and internalizing the values that come from experience with them. My experience of these people is that they are not in the least bit interested in marketing, in strategies, in anything so prosaic as emptying shelves or showrooms, but in making cool things, with fabulous production values, which impress their friends and, of course, award shows juries.
To my mind the whole notion of "creativity" has become spurious and so beside the point. Advertising is not a fine art and if it doesn't serve its marketing ends, it is only an object. An object to admire or to scorn.
"When they are asked to actually follow through on their ideas, they often come up short. It is because they don't know the business of marketing (or want to know it, for that matter), and they rarely have the organizational structure or past practices to guide them."
We often come up short when asked to follow through on our ideas? Wonder why that could be? Maybe because your "organizational structure or past practices" tell clients to spend most of the money talking about the idea rather than developing it.
This article infuriated me, but it is what is to be expected from a publication titled "Advertising Age."
Like I said, open question to anyone and everyone. I'd love to read everyone's opinion, because I think this is gonna be the most relevant and most discussed topic for a few years, at least in our profession.
Regards,
Dhritiman
In its turn though I don't think that it is the digital agencies fault because these disciplines have grown up extremely quickly and the way that you did build a reputation quickly was to partner with an offline agency and become the official 'web guys' for them. That introduces you to new accounts and lets you grow. Except that being a good partner is about knowing your place, and the offline agencies were never about to surrender their position as the strategic big thinkers. Digital agencies therefore had to sit at table and wait for whatever was tossed down to them. That's not the fault of digital agencies nor is it a sign that digital agencies are unable to lead, it was just good business sense. Ten years ago a group of 5 of us built a multi-national organisation with a presence on three continents using exactly this approach, all within 5 years.
Let's not get carried away too much with the gods of offline though. My observation is that the last thing offline wants is measurability because then they actually might have to take responsibility for their work. Currently (and particularly in ATL) creative directors are able to take credit for anything that has a good result and deny all responsibility for anything that doesn't. How exactly is that taking responsibility? It's true that digital types are probably more at home on a Saturday recovering from a hangover and fixing conflicts between Facebook and Google Calendars rather than taking the client out to play golf in a thinly veiled bribe but are you seriously suggesting that was a good way to do business?
The point is that things are changing and digital IS leading. It is happening because customers want that and clients are having to offer that. There is nothing on earth that an offline agency can do to stop that.
While many of us have come from the kind of undisciplined shops Ana describes, her generalizations doesn't do justice to what is happening with digital agencies today. Frankly if it comes to a bet between digital agencies learning tradition skills or tradition agencies learning digital, my money is firmly on digital. - Tony Quin, CEO IQ Interactive.
The scoreboard clearly still indicates that Brands agree with Ana.
That is ... there has not been to date, a single "digital" firm that has gone from birth (1995?) to ramp up and grow to become a serious competitor -- pitch, and win the same amount and scale of business as "traditional" agencies.
It's been close to 15 years, and it's not even close. I agree with her grouping of R/GA, Razorfish, Digitas, AKQA. They are the ones with scale and theoretically resources, to be first to compete for the "whole enchilada" account, Leo Burnett-Kellogg's style -- IF they were ready. And they're getting kinda close, but not there.
Four firms. And they aren't yet closing the "whole enchilada" account. In fact, they're not even pitching it to the best of my knowledge. Who else? The "Digital A-List"? They are project based, even if on retainer. If they are iAOR, that's a fraction of the whole mix. They are not responsible for a company's business and brand evolution.
Why? Many reasons, both complicated and simple.
Final analysis? In 2009, "Digital" and "Traditional" all are part of one big giant pool of people, old generations and new, both moving toward center.
Yes, digital agencies are rapidly adopting. Yes, traditional agencies are rapidly adopting. So are brands. So are consumers.
What's the big deal? Relax. There are people shooting other people out there. This is silly stuff.
Mark Ferdman, "Digital"
Founder, Freedom + Partners, 2002-Present
Co-Founder, Firstborn, 1997-2002
@MarkFerdman
And for the record, Ana booked months ago. We're just the lucky recipient of a happenstance flamewar.
Bob Knorpp
Host of The BeanCast
Posts every Monday at http://beancast.us
My background is as a web-developer who started with his first agency in 97. I knew nothing about "advertising". I went to art-school because I thought I wanted to do CGI for ILM. Lasted there one year because this thing called the "web" came along. Up until recently I have only been at small agencies. Small agencies that were started by folks that left larger agencies. All with various levels of "getting it". I've watched the digital community grow from being called "new media" to "rich" to "interactive" now everyone wraps it up as "digital".
What I find dissapointing about this article is that I don't see agencies broken down by size. Either billing or personnel. There are big digital shops that have only been digital. They have DAOR relationships. They "get" branding and campaign development. There are small "shops" here in NYC that are moving out of their project-based model as sub-contractors and winning their own new direct DAOR accounts.
I think it comes down to size. As Parker puts it, the BDAs, can not get out of their way. I've found that the larger the agency the harder it is to get things down. The turning ship analogy works. Smaller agencies have the ability to turn quicker. Adapt to new technology and even return a phone call.
It's a shame I'm reading this now because I would have brought this up at the SoDA unConference last Tuesday. To think that Big Spaceship, Firstborn, 360i or any of the other SoDA agencies "aren't ready to lead" is a slap in the face. But let's focus on not just the SoDA. I only am because I was at their event this week. How about the Doritos work from Goodby and B-Reel. Would you then say that B-Reel is not "ready to lead" if they were handed the Doritos business directly?.
Doesn't this thread feel very early 2000's? Traditional agencies have done so well for themselves haven't they? Where's the beef pizza pizza?
@gunther - friend, chill out and spare me your sage wisdom. take a look at this thread. i am hardly the only one recognizing andjelic's lack of expertise. does her lack of expertise prohibit her from stating an opinion? obviously not. but posting on a blog and even having ad age pick it up certainly doesn't validate her opinion. the republicans have sarah palin. now ad age has ana andjelic. but please don't ask the rest of us in the digital field - or the advertising field - to sit back and bow in awe of her typing skills. cheers.
@brian - not sure what you mean, friend. etiquette? reread the original post and show me where the author wasn't displaying ignorant rudeness. again, reread the thread and see how many have recognized this. at this point, any perceived attack on andjelic is really nothing more than requesting that she address ad age visitors with a modicum of dignity and respect. cheers.
bg
@mtlb
http://makethelogobigger.blogspot.com
One last thing: it is important for people like you 'who have full-time jobs in digital and advertising firms' to take the time and be active in these public forums, along with people like me (who works with agencies of all types, media companies, technology firms and brands, and who actually builds social technologies), so that we can develop more rounded perspectives of the challenges we all face.
Now I must get back to work ;)
Gunther
@goonth
CMOs need to be aware of what the digital agencies are being paid by the traditional agencies and the time they are given to execute as well as a chance to voice their POV. Once digital gets a fair seat at the table then I think that the ability to lead will take its natural course and those that are willing and capable will do so. Right now we sit behind a curtain and are told very different tales of what the realities are all based on whatever the traditional agency feels like telling and that is why the rift remains, once the door is flung open and we can all equally participate in delivering quality work we will continue dancing around this conversation and at some point it will come to a head. Is digital ready to lead right now? Who says we even want to, we just want to make sure that everyone is informed and that we have an equally heard voice when it comes to important decisions that are now being made by those who have no clue what they are talking about. Its misleading to the clients and it is hindering the development of building quality relationships. A good team has a point guard, a center, two forwards and a shooting guard, all equally important to the game.
http://blog.cloudraker.com/2009/11/09/cant-we-all-just-get-along/
And, I've seen my fair share of designers excited about cool functionality and whiz-bang technology.
But, you're dead wrong when it comes to digital agencies not understanding strategy. We see what customers say about brands through social media more honestly and frankly than any traditional agency's focus groups. That gives us an intimate understanding from which to build our strategies.
This seismic shift from push to pull is closer to the beginning than the end, but the push side of the equation is not terribly complicated. As you say, it just requires great execution. And, digital has been around now long enough to have a solid track record there too.
To say that digital shops, in general, are not ready to lead is a little arrogant and archaic. Many digital agencies have in-house talent that came from the traditional side. Talent that understands branding. Of course this isn't to say that only veterans of traditional media understand branding. Again, that would be arrogant. If this articles was written 10 years ago, I would agree. We're 10+ years past the birth of the "Digital Shop". Digital understands branding. Digital also understands strategy.
An agency's ability to lead should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Not generalized. It depends on the needs of the objective.
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.