Author: TV Networks Should Replace Ad Agencies

Wow. In the age of broadband, that's the most narrow-minded perspective I've heard in months. Perhaps you should screen the subjects of 3 Minute Ad Age more carefully. For one, they should be old enough to shave.

Brian presents a revolutionary concept, which, I believe will not be well received by the establishment. I offer this to ponder. When Henry Ford first proposed mass producing the automobile he was asked by a local Detroit journalist if he had asked the people what they want. Ford's response was no. Ford further explained he believed, if you ask the people what they want they will tell you they want a better horse.

Brian, your idea is interesting but a bit simplistic, I'd say. Ad agencies (and media agencies) serve more than a creative function. They should also be playing a major role in strategy for their clients -- messaging, targeting, how best to reach the target when they're receptive to hearing and possibly acting on the message, etc.

Giving those functions over to the networks bypasses a number of steps -- most importantly, selection of media. And also, what consistency will the marketer then have if NBC executes an ad one way and CBS and TNT and the new ION do it in other ways.

It sounds a bit chaotic.

This is not to say ad agencies need to be doing a better job.

Golly gee Beaver! I thought the value of Ad agencies was largely based on the fact that they offer advice and even (gasp) "Experienced recommendations" on the use of multiple medias. Hmmmm - I wonder what medias a TV network would recommend?!?!

S. Elliott

Let's be serious. Cable companies/TV networks only understand people as viewers, not consumers. And client companies/advertisers have relied on agencies because they elevate products from the functional. The solution he describes already exists. It is called the infomercial. God help us if we need more of those.

Brian is most certainly on to something. Many networks, mine included, often play the role of advertising agency and frankly, we do it really well - certainly when it comes to reach specific consumers. He's right, we know our audience very well. We do the same studies agencies do. We understand what and where they buy, how they spend, when they spend and so on. We can and do provide top notch creative that activates consumers/viewers. Now, that said, I think Brian is a little extreme in saying that it's time to do away with agencies. For many reason, but if not most importantly, an agency centralizes many services for the brands it represents. Secondly, for big brands like Coke, Bud, and many others, no network in the world is going to provide the penetration and reach that a huge international agency can. Maybe the future are agencies who help aggregate like networks, to help coordinate efforts... In any case, it's high time someone gets this discussion going because things are most definitely changing.

Ditto to what was already said. In addition, wouldn't that be loads of fun for the client to have to contact each cable network individually and work with a different person for each of them? And oh by the way Mr. Cable Executive, can you help me with a magazine ad and some collateral materials?

Wow. This guy is looking to sell books.

First, TV is hardly the only medium. Is he suggesting that we let Yahoo! build all the banners, and the WSJ build all the newspaper ads?

Second, while I 100% endorse his idea that advertising needs to be MUCH more targeted and relevant to the consumer, I have seen absolutely zero evidence that TV networks or cable operators are able to be the conduit for that type of marketing.

Instead of killing off ad agencies, the real model will be the rise of data-centric agencies that use precise audience segmentation to create not one campaign, but dozens - each relevant to a sliver of the overall audience.

Many of the digital agencies are already thinking this way, due to their exposure to extensive testing and optimization.

In fact, I just created a blog post about it:

"Wake Up Agencies - Digital Shops = Trojan Horse"
http://is.gd/2nP5

Jason Baer
Convince & Convert
Internet consulting for advertising and PR agencies
www.convinceandconvert.com

Wow. That's one of the most naive and uninformed things I've heard in a long, long time. I'm stunned that AgAge would feature that. This kid clearly has no idea what any of these entities he's discussing actually do.

I haven't heard something so far fetched in a while.

There is no way TV networks could do an advertising agencies job, nor would clients allow an "agency" they work with to work with their competitors...if they did it would be a mess and lawsuits would be sure to follow due to playing favorites with competitor A,B, & C if a prime placement doesn't fall their way.

Not to mention the fact that TV networks are the slowest moving cogs in the advertising wheel. If one medium was able to be more targeted it wouldn't be TV. TV's only shot at being targeted is if TV goes on demand and a-la carte for consumers.

Digital networks are the only medium that really know how to target users specificly due to their infrastructure already being in place.

The only thing that is telling of this is that media is changing as we know it, but the solution set forth is ridiculous and I can't believe AdAge gave this coverage.

At one point in my career I was an AE for an in-house broadcast company's advertising agency. My job was to "sell" my company's properties only and to over charge my clients for that execution. This guy is way too naive about what the major TV networks are capable of. If he thinks there is no consideration of the consumer now what does he think would happen when a group of sales people who lack the knowledge necessary to take a clients business beyond their medium and property would do?

Ad Age should be embarrassed that they ran this. It's one thing to feature controversial material, but quite another to give a not-even-half-baked "visionary" the podium like this.

Normally I enjoy the 3 minute segment -- this was 3 minutes wasted.

Come on Ad Age! Please screen more closely. That's three minutes of my life I will never get back.

I will not bother to educate that mindless twit with the gaping and ridiculous errors in his logic. Just make him go away, and plesae don't bring hime back. Perhaps he can work for the government.

Can Farmington Hill and New York comment posters please contact me somehow. Apparently all the naysayers who are too narrow minded to see where Brian is going with his thought don't see the big picture.

It's ironic seeing this video segment because I founded a company that in some aspect resembles what Brian is talking about. In a nutshell, Adiki.com is a creative social network where you can monetize your ideas.

Launching September 15.

. . . and oil companies should replace car manufacturers! I can do it to, where's my 3 minutes.

This is beyond ridiculous. Ever hear of print, direct, outdoor, online advertising, FSIs, radio, POP, etc.? Are the networks going to become experts in ALL media? Because that's what today's agencies need to be. TV is only one piece of the puzzle, and it's becoming less and less relevant. The networks are old-media dinosaurs. This guy is no visionary.

Well in the case of some TV networks in Australia such as the Seven Network, this IS the case. The only thing they don't plan is media. I don't why the various respondents here find this so unfathomable. Agencies need to start thinking why they have so many unsatisfied clients. Perhaps it's because they often fail to deliver on strategy and creative.