Agency, does your client need you?
2nd July 10
Posted in Brands, business models
Yesterday I was invited along to Curious 01 in London. Any event with ‘curious’ in the title sounds like it might be interesting and this was. Curated by Paul Bay, a group of good & nice people turned up, including John Grant, Neil Perkin, Jon Bains, Alex Bedoya from Hyper Island and many more. Whilst the session covered a number of topics, the conversation centred around the question: what should a brand team look like in future? A subject close to our hearts here at Labs, see related posts here and here. Paul also decided to spice things up by asking a couple of us to ‘bring a provocation’… hard to resist.
There were a ton of good ideas (others) and some a little more loony (mine). For what it’s worth I’m sharing my provocation here because, as always, we’re interested in hearing what others think. A round-up of the rest of the day will be shared soon.
In a nutshell, my provocation began with the question: if clients only pay for the things they can’t do themselves, what does that mean when we work in a real-time, social web world?
A bit of context first.
We’re all familiar with this behaviour now, sure. Its relevance in terms of client-agency ways of working is perhaps even more obvious: ‘baton passing’ doesn’t work. The old linear model where there were distinct lines between client and agency are now blurring:
Many of us may baulk at the idea that ‘Creative’ sits as a shared task… but thinking about brands marketing themselves in a social web context – where the content is often real-time and personal – how many brands are exclusively outsourcing their voice on Facebook and Twitter, say (and/or will continue to do so)?
With all the blurring and collaboration, not to mention the warp speed with which we all need to work, comes a need for agencies to keep an eye on the value and difference they bring. To repeat: Clients pay for the things they cannot do themselves. Add economic pressure to the mix and you cannot help but think that too much duplication is unsustainable.
This led to a proposal of two, deliberately stark alternative models (super extreme to make the point – you get the idea):
There are of course some less disruptive alternatives, more on this below. But considering those two extremes for a second, we ended with the following questions:
Back to the alternatives: of course there are some agency-client relationships that are experimenting with nimble new approaches set up precisely to thrive in a constantly changing, connected world. Apple and TBWA Media Arts Lab are a (well-established) example, our own relationship in BBH NY with Google Creative Lab another. Victors & Spoils, the IdeaLists and more recently Alternative Genius are of course adopting entirely new models.
We’d love to hear what you think on this. What will characterise the brand team of the future? Outsourced, in-house or a perfectly spliced, collaborative client-agency team with complementary yet different skills?
***
Thanks again to Paul, Belinda and everyone we met on the day. Looking forward to seeing you at Curious 02..
Maybe the job of the new type of agency is to consult on the best use of tech and relevance in channel choice, because this is only going to get larger faster.
But would trad agency setups steer clients away from ‘new stuff’ if it was relevant to the task if they’ve got huge departments to pay for?
Being stripped down can justify the ‘you don’t really need that’ stance and potentially make for a stronger relationship?
Sam, you raise one of THE issues.. how do agencies credibly talk about the feasibility of ‘new world’ ideas without having depth of experience in delivery in-house, whilst at the same time making sure they steer clear of building extensive capability which can lead – as evidenced by some traditional digital agencies – to legacy issues down the line.
I think it probably boils down to an agency asking itself “Do we want to make stuff?” If the answer is yes (as it always has been at bbh) then there is no choice. You then need to mitigate against getting too complacent around particular technologies or skills. Agencies have to stay ahead of the curve on what’s possible / what’s the best solution. Our expertise and point of difference depends upon us regarding that as a *first base* responsibility. Let’s make sure we have people in the organisation who are curious, restless, like to tinker, always looking over the horizon..
Aren’t most agencies essentially middlemen?
If you had an amazing production company hire a great strategic & creative lead (say, from an award winning agency), wouldn’t that just be a leaner, meaner ‘agency’ model? What stops a client from going straight to an RSA or Real Media? The agency in-between? It usually comes down to about 2-3 real contact head people there. So if the production/digital company brought them on, client could cut a huge swath of agency overhead, right?
I’m not very familiar with Victors & Spoils, but it sounds to me like they’re a typical agency model but with outsourced freelancers. Seems like a lean machine, but not all that different. I could be wrong, but that’s what I see.
Not very different from how many agencies typically pitch a client they might not yet be staffed up for.
Then again, it seems to me a lot of (especially larger) clients like the day to day handholding and bureaucracy. They like a process that mimics their own broken processes (how many millions do clients waste every year producing things that never run due to bad processes?).
Thing is, most production shops are very happy to have the agencies deal with all of that. They’d prefer to focus on the creation of the work – not the politics.
The leaner, smarter clients will go the other route.
‘Clients get what they deserve’ is a theme (irrespective of industry..) that doesn’t ever seem to go away.
I am not sure I’m wholly comfortable with it though. My absurdly utopian response is that we can make a difference and it’s our job to rail against the machine whenever we come up against it. The more cases of new process and output proving to be more effective, more exciting and frankly easier – the more likely it is that more organisations will cease to operate with ‘broken’, old world processes.
We just need to be generous along the way, look for the little wins and hunt out the like-minded clients (often hidden in the most unlikely of places) trying to make things better. All easier said than done, of course.
Great thoughts here and indeed, quite some polarizing positions. And no matter what, at the end of the day, the client remunerates performance and partnership based on added value. And that is eventually to build brands and drive their business to more fame and fortune.
Following the mantra of the most common denominator, an entirely in-house team is going to struggle with mediocre group-think solutions. Outsourcing the Marketing Dept. will eventually lose all traction with the leadership, product development and sales team. And is destined to only bring up off-the-hook satellite solutions.
Allow me to bring another thought here: In my experience the condition to win is a strong external force trying to challenge the conventional wisdom of the client’s system. The business needs a strong, yet open leader and a T-shaped expert to move and shake things up, running instead of just managing projects. Maybe even something like an embedded agent that expertsources problem-solution-based and brings in the right talents and disciplines at the right time.
All based on Archimedes’ principle: Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world.
But these are just my two cents here. Keep up the good work!
Oliver Meschke
Oliver
Your comment has really got me thinking, thank you. I think your response to the two extremes does ring true. Or certainly, the outcomes you describe feel all too likely in many organisations.
I like your thought of an embedded, T-shaped agent, but am particularly taken with your fulcrum analogy. In relationship terms, it’s the equivalent – if I’ve understood you correctly – of a positive ‘intervention’. Which suggests any agency needs to maintain and nurture its own ability to bring an outsider’s point of view. To stay connected to what is happening outside, to stay fresh and challenging when necessary.
Always good to be reminded of this, and why. Thanks again.
[...] Agency, does your client need you? Published: July 2, 2010 Source: BBH Labs Yesterday I was invited along to Curious 01 in London. Any event with ‘curious’ in the title sounds like it might be interesting and this was. Curated by Paul Bay, a group of good nice people turned up,… [...]
Fantastic post Mel- scary topic for many of us, but so important. We have to act in tandem with our clients (easier said than done, I know!) in this “change-by-the-nanosecond” world, there really isn’t a choice!
It’s a hard one for both sides, but when done right, can yield awesome results–the examples you cite are absolutely the benchmarks, but I’ve also seen it work successfully for smaller clients who are willing to take some risks and roll the dice with their agency partners. Developing this kind of relationship takes a lot time, energy and well, love– but are ultimately the most rewarding. It has to begin with an underlying respect/ability to empathize on both ends.
Clients should come to the agency to take them outside themselves- see the world from a more objective and hopefully, interesting space that can help solve their business challenges in ways they never would have imagined.
What it requires is an agency willing to check a bit of ego at the door and be flexible to change on a dime and clients to be proactive and truly grab the hand of the agency and look to work together to solve problems, not just make “advertising” (that second one is just as hard as the first!).
I know, this is a lofty idea (one that many far more articulate folks have voiced before) but just by seeing some of the most successful work of late (realizing the definitions of advertising “success” is evolving as well), this *is* the world we work in today…exciting/terrifying all at the same time.
Hi Thas
Thank you for such a positive contribution, appreciate it.
I am sure there’s an equation out there waiting to be written.. There is definitely a mix of things that define a ‘great group’ for our age. All the things you mention are important. Perhaps it’s something like T-shaped people with a defined goal/mission, acting with generosity and guts = highest chance of success.
As part of this, we need clients inside the team who are up for a real partnership. The (unusual) alternative is to adopt a ZAG (brand invention model at BBH) approach. Either way, when it works, it does, as you say, yield awesome results.
Hey Mel
Firstly, thanks for your kind comments for curious01. You played your role of provocateur perfectly! We are already planning curious02…
Enjoying the comments that have been inspired by your piece.
Your point about clients paying for things they cannot do themselves is critical. The agency that is flexible and agile enough to fill the gaps is the one that wins out.
Too often clients are treated as one-dimensional. Yet clients are rational (agencies need to deliver against targets, deadlines, business objectives). They are structural (agency delivering to the position the client has in the company). Clients are emotional (so how does the agency save them time, help their careers, make them look good). Most importantly is the 4th dimension, that there is more than one client. An agency delivering concepts and ideas should ensure they resonate with the corporate comms guys, the CFO and sales teams, and should be confident that they will resonate with the ultimately client – the people who will buy the client’s product or services.
Mmm… interesting. Think I prefer option ii. Marketing is entirely outsourced. If I understand right this means as an agency we need to understand the consumer more than the client whilst they focus on making, building, updating. This is where I believe we can be invaluable. Powered with this we add value in 2 ways:
1. The traditional one: execution and communication entrenched in the learning of audience psyche
2. The new model: becoming part of the innovation team driving customer needs and wants through to product offering. Imagine that agencies in the future tell brands what they should be manufacturing based on demand! Nice!
There is an issue with using 3rd parties instead of in-house also. We need to continue to develop this capability in-house yet be always mindful to seek out experts that help us keep up with pace of tech and trends. In a nutshell none of us can sleep until 2013 when we will all either a) retire wealthy or b) be in the loony bin!
This is one of those topics that could be debated and discussed ad nauseam as there are plenty of agency structures that have lost their relevance and others that are potentially defining the future. The best ad agencies are those that constantly embrace change, experiment and have liberated themselves from the old models of media based compensation and simply executing the big idea every now and then. During my tenure we have seen DDB redefine creativity, Fallon show that small can rival big, Chiat Day set new creative standards, and Crispin come out of nowhere to become the envy of everyone. Now we are seeing digital agencies, crowdsourcing agencies and not only different companies but truly different models. The end of agencies or the diminished relevance of agencies has been a hot topic for years. But keep in mind that the ad agency has been around for 150 years. From an agent for the media, to the marketing department of F 500 companies, to strategists, to creative idea generators, to niche suppliers of DR, digital, social, to whatever comes next. My guess is that agencies will continue to be needed and play a far more important role than any naysayer suggests for a couple of reasons: one, creative people want to work with and be surrounded by like minded members of the tribe in an environment that focuses on solving problems the way creative people do; two, even in an age of conversation and community brands still need creative ideas (that are fresh, new, and different than what’s come before) to live in those spaces and most companies can’t do that themselves; third, agencies are filled with pretty smart people who fill figure out new products, services and ways of partnering with clients that keep them an essential resource; and finally, most companies want and need outside resources that aren’t confined or constrained by corporate think. Not all agencies will figure it out. I’d just try to make sure you’re working for one that will, or be among those who help your current agency get it right. Hint: don’t hold onto the past whatever you do.
[...] and Economy, Marketing, Public relations, social media, United States by Matt Hames Go here, and take a read. This is a post with lots of pretty pictures that essentially says clients won’t need [...]
We do it this already, just audit and all is done in-house.
Mel, great post.
I might be biased, since I work in an agency, but I don’t think ad agencies will go away because clients will always need us as long as we provide them value that they can’t otherwise get with an internal marketing department. Of course, corporations can always hire a great team, but here are a few questions:
How many corporations can afford to maintain a top-notched marketing team in-house? Ad agencies provide the services that corporations need, but with a much lower price tag than having an internal marketing department with the same high-skilled and talented team.
How many creative and strategic people can thrive and produce their best work in a corporate environment? Most of the creatives I know will never create great work in an environment where every tweet on behalf of the corporation has to be approved by 5 other departments.
How many creatives can produce their best work without the competition of creatives in other agencies? The adrenalin and the excitement from pitches and deadlines makes agencies work they way they do. I don’t think any corporate environment can have the same effect. At least the one I worked in never gave me the same adrenalin rush.
How will corporations deal with Gen Y’s job hopping trait? When someone leaves an agency, it disrupts the environment but it isn’t as disruptive as in a corporation. What will happen with an internal marketing department when its employees change in short periods of time? It is an issue many organizations face today and it will get even worse since we, my generation, are idealist and believe we can find the perfect job. Even if that means working for 10 organizations by the time we are 35. Even if that means starting our own company at the age of 26.
With all this said, collaboration between ad agencies and internal marketing departments is required more than ever. I also agree with Edward that agencies need to constantly evolve.
In all this talk, and I’ve certainly done my share, regarding new agency models I haven’t heard anyone acknowledge that one single agency model may not be enough… for a single agency. What are the chances, if you have 20 or so clients, that you could develop a model that would work well with all of them?
My guess is that agencies will have to be flexible enough to shape shift and morph as needed on every client.
[...] Agency, Does Your Client Need You? [...]
[...] the 20th Century agency business model and the demise of the client-agency symbiotic relationship. This post from a London-based BBH Labs raises some provocative questions and proposed some intriguing alternatives to the future [...]
At royalladv.com I was exposed to a lot of these concerns, and they make it their business to address them head on. I learned a lot.
[...] Mel Exon at BBH Labs questions whether clients still need agencies. The post is directed at advertising agencies, but the general issues can be applied to other sectors. [...]
[...] familiar? It should be, by [...]