Are the junior talent in advertising packaging themselves wrong?
22nd April 11
Posted in People
Jack... of all trades
We interview people all the time, even when we’re not hiring.
There’s no arguing that the quality of junior talent in our industry is exceptional. This is a group that’s taking a systematic approach to studying our craft, while balancing it with a pleasantly messy (as Global Planning Director, Heidi Hackemer, labeled it when screening candidates for the Barn program) mix of other interests that feed their insatiable curiosity.
Yet, there is an alarming trend about this talent. It has to do with packaging.
We look for T-shaped people when hiring. In other words, talent that’s got a specific area of awesomeness, but stretches into other areas in a highly collaborative way. This is distinct from being a hybrid talent, a label that most junior talent in our industry self-apply early into most of these conversations: “I’m a mix of strategy, creative, media and production.” True hybrid talent has more than one depth of expertise. That’s exceptionally hard (I know, I was a sub-par Media Director before being a sub-par Creative Director).
No doubt this crop of people is indeed a mix of expertise. In fact, it’s likely more true than of prior generations of ad talent. The question remains though, what arenas do they have or seek a depth of expertise in? In other words, what’s the base of the T?
No one wants to be put in a box, ourselves included. But, ultimately clients want to know what they’re buying, especially in a world of ever less familiar job titles. At BBH for example, it isn’t until clients see engagement planning as a discipline that they fully appreciate the value it brings to the table in today’s marketing landscape.
Which brings us to the punch line. The junior talent in this industry needs to remain buyable, even as they become messier and potentially more hybrid. So many talented young folks do a little bit of everything, but few are willing to commit to doing one particular thing quite well. In other words, those with the potential to truly be hybrid talent—deep skills in more than one vertical expertise—never manage to gain the depth to deliver on the promise such talent has.
Yet, it’s exactly that talent that I know every agency in the country would hand a job to right now if they were just more buyable. The question is simply, which one needs to change? The talent and how they package themselves? Or the agencies that struggle to explain their value to clients?
Used to be why we relied on a book. A book showed people what you could be capable of, vs talk. We should go back to having to show actual work again.
Fred, a book is certainly critical. It’s a key factor. With junior talent though, books can be tricky for those not doing the creative execution.
I’d venture to say that if you don’t have any work (spec or otherwise) to show, you have *more* than a packaging problem!
I think internships are also very important to help develop the base of the ‘T’ and agencies (except for the BBH Barn of course) don’t do a great job packaging the work that their interns did with them.
The only problem is, even in a city like Singapore brimming with agencies, it’s next to impossible to find an internship, unless you happen to know someone at the agency. Otherwise, best of luck chasing HR haplessly.
I think it is some combination of both. If you think about it, marketers have never really been good at marketing themselves. It is well documented in literature across the blogosphere. Why is that? For one thing, it is hard to put a finger on exactly what it us a good marketer (talent) does that makes consumers respond. Second, comes down to knowing your crowd and working them properly. If I know going in that a client needs help with their digital marketing, I’m certainly not saying a word about broadcast or print unless they bring it up.
Great post.
Fantastic point. It’s a bit hypocritical in that regard for agencies to complain about packaging. We certainly struggle with it.
In my attempt to pivot from purely digital into advertising I often face a similar packaging problem, what am I? I started my career coding then moved into strategy & project management but im not a planner in the traditional sense & even further away from account manager. So, I’ve been labeling my self as a crea
Sorry, my fat finger hit submit… In my attempt to pivot from purely digital into advertising I often face a similar packaging problem, what am I? I started my career coding then moved into strategy & project management but im not a planner in the traditional sense & even further away from account manager. So, I’ve been labeling myself as a creative tech strategist, why, mainly to keep the word creative alive in job titles. In digital, its so easy to let the tech become the idea without finding that idea that is truely different and better.
Actually, what you’re saying it actually hybrid. You developed a depth of expertise in a specific area before moving onto the next.
That’s wholly different than the “I do a bit of everything.” You have specific, easy to grasp, depth-of-craft skills. You’re a rare breed in that regard. Kudos.
I’m a junior working in advertising/marketing communications. I’d love to have some advice about becoming more of a T-shaped professional. I experience the difficulty of delivering good results while trying to do lots of different things. Is there a way of developing a personal skills on a T-shaped foundation. And how can you explain to your boss that the T-shape is important (reason to invest).
Love to hear thoughts about this..
1. outline your role clearly. dive into it in the work you do and be sure you’re accountable for it.
2. work with people that will do the same but are highly collaborative in the areas you also have interest in, even if you’re not accountable or an expert in that area.
3. ask as many questions about the other side of the fence as your own.
4. talk about your “base of T” skills via your book (the work in question), but the collaborative part of the T as what you’ve learned, what you think and your opinions.
5. Apply for a specific position, not any opening.
That’s good packaging.
Just keep in mind packaging is the last 10%. The first 90% is all you and what you’re capable of. Good luck.
Hi Saneel,
It’s been quite a while. Do you recommend creating a portfolio even if you aren’t a creative?
Also, some of my job duties are creatively limited. How can I express my creativity if it is not called for? I think in order to become a T-shaped individual, you must have the right environment that endorses it.
What are your thoughts?
Well, I agree with Cale but for different reasons. Specialization is a persistent bias that both professionals and companies are not quite clear how to overcome. We still struggle with the idea of putting talented people without specific expertise performing specific activities, because we think specificity is the only shortcut to efficience.
I think it’s about agencies finding the best way to make use of the talent they have in the building. Do you know any creatives that work in a vacuum devoid of media insights these days? Or strategic that doesn’t keep media in the loop? Everyone needs to stay informed and have that broad knowledge while they develop their own expertise. That agency collaboration is difficult when the counterparts don’t get to sync up and work together directly on a frequent basis. Otherwise you’re always playing catch up on what your partners have been doing. This is where I see agencies falling short most frequently, by not being truly integrated.
Having had several friends roam the halls of BBH, including Griffin, I understand the importance at BBH, perhaps more than any other agency to be multidisciplinary, but an expert at SOMETHING. Griffin. Richard. Zach. Seth. They all excel(ed) at something, but are knowledgable enough of other areas that they can reach across the aisle and provide value to any scenario.
But I think a major problem with the scenario being outlined here is two-fold. Part of it is exactly what Griffin said. Some lack formal internships that put junior talent in a position that allows them to dig into a base discipline.
Thankfully this wasn’t the case for myself, but a lot of agencies use their interns to fill holes in the workflow. Wherever those holes may exist, even don’t align with your interests.
I’m presently at the tipping point between junior and mid-level strategy and looking back on my nearly two years of work + two years of internships, I think the second half of the problem stems from an unrealistic expectation on the part of agencies.
Junior talent, in most cases, haven’t found their “killer app”. That’s why they’re junior talent. Even those with internships have only just started dabbling in the disciplines that interest them (and who knows if they’re going to continue liking it?). But to expect them to have dug their toes into something when they’ve only just graduated, is asking a lot.
We’re a mixed bag of interests precisely because we’re trying to figure out what makes us passionate. Junior level is exactly the time in most people’s careers where they’re experimenting and figuring out what feels right. I think agencies should embrace that, and help their junior talent discover themselves. Having junior talent on staff is just as much about mentoring them as it is about getting work out of them.
Very, very good point. Love the examples (having worked directly with many of those folks). This is indeed the level to experiment.
The only caution I’d say is that such experimentation must be purposeful. The tourist junior employee that’s just there to see how things work doesn’t deliver much value back to the agency. The best apprentice is the one there to do what you do better if given enough time. For some people, better can happen quickly. For others it takes time.
Thanks again for the great comment.
These juniors spent a few years and tens of thousands of dollars to learn how to sell things to customers, yet can’t figure out how to sell themselves to prospective employers. That shows me that they don’t grasp the fundamentals and don’t know what they’re doing.
No doubt, specialisation is important.
However, when it comes to pure creative, the discussion we should have isn’t about us juniors and our offer or packaging, it’s about the work we produce.
Yes, some of the most interesting creative projects right now comes straight from school graduates. Hunky dory. But the conversion of these projects from school environment to the business is just not happening. The ideas that we all agree are great don’t come to life in the industry. Simply because they cannot be sold.
The greatness of the hybrid thinking of modern graduates is that it disregards the structure of the advertising agency / client relationship – and the expectations that exist there within. As a result we end up with ideas that require much more (or other things) from the client than the marketing director’s signature on piece of paper. Ideas that the agencies aren’t supposed to be proposing. Ideas that the MDs aren’t supposed to be buying.
So, my point is that the lack of specialisation isn’t what is stopping young talent; the structure of the business is.
And until we find a solution to this schools will continue teaching students how to create even more astonishing projects, and our own industry will keep shooting them down.
So, a complicated answer to a simple question; they both need to change.
Henrik, I hear your frustration. It’s certainly rooted in some truth.
I think it’s a much bigger issue than a blog comment can cover, but I will say that certain agencies have permission other agencies don’t. What you’re frustrated by isn’t structural, I don’t think. It’s that what you want to do is either a) not what clients want (sorry, but we have to consider that’s an option) or b) not what clients want from *that* particular agency.
Agency permission is a huge challenge today. I have a feeling it’s much of what frustrates junior talent these days, even if they don’t see it as the root issue.
Thanks for the in-depth, honest comment.
“But the conversion of these projects from school environment to the business is just not happening. The ideas that we all agree are great don’t come to life in the industry. Simply because they cannot be sold.”
This is truly the crux of the problem. This is what it is so hard for students to understand. And for me to teach to them.
Very thought provoking piece, Saneel! At some level, this convergence though is happening across categories/industries, so then why not extend to people skills as well. For instance, if we take Hollywood as an example, look at how Titles are changing/extending: Actor-Director-Producer or sometimes Singer-Actor-Director … and so on. So at some level, I wonder if the world of ‘Jack of all trades, master of none’ is changing to ‘Master of all trades, Jack of some’! Look forward to hearing your views! Cheers!
Thanks Tej. I think the what you’re touching on is in the heart of the piece. It’s the difference between a hybrid (master of multiple trades) and an ethereal, un-buyable jack of all trades, master of none.
There are many good incites to this post/thread and I agree with all of them, but one thing I feel is missing.
This industry as a whole is going through an identity crisis: Major traditional shops trying to shed their antiquated layers and small, agile digital shops trying to prove they can do more than meets the eye. Same goes for students and juniors entering this industry. I have heard the terminology “T-Shaped” people crop up recently over the last several years, and synonyms like Co.’s O shaped people.
I think what is desired now from juniors and students is a desire to crave the unknown. To develop the width of the “T” and collaborate with other departments.
Now I am no where near the level to make a claim at what agencies are looking for, but from my experience interning and then later finding a permanent home is personality, energy and a willingness to keep up with a constantly changing industry, no matter what department you are aiming for.
I write this because as students and juniors read this article, I hope they don’t get caught up in the hoopla of T shaped, O shaped, and other alphabetical shaped people. This article does have a point, selling and branding yourself is an important way to show what talent and ideas you can bring to the table. But the most important thing is positive energy and willingness to learn.
Colin, great add to the article. You’re right, the basics are surprisingly simple, but I would argue those are cost of entry. I can’t think of anyone getting a job at any level without that type of attitude. You certainly have it in spades from what I’ve heard, but you’re also bringing a lot more depth of expertise to the table. That’s what’s keep you employed. The former is just making you an option.
Great post Saneel,
This reminds me of a real estate concept HBU, highest and best use. An empty lot in Manhattan can be many things, a garden, parking, a home, but the HBU is a skyscraper.
A real estate agents will focus on selling a potential skyscraper, not a home or parking, since a skyscraper presents the most value to all involved.
It sounds to me like juniors just need to identify and sell themselves based on their highest and best use
[...] Are the junior talent in advertising packaging themselves wrong?—Saneel Radia, BBH Labs [...]
Hi Saneel, great text!
Tks for sharing.
I was wondering what you think about people who have an expertise out of the area itself?
I’ve been constantly seeing several individuals who commit to some passion not directly related to what they do but that affects their deliveries directly.
People who study anthropology, writing, cinema, etc.
It seems to me that, yes, talents should carry something unique to tell about themselves.
But I often ask myself if it should necessarily be research or digital or media and so on.
In that case these people can be perfectly valuable inside the agency and their look highly appreciated by clients.
I have been a “classic” planner ever since I started at the big machines and have now moved onto digital. In that sense, would my value regard the strategic thinking I can bring to digital performance?
I think that is valuable but I do believe in the other skills that can be brought to the table.
Cheers.
[...] erschien ein Eintrag auf BBH Lab mit der Frage ob neue Talente in der Werbung sich falsch darstellen. BBH Labs wendeten sich wie schon oft, an die Leser, für Hilfe, um diese Frage, nach einigen [...]
[...] ‘template’ response. That’s why the buzzword is ‘T-shaped’ talent (I first saw it here) – people that aren’t great all-rounders, but brilliant at one thing that helps them attack [...]