Since this post is part of the 24 Hours of Innovation, I thought it’d be appropriate to start with a quote from futurist Bob Johansen, President of the Institute of the Future from 1996-2004 In his book Get There  Early, Johansen asserts that “no one can predict the future.” By his definition, predictions are statements of what will happen—and they’re almost always wrong.  Futurists forecast what may happen and “a forecast doesn’t need to come true to be valuable.”  Forecasts are valuable when they “provoke new thought, new insights, new possible actions, or new ways of thinking about the present [and] you don’t need to agree with a forecast to find it useful.”

To that end, My Pep Talk for 2009 during the 24 Hours of Innovation is less a statement of fact about the future of marketing innovation and more an outline of real examples, rhetorical challenges and possible outcomes.

The marketing hard sell and cold call have given way to interactions where brands intersect a customer’s life and add to their experience, provide clarity or make the customer’s life easier.  But marketing strategies and tactics are not in line with this new role; it’s the basis of an identity crisis in marketing—the likes of which we’ve never seen.

Marketing’s identity crisis

Marketing has an identity crisis and to solve it, marketers need to innovate.  Innovation requires us to lead, experiment, and take risks with emerging technology as well as traditional channels.  It also requires clients to create a culture so this can happen.  But right now we face a clash of wills and expectations. To get past it, clients and their marketing partners need to create a new framework from which to operate.

Social media and the Always On, consumer-controlled marketing environment change the rules almost daily.

Technology emerges and changes, sometimes faster than it can be harnessed—making it nearly impossible for marketers to make proven recommendations to clients , especially as these same clients begin to require money back guarantees and assurances of ROI.  A recent example is the Coca Cola Company’s pay-for-performance plan, a model that, instead of fostering innovation, runs the risk of stifling it. 

So what’s an agency or CMO to do? To begin with, I believe marketers need to become futurists and first movers by utilizing emerging technologies for marketing.

Some marketers have stepped into uncharted areas with great success and support from progressive clients.  ComBlu harnesses the power of online communities for their clients.  The Advance Guard’s work in social media allows them to stand firm in the belief that as marketers “we simply set the stage and arrange the chairs for customer conversation to take place.”

These firms are products of an industry diametrically opposed to itself, in which agencies can no longer afford to be reactionary, but in many cases can’t afford to be risk-takers, either.  For agencies to innovate and lead they need to continually experiment. 

Web shops do this every day by developing unique solutions to problems that can’t be solved by off-the-shelf products.  iPhone app developers quickly create micro software for very specific problems.

Perhaps innovation requires marketers to have access to a budget line item in which unproven methods can be tried without being held hostage to guaranteed sales increases.  This will be familiar ground for any marketer whose agency has continually preached the benefits of brand marketing with the cautionary warning that not all dollars can be quantified.

Problems fuel innovation

Many a conundrum has fueled innovation in the past, although it could be argued that these innovations have not necessarily helped marketers.

In a well informed treatise, Joe Jaffe has forecast the death of the 30-second television spot because of the DV-R. In response to these threats, the DV-R has driven innovation around commercials, soon services like ZillionTV will allow spots to be grouped and customized to a viewer’s interests.  For example, in the near future you’ll be able to choose nothing but beer commercials as your preferred pitch.   This reframes the whole model from less of an interruption to more of a choice—by giving viewers control and an increased ability to filter and giving marketers what Zillion calls “zero-waste” media.

Another innovative service will interrupt viewers fast forwarding through commercials and they’ll see a static page containing an enticing message that compels them to stop and watch a spot.  A bikini clad woman may invite them to view a commercial for Jamaica tourism—letting them know what they’re missing by flying past commercials.

Similar circumstances have driven the innovation that created blogs, satellite radio, YouTube and many other tools.

The near future

So what’s to become of advertising and marketing in the future?  Are we becoming a digital world with no use for the physical?  Far from it.  A 2009 digital report by Razorfish forecast that online and physical experiences will continue to merge.  Mobile continues to gain traction as customers are less concerned if they use a PC, phone, or their feet to access a brand.  Without distinction, customers want brands to be there whenever and wherever they want them. 

The offline experience melts with online as the web becomes less reactive and more real time, a phenomenon that began with the rise of the 24-hour news cycle and has increased exponentially as millions of online users flock to tools like Twitter and Facebook on their laptops and Blackberrys.

Technology dances with marketing

The Razorfish report shows distinct areas where technology has and will intersect with marketing.

RFID is an exciting innovation enabling companies like Target to become hyper efficient logistics machines.  By utilizing RF technology in their backrooms, the Target replenishment system allows shelves to stay stocked without over ordering, keeping inventory lean and responsive to customer’s purchasing habits.  

This same technology has been a marketing tool for years at Target.  They pioneered the development of their bridal and baby registry using RF technology.

In the near future, as barcode scanners become part of a Blackberry, for example, Target guests will be able to scan a product for instant information including user reviews, competitive price matching or suggested uses and accessories.

For years RF technology has been used for chip times in marathons, to find a lost dog in your neighborhood or to pay tolls via EZ Pass.  But when that same technology not only collects our money on the LA Freeway, but beams traffic information into our on-board navigation system and suggests alternative routes , then we’ll be starting to integrate and optimize this technology.

How many times have you found yourself in the grocery store line, with a full cart—and no credit card? But you’ve got your cell phone—because you didn’t want to miss that important client call.  Mobile wallet via your cell phone would allow you to bring home the bacon, literally—without running home for your billfold.

Reframing marketing

Are the above scenarios marketing?   Traditionalists would say no—not in the truest sense—they  are convenience and customer service on steroids.   Using Zappos as an example, one could certainly call their focus on customer service one hell of a marketing strategy.

So in conclusion, marketing innovation lies not entirely in positioning, public relations and ads, or even online communities, Twitter, and iPhone apps.  Innovation happens as a result of online and offline worlds merging, by reframing marketing’s role and developing tools and tactics that align all of the above.   

More importantly, if innovation is to be the savior of marketing, clients need to foster a culture that allows for experimentation and risk, and marketers need to offer a return on investment.  Two very different problems with different solutions; but in order to function, marketing must do both.

Thanks to Philippe De Ridder and the Board of Innovation for inviting me to participate!

Share/Save

This was a good article so it’s here in its entirety, with thanks to Mike Carlton for writing it and DavidArmano for bring it to my attention.

Everything comes back around.  Seems, in so many ways, the industry has lost its way.  Or did we just stop listening to those who knew better?

Mike’s model for an agency Adhocracy is well thought out.  I agree with most everything he’s saying except:

Agencies [change] the behaviors of their client’s customers and prospects in the marketplace.  And those behavioral changes are driven by advertising and other forms of market communications that agencies create and implement.”

I don’t think agencies change as much as influence consumers today, and in an era of consumer control, that’s probably even the wrong tag.

Nitpicking aside, read on.

Is Your Agency an Adhocracy? By Mike Carlton         Clearly, the General Motors model worked great in the 20th Century. And just as clearly it doesn’t look so good in the 21st.  Adhocracies are messy, but they work. My First Client I became an agency account executive in the early 1960s. My first client was a small trade association. It primarily served the automotive industry. Its leading – or one might say dominant – member was General Motors. Now in those days that was a good thing. General Motors was one of the largest, most successful corporations in the world. It was also a giant advertiser. And was the epitome of what a company should be. Their organization was widely studied and analyzed. Business schools celebrated the way GM was run. So did the business press. It was a model that worked. One for others to emulate. GM was the essence of successful Americana. In fact, at that time GM’s CEO was widely quoted (not quite accurately) as saying “What’s good for General Motors is good for America.” Heady Stuff While this account was not very large, working directly with the people from GM was a heady experience. Particularly for a brand new account guy like me. It was a great opportunity. I wanted to learn everything I could from them. I was like a sponge. I hung on all their principles and practices. And, they were very good to me. On top of that, unlike lesser clients, meetings weren’t held in their offices or ours. We met in tony places like the Broadmoor or the Homestead. Entertainment was lavish. Nothing was too good. Working with them was exhilarating, glamorous fun. And they paid well, too. Intramurals One of the GM principles I learned almost immediately was the importance they placed on competition within their company. It appeared that each GM unit was an independent profit center. And essentially each was in competition with all the others. This was an alien concept to me. Kind of like sibling rivalry on steroids. And it seemed to me that the GM people I worked with spent about two thirds of their time competing with other parts of GM and only about one third of their time focused on the outside market. This struck me as an odd expenditure of effort. But, GM was colossally successful and almost revered. While I was still very wet behind the ears. Also, during my time in the military I had learned how giant organizations function. So GM’s bureaucratic processes appeared in keeping with their global scope. Our Agency Against the GM framework, our agency was tiny. We were quite simple. We had very little structure. Not much in the way of departments. And no profit centers. Nor subsidiaries. No accountants, only a bookkeeper. And certainly no lawyers. It had a very family type of feel. Everyone did what was needed, when it was needed. And if we were successful, we all shared in the rewards. It was a micro model that worked. Our strategies and creative solutions were effective. We made money. We grew. And we had fun Emulation As time went by the agency blossomed. To manage that growth we decided it needed a bit more structure. And of course the GM model came to mind. Remember, at that time it was the world standard for an effective organization. The big agency holding companies were being built the GM way, too. They had multiple silos. And multiple profit centers. In essence, each unit competed with every other one. So did their people. It was the way things were done. So, we set up departments. Then profit centers. And even subsidiaries. A bunch of silos. We had loads of internal transactions. We frequently bought and sold services from each other. Our small simple agency became not only larger but a whole lot more complex. We had all kinds of numbers to tell us what was happening. And we needed a comprehensive computer system to keep track of it all. We had lengthy management discussions about arcane issues like overhead allocation formulas and intracompany transfer rates. Very businesslike. The Dark Side On the surface it all looked great. We were viewed as a very buttoned-up agency. Clients somehow were attracted to that. We were applauded within the industry for “doing it right.” Yet we had some quiet, nagging concerns. Our work was not any better. Or more effective. Our people were not any happier. And we were not as profitable as we had been. Things were OK. But somehow not quite as much fun. Things didn’t feel as right as they used to. An Epiphany One morning one of my partners walked into my office with a big smile on his face. Without saying a thing, he wrote this word on my board. ADHOCRACY. I had no idea of what it meant. He then told me that he had discovered it while reading a book by Alvin Toffler. He said that adhocracy, according to academics, is an organization which is the opposite of a bureaucracy. One that cuts across bureaucratic lines to capture opportunities, solve problems, and get results. Learned proponents of adhocracy, like Alvin Toffler and Robert Waterman contended that bureaucracy was an organizational structure of the past. And that adhocracy is the organizational structure of the future. It was like a blinding flash of the obvious. Was our little agency becoming a bureaucracy? Had we become infected with the GM disease? Characteristics of an Adhocracy We began exploring the concept of an adhocracy. And how it might apply to an advertising agency. Today, Wikipedia defines the characteristics of adhocracy as follows: • Highly organic structure • Little formalization of behavior • Job specialization based on formal training • A tendency to group the specialists in functional units for housekeeping purposes but to deploy them in small, market-based project teams to do their work • A reliance on liaison devices to encourage mutual adjustment, the key coordinating mechanism within and between these teams • Low standardization of procedures, because they stifle innovation • Roles not clearly defined • Selective decentralization • Work organization rests on specialized teams • Power-shifts to specialized teams • Horizontal job specialization • High cost of communications • Culture based on democratic and non-bureaucratic work • Ultimately all members of the organization have the authority to make decisions and to take actions affecting the future of the organization • There is an absence of hierarchy A Paradigm Shift The more we dug into it the more profound adhocracy appeared. It represented a fundamental change from the way things were being done within the agency business. And at its core it raised important questions about just what services advertising agencies provide their clients. And the marketplace value those services deliver. The Role of Advertising Agencies From the very beginning, the primary purpose of advertising agencies has been to solve business problems for marketers. That’s what clients hire agencies for. That is the end result they are seeking. The solution to those business based marketing problems is the value they receive. Agencies do that by changing the behaviors of their client’s customers and prospects in the marketplace. And those behavioral changes are driven by advertising and other forms of market communications that agencies create and implement. So the value the client receives is the solution to a business problem. A solution that is usually denominated in monetary terms. While agencies generally get paid for just the creation, production and placement of the ads themselves. And no two of those marketing business problems are ever the same. Each is unique. And so each solution is unique. Each is a one-off custom job. Mass Production vs. Custom Work When you stop to think about it, the GM business model was created for mass production. The more of the same thing you produce, the more efficient and effective the model is. But agencies are not in the mass production business. Or at least they shouldn’t be. Highly efficient factories that can turn out lots of similar ads may appear to offer a beguiling business model. And the one that some agencies appear to have adopted. But is it a model that best serves the business needs of the client? Has a popular business structure derailed us from the principle purpose of an advertising agency? Have we inadvertently lost our way? An Agency Adhocracy Against this background, an agency adhocracy seems to make a lot of sense. Instead of having multiple silos arranged by professional disciplines in which client work is passed around sequentially, an adhocratic agency would have fluid, task specific, teams. Task groups that are formed to address individual unique client business problems and then disbanded once each problem is solved. Teams would be formed, disbanded and reformed on a continuing basis. And each team would be constituted by different people who would be selected solely on their ability to contribute to the issue at hand. At any give time every person may be serving on multiple teams, each with a different client problem to solve. Constant change would be an organizational characteristic. A Continuum Understand that bureaucracy and adhocracy are at the two ends of a continuum. Each agency is positioned somewhere on that continuum between the two extremes. Few are at the extremes. Most are scattered in between. No organization can, or should, try to change from one position to another overnight. However, the leadership of every agency should have a good idea of where they are on that continuum, and have a proactive plan for moving the agency in their desired direction. The Human Factor Within a bureaucratic organization each person knows, usually in precise detail, the scope of their responsibilities. They know what they can do. And they know what they can’t do. They know their rank. And they know the rank of each of their colleagues. Rules and process seem more important than improvision. It is a tidy world. On the other hand, adhocracies look like a mess. They have few rules. The objective is simple – solve the client problem at hand. Period. Don’t worry too much about internal rules or process. Focus on an effective solution. Outcomes matter most. People are measured by their contribution. Not their rank. Or their tenure. The “I” Shaped Person and the “T” Shaped Person People who thrive in an adhocracy are different from people who thrive in a bureaucracy. In a bureaucracy the person shaped like a capital “I” is celebrated. This is a person with a lot of depth but little breadth. One who knows a lot about a little. A person who is increasingly expert at his particular specialty. But has minimal expertise in the disciplines of his colleagues. These folks work nicely within their silos. And usually have professional aspirations to manage their particular silo. The “T” shaped person is different. She has a deep core knowledge of one discipline, but also has a generalist’s view of the multiple disciplines needed to solve the client’s problem. That generalist’s view is the top of her “T.” A series of disciplines in which she knows a little about a lot. So while a “T” shaped person may be a copywriter, she feels quite competent and comfortable making a visual suggestion. Or if she is a media expert she is fully capable of championing a PR idea. At heart, this is a Renaissance person with generalist aspirations. A team constituted of “T” shaped people may overlap and bump into each other a bit. Their precise individual responsibilities may be fuzzy. But the team is also more likely to come up with creative, holistic, exciting, effective solutions. Staffing Challenges “I” shaped people and “T” shaped people are not interchangeable. A person who functions effectively in a bureaucratic organization may be a complete failure in an adhocracy. And vice versa. Some people are much more naturally at ease within a highly structured environment. Each knows his place. And his authority. They aren’t required to think much about the big picture. Just do the work and turn in their hours. What this means is that agency talent in an adhocracy must have all basic discipline skill requirements of the “I” shaped person plus two additional key requirements to be a successful “T” shaped person. 1. They must view their responsibilities much more holistically and become active students of disciplines other than their own. They need a generalist’s overview of the big picture. 2. They must have high self-esteem. They must be confident in discussions outside their primary discipline skills. Able to contribute to the team appropriately. And the ability to handle idea rejection with grace. The reality is that a lot of effective people in bureaucratic agencies today may never be happy or successful in an adhocratic environment. Leadership Challenges On top of all this, bureaucratic organizations are easy to lead and manage. Adhocracies are not. Leading them can be kind of like herding cats. Movement from a command and control bureaucratic model to a more collegial adhocratic model can be fraught with all kinds of problems. This is probably why agencies have been so slow to embrace adhocracy. Most agency legacy computer systems are designed to support the bureaucratic silo structure. Agency org charts usually have precise boxes and lines. Lots of agency people have been trained to work in silos. It is all neat, orderly and comfortable. Managing vs. Mentoring In fact, pushback in the move from bureaucracy to adhocracy can be strongest among folks who now head discipline silos. Think of their mindset. Most have spent their entire careers moving up the ladder to manage a key function. They may see the change, almost any change, as threatening their rank and authority. When in reality it is an opportunity to become the key mentor of their discipline. In essence, becoming the evangelist for their special expertise throughout the agency as well as with clients and the general marketplace. This can be a very difficult transition for them. Some can’t or won’t adapt to this different organization and leadership style. Why Adhocracy? At this point you may be asking, “Why would anyone want to trade what we have now for the disruption of an adhocracy?” Quite simply, because adhocracy works. 1. It focuses, in a laser like way, the entire organization on finding solutions to client business problems. After all, this is the deliverable that clients value the most. That is the business for agencies to be in. And the one that can be most rewarding to the agency in the long run. 2. It is the organizational model used by many of the most exciting and successful new breed of firms entering the creative marketplace. Organizations that are competing with agencies for a place in the client’s inner circle. And threatening to ultimately displace agencies. 3. It has very high appeal to the best and the brightest young talent that agencies desperately need. Like it or not, Millennials will drive the future success of all agencies. Getting them on-board early will be a plus. 4. It is more efficient. Work is almost entirely client task focused with very little time spent on intramural activities. Thus it can make the agency more cost competitive. And boost profits. A New Day Clearly, the General Motors model worked great in the 20th Century. And just as clearly it doesn’t look so good in the 21st. That leads to the ultimate question. Which century is your agency built for?

© 2009 Carlton Associates Inc. 

Web: www.CarltonAssociatesInc.com

 

Share/Save

Alan Brown is one of the founders of DNA-Seattle.  Just starting its second decade of business, North-Westerners will know them by their recent campaign for PEMCO Insurance.  The spots are as good as anything I’ve seen nationally in their category (or out of category, for that matter).  The campaign is smart, uniquely relevant and successful, judging by the commitment CMO, Rod Brooks has made to the work.

DNA-Seattle’s focus, according to Alan is to “help our clients achieve meaningful results in the short-term while building their long-term brand asset.”  They’re the 6th largest agency in Seattle (by billings) and employ a staff of 40 to produce work for clients ranging from BECU, University of Washington, American Express Publishing, Avon Foundation, MultiCare and, of course, PEMCO Insurance.

I’m proud to profile them in this series!

1.  What was the aha moment when you realized “our company needs to be doing things differently than we have been”?
The industry has been changing fast over the past 8-10 years.  Technology, media choices and the shift of power to consumers through social media are driving a lot of it today.  But a big moment for me was last year when my mom (who is 75 and lives in Ohio) friended me on Facebook.  The “aha” was seismic.

2.  What books are on your nightstand or great blogs on your Google reader?
I’m a political and news junkie – so I read Andrew Sullivan’s blog, the Huffington Post, FiveThirtyEight and TalkingPointsMemo.  I also check out agency news at Agency Spy.

3.  Give me an example of marketing you think is brilliant and why.
The work that Crispin is doing for Burger King has been pretty phenomenal.  Their latest promotion (Sponge Bob Square Pants) is getting quite the buzz (not all of it good) – but they’ve really found a way to make BK relevant and talk-worthy – from Subservient Chicken to the BK King – they’re using creativity, social media, promotions, event and non-traditional media in interesting ways that are really having an impact on their business.  Right now, BK has committed to increasing their media spending to get a 20-25% lift in their brand impressions.  I don’t know of anyone else who’s doing that!

4.  We’ve all read that the pitch / RFP process is broken.  Many agencies aren’t even interested in competing in pitches.  Do you see an alternative to this process?
Well, first let me say that we’re still interesting in pitching business, and do respond to RFPs that are a good fit for our agency.  However, the point is right on.  RFPs are expensive, and in many cases create an environment that isn’t best suited to finding the right agency/client match.  We try to avoid them by building our reputation with prospective clients and hopefully by getting invited to meet (or even handle a project) without a review.

5.  What does the agency of the future look like?

Right now, we’re seeing a thinning of the herd.  Larger agencies are being gutted as a result of the economy and their clients cutting back.  But I also think that it’s time for agencies to re-think what they’re doing and what their value proposition is.  I think the successful agency of the future will be smaller, more nimble, creative and versatile.  They’ll work in traditional and new media almost seamlessly – guided by a keen ear from the marketplace.

6.  What do marketers need that agencies are not giving them?
An outside perspective, insight and leadership.

7.  Who do you admire and why?
It might sound trite, but I can’t think of anyone I admire more than Barack Obama.  His campaign spoke to me on a level that none other ever has.  I believe in his message of hope, and find great inspiration in his leadership.  I also admire how his campaign utilized social media and a grassroots movement to beat all odds.  He has also reached my 5 year old, bi-racial son – he looks up to President Obama as a role model – and I hope that he has experiences and opportunities that are different because of the path President Obama has blazed.

Share/Save

Hitch has been invited to join a world-wide virtual event on innovation.  In keeping with the style of this blog I’ll be contributing a sythesis of opinions, reactions, and trendspotting from the advertising and marketing world regarding the agency of the future.

Weigh in on this blog or  email me [david at marketinghitch dot com] if you’ve got comments to add to the discussion.  What innovations do you see in marketing that you want to share with the world?

Here’s the scoop:

The 24 Hours of Innovation is a non-stop, online marathon of innovation initiatives around the world. The event takes place during a full day and night on May 15-16 from 10.00 am to 10.00 am (CET). (as a reference: Sydney 6 pm, New York 4.00 am, Los Angeles 1.00 am)

The 24 hours are divided in time slots, each one featuring an exciting innovation ranging from an innovation award to creativity sessions, start-ups, and interviews with global thought leaders. Everyone can follow and join the 24 Hours of Innovation on www.boardofinnovation.com, where the event will be covered across media on blogs, traditional media, twitter, slideshare, ustream, coveritlive, flickr, scribd, vimeo and more.

Interested in a time slot?

During this event, time is reserved for all organizations that are active in the field of innovation. Several interesting players have already lined up, but there are still slots available for others. If you are interested in participating or you feel that you can contribute, please contact us!

Join the 24 hour marathon!

Share/Save

Third in the Ad Industry Innovators series is Alain Thys from Futurelab in Brussels.  Very smart marketers in Brussels–and the beer’s not bad either.  Futurelab also has offices in Moscow, Munich, Hamburg, Shanghai, Athens, and Kiev.  

I first heard of Futurelab by stumbling on their blog.  Then through Google searches I kept finding these wonderfully insightful slideshare presentations and PDFs and quickly realized that many were coming from Alain’s company.

In Alain’s words

Futurelab is a marketing strategy consultancy focused on profit, customer-centricity and innovation.  We help marketers get a higher ROI, CEO’s to get their business focused on the customer and innovators to build innovations that make a difference in the market.

We also have a – not so secret  - agenda to make our contribution to changing the marketing landscape.  We believe that the mass-marketing era is coming to an end.  The symptoms of this can be found everywhere.  Billions are wasted. Marketers have acquired a bad reputation as “frivolous money spenders”.  Consumers are tuning out.   As a result, we believe that – as a collective – business needs to “re-invent marketing” so it can actually make the contribution it should to both the customer and the bottom line.”

Pretty smart, huh?  Keep reading, it gets better.

1.   What was the aha moment when you realized “our company needs to be doing things differently than we have been”?

When my business partner (Stefan Kolle) and I realized that the message we were spreading on a new way of marketing was actually being heard and repeated by others.  We decided we had to grow from a two-man band to a movement hell-bent on encouraging a conversation on a new type of marketing.  And that this could be profitable for all concerned.

2.   What books are on your nightstand or great blogs on your Google reader? 

Right now I’m reading Character & Viewpoint by Orson Scott Card.  On the blog front, all the contributors to the Futurelab blog, but I also have a fondness for PresentationZen.  And of course Dilbert.

3.   Give me an example of marketing you think is brilliant and why.

The bakery in my street.  They only go for unique products, know every one of their customers, actually create products on customer demand, participate in every village event with an original little detail and in the 2 years they’ve been open have taken the market (like in people standing in line outside to pay a premium of 20% over the bakery 200 meters down the street). 

 I think this is brilliant because in contrast to many large organisations these people “get” what great marketing is about: truly understanding your customers, making a promise that is relevant to them and then overdelivering against this time and time again. 

4.   We’ve all read that the pitch / RFP process is broken.  Many agencies aren’t even interested in competing in pitches.  Do you see an alternative to this process?

I don’t believe that the RFP process is broken at all.  It’s just that people needs to re-adjust their expectations of what it can deliver.  In the mass-communication culture, big budgets went to big agencies which spent them at big media.  In those days an RFP that said “run my communications” made sense. 

But today, only very few agencies are capable of delivering against 100% of a brand’s needs.  If we would compare building a brand to building a house, each agency is like a “contractor” who specializes in one part of communication or the other.  So just like you wouldn’t ask your plumber to give an opinion about the windows in your roof, you wouldn’t ask a traditional advertising agency to have an opinion about the integral structure of your brand.   But I regularly see that some brands still expect this to happen (or agencies presuming they can do this).   That is where I think the disappointment comes from.

But just like when building a house this doesn’t mean the RFP process goes away.  It just means that it becomes more focused.  In short, brands need to be much more specific in their briefings to agencies and how they fit an overall picture (or employ “architects” like us to do it for them), while agencies need to let go of the illusion that the advertisements they come up with will “move the world” for the brand that commissions them.   

5.   What does the agency of the future look like?

I think the industry will evolve to resemble the movie or construction industry.

-       A large number of micro-specialists.  Forget about the PR agency or the digital agency.  Think about the Agency specialized in leveraging short message social media for spreading positive customer experiences in the banking sector.   Just like the guy who knows how to set up a particular type of solar panel which is government subsidized, they will be contracted on a project basis.  They can be creative, they can be production oriented, it all depends

-       A medium number of project management shops.  These probably best resemble the agency of today, be it without the in-house creative and possibly even production deparments.  They take the briefing of a client and ensure that the variety of micro-specialist implement this to excellence levels.  This may include creative, but mainly in a sourcing capacity (the role of art director in these environments is to ensure that the creative that is sourced meets the client need, not “come up with new stuff” inhouse).   Just like movie houses these project management shops may have privileged relationships with micro-specialists & creatives to provide them with a competitive edge.

-       A small number of strategy shops:  These will be the “architects” of the trade.  They will be a lot smaller than the project management shops and assist brands to formulate their strategy in a way that project management shops can implement it.   They are much more “numbers” based than most agencies of today and in style probably are more comparable to the McKinsey’s and the Bain’s than the McCann’s or Ogilvy’s.

6.   What do marketers need that agencies are not giving them?

The number one thing that marketers are looking for are solutions to business and marketing issues (grow sales, protect margin, ensure customer loyalty, …) while they typically receive “campaigns”.   For other examples I happily refer to our report Bridging the Brand Agency Divide.

7.   Who do you admire and why?

Muhammad Yunus.  For not only coming up with a theoretical concept to fix poverty in a structural way, but also pushing forward to making it happen.  In short, for making a difference.

Share/Save