The Conflict of Interest of Change

Both Agencies and clients have asked who and what type of agency will best drive the evolution to a more integrated and ‘connected’ agency.

I recently heard much frustration from one large advertiser who sees his primary agency partner buying - quite largely - into digital, mobile…yet the agency still delivers ad plans to his marketing team which are essentially 100% television-based. A strategic contradiction that hinders his company’s evolution, “don't they understand that they aren’t helping me move to digital?”

Yes, I’d have to answer.  The contradiction hinders evolution… and keeps margins and operations securely in the more profitable old world, which the agency is better staffed and better paid to deliver. 

Hence the conflict of interest. The challenge to agencies is assuring current operations while building the future. Or, perhaps in some cases, just getting the most out of current operations.

Which leads to the question - what type of agency is best equipped to evolve: an agency within a large group with significant resources - keenly important for building consumer intelligence; or an independent player, with perhaps less to lose?

I have my point of view.  What do you think? 

Comments

[Mitchell Caplan]

The agency best suited has nothing to do with size. It has to do with leadership. Leadership that understands that in order to survive in this rapidly changing industry that you MUST embrace technology/digital, as it is the tip of the spear in regard to how we can best help our clients truly target their customers with relevant, engaging experiences.

[propaganda1980]

I think the future of our business will continue to look different than any of us could have imagined. The agencies who are able to identify ways of adding and creating value to their clients' business - not just marketing - will thrive.

The world isn't changing; it's changed. The only natural constant we can expect over the next 10-15 years is more change. It's a culture rooted in experimentation and a constant search for better. That type of world simply doesn't play nice with the trademarked processes and "proven" practices most agencies hang their hat on. The agency who thrives will be built on constant change. Rather than finding a repeatable practice, it will focus on fresh perspective and solving new problems. Talent will look less like advertsing graduates and sales people, and more like architects, engineers, anthropologists and developers.

Creativity will always have a tremendous role in the marketplace; the agencies that use if to create business momentum will be the leaders.

[Jacquelyn]

I really believe that agencies need to move to a discipline-neutral environment - we're not PR specialists, we're not digital advisors, we're not mobile marketers. We need to be renaissance people - marketers focused on business objectives who are appropriately literate in an array of functions, allowing for strong partnerships with key specialists that ultimately benefit our clients. We need to let go of the force-fit and find the optimal solution.

[Mary Beth Kemp]

Ok, I buy the idea, but most agency folks - and agencies - are specialized along their skill set (the idea beging to mutualize these particular skills for a number of clients). So where do we find these people?

I think it's going to be very hard to rely on traditional, general - read brand/creative agencies - to drive the packaging of multiple disciplines. It hasn't happened so far, so why dream. Who should step up to take on that role?

Talk to agencies about 'doing' multiple disciplines, and eyes often glaze over...How does an agency strike a balance between general and specialized? Does that 'arbitrator/coordinator' level simply add a layer of cost?

More questions than answers...

Mitch, in my original post, I was using independent vs group as proxies for risk-taking as opposed to size, although do agree they map. And yes, leadership is important, as is the ability to trace one's path and to focus on long term rather than short term business results.

The bottom line is that while large groups could offer significant resources for experimentation, it's very difficult to turn a tanker. Are the holdings willing to walk away from quarterly earnings to evolve their business models?