Traditional vs. Big Table Agencies

The latest issue of Communication Arts (Photography Annual 50) profiles Boone/Oakley, which I believe is one of the coolest, smartest boutiques to come along since VitroRobertson. They've got some solid print and TV, as well as some great ambient and outdoor stuff. And although I kind of miss the music and interaction of their old website, their latest homepage is downright brilliant.

The profile talks about their multi-player creative approach to each assignment, which involves more than just a copywriter/art director team reporting to a creative director. From the article:

"Think about how Bill Bernback revolutionized our industry simply by pairing a copywriter and an art director," Boone said. "Now the creative team is the copywriter, art director, interactive person, media person and the strategist/planner/account person. That's our industry's revolution today."

This reminds me of another CA article from this year's Interactive Annual (May/June issue) called "The Big Table: A New Model for Creative Work" by a freelance writer named Joe Shepter.

Shepter says the traditional model of AD/CW reporting to a CD "rests on the belief that creative ideas are independent from production. Copywriters and art directors are not required to have an intimate understanding of how work is produced." It's hard for me to disagree with that. I'm used to using my producers as a crutch (which is why I've always tried to surround myself with great ones).

Shepter uses the term "Big Table" to describe collaboration like Boone/Oakley's: "The list of participants varies, but usually includes writers, designers, Flash coders, database programmers, creative directors and, sometimes, even the receptionists who greet clients on their way in the door."

My initial reaction to this is resistance, and it's based on three of my favorite quotes:

A small group of A people can run circles around a large group of B people.

-Steve Jobs

A camel is a horse designed by committe.

-Sir Alec Issigonis

If you had to identify, in one word, the reason why the human race has not achieved, and never will achieve, its full potential, that word would be: meetings.

-Dave Barry

To me, Big Table gatherings are open invitations for Design by Committee and it's big brother, Groupthink. I'd rather be in the more nimble, decisive A group. Even if it were just me and my partner.

But here's the thing. There are two statements in Shepter's article that clearly make the case for Big Table agencies. Here they are:

"Big Table agencies...believe that media is evolving so quickly that it's impossible for a copywriter and art director to know every way that ideas can be deployed...The only way to ensure that you have the best possible idea is to bring in creators and producers at the onset."

And he quotes an anonymous creative director saying, "The things we build aren't what an art director and copywriter can dream up. They wouldn't know that it was possible."

Again, it's hard for me to disagree with either of those. There are people out there writing code that goes over my head and blows my mind at the same time. Obviously this stuff can be used in fantastically cool ways to sell products and solve clients' problems. And most AD/CW teams I know would have a hard time going beyond, "Maybe we could do an iPhone app."

I'm not sure how to reconcile this yet. Maybe it's a Big Table agency with a benevolent dictator at the helm. Maybe it's separating teams and even agencies (like BBDO and ProximityBBDO). But it's pretty clear old school creative teams are more likely to be confined by old school solutions.

42 Entertainment

42 Entertainment is a pretty fascinating company.

They're best known for the "I Love Bees" ARG which launched Halo 2, as well as the "Why So Serious?" work they did as a teaser for The Dark Knight.

They're also behind the "Flynn Lives" site that's teasing the new Tron movie.

If you go on their home page, you can opt in to follow them down the rabbit hole into their own ARG by providing your email address and phone number to receive text messages and other hints.

While their work is frequently featured in Creativity and other pubs of the ad industry, I'm not sure you'd call them an advertising agency. Their Wikipedia entry says they specialize in "creating and producing alternate reality games." Which means they know how to work online and do ambient/guerilla media - two areas traditional agencies have been trying to master themselves.

They probably don't pitch for accounts against traditional agencies like Chiat or Goodby. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if some clients would work with 42 Entertainment and their agency of record on certain projects.

So while they may not be the next evolution of ad agencies, they're definitely a social media-catalyzed mutation. And their Grand Prix win at Cannes this year shows that mutation is pretty legitimate.

How Coke views big agency networks

The August issue of the UK's Creative Review features an article titled "Coke: a simple story" which features Pio Schunker, Coca-Cola's "senior vice president for creative excellence, North America." Schunker, who used to work for Ogilvy New York, oversees a roster that includes Widen + Kennedy, Mother, Crispin Porter + Bogusky, and Turner Duckworth. He's also responsible for approving Coke's new look and "steadily piloting the idea through the Coke labyrinth."

"Their biggest battle, convincing Coke marketers that, no, it wasn't necessary to have a picture of some bubbles on the side of the can. People know Coke is a fizzy drink."

Two ideas about agencies really stood out to me in this piece:

1. Schunker (remember a former Ogilvy guy) deliberately went with independents like Wieden and Mother. "The big networks, he says, were just giving Coke what they thought it wanted, not what they themselves believed in. He wanted to work with agencies and design studios who would, rather than simply 'stick around for the pay cheque', believe in what they were doing and walk away if they didn't get to do it."
   
2. Schunker sees a problem with big agencies because of their well-intended, but fractured departments. "Big networks, he has said, typically present themselves as the 360 degree solutions ' but tend to be a loose confederation of completely disjointed companies that are so busy fighting with each other to figure out who gets the business, they can't be bothered to figure out how to solve our business.'"

As recent posts have shown, more agencies are diversifying their interests when they can. They buy design or interactive shops, or branch out into product development. But having "360 degree solutions" isn't really a solution if each tentacle is grasping for its own interest instead of the client's.

The Long Tail of Agencies

When I left portfolio school, the hot shops to work for were Wieden + Kennedy, Goodby Silverstein & Partners, Cliff Freeman & Partners, Fallon McElligott, and TBWA Chiat/Day. Places like VitroRobertson and Loeffler Ketchum Mountjoy rounded out the boutique-y list.

Most of those big shops are still on top after a decade. But I think this list has vastly expanded. Ask one portfolio student where he wants to end up and he may give a similar list of tradition agencies.

But another may say his top picks are R/GA, AKQA, Anomaly or Atmosphere BBDO.

Another may say she wants to end up at BBH Labs, Lean Mean Fighting Machine, Poke or Dare Digital.

I wouldn't be surprised if some students graduate portfolio schools wanting to work at Google or Facebook.

Suddenly, Chris Anderson's Long Tail is beginning to make a lot of sense in the world of job-hunting students, as well as the kind of agencies clients need, and the kind of work agencies want to do.

How Can Agencies Make Money on Free?

I've been listening to Chris Anderson's new book Free: The Future of a Radical Price (which I downloaded free off iTunes).

You can hear what Anderson has to say about free here and here. You can read Malcolm Gladwell's dissent here. And Seth Godin's counter here.

But if you're in a hurry, the synopsis is that more and more companies are making more and more money giving things away for free. And the book is full of examples from Google to Webkins to Radiohead to Ryanair to the UC Berkeley.

But there are no examples of advertising agencies (unless you count Google). And if Anderson is right, sometime in the near future, someone is going to figure out how advertising agencies can adopt free. Maybe it's an agency giving free brand consultation. Or creative. Or strategic planning. They already do this to painful extremes when pitching new business. But maybe there's a way to do it with paying clients.

Here's a noble attempt rising from the primordial soup of the free economy. True, they're a creative team and not an agency. But it's a start.

If this all sounds counterintuitive, read Anderson's book. It may change your mind. And if you're willing to share any ideas on how agencies can use "free" to their advantage, I'd love to hear them. I'll post mine as soon as they come to me.

Agencies vs. VCs

William Charnock is the co-head of strategic planning at JWT, and recently presented his ideas on advertising’s new business model in this Adweek article.

Charnock says that a year ago, while attending TED people would ask him “Which clients do you work for?” He answer was “We don’t really start with clients anymore.”

Charnock writes, More and more these days, we look for ideas we think people will be interested in and help to get these up and running…Some of these we create from scratch and some of them we find in places like [TED].

He continues: Now, I know agency-generated and intellectual property is nothing new, and JWT is only one of many agencies exploring this business model as an alternative to working for clients and handing the intellectual property over to them. My recent experience with JWT’s innovation and incubation venture, called Sector 64. Had proven to me that we can successfully create intellectual properties which we license to clients, retaining or sharing the intellectual ownership of the idea.

And according to Charnock, the advertising industry is better equipped to handle this business than the traditional VCs.

We have access to funds through our clients and our media partners. But more than this we have interest in the strategic value and integrity of their entrepreneurial centure. One of the biggest complains about VC funding is that they are only interested in the financial multiples they make on a relatively short-term investment. VCs are also often criticized for their lack of “big thinking,” preferring to fund ideas that are similar in nature to toehr successful centures. Anything totally new, that has never been done before, forget it. The majority of VC’s are not that visionary.

This is where I think we have the competitive advantace. Advertising agencies that are exploring IP business models tend to be looking for genuinely new ideas that can help to differentiate clients who choose to license or sponsor them. These agencies have a vested interest in the strategic value, rather than just the financial value, of the idea. And unlike the VCs, it is important for us to create ideas with longevity and the potential for mass social and cultural impact. These are, after all, the kinds of initiatives that hold the greatest value, over time, to our biggest and most valuable clients

I like the idea of agencies vs. VCs. It’s a pretty bold step that makes a lot of sense. But it takes some restructuring on the agency side. In the mid-1990s, no one would have said Cliff Freeman & Partners and Draper Fisher Jurvetson should be coloring at the same table.

I can’t find much about JWT’s Section 64 online. But the mention of it confirms my belief that there are two chief forces working to evolve the industry:

1. Big, firmly established corporations that have the funds to dabble in innovation. (e.g., JWT’s Section 64, Crispin Porter + Bogusky’s purchase of Radar Communications, and Wieden + Kennedy’s new Platform)
2. Small companies that have no regard for what an advertising agency is supposed do and be. (e.g., Poke)

An agency crawls onto VC turf.

Platform: When successful agencies start to offer more, successfully

I remember about a decade ago reading an interview with Rich Silverstein. He said he hoped Goodby would become more of an idea shop that could turn out screenplays and pilots as easily as print and broadcast advertising. This was pre-Subservient Chicken, pre-Web 2.0, pre-Titanium Lion. In a print/radio/TV world it sounded like they were a bunch of dissatisfied creatives who wanted to write novels and make feature-length movies.

But in the decade since, we’ve seen Transformer movies because Hasbro turned to the Creative Artists Agency, Crispin begin a bike-sharing program, and a presidential campaign win a Grand Prix at Cannes.

Now Creativity reports that this September, Widen + Kennedy will launch Platform, “a think tank and workshop to handle beyond-communications projects for clients.”

Sam Brookes who is leading Platform says evolving beyond advertising “could be anything from problem solving and social responsibility programs to applications for Nokia, or the evolution of Nike Plus. It’s going to be pushing ourselves beyond what we do in the communications sphere further into their business.”

And to get started, Platform is making a point hire non-advertising people like programmers, fashion designers, engineers, anthropologists and artists. Which is really what W+K did when it was just a small start-up.

Obviously, ad agencies need to pay attention to these kinds of developments. But I’m not sure that means agencies need to develop these kinds of appendages. Fallon began a great symbiotic relationship with Duffy Design, but that didn’t mean that the ad agencies of the future needed to be attached to a design firm. Similarly, Crispin’s acquisition of Radar Communications bolstered its design resources a couple years ago, and just planted its flag in Europe with the acquisition of Daddy, but that doesn’t mean that’s what agencies need to be doing.

It seems that when larger, successful agencies end up buying out or marrying smaller specialty shops, they do so to expand their offerings without completely changing the agency’s direction. Fallon and Crispin are still known for (arguably) killer print, radio, and broadcast. They’ve just become successful enough to become umbrella corporations.

So if I’m reading this right, this is what hypersuccessful ad agencies do:

1. Begin by doing one thing, and doing it well (e.g., great creative in most cases).
2. Grow in size and billings.
3. See deficiencies in their offerings (e.g., digital, design, brand consultancy).
4. Buy (sometimes organize) a smaller entity to make up for those deficiencies.
5. Keep the new entity separate from the old/traditional one.

But the mistake most agencies make is to merge #4 and #5 into a different step that is “Decide we’re just going to start offering new services to our clients within our current framework.” That’s how decent traditional shops become mediocre traditional shops with mediocre digital/design/brand consultancy capabilities.