Agencies don't do Twitter. Survey reveals FAIL.

An Econsultancy survey this week revealed that 75% of the top UK digital agencies don’t have Twitter accounts. Oops. Gotta love the irony, since these agencies usually boast that marketers prefer their agencies to practise what they preach, and should use the social tools they offer advice on, compared to what George Parker calls the BDAs (almost none* of which are on Twitter). It’s opened up the well-travelled discussion about why agencies don’t advertise themselves, or tweet, or have official Facebook pages and so on.

The full list of shame is available here. It’s a bit bloody, as there are plenty of comments from agencies cross that they were left off the list, but as in any assessment of the agency scene, there are many small agencies with energetic attention to any way of promoting themselves, and perhaps more cumbersome agencies that, arguably, have become a bit relaxed or paranoid behind their brand names.  Mind you, the list surveyed isn’t exhaustive or representative of the entire agency community, but raises interesting parallels between the blurring of the corporate and the personal opinion.

It’s good to see so many agencies allowing their staff to tweet (and blog) freely, and people do step up with personal accounts and regular opinion. Would it be possible to stop them, though?  There are notable instances where the tweeting and blogging individuals garner greater reputations and following than the agency brands they represent. I suppose it’s like having the columnists people bought papers for and not untypical for a business sector which is so personality driven. On the other hand, neatly put by one tweet “I asked if I could tweet about what I’m doing and got told nobody’s ever asked that before, can I get back to you”. They never did, and said twitterer left that agency shortly after.

* in Campaign's top ten anyway - comments welcome

Follow me on Twitter

Digital media sets agenda for all media. Only GAAP (Generally Accepted Advertising Practise) gets in the way.

75% of the world’s top advertisers and 80% of the UK’s are working with Facebook, says Blake Chandlee at today’s FT Digital Media conference [#ftmedia]. I love getting predictions right. Now the debate has moved on. It isn’t about getting it, it’s about measuring it. Doh. Instead of reach and frequency, we should be measuring interactions and engagement. Doh. Expect to hear more of the phrase ‘user connections per year’ in the coming year. Doh.

Now over the past couple of years in my companies we expended hours of angst and technical effort to build models that link online advertising activity with website traffic. It’s amazing to me how separate these [still] can be in the corporate world. Especially when it comes to business audiences, who spend most of their time online using client (that’s a technical term) communication tools. Interestingly, the 20th century model of agency infrastructure – a more generous definition than ‘BDA’ perhaps - created discipline specific revenue generating lines that often struggled to combine forces and do the right thing for the Clients' brands.

The Clients (the ones that pay the bill) were excited by these efforts. But not everyone was. The new measurement system exposed some quite glaring weaknesses in the world according to GAAP (that’s my personal definition of Generally Accepted Advertising Practise). Oh, how we argued wth all our other agency colleagues. We had simply set out to get a better bang from the online buck, we said. We weren’t planning to solve world peace or reorganise the entire marketing communication process. But in the end, that’s what's needed, and that's what's happening too.

I’m not keen on creating yet another social media discipline-specific argument. I am interested, however, in how brands go to market, how media is organised, how consumers engage with media, and how consumers engage or ignore brands. It’s clear from Facebook’s numbers that brands getting it isn’t the problem. brands are having a go. If you’re not online, you’re not on the map. It’s a more a question of how much control the brand's prepared to give up in the process, and who to turn to for advice.

George Parker on this site been railing at the average adverati’s incompetence with these social technologies and facile obsession with the next big thing bandwagon. He’s right (with notable exceptions on Brand Republic, of course) in the sense that there aren’t many agency CEO types who write their own blogs or twitter much. Funnily enough, a survey in October last year by Sapient* put understanding digital as a top priority for global CMOs, and agencies that understand digital as a DNA thing rather than an acquired thing should do well. I’d argue that there’s a starker truth behind this. Clients don’t want to pay agencies to learn on their paid time.

Reflection from the digerati at the FT conference so far is positive, and notably setting the agenda for everything else in adland. Plenty has happened in the last year that elevates the argument about common metrics, engagement, redefining media, redefining content and the role of the brands in providing the financial oxygen upon which media has traditionally depended. We have a long way to go, but it’s good every now and again to recognise how far we have come.

*Sapient is an interactive agency. Survey results: unsurprising.
*Sapient’s numbers look quite good at the moment.

Follow me on Twitter

Friday fun. The Client is lost as soon as it's won. It's just a matter of time.

We all know how hard it is to win accounts, and how easy it is to lose them.  Complacency is a disease that can attack the big networks at the core. Everything seems fine one minute, and some random project done by a tiny agency in Latvia suddenly gets dumped in your lap as the new global campaign idea. As Jerry Della Femina wrote, “The Client is lost as soon as it’s won, it’s just a matter of time.” And this doesn’t just affect the big networks; the tiniest agencies of all remain at the beck and call of outrageous fortune too.

The one thing that the smaller agencies can say truthfully though, is that it usually is down to them. In the networks, it’s easier to point the finger at others. And it frankly, often isn’t “the London Agency’s fault.” I’m sure we’ve all got hard and good experience of that, winning awards in the outposts of global marketing effort, but the client moves because the ‘global’ guys aren’t up to the mark or whatever. (I’m told that actually is the most common reason.) In the small agency, you live or die by your relationships and the value you bring on a daily basis to the Client’s business. The smaller you are, the more you tend to think about that, with no cushion of ten other global clients competing for the attention of your best people. People move, jobs change, markets change, yes, we all get that. But forgetting about what the Clients are worried about where and when it matters, usually before notice is served, remains unforgivable.

Another angle on this nutty little problem centres around where innovation comes from. A very clever marketing director told me once that in our business, innovation comes from the edges; sustainability comes from the core. Harsh, but fair. That’s why the Lithuanian mobile voting project on Twitter tends to get arguably more attention than it deserves from the CMO. And is used as a stick to beat the ‘big’ agency with. Turning ‘experimental’ work into a central platform for communication strategy is not simple to pull off, and there is bitterly argued example of this from all sorts of businesses around the world. (See lots of Cannes winners for details.)

So what’s the answer? Wouldn’t it be great if everyone the Client knew who was really good could think about the problem? Unfettered by agency P&L walls and wars, and the political machinations of control, how much fun could be had by everyone. This is what Clients (or some I’ve met recently, anyway) say they want. Paul Phillips at the AAR did a talk at the back of last year, for their relaunch, confirming that there were less and less ‘discipline specific’ agency briefs, and an increase in ‘marketing problem’ specific briefs. It’s a clue, isn’t it. Of course it still remains vital that Clients believe that you know what you’re talking about, get the space and the problems they face. They want senior people with insight and foresight. They often want things to be simpler. One agency rather than nine. And boutiques as well.

We’ll see more of this in the coming months, I’m sure, as Clients shrink their budgets and look to the agency supply chain for savings/value/people they want to stick with. At the school debating society, we used to have balloon debates, you know, where you argue who should be thrown out of the balloon as it ran out of air and descended slowly towards shark invested waters. Each debater booted extended the life of the others, until there was only one left. (A concept popularised by reality TV in more recent years). Well, balloon debates with clients are back. Big time. Make your cases sharp and quick, everyone.