Search results matching tag 'agency'

True or False: Ad Agencies CAN'T think outside the Barb box . . .

2553311 — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 06:19:00 GMT

I run some very niche TV shows on a minority satellite TV channel, and getting the right kind of advertising and sponsorship has always been an issue.

I had a really interesting session last week with a very experienced, knowledgable and smart ad media man, who was kind enough to give me an hour of his time to chat through how it really works.

One of the most interesting points he made was that the few really big players in the ad agency world buy their media in an almost automated way - for a publication or for a TV channel/show, the system demands ABC and BARB numbers, and the system doesn't work without these.

And the ads that this method of buying makes them produce don't work for me, either. The problem is that my audience isn't 20% people over 50 or whatever, or 15% package tour buyers, it is 100% people who're interested in the specific topic the programme addresses.

There are some simple effects from this fact - to get advertising, I have to go directly to ad agency clients, and to get an ad that looks and sounds really good, those clients have to get some service agency to make spots. My shows are particularly popular with clients who have a genuine, and often more personal, interest in the subject - the MD or chairman sees the show, and phones the marketing guy to tell him to do something about it.

I acknowledge that the biggest problem is that as my shows don't get BARB rated - but can't agencies, imaged by themselves as full of bright, clever and innovative people, think sufficiently outside the box to realise that the only reason some satellite programmes are in existence entirely because they fulfil a distinct need and address an audience that is keen to see them?

Here's a example. I make a programme called The Caravan Channel. It addresses Britains caravan and motorhome owners - reckoned at around 1,000,000 families/vehicles. I've produced it on a fortnightly basis for 3 years, 70+ programmes. It is sponsored by firms who say they get results, and the ad spots carry ads from businesses who come back again and again for the same reason.

But advertising people? It's like talking to a single-response answerphone. Haven't heard of it, not interested, goodbye. The only time they jump is when the client says, get me advertising on this show, and its at that point that we can have a conversation . . . thinking outside the box? Not really.

TV eats digital dust

1713999 — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 16:27:00 GMT

What a week - if you work in digital media you would have had to have your head buried in the sand to have not heard about this news by about 9:05am on Wednesday this week, let along Friday afternoon. But just in case you missed it: the IAB's latest spend figures finally brought the news that we've all been waiting for - in H1 2009 online advertising spend overtook TV ad spend for the first time, (sort of) giving it a larger share of spend than any other media.

The actual figures then - online ad spend grew by 4.6% but, in the context of a market that saw an overall contraction of 16.6%, this translated into a whopping jump in market share, up from 18.7% for the same period in 2008 to 23.5%!

As soon as the news broke there was much discussion at LBi as to whether the counting was fair - should digital really be lumped all into one or should it be split into display, search, affiliates and beyond? To me this seemed a bit like the equivalent of saying DRTV, product placement and the sponsorship of X Factor should all be counted separately and I couldn't help but argue that just because tv is so one dimensional doesn't mean the rest of us deserve to get a raw deal when the money gets counted. When you look across the other categories though, it is obvious that by that logic digital still has a way to go if it wants to have the largest share of spend - in the IAB's number print is actually split into classified and display, despite the fact that no such distinction is made for digital.

At the end of the day of course none of this is particularly important - as an agency or advertiser if you are buying in traditional and digital media (I don't, thankfully!) it may mean you should reconsider the respective weighting of your team. What is important is how your channels work together and that's what advertisers need to be focused on, not which is biggest. The big takeaway though? That 16.6% decline in spend... We're still in a recession, folks, even if the sun shines on digital.

Re: Agencies cull grad intake in recession

2651670 — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:48:06 GMT

Interestingly enough though, I've seen more and more websites appearing on the web by big brands, specifically catered towards providing info for graduates who want a career, especially in the retail sector.

The End of the Embargo?

2438628 — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:54:00 GMT

Interesting piece in the current issue of PR Week about concerns we could be seeing the ‘Slow death of the embargo’. The Wall Street Journal is believed to have introduced a new policy stipulating that they will only honour embargos on exclusive stories. It’s a change of direction that’s obviously brought on by the pressure to be first with breaking news amid increasing competition from other online media outlets especially bloggers who traditionally have been more cavalier with embargos.

Certain newspapers may feel that they can’t afford the niceties of sitting on embargoed stories when specialist blogs are prepared to ‘publish and be dammed’. News has moved on it’s no longer written up today printed tonight and read in papers tomorrow, it’s available instantly & constantly via multiple formats.

The walls have come down and the means of news production are now available to anyone. In that light embargos can seem antiquated, but they still have a place, they just need to be used with care and not as a ‘catch all’ control mechanism.

PR Week editor Danny Rogers talks about embargoes as being “a lazy means of dealing with the media.” The WSJ and the blogs have stirred things up & if that stops these ‘lazy’ embargoes it’s probably no bad thing.

So what could this it mean for photos? I always feel the best way to handle a press PR photo is to use embargoes as sparingly as possible. Basically, ‘take it, get it out, get it in!’ Getting your pictures in the press is always hard enough without making it harder for yourself by putting embargoes across the top of them unless they’re really necessary.

Obviously certain photos because of logistics or availability need to be be taken beforehand and held back. Journalists will understand that and personal relationships, trust and exclusives will always play a role in this business. But maybe the shake up in attitudes towards embargoes generally will make people look at picture embargoes a bit harder too. Using embargoes where they aren’t really appropriate, such as on pictures taken in public places or of stunts that are open knowledge may start to become a thing of the past.

In this climate when the media is crying out for good, free to use PR copy, it’s unnecessary to shackle every story & picture with an embargo. Nobody can really control the media, instead we just need to continue to work with it making content that the press will want to use now, not next week.

"Lightweight" ideas

1721792 — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:58:00 GMT

Following on from my rant about loading and the kind of overblown, overproduced microsites that form the hub of many a digital strategy I tried to think what we could call those ideas that do work. I like the term "lightweight" - an idea that you can understand easily, access quickly and share instantly. More often than not these ideas are executed anywhere other than a microsite, they have been developed on a budget and have to earn their audience through their intrinsic entertainment/functional value.

Josh Spear in Revolution today has a similar take on where agencies and clients need to be putting their budgets. He advocates producing a 100 digital experiences and seeing what flies. To produce even a tenth of that amount would require a complete re-structuring of the agency business model and the client relationship but the theory is good. It's actually a lot lower risk than spending half a million quid on one site no-one sees which will require maintenance and eventually replacement. For the same money a hundred 5k pieces out there will almost certainly touch more people.

Time for the brand identity business to re-evaluate

2605259 — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:51:00 GMT

Declining income, conflicted managers and demoralised staff. If you’re in the brand identity business, it may be time to re-evaluate your business development strategy.

Recently, whilst out-and-about in the branding community, conducting what I now refer to as the rounds, I have noticed a worrying vacuum or, in the wider context of things, an opportunity well worth exploiting.

It is undeniably tough out there – clearly illustrated by frugal cost-cutting, unpaid leave, head-count freezing and many other cautious, overhead reducing activities. However, I am amazed at how so many senior managers are undervaluing the importance and holistic benefits of a clear marketing and business development strategy.

On mass, agencies already on the verge of collapse have started advertising vacancies for generic new business positions. Their posts command applications from candidates who can guarantee a rolodex of clients and qualified leads. In return they offer little more than the most basic salary, an unclear future and very little, if any, security. They too often rely on badly managed and out-of-date contact lists and assign the task of cold-calling to reluctant if not actually telephobic staff, or outsource it to apathetic third-party telephonists.

How then can consultancies expect to grow, during a time when salaries are cut, morale is at an all time low and unpaid leave is encouraged? The answer, I suggest: Agency leaders themselves need to start thinking outside of the box.

Senior partners and managing directors: Regardless of the current economic situation, if the process of business development is not introduced and encouraged throughout the structure of your business, and its importance promoted through every role featured on your organogram, you really will only have yourselves to blame when you are forced to reduce overheads further. Accountability cannot be outsourced.

Developing new business is itself just one component, one step within a wider business development model – a model that includes effective account management, dedicated client service and creative direction. Business development should sit at the core of every business function, and for it to be implemented successfully, the firm’s leaders need to recognise and promote its importance from the outset.

It can help, too, to go back to grassroots, find out what is it that motivates both account managers and creatives, and take time to define the opportunities that your strategists and planners are dreaming of. Surely, the thrill of working on an exciting brief, or pitching to win a new piece of business is a good starting point. By encouraging and endorsing ‘new’ business development in this way you will unlock potential – be it personal ambition and a chance to shine, newly revealed relationships, other previously hidden assets or a surprisingly innovative solution.

Developing new business should not be a lonely, sit-in-the-corner-and-pick-up-the-phone job. In much the same way that as consultants we help clients to positively penetrate the hearts and minds of their employees, agency leaders should encourage, promote and incentivise in-house the function of identifying and nurturing relationships.

Whether you employ a senior professional, or choose to take it upon yourself, you should treat business development as a well-oiled and well-maintained management tool. Business development should sit comfortably within every employee’s remit – especially in those of your most senior team. Remember, people buy people!

Different strokes for different folks

1713999 — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 11:22:00 GMT

Afternoon all, do you ever have days when you buzz off what you do ? I am having one !

We lost a pitch, so why am I happy you ask .... to be honest I don't think we'd want to work with the client. The team did a fantastic job however the client didn't buy our approach to digital, they bought a 2% commission, we should do it cos we do the telly, approach. Now, its not an invalid argument however when the review is called because they were not getting a strategic perspective or quality of service and in his words had a "bunch of 21 year olds with calculators" on the account it doesn't make a lot of sense to re purchase the same thing ( it stayed with the incumbent ) at an even lower price point invalidating the agencies' ability to do a better job as the margin is squeezed further. I actually feel a bit sorry for them !

I am proud of the fact that we delivered a comprehensive, intelligent approach to digital - Each client values different things from an agency and there is no one size fits all solution so today I am happy because we stood tall behind our beliefs and I am glad we have a point of differentiation that polarises clients.

Wouldn't life be very dull if we were all the same ?

Forrester and Alterian surveys reveal database marketing's big swing to digital

2454396 — Thu, 28 May 2009 09:17:00 GMT

Alterian held its annual partner day last week, attended by nearly 100 senior executives of 45 of the UK's top marketing agencies and service providers. The likes of Rapp, Targetbase, Occam, GB Group, Dataforce and Experian were all in attendance.

The big draw? Dave Frankland from Forrester Research was keynote speaker and talked about how marketing agencies need to change to adapt to the emerging kind of consumer that wants a more engaging experience. His words had strong resonance with the audience.

Dave has recently published his research on UK based marketing service providers The Forrester Wave: UK Database Marketing Service Providers (www.forrester.com) and has also produced a document on how British firms use database marketing services (www.forrester.com). Both are well worth a read if you are thinking of implementing a new system.

Dave's research is enlightening. When he surveyed clients about their recent implementation of marketing databases, asking for the top 2 reasons for vendor selection, he found that 58% cited 'fit with requirements', 53% said 'cost', and 32% cited 'expertise'.

One of Dave's key insights was that "customer Intelligence has moved to the front of the room".

Alterian conducted its own research during the event, electronically surveying the attendees on a number of key questions and discovered some interesting facts and trends about digital marketing: – 53% of clients now demand a digital element in every campaign – 41% have seen a significant increase in digital demand in the last 12 months – 88% have seen some increase in demand.

Alterian also asked why clients were changing their activities: – 65% said it was due to their customers wanting to research and transact on the internet – 28% cited marketing becoming a dialogue and the need to understand and engage with social media.

While Dave Frankland's 'agency of the Future' - the 'Customer Engagement Agency' - strongly aligned with 45% of the audience's own corporate strategy (and was similar to 38% more), the attendees claimed that the client base was lagging behind with only 25% of customers being ready to grasp customer engagment as a core principle, although the groundswell is building with a further 49%.

These trends show that it's now vital that marketing agencies champion these new engagement strategies, as it will take a combination of creative, data and planning skills to create compelling campaigns across the wide range of touch points customers now interact with.

Humanising the Redundancy Process

654634 — Wed, 20 May 2009 11:58:19 GMT

It would be easy in an economic environment like this to lay the blame for all redundancies on the 'credit crunch' but I believe that there are other reasons why some of these redundancies are taking place. In prosperous times creative businesses are prone to 'over hiring' or bringing staff in for poorly defined and previously non-existent roles which do not directly benefit an agency's bottom line. Therefore when things get tough and costs need to be cut it can be these roles that are called into question and are usually the first to go. In these situations in particular, agencies need to manage these redundancies with an eye to their future reputation and the good will that a gentler and more human approach will engender.

Any agency, or other company for that matter, that has to make a raft of redundancies may fall into the trap of treating each individual involved as a burden to be offloaded via a series of legally required meetings. It can only be to the longer term benefit of both the company and the individual in question that as much support and guidance for their next steps is offered as is possible. The company will then leave that individual with a better impression than they would otherwise have and the individual can leave with a greater sense of self esteem and better prospects for the future. We have worked with agencies who have taken this approach, one even giving each person taking redundancy an emailable reference with photos and job titles for relevant people in the business. Of course, as a recruitment consultancy we can also play a useful role in helping to ease this process for both parties through advice, managing the exit relationship and aiding in the hunt for a new job.

www.purple-consultancy.com

Think outside the agency

2574924 — Wed, 13 May 2009 11:20:00 GMT

If you, like me, are one of the many recent redundant casualties of the advertising industry downturn, you may be finding yourself running out of things to do to find work. Although there is never an end to the amount of spec work you can produce or the number of times you can hassle your recruitment consultants with persistent and unrelenting phone calls, there comes a point when you feel you just can’t do any more.

For me at this precise moment, there are a number of unrealistic options to consider. I have thought about giving up everything I own and opting for a simpler but hopefully more fulfilled life as a farmer. Having been born and brought up in the city, I’m not sure that would entirely work for me. So what are you supposed to do next?

When I was made redundant in December, my world was suddenly yet irrevocably altered. How would I pay my mortgage, my credit card bills, take care of my sick mother, etc. I was suddenly living to a deadline – before my redundancy payment ran out. I was desperate and I didn’t like it.

It wasn’t until a couple of months later that all my hard work looking for work actually paid off. I hadn’t found a job at an agency, but I was approached to work on a brief directly with a client. For this brief, I was the agency. All of a sudden there was passion again, the opportunity and responsibility to produce some great work, all of my own.

In the current ecomonic climate I have found there are a lot of clients out there who simply don’t want the expense of dealing with big or small agencies. They have a brief and they want it produced in the most cost-effective way possible. And for us out-of-work creatives out there, it’s not only a way to keep working – I would even go so far to suggest that with the state of the industry right now, it’s the only way forward.

I recently uploaded this viral to Youtube. It was a labour of love for a few weeks and both the client and I are very happy with it. It was produced with pulled-in favours from across the industry and on a shoestring budget. In my opinion it’s a testament to the opportunities that are still out there, despite the doom and gloom of the credit crunch hanging over our heads.

It’s easy to lose heart right now but for all the other redundant creatives or even suits out there, there is work to be found, especially if you are creative in finding it. You never know, you might even tap in to your inner megalomaniac and decide you enjoy it more than working at an agency.