Search results matching tag 'agency management'

Why should anyone launch a 1000 strong house agency?

695124 — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 09:47:56 GMT

So the 'DaVinci' agency commissioned by Dell from WPP is behind schedule and still lacking a CEO.

You have to ask yourself why - given the history of in-house agencies - WPP should feel the need to start a monster shop dedicated to Dell, when they already have more than 2000 operating companies in over 100 countries. Also why would a smart outfit like Dell call a pitch and commit themselves to such a long-term exclusive arrangement when they could have had the pick of the existing crop? At a difficult time for the traditional agency business, we obviously wish DaVinci well - and hope that it is more successful than Publicis Groupe's Leonardo!

The Wethey Forecast has been strangely quiet this year. But stand by for a weekly (at least) series of 'asking why'. There are so many unanswered questions about marketing and advertising at the moment. I'm going to give you some puzzles to unravel. Answers please on this blog.

Agencies could be paid for adding value if they could agree with clients what value they add

695124 — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 09:07:25 GMT

I have just caught up with an interesting research report from the US into value-based pricing – the latest candidate to break the default setting of people/hours fees.

In August the ANA (ISBA equivalent) and AAAA (America’s IPA) jointly published something called the Agency-Advertiser Value Survey, which was derived from parallel surveys among their respective memberships.

Just two sets of results. First, how the clients defined the dimensions of value that agencies add:

   1. Fresh and unexpected creative ideas
   2. Integration
   3. Collaboration
   4. Developing ideas that work in multiple communication channels
   5. Best agency people on the account – and agency management available when needed
   6. Driving awareness, consideration and purchase intent
   7. Guidance on new media and technologies

Now for the agency point of view. Here is their batting order:

1. Clear, well-supported strategies
2. Interesting and relevant consumer insights
3. Marketing solutions for reaching consumers in new and innovative ways
4. Fresh and unexpected creative ideas
5. Marketing initiatives to drive client’s business
6. Ideas that work in multiple communication channels
7. Constantly thinking about client’s business, and providing ideas without being asked

I found it fascinating that there was common ground on only two dimensions. Is it surprising that value-based pricing is a long way from being adopted, despite enthusiasm on both sides of the fence? Should ISBA and IPA replicate the survey here? I think so. Meanwhile we are stuck with a payment system based on inputs, not outcomes and outputs. It is also a method of remuneration that any trained procurement specialist can drive a coach and horses through – simply by clipping 5% here and 10% there from the agency’s estimate of individual timeburn. And that’s before they start challenging profit mark-ups and overhead factors.

What are agency CEO's for?

695124 — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 07:15:10 GMT

It is not meant to be a rude question. But with seemingly half the agencies in town either currently leaderless or having recently taken on new top talent, it is timely to ask what roles Chairmen and CEO’s are supposed to fulfil.In my agency days I’d always thought that the CEO was basically there to inspire, lead and manage the agency team – with the additional responsibility of handling shareholders, parent company, holding group or whatever. Normally the CEO would only be involved with a handful of key clients – the majority being managed by “account barons”, who were generally very long serving. In the 60’s and 70’s agency chiefs were far better known in their agencies than outside, and rarely moved from agency to agency at that level.

In the nearly twenty years I have spent at Agency Assessments I have become far more conscious of the “super salesman” role. Today’s Chairmen and CEO’s regularly front up pitches, and are prominent (and well-travelled) figures thanks to carefully spun PR – and the exact opposite. So what happens when the 2007 CEO quits or is fired? We can assume that owners and shareholders can handle it, although they might be apprehensive if it is a genuine resignation. But how does it play with staff, clients and indeed prospects? Let’s put it simply: not well. The staff will often miss their leader, even though he/she might not have been a genius – and more prominent players may fear for their jobs. Very few agencies have kept their account barons, so existing business is less adhesive. Clients will probably feel uneasy. Prospects – in my experience – will stay away until a new team has proved itself.

So, given this analysis, why is it that agencies are apparently so ready to change their captains? And as an interested outside observer, why is it that headhunters so often seem to fail to take the whole picture into account (all the dimensions of the job) when they put forward candidates? The CEO role is so tough nowadays – with internal pressure to deliver the numbers as big a challenge as the external aspect – such that I wonder if one person can cope. It’s interesting how well the collective leadership that characterises most start-ups seems to work. Maybe large corporate agencies should learn from this, and genuinely distribute the burden among three or more people.