Field Notes: Are Digital Agencies Bearing the Torch or Jumping the Shark?

In the past few months I have met with over 20 executives at digital agencies – big, small, holding company-affiliated and independent. Each of these conversations included agency strategy. My conclusion is that  digital agencies, or at least executives within these agencies, loosely fall into two camps.

The distinction between these two camps is the following: The first is the Torch Bearers. Torch Bearers understand the legacy of great brands and great advertising, and strive to extend it in a world where consumers are online vs. offline, in control vs. passive, media snackers vs. media eaters-of three-square-meals. In this new world companies like Google and (to a lesser extent) ad networks and exchanges have inserted themselves into the strategic conversations AND into the revenue streams that previous directly connected advertisers with agencies. The Torch Bearers are not distracted by Google or ad-networks, although they recognize both the risk and the challenge. These execs think deeply about the disintermediation of agencies, about the role of third-party data, and about the importance of technology to today’s CMO. But they are not distracted: they understand that the legacy of good advertising and marketing is compelling story-telling. And they know that no-one, including Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, (but especially Google, which lacks the creative assets of the other two) is doing a good job of creating compelling story-telling on the web.

Since storytelling is meant to sell stuff, Torch Bearers know that there is a way for them to be successful in the new world, they just have to find it. They know that success will NOT be achieved by copying the folks who have not figured out how to tell stories yet, however tempting that may be.

Need proof that we have not figured out storytelling on the web yet? When was the last time you clicked on a banner? When was the last time you actively hovered over, pulled down, or dragged an ad? Did you buy a mortgage in 50 states from grooving silhouettes? Punch any monkeys recently?

David Ogilvy, Chairman, Ogilvy and Mather

David Ogilvy, Chairman, Ogilvy and Mather

Torch Bearers know that no one has found a way to tell a story online the way the masters did this in the past. And they know that story telling sells things. The fact that search engines and networks and exchanges are being credited with selling things today does not obviate the need for real story telling online. Consider what David Ogilvy said about advertising: “The function of advertising is to sell, and that successful advertising for any product is based on information about its consumer.”

Now if Ogilvy were alive today and said this we might think he meant “cookie data” when he said “information.” What he meant that advertising needs to understand and respond to the emotions of consumers. And Ogilvy was great at leveraging that kind of information to tell the right kind of stories. And sell things like soap. Take for instance “Only Dove is One-Quarter Moisturizing Cream.” Ogilvy and his team understood that selling soap was not about “how clean” or “how germ-free.”

"If it doesn’t sell, it isn’t creative" - David Ogilvy

"If it doesn’t sell, it isn’t creative" - David Ogilvy

Nor were generic attributes like “smooth” the right way to engage. Moisturizing cream was the unassailable ingredient ubiquitously associated with beautiful skin. And this was the story that needed to be told in words and images, and it worked. David Ogilvy would not have bought the keyword ‘soap’ or ‘smooth’ or ‘cream.’ It’s doubtful he would have bought a targeted banner placement. To the Torch Bearers, storytelling remains the constant to selling stuff; the fact that media is consumed and analyzed very differently than in the times of Mad Men, and even differently than 5 years ago, is a challenge. To the Torch Bearer, the fact that more consumer data is available now than in David Ogilvy’s day is an opportunity, but not a game-changer.

The second group is the Shark Jumpers. Consistent with the etymology of the term “jumping the shark” this group wants to out-Google Google, out-network the networks, and out-exchange the exchanges to retain their past glory. Simply put these agencies and marketers are making bold moves out of frustration that:

 • in 10 years, Google has wrested relevance and profitability from their hands.

• the exclusive “magic” of media planning and buying seems not to be as effective or efficient as the data-driven algorithms of networks and exchanges.

 • their clients are increasingly using agencies as execution teams rather than brilliant advertising and marketing leaders.

To be clear, the Torch Bearers feel the same pain as Shark Jumpers, but the way the Torch Bearers respond is to innovate around how to tell the stories that sell stuff in a digital age. On the other hand, The Shark Jumpers put less energy into storytelling innovation; instead they focus on the bright, shiny object of networks and exchanges: “we want to do that too!” jumping the sharkInstead of remaining true to their legacy, Shark Jumpers get excited at the possibility of dropping what has made them successful in the past and trade that in for the new toys. The Shark Jumpers speak to the tactics of data management and targeting and ad-network building as a holy grail. What’s gets lost is the strategy of telling the right story. If an agency devolves into selling one-time clicks, perhaps it can compete against networks; but at what cost? What are they giving up? (And while an agency can try and compete by building robust technologies to collect and manage data, the road is a steep one for them – building proprietary technology has never been a strength of any agency, digital or otherwise.) Neither Torch Bearers or Shark Jumpers have an easy path today- this is a tough time to be an agency, period. But if Torch Bearers are successful in convincing marketers that story telling goes beyond a one-click-pony, then they at least have a shot extending the legacy of great agencies and great marketers into the future. And just as Happy Days began its decline when Fonzie gave up his innocent coolness by ridiculously entering a shark-infested water ski competition in his leather jacket, the Shark Jumpers risk losing what made them great if they strive to be something that they are not, and lose their relevance.

And then of course you have agencies who can’t decide on the right path, so they pursue on-again-off again debates and investment strategies, all of which seem to evolve into a dysfunctional mess of politics.

Popularity: 4% [?]

Share and Enjoy:
  • Live
  • MSN Reporter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Digg
  • RSS
  • Technorati
Share this Post:
Digg Google Bookmarks reddit Mixx StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Buzz DesignFloat Delicious BlinkList Furl

16 Responses to “Field Notes: Are Digital Agencies Bearing the Torch or Jumping the Shark?”

  • Eric Picard says:

    I liked the section on Torch Bearers. But I think the way you’re referring to agencies is a bit off kilter.

    There are creative agencies, and media agencies. Creative agencies are focused on storytelling, persuation, and driving opinion. Media agencies are focused on reaching audiences by buying ad space at the lowest possible cost, as efficiently as possible.

    The media agency business is under siege, and has a lot of problems with business model and margin compression – mostly because of the rise of prominence of procurement departments. 10 years ago, media agencies were hired by marketing departments, and their rates and the deal were negotiated with the CMO. Today the contract is typically negotiated with the procurement officer, and margins have been compressed all to hell.

    The big media buying agencies have been focused for the last five years on reinventing their business models. But they have struggled with how to get there. Some have gone after the ad network space. Others are now looking at the real-time bidding space on top of the DSPs. It will be interesting to watch them evolve.

    So – I don’t think this is so much shark jumping in the sense that agencies are changing from creative entities to ad networks. I think creative agencies will continue to evolve forward and tell great stories regardless of the medium. But media agencies need massive innovation, and they’ll keep iterating until they figure it out.

  • Nico Brooks says:

    I agree with Eric that the distinction between creative and media planning is an important part of this conversation. As you say, storytelling will always be effective and at least some agencies are embracing the storytelling possibilities of interactive media. Media buying/planning is completely technology dependent, and the technology is evolving at breakneck pace and margins are going down.

    But I don’t agree with Eric that the media agencies will figure it out. A few may, but I personally see little reason for large planning agencies going forward. Most of my experience has come from standing in front of crowds of planners explaining concepts of optimization and analysis. The majority stare blankly or look uncomfortable. Inevitably, one or two have insightful questions and we engage in a productive dialog. As often as not, I later hear from the standouts that they have joined or started a small, dynamic agency focused on some form of emerging media.

    Like the post – good stuff!

  • James Sandoval says:

    Nicely done Harrison.

    Over the past 18 months I, too, have met with a solid handful of UK media agency. The split between torch bearers and shark jumpers? I’ll say this: every media exec agency talks about the need to “reinvent” the business.

    Some are moving into the so-called demand-side platform (DSP) space which, I’d argue, might help improve margins in the medium term, but strategically confuses the overall business model and agencies’ relationships with advertisers in the longer term.

    Some are aligning themselves with Google, some with Microsoft for technology [i.e. data], but I’d argue that this also confuses the agency business model. The problem? Advertisers’ digital marketing and other valuable customer relationship/behaviour/transactional data flows in and is locked to Microsoft and Google owned/controlled domains and platforms. This not only creates a conflict with the MEDIA buy/sell relationships between agencies and these very technology suppliers, the flow of data into a domain that is completely disconnected from advertisers’ enterprises also creates a cap on the insight and ROI value that they can realise from their digital marketing initiatives.

    Broadly, I think we all (buy-side, sell-side and the in-betweeners) know very well that data ownership and control will increasingly be central to [digital] marketing success in the days ahead. Those agencies who begin to truly understand that data ownership and control are 1.) not the same as technology ownership and control, and 2.) best when advertiser-domain defined (i.e. not agency and not technology platform defined) are the ones who will begin to truly reinvent their businesses, their clients’ [digital] marketing impact and, I’ll also argue, help to move the industry into a new, more productive direction.

    In the near term, we’ll all bear witness to many media agency organisations slipping from a clear buy-side orientation to media, into a blurred buy & sell orientation, while also sloppily attempting to leverage large volumes of, arguably “dumb”, data to power their services. I guess these are your Shark Jumpers Harrison. In my view, they’re doing as Eric notes “iterating until they figure it out”. Albeit a little desperately. And they’re running out of time.

    Yes, media agencies certainly do have it tough these days. And Martin Sorrell is [mostly] right when he said recently that agency leadership are too old and resistant to change to understand digital (or something like that).

    That said/known, I think it’s a little too easy to single out agencies as problems vs. solutions. Shark Jumpers vs. Torch Bearers.

    We’ve all really screwed this pooch.

    The good news? This is still just the beginning of the story.

    James Sandoval
    Founder & Managing Director
    Invizua Limited

  • Good comments Eric, Nico, James. I do think I miss making the distinction between creative and media buying digital media agencies. But don’t you think that at the agency level (not the role level) that distinction has largely gone away? It seems to have at the agencies with which I am familiar, and with good reasons. Heres’ two:
    1. The medium is the message. Unlike pure banner buys, Torch Bearers are trying to push the envelop. Their creative application is purely dependent on what the publisher will allow them to do, and what the publisher will allow them to do is purely depending on their creative ideas. You can’t buy an integration, complete with microsite, rich media applications, and auto-populated branded search queries, then hand it off to the creative folks. Nor can the creative folks envision something like that, then say “go buy it.” So either those teams work together within one agency and on one account team, or else they exist in two separate agencies (like you say Eric) but that dance is a clumsy one and goign out of style.
    2. More media is earned (vis social) than bought. This trend obviates the need for the typical media planner/buyer, although their perspective on audience reach is still important.

    (James, is this trend prevalent in UK too?

    Thoughts?
    h

  • You make a couple of great points Harrison.

    You’re right – the distinction between creative and media services is indeed quickly blurring – see one small example here http://bit.ly/4PjLC4. Is it a trend in the UK, too? Yeah, I think it’s safe to say it is.

    This development, of course, brings both advantages (e.g. margin improvement) and challenges (e.g. jack-of-all-trades…).

    My POV: we need less blurring and more, stronger dividing lines i.e. focus. And, for good measure (pun intended), agencies need to [more] aggressively & broadly (across all org levels) develop their data management/analysis and technology expertise i.e. products & services.

  • Nico Brooks says:

    Did you hear the NPR story on Significant Objects this weekend? Made me think of this post.

  • Len Skordahl says:

    Well developed, one of a kind take on this theme.

  • Estell Gills says:

    Wonderful site! I thoroughly enjoyed your content …very well written.

  • Mr. Test says:

    Wow, thats a very informative blog entry . I like your wordpress blog. Maybe you should write more articles of these type.

  • I have to say that I cherish this website. I felt compelled drop a remark and say what a sweet job you have executed. I wish more web-sites would put a lot energy into their website. Keep the posts coming

  • Good post this fascinating. Good reading through your own post i love reading through your site.

  • Pasang Iklan anda di website kami, secara tidak langsung anda juga sudah memasangkan ke ratusan website lainnya. Sistem iklan kami OTOMATIS memasukkan iklan anda ke jaringan iklan baris kami (tanpa menggunakan software iklan atau mengisi captcha) secara GRATIS. Hal ini akan meningkatkan efisiensi waktu dan mengoptimalisasikan hasil iklan anda, baik di listing iklan maupun di Search Engine.

  • Leave a Reply:

    Name (required):
    Mail (will not be published) (required):
    Website:
    Comment (required):
    XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>