Showing posts with label Agencies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Agencies. Show all posts

Monday, July 26, 2010

Tomorrow's Buzzword: Media Design


Faithful followers know I have a soft spot for buzzwords. While some people loathe them for their overuse and inability to really say anything, I heart them for their ability to give us a common language and describe (even if generically) emerging concepts.

One phrase that hasn't gotten much attention to date is "Media Design." Why? Well, quite simply it hasn't been really introduced. One man is out to change that, though.

Saneel Radia (not pictured above), formerly of Improv Olympic Chicago fame, is the recently appointed Director of Media Innovation at BBH Labs. His role there? Essentially, bringing the idea of "Media Design" to fruition after incubating it for the past few years at Denuo.

So what is Media Design? I have to admit, it took me a while to grasp the concept. Not because it's invalid or unimportant, but because it's a true paradigm-shifter. Yikes, there I go with the buzzwords again!

As Saneel puts it, Media Design represents "the missing skills within the advertising agency creative departments." In fact, that's the subtitle of Saneel's thesis completed in July of '09 for his MBA in Creative Leadership at the Berlin School.

The 70+ page paper -- which Saneel was kind enough to share with me -- makes the case (successfully, I might add) for the importance of Media Design as a discipline and the Media Designer as a critical role within creative shops.

With Saneel's permission, I'm posting the excerpts from his thesis that most resonated with me. As you read these, you can see how Saneel's thoughtfulness and ability to produce punchy soundbytes may have been shaped by his mentor and Denuo founder, Rishad Tobaccowala.

---

On the connectedness of today's consumers:

"When the world was dominated by a traditional media model, advertisers had two major advantages when engaging consumers. First, the vast majority of media consumption occurred from a single source: the content creator. In other words, as television networks broadcasted content, most people who consumed this content were receiving the broadcast, rather than receiving it from a third party. Thus, brand messages needed only to be placed within content moving linearly from a single origin to engage the vast majority of users. In fact, the relationship between the content itself and the ad message placed within it was a secondary or tertiary consideration, with the primary concern being what demographic audience was consuming the content. Of course, a relationship has always existed; audiences tend to follow loose patterns (e.g., sports content is consumed primarily by male viewers), but the content itself rarely prevented brand message insertion."

On the social media model:

"First, it means brands are actually competing for attention with the very consumers they are attempting to engage. Second, in a new media model, consumers are clearly in control. They create the content, decide who and what they connect with, and generally outline the rules of those engagements."

"If a brand’s message or experience isn’t easily portable, doesn’t provide any natural reason for consumers to share it amongst themselves, or doesn’t live organically within the new social media model, the brand is drastically handicapping its messaging potential."

On the need for non-standard creative ideation:

"The experience can simply not be standardized as it was in traditional media. Thus, it does not exist in most ad agencies because they are built to deliver creative ideas in standardized environments."

On the need for new media creative ideas to evolve:

"When crafting creative ideas limited to traditional environments, agencies rarely had to think about the experience as anything other than a message; it was up to the client to provide service and responses, in many cases, not even the same individual responsible for marketing."

On the misprioritization of technology:

"The issue though is that technologies are downstream in the creative process and primarily impact how an idea manifests or how users experience it; they rarely determine if the creative idea itself is an effective platform to engage a brand’s target consumers."

Quoting Hashem Bawja, former New Media Director at Goodby Silverstein:

"Regardless of how the engagement has changed, the best creative ideas are still the ones built from a true and compelling insight into people's lives."

On why creative agencies employ antiquated models:

"The answer can of course be found by following the profits. As traditional creative departments have become less profitable over the last fifteen years, they’ve relied more and more heavily on marking up production to drive profits. As the FTE model has continued to yield lower blended hourly retainer rates while agency compensation for employees has increased, the profit margin has eroded significantly. In other words, clients are spending a smaller percentage of budgets on retaining Creatives in relation to their investment in media and digital production. As stated above, digital creative departments integrate production into their process; this has allowed agencies to establish profit by producing executions in house."

"Any client that listens to an agency attempt to sell a creative idea that requires in-house production at the agency should immediately consider the validity of the recommendation. Is the agency truly attempting to help drive the brand’s business forward, or is it attempting to drive its own?"

On the shift from branded micro-sites to social media:

"The reason is clear: consumers are spending more time in these environments and they tend to be in exploratory mindsets as they surf profiles and updates. It’s much easier to engage a consumer looking for something to do than one in the middle of an objective that must be lured to a micro-site via a banner ad."

On understanding the Media Design concept:

"First, a new frame of reference is needed about the output of creative departments, specifically differentiating ideas vs. their executions. Next, the lines around what constitutes advertising must be redrawn and blurred to some degree as the traditional lines between product, advertising and experience are simply not clear within most new media."

On the role of creative agencies:

"Creative departments are in the ideas business."

"Today’s creative ideas must be broader, more flexible, more modular, utilitarian, and more diverse."

On the role of the Media Designer:

"Philosophically, Media Designers do not approach media as containers for the placement of uniform executions of ideas, as was highly efficient in a traditional media model. Instead, Media Designers view media as a canvas upon which are ideas are placed. More accurately, media is a collection of unique canvases, each of which has a dramatic and distinct impact on the creative manifestation itself."

"The Media Designer's primary tool is 'media' itself, of all types and formats... 'Media' is defined as any environment, virtual or physical, in which consumers may engage brands."

"Media Designers understand channel impact on content."

"Media Designers leverage media as a consumer lens... One key skill set of the Media Designer is the ability to use media as an input as adeptly as he or she uses it as an output."

"Media Designers craft media-scalable ideas. One clear distinction when approaching media as a canvas vs. as a container is understanding the striations of users across a medium and engaging them differently to maximize a creative idea’s potential. For example, YouTube receives about 89 million unique users a month [as of May 2009]. A 'container' philosophy sees this as the total possible universe reachable via advertising on YouTube. However, the audience itself can be cut an infinite number of ways, many of which will yield different outcomes based on variations on the same creative idea."

On Burger King's Whopper Sacrifice Facebook App:

"The creative idea's relationship with its medium was circular."

On why Media Design is such a foreign concept to creative shops:

"The issue currently though is that not enough relevant skills exist in most creative departments to ensure relevant conception, primarily because of the void resulting from an absence in media sensibility."

On why the industry is ripe for Media Design:

"The model is appropriate for agencies now that brand engagement has been so dramatically impacted by the new media revolution. It weaves media into the fabric of the original idea, the key reason most work is rejected by consumers today."

On managing expectations:

"Media Design is not intended as a panacea for any agency, but it certainly provides a tangible and achievable set of expertise that must be secured, then deployed as appropriate in the environment of that particular agency. In order to be successful, most agencies will require some form of reinvention. Media Design is proposed as a key step in that reinvention process for the majority of agencies around the globe."

---

Can you imagine Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce employing Media Designers? Me neither. That's one of the many reasons why SCDP would not be flourishing in today's ad world. (I'd imagine health care and HR costs would be among the others).

Media Design is both revolutionary and evolutionary. It's an approach built to manage the complexities of today's digital world while paying homage to the tried and true principles of successful advertising that have proven to work over the years across shifts in media, technology, and culture.

It will be very interesting to see how long it takes for the Media Design concept to catch on in creative agencies. I do believe it's a matter of "when" not "if" though. And, "if" it doesn't happen at Bartle Bogle Hegarty, look for Radia Goldman coming soon to a mad ave near you.

Monday, August 10, 2009

Beware the Undertow: Don't Get Swept Away by the Forrester Wave Reports

Beware the Undertow














Image Source

Last week, Forrester released its Wave report evaluating US digital marketing agencies on strategy and execution. Brian Morrissey has a good summary in AdWeek if you don't want to pay the $1749.

I wasn't able to find the full contents of the report for free online but I did find a complete copy of the Q2 '09 Forrester Wave rating the web design chops of digital marketing agencies. After dissecting it a bit, I have some questions about the methodology and overall usefulness of these reports.

The Envelope Please

Per Forrester, the top agencies for "transaction-led web projects" (read: ecommerce) are Sapient, Razorfish (who just got acquired by Publicis resolving Microsoft's conflict of interest but not Razorfish's -- see my update to this post), imc2, IconNicholson (yeah, I don't know either), and IBM Interactive.

As for "image-led web projects" (read: branding), the top shops were Sapient, Razorfish, IBM Interactive, imc2, and Organic.

Checking Boxes

Forrester used the following 18 criteria to score agencies:


  1. User research
  2. Persona creation
  3. Persona application
  4. Design process
  5. Skills and staffing
  6. Cross-office consistency
  7. Measurement
  8. Collaboration abilities
  9. User experience
  10. Brand image experience
  11. Satisfaction of reference clients
  12. Market positioning
  13. Clarity of vision
  14. Emerging web technologies
  15. Industry focus
  16. Billable staff as of Q4 2008
  17. Revenues (2008)
  18. Revenue growth (2008 over 2009)
  19. Number of North American offices
From there, Forrester used 25 (undisclosed) criteria to score 2 websites and 1 persona submitted by each agency.

The rest of the report was completed based on interviews with agency staffers and 2 client references offered by each shop.

Better than Nothing

While I applaud any and all efforts to bring sense to the nonsense that is the agency/client RFP process, I think the Forrester report is incomplete, at best, and flawed, at worst.

For one thing, the process for selecting which agencies it includes in the report is questionable. Per footnote #6, Forrester "invited 29 shops from Advertising Age's top 50 digital agencies by web design revenue to participate" along with 2 from a previous report, before picking "the 20 largest."

So, right off the bat Forrester assumes that the best agencies are the ones with the most revenue. (Unfortunately, many clients make this mistake too when building their list of shops to RFP, but more on that later.)

Even after settling on 20 shops, it's quite telling that 2 dropped out of the Forrester study because they "had commitments that prevented them from dedicating the required time and resources."

Indeed, it takes time and resources to contribute to, I mean... manipulate the results of this report. First, you have to pick your best 2 websites and 1 persona that you worked on in the past year -- clearly, not representative of your entire body of work, just cherry-pick the top outputs. Then you have to offer up 2 client references -- obviously, focusing on those that are best buds, relatives or otherwise inclined to only say glowing things about you. Finally, you have to take your best people off their current projects to make time for Forrester's intensive interviews.

Geez, this Forrester Wave report sounds a lot like the Agency/Client RFP process itself, aye?

Losing the Forrest for the Trees

Don't get me wrong, I think the Forrester Wave reports are valuable resources for clients trying to decide between the shops evaluated. My issue is that not all the shops are evaluated. And, furthermore, the criteria is too complicated and subjective to be really meaningful.

As an aside, last year, while I was at Resolution Media, I had my team inquire as to how we could be included in the Forrester Wave Search Marketing Agency Report. Resolution Media is rated by AdAge as a top 20 agency by revenue so I thought that would be enough to make the list. Turns out, our inquiry was returned by a salesperson looking to sell us a research subscription. It was unclear whether or not this is a prerequisite for inclusion in the Wave reports but we declined and instead took them up on an offer to speak directly with one of their analysts who was responsible for compiling the report. Let's just say that we never heard from anyone but the salesperson again.

Now, I realize that doing comprehensive research on 18 criteria across the hundreds, nay, thousands of digital marketing agencies out there is simply not feasible. However, I'd argue that all the various points of differentiation (Cross-office consistency, Measurement, Collaboration abilities, User experience, etc.) can all be boiled down to one key metric/benchmark: client satisfaction.

I won't make you go back and read all 4,000+ words of my client-agency RFP manifesto but here was one of my suggestions:

"I’m a big fan of the Ultimate Question as a way to cut through all the clutter and get to the heart of how good a job a company is doing. Responses to the question, 'How likely is it that you would recommend this company to a friend or colleague?' tell us more about that company than any exhaustive questionnaire or fancy demo ever will.

We need a system whereby all agencies are required to create a 3rd-party audited list of current and former clients including duration of engagement (ie, number of years under contract) and breakdown of service offerings. Then, each quarter, a 3rd party asks all clients to anonymously rate their agencies on the Ultimate Question. The resulting list would be sortable by agency service offering and client category and be made available to the general public for a nominal fee (to cover the survey hosting costs).

This model is really nothing more than a peer rating system for agencies -- not unlike Yelp for restaurants or eBay for merchandise sellers. Just as LinkedIn is the Facebook for business, I guess I’m suggesting a review site for marketing communications agencies. I firmly believe in the power of transparent and self-policing communities."

Rest assured, folks, I'm working on it! In the meantime, please take the Forrester Wave reports (and the plethora of agency press releases they touch off) with a grain of blue ocean sea salt.

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Choosing an SEM Partner: Do's and Don'ts

Here's the presentation I used for today's Incisive Media (SES, ClickZ, Search Engine Watch) webinar sponsored by Marin Software. You should be able to get the gist of it by thumbing thru the slides. As you'll see, I only broke my new self-imposed Powerpoint rule (no more than ten words per page) one time.

I had a lot of fun doing this. It's always tough to gauge how you're doing as a presenter when the audience is muted. Hopefully my Kramer Moviefone impression ("Why don't you just tell me the name of the movie you want to see?") didn't totally bomb. :)

From the Q&A, it seemed like the audience was really engaged. The Q's ran the gamut and covered outsourcing, integration, incremental costs, budgeting, differentiation, data disclosure, resources for finding potential partners, and, of course, the dreaded, "What is the typical return on PPC for an ecommerce website?" (I believe my answer was $3.52.)

The webinar should be available shortly on-demand so you can get my voiceover as well.

Monday, June 29, 2009

Microsoft to Sell Razorfish... Finally!

This morning @LenKendall shared a link to a blurb in the Financial Times reporting that Microsoft is looking to sell off Razorfish (fka Avenue A Razorfish). All I can say is... s'bout time!

This was #9 on the list of things I'd do if I were running Microsoft. As I said last August, "I never understood why Microsoft was able to hang onto Ave A but everyone was up in arms until Google divested Performics. This is a complete conflict of interest. Ave A buys media from Microsoft and builds optimized Web sites for Live Search. I don't care what kind of firewalls you put up between these groups, it's impossible for Ave A to be impartial when creating media plans when its financial health is tied to Microsoft's profit. And vice versa with Microsoft's incentive to help Ave A succeed in the SEO space."

Update 8/10: Per the WSJ, Microsoft has agreed to sell Razorish to Publicis for $530 million. But the conflict lives on...

"As part of the pact, Publicis has entered a 'strategic alliance' with Microsoft, which includes a five-year media-buying relationship. In return for buying a certain amount of display and search advertising on Microsoft properties, Publicis will receive better ad rates."

Looks like Razorfish clients can still expect to see a disproportionate amount of Microsoft reco's on their media plans.

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Client/Agency Negotiations in "Real Life"



Imagine what it would be like if people negotiated haircuts, DVD rentals or restaurant bills the way clients negotiate agency fees. Hat tip to my colleague Christine Schmidt who discovered this instant classic.

Reminds me of Popeye's friend Wimpy...

Wimpy Hamburger Today

Friday, May 8, 2009

RFP-U

Here's my deck from today's MediaPost Search Insider Summit Panel. Once again, I had some fun with clip art (and other "art") courtesy of Google image search.

I've become a huge fan of minimalist PowerPoints. Here I try to get my point across about how screwed up the RFP process is with a step-by-step recap using only pics.



Many thanks to my panel for engaging in a lively discussion...

Tony Bombacino, Chief Marketing Officer, Restaurant.com
Tom Kuthy, VP, Strategic Partnerships, Resolution Media
Janel Landis, VP of Search Marketing, SendTec
Olivier Lemaignen, Group Manager, Global Search Marketing, Intuit, inc.

And special thanks to Oliver for providing the comic relief with such gems as...

"It’s almost like saying the one night stand is a good indication of what the marriage will be like."

"The RFP stands for Request for Pain."

Update: MediaPost has made available a video of this session. Check it out here.

Saturday, March 7, 2009

Building Consensus One Byline at a Time

Yesterday, I continued my crusade to fix the client/agency RFP process by publishing my POV in iMediaConnection. iMedia cover stories are typically extended pieces broken into tiles for easier consumption. Mine clocked in at a svelt 1,850+ words across 5 tiles. Here's the first...

10 ways to improve the client/agency RFP process

By Aaron Goldman

Article Highlights:
-Here's why it's time for the current RFP to RIP
-Will compiling a master list of how big each agency is and who they serve help solve the problem?
-How can we streamline the process behind all the RFIs, RFQs, RFPs?

Having spent more than 10 years responding to client and agency RFPs, I've come to the conclusion that the RFP should be renamed "CYA." While the intention behind the RFP is good -- creating a structured process whereby solutions can be evaluated objectively -- the execution is not. And it is often a complicated, time-consuming process in which firms wildly overpromise and are judged largely on price.

For the client, it's truly CYA, with rigid scorecards that allow all constituents to rate agencies and determine a winner. For the agency, it's another form of CYA altogether -- as in "See ya! Sold you the dream, now here's the team."

Typically, the formal RFP process plays out as follows:

The client scans lists of AdAge rankings, RECMA billings, or the Gunn Report to determine 15-20 shops they want to consider. The client issues an RFI for agencies to fill out some basic info, and agency new biz teams respond.

The client whittles the list down to five to seven shops to receive an RFP. The client sends questionnaires for the agencies to complete, along with requests for case studies, reels, references, etc. Each agency new biz team pulls client service, strategy, and creative personnel off billable accounts to compile the deliverables.

The client, or more appropriately, the client's scorecard, determines three finalists. The agencies trot out executives, senior strategy personnel, and anyone with a Ph.D. for the final presentation. The agency shows spec creative, media plans, and fancy dashboards. The client and agency haggle over scope and price. The client awards the business. Both sides feel slighted. The agency scrambles to staff the account.

The client rinses and repeats every three years, and to quote the "Mad Men" character Roger Sterling: "The day you sign a client is the day you start losing them."

Needless to say, it's time for the current RFP process to RIP. The following are 10 ways I think we can improve the system.

Next page >>

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

You Can Pick Your Nose, You Can Pick Your Agency, But You Can't Pick Your Agency's Nose

My Search Insider column today was originally attributed to Gord Hotchkiss...

Search Insider

I ain't complaining though -- it's quite the compliment for your writing is mistaken for Gord's!

Media Post did run a correction and Gord set the record straight in the comments so my cover was blown.

Here's the blurb...

10 Reasons Why Clients Don't Pick the Right SEM Agencies

In my last column, I continued the thread around fixing the client/agency RFP process by listing 10 reasons why SEM agencies don’t win new biz. However, the responsibility for ill-fated client/agency matchmaking does not reside solely with agencies. Now, I won’t go as far as fellow Search Insider Janel Landis to say that clients are complacent, jaded, or near-sighted. Instead, I’ll point out 10 symptoms that, if left untreated, could lead to those diagnoses.

Friday, February 27, 2009

Sign of the Times: "Agency of Reference"

As readers of this blog will know, I've been ruminating, ok... stewing over the current state of the client/agency RFP process, which is creating tenuous client/agency relationships.

I just read in Mediapost that Comcast has named MediaVest its media "agency of reference." Is this what it's come to? Are clients so unsure of how strong a partner their agency will be that they have to make it clear that the shop is just there for its reference? It's like changing the status on your Facebook profile from "in a relationship" to "it's complicated."

Are the days of the true AOR (agency of record) gone with clients building a roster of various shops they can "reference" as needed? I sure hope not. Methinks, as I outlined in my post on fixing the client/agency RFP process, we need to institute a trial period whereby both client and agency have 90 days to get to know each other before commencing scope and fee negotiations. If after 90 days, the client can't commit to more than a desire to "reference" that firm going forward, it's probably in the best interests of all parties to part ways. Sure seems better than having a client tell a shop, "FYI, you won the RFP, but you're just our A-O-that-other-R."

Thursday, February 26, 2009

What Comes First -- The Heart Beat or the Mouse Click?

I just read IAB President, Randall Rothenberg's masterpiece -- "A Bigger Idea: A Manifesto on Interactive Advertising Creativity." It's a bit meaty but, as you know, I'm not averse to lengthy blog posts around particular passion points. For anyone who wants to understand the impact of the digital sea change, Rothenberg's piece is required reading.

He begins by attacking the "four enemies of online branding:

  • A direct-marketing culture and tradition that devalues creativity and its long-term effect on brands
  • An interactive agency business model that disincentivizes greatness and fails to penalize mediocrity
  • An unwillingness by mainstream agencies to integrate technologists as full partners in the advertising creative team
  • Media industry values and habits that malign and depreciate our own products, and by extension our customers'"
    • And he closes with four action items for "digital publishers and agencies:

      1. Motivate greatness among your best creative people, for their work inspires consumers and customers alike.
      2. Collaborate -- creative agencies and publishers -- with each other and within yourselves to develop outstanding advertising and communications products.
      3. Assemble writers, designers, and technologists into teams that can engage the intellect and emotions of audiences and individuals across all channels, toward the goal of creating enduring brands.
      4. Prove to your customers that causing the heart to beat quick is at least as important as making the mouse click."

      There are a number of threads in Rothenberg's post that sparked my interest and merit further discussion. For now, I'll just focus on one -- "the gap between the mouseclick and the heartbeat."

      To illustrate his point, Rothenberg poses this "admittedly trick question:

      What's the biggest difference between a traditional creative agency and a new-age digital agency?

      Answer: Traditional creative agencies are named after human beings. Digital agencies are named after inanimate objects or nonsense words."

      Indeed. Although, most of those traditional shops now carry acronyms in place of the principal's names to cater to today's short attention span masses -- DDB, BBDO, GSD&M, TBWA, Y&R, JWT, etc.

      Rothenberg's point is that the "depersonalization of the agency business" is indicative of a trend towards advertising globalization and industrialization. He posits that we need to start to "recognize and reward the creative individuals who make greatness happen" -- whether that's by naming firms after them or giving them a bigger stage at awards ceremonies like Cannes.

      I agree with Rothenberg that we are witnessing the downfall of advertising creativity as we've known it to date but I would argue that what's replaced it -- a relentless pursuit of scale, accountability, and optimization -- is much more relevant and powerful to advertisers and consumers in today's burgeoning digital media ecosystem.

      Put another way, I think these days what makes the heart beat is the mouse click. Not the other way around.

      Take for instance, the Snuggie -- which has become Resolution Media's mascot of sorts. What made this "blanket with sleeves" become a cult sensation? It sure wasn't their TV spots. Watching the folks in this commercial lie around on the couch is more likely to make your heart stop than beat. No, what got everyone excited about this product was all the mouse clicks that resulted when this brand went viral -- the commercial parody, the pub crawl, the sightings blog, etc.

      I really believe the cause and effect with Snuggie's popularity was mouse click then heart beat. People took to this brand because they were excited about all the mouse clicking that was happening and wanted to be a part of it. In a matter of days, thousands of people signed up for the pub crawl and the commercial parody has nearly 2 million views.

      So, rather than hearken for the days of old when marketers built their brand by creating masterful ads and broadcasting them out to the masses, we need to embrace the idea that what moves the needle in today's instant gratification, always-on, Type-F society is planting the seeds of a brand across various media touchpoints and sparking viral, peer-to-peer conversations.

      Indeed, the message has become the medium. And, for marketer's to thrive/survive, that message better click.

      Wednesday, February 18, 2009

      In Search of New Biz

      In today's Search Insider, I continue my thread around the client-agency RFP process. The inspiration for this column came from Janel Landis who pointed the finger at clients being either complacent, jaded, or nearsighted when making decisions to stick with their current SEM agency rather than switch to a firm that purpots to deliver more value. While there is certainly some element of those 3 variables in play, I think the responsibility for undesirable outcomes from new biz pitches lies both with the client and the agency.

      In today's column, I highlight the shortcomings of SEM shops in the biz dev process. In my next column, I'll turn the spotlight on clients and discuss where they miss the boat when they pick the wrong SEM firm.

      Here's the blurb...

      10 Reasons Why SEM Agencies Don't Win New Biz

      I never thought this day would come, but I’m in complete agreement with Steve Baldwin for 2 consecutive columns. Indeed, as Steve points out, we need to move towards rationale SEM agency procurement because SEM is a service, not a product. Clearly, fixing the Client/Agency RFP process is no small task (nor small blog post) and my proposed overhaul of the system will take more time (and buy-in) than most of us can afford right now. So what can clients and agencies do differently within the confines of the current RFP system to better align expectations and create satisfactory outcomes for all parties involved? Let's start by looking at the main reasons SEM agencies don't win new business.

      Thursday, February 5, 2009

      The Search Agency Search: Playing Matchmakter

      As promised in my post on fixing the client/agency RFP process, my Search Insider column from Wed. applies my proposed system to the SEM world. Here's the blurb:

      The REAL Problem With The Client/Agency RFP Process

      I had a notion to pick up the thread Gord Hotchkiss started about emerging applications of search but, once again, Steve Baldwin, derailed, er… inspired me. In his last column, Steve discussed the issues he sees with the current SEM agency procurement process -- namely, that it’s comprised of tactical responses to long questionnaires created and evaluated by client in-house search personnel. But I don’t think the answer lies in asking different questions in the RFP or reassigning responsibility for SEM agency selection. The problem with the process right now is the process itself.

      Saturday, January 31, 2009

      Fixing the Client/Agency RFP Process

      This is a topic I've been noodling on for quite some time. I was finally compelled to flesh out my thoughts and post this after reading two recent articles in the trades about the SEM agency RFP process and deciding it was time to share my POV (which will run as an abbreviated version of this post in Wednesday’s Media Post’s Search Insider column).

      Disclaimer: I'm now working as an independent consultant so the opinions here are solely mine and do not reflect those of the companies I’ve worked for/with. The scenarios I describe below are not specific to any particular agency or client, rather they are based on both personal observations and anecdotes shared with me by a wide swath of players in the space including firms I’ve competed against and marketers I’ve never directly pitched.

      Broke as a Joke

      Having participated in over 50 formal RFP’s during my tenure in the agency world -- ranging from full-service creative/media AOR pitches to SEM only -- and heard tales of many I hadn't been involved in from those on the front-lines, I can say unequivocally that the client/agency RFP process is broken. It's a model of inefficiency and ineffectiveness at a time when such attributes are the last thing marketers and agencies should be tolerating.

      In fact, a recent survey of 184 client marketing execs showed consensus that the agency search process is “too time consuming,” surfacing such complaints as, “You’re told so many things that you’re not sure what to believe.”

      Same Old Song and Dance

      Here's a breakdown of the typical RFP process (and the drawbacks therein):

      1. Client (either directly or through an agency search consultant) issues a brief and questionnaire to some 10-15 agencies they're interest in evaluating. The format varies -- I've received briefs as long as 15 pages and questionnaires over 100 questions. I've even seen RFP's issued with no brief. (Just guess what the business needs and scope of work are!) And, of course, there are the dreaded online RFP's where answers need to be submitted to spec (complete with character limits and no ability to use bullets, graphics, etc.) and agencies have to bid in real-time against each other to see who will offer the lowest price (as if they're selling pork bellies!)

      2. Agency new business team completes the questionnaire with input from select senior client service and strategy personnel (who have to pull time away from their current clients throughout this process). Typically the questions fall into 2 buckets -- general questions about the agency that the new biz team can handle and questions about how the agency would handle the client's business that need to be customized for the client by folks in that discipline. The deepest thought is put into the cover letter that will accompany the response as it’s the one piece of material sure to be read in full. Meanwhile, the agency finance department works on a staffing and fee model to address the SOW and pricing Q's in the questionnaire having very little idea of what the client really needs or has an appetite for. (After all, the agency has only been thinking about this client's business for a couple weeks tops and has very little access to historical data.) Oh, and did I mention how many trees are killed (and additional costs accrued) printing and shipping 10 copies of the 60-page RFP response to the client?

      3. Client (or, more accurately, the client's RFP committee which includes a cross-section of departments that have a vested interest in the decision) reviews all RFP responses looking for specific points that they (or their procurement department) have outlined on a "scorecard" to whittle down the agency list to 3-5 finalists.

      4. Finalist agencies are given an assignment to demonstrate their approach to the client's business. They’re issued a more detailed brief and given a week or 2 to develop full-blown creative and/or media plans (that, mind you, become the intellectual property of the client once submitted) to present in person at the client's HQ. At this point agencies pull out all the stops, activating execs, senior client services personnel, and creative directors alike.

      5. Client provides a Q&A session for all agencies to inquire about any vagaries in the brief and gather other required information to complete the assignment. Agencies send only top-level holding company execs for fear of tipping their hands to competing agencies about which agency brand and which individuals will actually be handling the pitch.

      6. Client and agency attend a “working session” or “chemistry check” under the auspices of getting to know each other and the agency showing work in progress and obtaining client feedback. However, these sessions are typically accompanied by a list of capabilities questions the client would like the agency to address and, in order to check all the boxes, the agency creates a scripted presentation leading to one-sided dialogue.

      7. Final meeting at client HQ. Agency delivers spec creative and media plans that immediately become the intellectually property of the client (accordingly, the best of which are likely to be executed by the winning agency, regardless of who it is) as well as revised staffing/fee proposals.

      8. Client uses scorecards to determine front-runner and conducts lengthy meetings to try and reach consensus, leaving it to the CMO to intervene if needed and choose the winner.

      9. Client asks leading agency to sharpen their pencils on staffing/fees before notifying them that they’ve won and giving them the desired timeframe to ramp up and be live in market.

      10. Client (and/or search consultant) provides little, if any, feedback to losing shops other than the 3 top-level categories of their scorecard in which the agencies didn’t measure up -- unless a prior personal relationship exists between agency and client (and/or search consultant), in which case the agency learns more than they should.

      Update 5/8/09: I've illustrated the inane RFP process in an image-heavy PowerPoint I created for the Search Insider Summit.

      Bitter, Table for 1

      Yes, this is an overly-dramatic synopsis and, no, not every RFP goes down this way. To be fair, I have participated in pitches that were not mechanical and fostered deep mutual agency/client engagement and disclosure with reasonable timeframes and compelling assignments (and outcomes not based solely on price). Just going through one RFP that resembles the process above, though, is enough to make you a bit cynical.

      Solutions, Not Problems

      OK, clearly I wouldn't write this post unless I had some ideas for how we can fix this process.

      First, a recap of the problems with the status quo:

      1. Takes agencies away from current clients and drives up overhead costs while being forced to give away good ideas for free without having enough information to really know if their ideas are any good in the first place. Also makes it difficult for agencies to determine proper staffing, scope and fee levels due to limited visibility into client’s business needs, organizational structure and historical performance.

      2. Clients don't get a good feel for how their business will be managed. In some cases, they never meet the folks who'll actually be working on their biz ("Sold you the dream, now here's the team"), not to mention, anyone with enough budget can come up with a shiny 60-page RFP response and fancy spec creative or dashboard demo.

      You Gotta Give to Receive

      I propose we flip the RFP ecosystem on its head and make the clients do the heavy lifting.

      Imagine this -- clients agree to participate in a system whereby they get to interview each other about the agencies that they use (or have used in the past).

      You heard me right -- RFP questionnaires aren't submitted to the agency... rather to the agency's current and former clients. Who better to answer these Q’s? And how else can you ensure that the information you (the client) are getting is factual and not just “pitch theater?”

      Here are some Q’s that would be appropriate:

      1. Why did you choose the agency?

      2. How responsive is the agency?

      3. How innovative is the agency?

      4. Has the agency been able to scale your program quarter-over-quarter? Year-over-year?

      5. Is the agency proactive in giving you new ideas and recommendations?

      6. What was required of you (the client) to implement the agency’s recommendations?

      7. What (if any) aspect of your (the client’s) organizational structure prevented the agency from doing its best work?

      8. Is the agency’s reporting suite leading edge? Do they provide real-time access to data?

      9. How many changes have you had in personnel servicing your account?

      10. How many times in the past quarter did the agency miss a deadline?

      11. What rates is the agency able to negotiate from media and technology publishers?

      12. What is the agency’s compensation model?

      13. How often has the agency tried to increase their SOW and fees? How often were those requests justified?

      14. Why did you fire the agency? (if applicable)

      In Peers We Trust

      Another key component missing from the RFP process is how the considered set of agencies is developed. Too many clients simply choose from lists of top awarded creative shops or media agencies with the highest billings. These are only good criteria in a world where no other data points on agencies are available (which, of course, happens to be the world we live in today).

      Sure there are the occasional 3rd-party agency evaluations that score shops on criteria like strategic planning and technology chops but their methodology is suspect and they’re too cumbersome to keep up-to-date (not to mentions, agencies often have to pay to play). And, while agency search consultants do a good job of keeping up on the hot shops, it's impossible for them to keep tabs on everyone.

      As part of the simplification of the RFP process, we need to create an agency ranking index based on the most important criteria of all -- client satisfaction.

      I’m a big fan of the Ultimate Question as a way to cut through all the clutter and get to the heart of how good a job a company is doing. Responses to the question, “How likely is it that you would recommend this company to a friend or colleague?” tell us more about that company than any exhaustive questionnaire or fancy demo ever will.

      We need a system whereby all agencies are required to create a 3rd-party audited list of current and former clients including duration of engagement (ie, number of years under contract) and breakdown of service offerings. Then, each quarter, a 3rd party asks all clients to anonymously rate their agencies on the Ultimate Question. The resulting list would be sortable by agency service offering and client category and be made available to the general public for a nominal fee (to cover the survey hosting costs).

      This model is really nothing more than a peer rating system for agencies -- not unlike Yelp for restaurants or eBay for merchandise sellers. Just as LinkedIn is the Facebook for business, I guess I’m suggesting a review site for marketing communications agencies. I firmly believe in the power of transparent and self-policing communities.

      Ask Not What The Agency Will Do For You, Ask What Have They Done For Others

      Another upgrade to the RFP process that I propose is to do away with spec creative and media plans and instead have agencies present actual case studies of work completed for other clients -- and have those other clients actually co-present with the agency.

      Sure, case studies are usually part of the process today but they don’t go deep. Instead, the profound insights are saved for solving the problems of the client conducting the RFP. Marketers should be as interested in the actual results an agency has delivered and the process by which those insights were generated. This, along with the client-to-client interviews, should tell them everything they want to know about what they can expect from the agency in question.

      Granted, it’s a bit of a stretch to get clients to take the time to help their current agencies win more business but, if you were a current client of an agency that was just RFP’d for another client, would you rather have your senior team members pulled off your biz for the pitch duration or dive deeper into your own biz to merchandise success to date for a case study?

      Try Before You Buy

      The fourth major disruption, er… improvement that I’d make to the RFP process is to install a 3-month trial period whereby client and “winning” agency get to work together before determining scopes of work and fees.

      This will help us overcome what Malcolm Gladwell has called “The Quarterback Problem.” In his recent article in the New Yorker, Gladwell describes how difficult it is for NFL scouts to predict how good a college quarterback will be once he gets to the professional level. There are just too many variables that go into what makes a good quarterback and the college game is so much different than the pros. He adds, “There are certain jobs where almost nothing you can learn about the candidates before they start predicts how they’ll do once they’re hired.”

      I think you could also call this “The Marriage Problem.” How a person acts throughout the courtship, dating, wedding, and honeymoon phases are not always a good indication of how strong a partner they’ll be ‘til death do them part.

      These situations are certainly analogous to the Client/Agency RFP process. Often times, very little of what an agency demonstrates during the pitch is indicative of how they’ll act as an agency of record. The Ultimate Question ratings are one step towards overcoming this challenge. Another, more radical, notion would be to allow agencies and clients to wait until after the honeymoon is over and they’ve consummated their marriage before finalizing their vows.

      How would this work? Rather than include SOW and fee negotiations in the RFP vetting process, clients should outline upfront exactly what work they want done and what they are willing to pay for the first 90 days of the engagement. Likely, this period will consist of transition from old agency and delivery of initial creative and/or media strategy and other outputs like reporting dashboards (that, today, are included in the RFP process). First 90-day SOW and fees would be non-negotiable and agencies could choose to opt-out from the RFP at the outset if they’re not agreeable.

      Then, after the RFP process plays out and a winner is chosen, that agency delivers on said SOW and collects fees accordingly. During that time, it’s able to better assess the true intricacies of the client’s business and develop a proper long-term SOW, staffing, and fee proposal. Meanwhile, the client is able to determine if the agency is truly worth its salt. At this point, with both parties fully armed, negotiations commence.

      If agreement cannot be reached between agency and client after 90 days on go-forward SOW and fees, an industry-standard severance fee is awarded to the agency and all deliverables remain the property of the client. The client then begins the RFP process anew or just finds a shop willing to execute the other agency’s concepts.

      Break it Down, Charlie Brown

      So the new RFP process would work like this:

      1. When interested in conducting an agency review, client combs the list of 3rd-party audited agency ratings and service offerings, choosing 10-15 shops it wants to consider.

      2. Client issues short brief outlining current situation and detailed SOW and fees it is willing to pay for first 90 days of engagement (transition plus initial creative/media plan). Agencies have the opportunity to opt in or out.

      3. Client chooses 2-3 clients to interview from each agency that opts in -- ideally, they'd select a mix of short and long-tenured current clients as well as a former client to get a well-rounded picture of how each agency performs.

      4. Client schedules 30-minute calls with each of the selected clients to ask some of the Q’s outlined above. (Yes, doing the math would make this as long as a 23-hour process. But I'd argue that's less than if they actually read 60-page RFP responses word-for-word from each of these shops.)

      5. Client narrows down list to 2-3 finalist agencies and chooses 1 client from each agency from whom they’d like to see a full-blown case study.

      6. Client issues a more detailed brief to finalists including background on the company, brands, products, challenges, budgets, etc.

      7. Finalist agencies and selected client co-present case study and highlight application to potential client’s business.

      8. Client picks winning agency and transition commences.

      9. After 90 days, client and agency negotiate fees for duration of engagement. (Recall that first 90-days fee is pre-determined at outset of RFP process and, if agreement can’t be reached, agency is awarded severance and there’s a parting of ways.)

      10. Client and agency live happily ever after ever.

      True Win-Win

      Outside of agency search consultants (who risk becoming disintermediated unless they adopt this new process and find a way to continue to add value in it), everyone wins with this new system. Here are some specific reasons why my proposed RFP process would benefit clients and agencies. (I know, just what this post needs… another list!)

      Advantages to Clients

      1. Takes the BS out of the process. Decisions made on real successes (and failures), not spec work or salesy RFP responses.

      2. Provides “skin in the game” and makes clients an indispensible part of the process.

      3. Fosters connections among the client community which can lead to valuable cross- learning and networking opportunities.

      4. Updated agency rankings (via Ultimate Question) give “real-time” visibility into current shop’s relative performance (and showing if the grass really is greener).

      5. Co-presentation of case study shows true agency/client chemistry. It will be obvious how much that client wants to see its agency win.

      6. 3rd party audits keeps agencies honest as far as taking on conflicting accounts. (You know what they say --“2 is a conflict, 3 is a specialty.”)

      7. Protects clients from having to disclose historical performance and other confidential information until new agency is under contract.

      8. 90-day “grace period” gives client clear visibility into how good a fit the agency is in “real-world” situations.

      Advantages to Agencies

      1. Closes feedback loop. Agencies will know where they stand at all times relative to client satisfaction (based on Ultimate Question ratings).

      2. Giving clients what they want/need (rather than size of media billings or number of creative awards won) will earn a place in the considered set when RFP’s are issued.

      3. Doesn’t require spending time or money delivering inane 60-page RFP responses or developing actual solutions for potential clients until they’re chosen as the winner (and start getting paid for said work).

      4. Keeps personnel focused on current clients and allows them to dig deeper into ones selected for finalist presentations (as they build the case studies).

      5. Allows for proper scoping of work and fee setting by giving agencies 90 days to learn the client’s business and truly understand their needs, intricacies, and quirks before having to negotiate.

      The Flip Side

      Clearly, my proposed model is not perfect. There are some hang-ups including:

      1. All clients would need to participate. This wouldn’t work if half of an agency’s roster of clients refused to be interviewed or co-present a case study.

      2. Issues with client confidentiality. More and more these days, the competitive lines are blurring. Some clients would not be comfortable sharing their case study with even tangential competitors. (Who doesn’t eBay compete with?)

      3. Clients might have ulterior motives and not want their agency to win new business (ie, some clients enjoy being the big fish in a small pond). Accordingly, they’d be enticed to ding their agency on the Ultimate Question or in RFP interviews to ensure that they continue to command the agency’s full attention.

      4. Agencies that are in “turnaround mode” will have a difficult time winning new business as their Ultimate Question ratings sag. Put another way, previous experience is not always the best indicator of future performance. (See my Malcolm Gladwell reference above).

      5. Agencies that have fewer clients will have skewed Ultimate Question ratings. Although, I’m sure someone smarter than me can figure out how to normalize the data.

      6. Moving the fee negotiations until after the business is awarded and managed for 90 days could create problems.

      A. Clients could become “agency hoppers” -- switching religiously after getting fresh thinking and planning. (Although I’d argue the system would be self-regulating with agencies opting out from pitching such clients and the severance fee being a deterrent -- not to mention, switching only gets you new ideas and plans, not actual execution… I don’t know many clients that can afford to go a few quarters without implementing a program).

      B. Agencies could skimp on their end of the bargain and deliver shoddy work and collect the 90 day fee plus severance. (Although, again the system would self-correct as their Ultimate Question score gets dinged).

      7. Puts incumbent agencies in lame duck situations over the 90 day transition period until the new agency is up and running. Although, this wouldn’t be much different from the way things are now. (And improving their Ultimate Question rating should be a constant motivator.)

      Feel the Burn

      It’s unlikely that my model will see the light of day anytime soon. Currently, clients hold all the power in the RFP ecosystem and, with the walls falling down around them right now, the pain they’re feeling is not in the agency selection process, it’s in declining revenue and increasing pressure from the C-suite to deliver results. I could argue that these issues are inextricably linked but I’ll save my breath.

      My hope is that this post will spark some discussion and, when we emerge from these dark economic times and truly reinvest in client/agency relationships, we’ll think long and hard about the most important part of any client/agency engagement -- how it begins.

      Baby Steps

      Meanwhile, here are some practical things clients and agencies can do to infuse some rigor and reason into the current RFP process:

      Clients

      1. Check references -- don’t just ask for them. I’ve been required to submit references on at least 75% of the RFP’s I’ve submitted. I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve heard from my references that someone actually called them.

      2. Provide access to historical data. Take the guesswork out of the equation for the agencies. Allow them to dig in to your actual numbers and see if they can draw correlations and uncover opportunity.

      3. Give longer lead times. I know your business moves at the speed of light but any agency that has the resources available to drop everything to work on your RFP is probably not an agency you’d want. (After all, what are they going to do once you’re a client and the next RFP crosses that agency’s desk?)

      4. Be upfront about what you expect in terms of scope of services, reporting frequency, account staff seniority, etc.

      Agencies

      1. Be selective in the RFPs you pursue. Knowing how extensive they are, you can’t chase them all.

      2. Don’t create scripted presentations for chemistry checks and work sessions. Use those meetings as intended.

      3. Be upfront when talking about who will be working on the client’s business. If you don’t know or they aren’t hired, just say so.

      4. Save room in your annual budget for RFPs. It’s a cost of doing (and winning) business right now.

      5. Consider hiring (or allocating) strategy resources solely for RFPs. That way, you don’t have to pull them off client work when the time comes to pitch.

      6. Focus more on presenting concrete case studies with proven results than speculative creative and media plans.

      How ‘Bout a Revolution?

      So who’s with me on my quest to fix the Client/Agency RFP process? Are there any clients out there willing to RFP their biz under these guidelines? Are there any agency folk willing to submit to quarterly 3rd party audits?

      Not sure I have aspirations to become an agency search consultant but depending on the response I get to this post (which somehow surpassed 4,000 words so, if you’ve made it this far, please go one step further and drop a comment), I may just move in that direction.

      Let’s see if we can’t collectively crowdsource a better Client/Agency RFP process to replace this crazy game of poker we’ve all been playing.

      Wednesday, January 21, 2009

      Searching the Globe

      In today's Search Insider, I use yesterday's historic events as a springboard into the International search sea. I first lay out the challenges to integrating a global search program and then (in true "solutions, not problems" fashion) outline resources available to navigate theses murky waters. Here's the blurb...

      Global Search Integration: Yes We Can
      Obama's inauguration got me thinking about how much work the U.S. has to do to improve its standing internationally -- and all the hurdles in its way. It's not unlike the laundry-list of challenges that search marketers face when trying to centrally manage global search programs from the States. Here are some of the key differences that make international search integration difficult.

      Thursday, December 25, 2008

      Reviewing My 2008 Predictions

      On Tuesday, I linked to my post on the RM Blog outlining 10 predictions for search marketing in 2009.

      Today, I thought it would be fun to review my predictions for 2008 to see how I did. At the end of 2007, I used my Search Insider Buzz-o-Meter column to lay out the following predictions:

      1. "Google to bow display ads on SERPs after the DoubleClick deal closes."

      2. "More consolidation in the [agency] space, with large shops scooping up specialized search firms as they acknowledge how critical search is to all aspects of marketing and realize how hard it is to build search expertise in-house."

      3. "More and more search firms [will] stick a flag in the sand regarding their core expertise -- some will embrace all forms of performance-based media, others will develop full-service digital marketing capabilities led by 'search-think,' and still others will remain true to query-based marketing only."

      4. "Facebook to have a major impact on the search marketing landscape in '08, whether it be incorporating Web search (via MSN?), reacting to news feed optimization or spawning regulation around data portability."

      5. "A[n economic] pullback could actually be good for search -- when times are tough, marketers load up on platforms with proven ROI -- I also think it could stunt innovation, with the Big 4 unwilling to take chances and upstarts unable to get funding."

      6. "Search marketers to figure out how to leverage widgets beyond the mere link-popularity benefits."

      7. "The next wave of opportunity is likely in the torso -- after all, as the tail gets longer, the belly gets fatter."

      8. "[Microsoft's KSP platform aka AdIntelligence] will make search marketers smarter in '08, and hopefully it will push Google and Yahoo towards becoming more transparent with their data (although I'm not betting on that.)"

      Now, to steal a page from Paul Harvey, "for the rest of the story..."

      1. Wrong. Didn't happen outside a tiny pocket of experimentation with banners on Google Image results.

      2. Sorta. iProspect gobbled up Range Online Media. Publicis snapped up Performics. That was about it though. Instead of acquisitions, we saw a trend towards large agency holding companies infusing resources from their search specialist shops into individual agency brands (eg, WPP creating Group M Search and infusing search talent into Mindshare, Mediaedge, and MediaCom).

      3. Right. Search agencies definitely chose sides this past year. As I pointed out in yesterday's Search Insider column, Didit is positioning itself as a "company providing bid management services." 360i kept its "Search-Informed Marketing" approach but acquired creative shop i33 to deliver full-service solutions. Meanwhile, Resolution Media stuck with its laser-focus on Query Marketing (although per prediction #9, look to see expansion here). There were more examples but these 3 check each of the boxes I outlined in my prediction so we'll move along.

      4. Sorta. As I suspected, Facebook finally launched web search in tandem with Microsoft but it didn't exactly set the search world on fire. Data portability was a hot topic with the launch of Google Friend Connect but regulation in the space came not from the government as I expected but self-imposed practices from folks like Yahoo shortening the duration of personal data storage to 90 days.

      5. Wrong. The recession might not have been bad for search (after all, flat is the new up, right?), but it wasn't good for it either. And innovation among the Big 4 may have slowed but it certainly wasn't stunted. Google rolled out SearchWiki, Microsoft rolled out a number of cool features like Farecast integration and more (see my comments on this post), and Yahoo, despite being battered the most, still managed to roll out Search Monkey as part of its open initiative. Meanwhile, the search for the Google killer continued as startups like Cuil raised cash and launched to very little acclaim.

      6. Wrong. 2008 was a big year for widgets, although they're now more commonly referred to as applications thanks to Facebook and the iPhone. Not much application for search marketers though.

      7. Wrong. The power of the long tail shone mightier than ever in '08, helping Obama take the White House. There was much debate at the recent Search Insider Summit over the relevance of the long tail to search marketers with no clear consensus. The torso did emerge in a big way this year, just not from a search standpoint. Rather the torso reared its ugly, er, head as vertical ad networks become the "it" thing in online display media.

      8. Right. MSFT AdIntel made Resolution Media much smarter search marketers this year. And, sure enough, Google followed suit becoming more transparent with absolute search volume data and a nifty Insights for Search tool.

      If I take half-credit for the sorta's, the tally puts me at 38% accuracy. I certainly went out on a few more limbs with my '09 predictions so it will be interesting to see how I fare this coming year. One thing we can all bank on (sorry, bad word choice) for '09 -- it ain't gonna be pretty.

      Wednesday, December 24, 2008

      Bid Management Revisited

      In today's Search Insider, I respond to Steve Baldwin, who got bent out of shape when I called bid management a commodity. Hopefully I didn't get too snarky with my retort here. I'm actually a fan of Steve and the gang at Didit. Looking forward to seeing what he comes back with.
      Here's the blurb:

      Bid Management May Not Be A Commodity -- But It's Not A Differentiator
      I was planning on using this column to weigh in with predictions for 2009 but fellow Search Insider Steve Baldwin called me out so I feel compelled to respond -- lest my POV (to paraphrase reader Steve Plunkett) be branded as the bid management version of “SEO is not rocket science.” Lord knows I don’t want anyone making a contest out of me.

      Wednesday, October 22, 2008

      How Many Ad Agency Execs Does It Take to Change a Light Bulb?

      I've sunken to a new low -- passing off screenshots from Facebook updates as blog posts. But I'm not apologizing...

      As I ruminated in my last post, in today's sound-byte culture, very few people (readers or writers) have the time or patience for excessive verbiage.

      To me, this blog is a personal brand portal of sorts -- a central location for me to sound off on all things digital media and marketing. I use Twitter, Facebook, and my 17 other blogs for a combination of personal and professional musings. For those people out there who only care about my indsutry-related rants, you can quit following me on all those other platforms -- Digital Sea Change is the only destination you need to monitor.

      Now, enough excessive verbiage -- here's the punchline...

      Tuesday, October 14, 2008

      Lessons Learned from Mad Men

      At this point, it's pretty much obligatory that if you have a blog about marketing or advertising, you have to give your perspective on Mad Men.

      I'd been holding out as long as I could, waiting until I had something to say that hadn't already been said. But I was drawn out of my cocoon by a post on the Critical Mass blog penned by my friend Scott Shamberg.

      Entitled "It's Not a Wheel. It's a Carousel." -- an homage to Don Draper's pitch to Kodak -- Scott's post points to 4 specific attributes of the characters on the show that should be staples of advertising agency types today. In Scott's words:

      "1. They constantly speak their minds and share their opinions. There are no yes men at this agency. In one episode, the Creative Director (yes, the Creative Director, not the Account Director) says to a client, “You hired me to do this job and you have ignored me. That is why you are #4 in your category.”
      2. They rely on emotion, not just research.
      3. They think about more than just advertising, they think about the client’s overall business.
      4. They drink and smoke during meetings and often arrange “companionship” for their male clients.
      5. They use theatre as a sales tool. Constantly.

      Um, okay, maybe #4 is not something we should be doing today. You can get in a lot of trouble for some of that (you can have a lot of fun, too…wait, did I think that or write that?).

      The other four points are fundamental to successful client management. We are hired for our opinions, our ability to utilize emotion to drive brand affinity and the way we can understand a client’s overall business. And many of us are very good at all three of those things. However, if not presented in the right way, the ideas suffer."

      I couldn't agree more with Mr. Shamberg here. Here's the comment I left on his post:

      Amen, Shammy.

      The episode that really drove your point #3 home for me was when the Sterling Cooper gang presented a plan to their department store client (you know the one where Draper shtoops the daughter of the store’s owner) and instead of presenting ad creative or media flowcharts, they talk about redesigning the store layout and putting a fancy restaurant on the main floor.

      My lessons learned from that show:
      1. Good ideas can and should come from anywhere.
      2. Don’t limit your thinking to what the brief asks for.
      3. Don’t shtoop the client… that never ends well.

      Related Posts with Thumbnails