Elastic Thought

Agency of the Decade

Last week an old colleague of ours trumpeted on Facebook that the agency he works for was named "Agency of the Decade" …. again.  Aside from the fact that he doesn't work for Edelman it struck me as odd that this would be something to boast about.  Especially from a Public Relations company tasked with forming "relationships" between the companies that pay them and the publics they speak to.

A little background, first.  (and this is not meant to be a depressing, doomsday post -- stick with it).  A quick Google search for "job growth in the last decade" will bring up multiple versions of the same headline.  Here are a few:

• "Off the Charts -Job Growth Lacking in the Private Sector" - NY Times
• "Lost Decade for Job Growth" - MarketWatch (Wall Street Journal)
• "A Lost Decade for Jobs" - BusinessWeek

In summary, at no other time since the depression have we added 0 jobs in a 10-year period.  (actually, we lost over 200K)

Add to that the fact that salaries have remained stagnant in the last decade as well.  College reports indicate that starting salaries have remained constant, or if they grew, grew slower than inflation.  (if you are doing the math on your own salary, keep in mind that you would have to have a 25-30% increase over the past 10 years to keep up).  NPR has been reporting similar stories that most Americans have seen little to no growth in their compensation over the past 10 years, as well as other media outlets.

But you can't blame a PR company for the economy, right?

Let's look at a different trend--social media.  Many attribute the beginnings of social media to the Cluetrain Manifesto.  An excerpt:

"Most corporations, on the other hand, only know how to talk in the soothing, humorless monotone of the mission statement, marketing brochure, and your-call-is-important-to-us busy signal. Same old tone, same old lies. No wonder networked markets have no respect for companies unable or unwilling to speak as they do."

And these companies often made use of one of the best humorless, monotone generators there is: the PR firm.  A humorous look:

They say that behind every great joke lies a foundation of truth.  And the truth is that social media is a rebellion against corporate speak.  A statement, a movement that says "stop talking to us through the inhuman tones written by your marketing group, your corporate communications group, and especially…your PR company.  talk to us like human beings.  And for once, just tell us the truth."

Oh, and one more thing.  Have you had a conversation lately about customer service?  I don't think you need a link to a NY Times article to know that customer relations is worse than it's ever been.

Let me repeat that.  At no other time has the relationship between the public and the companies they/we deal with on a daily basis ever been worse.

So why would a company that makes its business on forming "relationships" between companies and the public boast about being the "Agency of the Decade?"   Why would there even be such an award this decade?  A decade where everything from jobs, to salaries, to general disdain for the American public has had such low performance?  In a time when the fastest growing movement (social media) stemmed from wanting to put an end to the PR dribble companies and agencies were spitting out?

If there was to be an "anything" of the decade as it relates to actual public relations, it would have to go the many early adopters of social media.  it would go to the founders of Facebook, and MySpace, and Twitter, and YouTube, and LinkedIn and countless other social media enabling sites.  NOT some public, conglomerate-held PR agency that won the award based on billings growth.  It was social media that actually began to improve the relationships between companies and public.  And will continue to do so.

So… agency of the decade?  It's kind of like the Biggest Loser, only you are not healthier after winning the award.

Cutting Out the Middle Man

Ad Age just released a piece asking if the industry needed big digital agencies anymore. It ended with a  quote from Seth Solomons, CMO for Digitas:  "I think big, costly and slow is not something clients are looking for."

There is an interesting sub-text in the article that is even more interesting.  Beyond the easy attack of large agencies being slow to maneuver (It's hard to steer the Titanic), there is the other context of sub-contracting.  Most of the time we hear it as a partnership, but it tends to be a vendor relationship at best.  The rationale behind this is actually something quite funny.  Ever heard this before: "I know enough to be dangerous and can handle the meeting, but I bring the real experts in when needed?"

That statement has evolved into a business model for a lot of agencies.  Hiring the general contractor (so to speak) to breeze through a client meeting, and bring in the experts to do the plumbing, electrical work, etc.  Not a bad model if you're building a house.  But this model doesn't work for digital marketing.  And here's why--a general contractor is great to execute on the architectural plans that have been made for them.  Going with the general contractor as your agency assures you that the strategy (the blueprints) will be mediocre at best.  Just enough to be dangerous.

Where does this leave those agencies, then? They are becoming middle-men.  And what's interesting about being a middle-man in digital marketing is that digital is all about removing the middle-man.  The technology is there to allow for 1-1 conversations, to allow for savvy architects to handle the multiple experts, to give the tools and crowdsourcing to make the general contractor irrelevant.

And let's not mention that the world of digital moves so fast that it would be like completely re-learning plumbing every other month.

So can you blame the big brands of the world from going straight to the smart agencies?  Cutting out that guy that knows just enough in the client meeting to bringing in the real expert?  It's an added layer (read: expense) that they don't need any more.

What they need is a smart architectural firm.  An agency that knows the intricacies, all the ins and outs, and how it all comes together into one picture.  Someone that says "I know enough to make this program sing and will make the meeting really productive and efficient."

I envision those firms then outsourcing (I mean partnering) with the larger agencies to knock out the production.  It's puts the current model on it's head.  But it's so crazy it just might work.

Now to find a good general contractor to help us pull the whole thing off....

2 Secrets of Agencies to Watch Out For

In the general public, it's called "caveat emptor" and it does not mean "Seize the Day," but rather "Buyer Beware!"  In terms of agencies, caveats are what we put into proposals to try and mitigate scope creep on projects and more fully explain the estimate of fees.  Also, since agencies do not fit under the implied warranty of fitness,  it's a wide open playing field for an industrious account exec looking to make a name for themselves in the agency.

And this is the point where, after years and years in the industry, I'm still baffled by it.  It used to be a well connected account exec that "knew a guy."  As in: " you need something that my firm doesn't have expertise in?  Don't worry, I know a guy that can do that for you."  But now it's moved beyond that.  Now it's simply: "We can do that."  Even if they can't.  And that's where I'm troubled by this trend.  Let's look at just 2 ways this is put into practice:

1. The infallible agency.  It doesn't matter what the request is, the answer is "we can do that."  And if there is no one in the agency that can, they will either a) hire freelancers with the particular skill or b) ask one of their employees to literally "learn on the job."  The issue here is that these scenarios hurt more than just the client.  For obvious reasons, the situation in (b) is just wrong.  Why wouldn't the company, then, send one of it's employees to training and learn on the job themselves?  And in the case of (a), again, why would the company not just hire freelancers themselves?  The answer that a rational person would give is that they are expecting the agency to bring a level of expertise and experience that can't simply be "learned on the job" or taught in a class.

Yet, this part is not taken into account when the agency accepts (and bids on!) the assignment.  There is no value add.  And that gives every agency a black eye.  I'd even be OK if the agency had a competency in project management that allowed for the freelance option to work.  However, more often than not, this is not the case.  And so, when one agency does this and fails, companies begin to place us all in the same category--as snake oil salesmen that will tell you anything to get the deal.

2. Put this "in a pill."  The other area that fits the category of buyer beware is this next scenario.  Once an agency successfully does a project for a client, they realize they can now sell this "solution" to additional clients.  All that is standing in the way is a well-written marketing slick that talks about how this offering is a dedicated practice in the firm and that they bring a wealth of experience to the table.  This is tricky, since some agencies have actually done this for several clients and can legitimately claim this.  And that is smart marketing.  I wonder how those agencies who put in the time and effort to hone these particular offerings, or went through the time and expense to merge with or acquire the talent feel about the agencies who claim the same offering with just a few well-written paragraphs and the notion that they can fall back on #1 above if they actually sell something?

This is not a lecture on ethics or fairness of competition.  This is not complaining that the other guy is using steroids, only to justify your own use.  This is a piece on buyer beware.  And if possible, a chance to turn the conversation into "Caveat venditor" (or let the seller beware).  With informed companies making hiring decisions of agencies, if they know what to look for, they may begin to spot these trends.  And that puts the agencies other work at risk.  If the agency is doing a good job in one area and begins to exaggerate their skills in another area, does that put the entire relationship at risk?  It is our hope that it does.  Let the seller beware.

Personal Branding Versus the Firm

Talk to a PR veteran.  Watch him or her work.  And I don't mean the young AE's fresh out of J School.  The ones who the companies go to when the national pitch is on the line.  The ones who get called in when the sh$t hits the fan.  Those PR veterans.  Listen to them talk to the editors and journalists, and lawyers and TV producers on the phone.  You start to notice something.  They don't mention the name of the PR firm they work for.  It's not that they're hiding it.  It's because it doesn't matter at this particular point in time.  The veterans doing this work have relationships.  They know who they are talking to on the other end, and the other end knows the PR person they are talking to.  Business is going to get done, and it's going to get done because of the relationship--not because of who's name is printed on the paychecks.

Now look at what's going on today.  The social media tools readily--and freely--available today allow anyone to build an audience.  And the larger the audience, the more "followers" and "friends" they have, the more power they can leverage out of the exponential possibilities of their networked audience.  People have become personal brands.

Jump back to the PR firms now.  They are racing to figure out the social media space.  And in doing so, they are bringing in some of those personal brands out there and bringing them in front of their clients.  But here is the difference about what's going on now that should make you stand up and take notice: these PR firms are touting the person, they are not touting the firm.  Look at their presentations, no real mention of the PR firm's name, they are completely branded to the individual.  The theory is that the person's brand (their built-in audience size) is more crucial to the sale of the work than the firm's history or it's client list, or it's number of offices.

What's ironic is that this isn't exactly new.  Think back to the opening paragraph about the PR veteran who did their work based on relationships.  The difference is that previously, these gurus worked in the big firms because there wasn't a way to tout their individual brand.

Now there is.

So here is my question.  Do you really need a big firm to be effective?  If each individual PR practitioner has the power to build a network, to self-promote, and to use their numbers to the benefit of the client, then what is the value of the big firm?  It's a mixed bag.  It can certainly be useful as a proving ground for young PR AE's fresh out of J School.  Theoretically, if the veteran gurus haven't left, there is a network in the firm to learn from.  But what if they leave?  There is a trend of entrepreneurial upstarts leaving and creating new firms that are agile enough to compete in today's market.  Ad Age's editorial in April was entitled "Big agencies face challenge from social-media upstarts."  (I'd link you, but they lock their articles).  Web 2.0 Journal asks "Is the PR Business Extinct?" then quickly answer: "Yes."

Though I don't see the power of PR going "extinct," I do think the traditional model has eroded enough to cause serious concern.  The new agencies that survive will not only understand the new toolset, but they will understand how to harness personal brands, and give them a reason why they should work together for a fresh, agile, smart firm that understands how to leverage their combined firm and personal brands.

Marketers Need To Try A New Diet

I'm not usually one to pay attention to fad diets and ways to lose weight without trying.  A pill here, more sleep there, drink more water, and voila! 10 pounds lighter.  However, there is a new string of ideas that I've been catching that seem to make sense.  So for a challenge, I thought I'd see if I could explain why my mind instantly connected it to marketing budgets.  Don't judge me.

The two ideas that sparked this are very similar actually.  The first is called the "camera-phone diet" which consists of taking a picture of what you are about to eat with the camera feature on your phone.  The theory is that by thinking of what you are eating, and documenting BEFORE munching down makes one more conscience of their choices in food, and quickly begin ordering and eating better food.  The second idea was even simpler.  The study showed that those who tried new foods frequently were apt to be healthier than the control group who ate in their typical pattern day in and day out.  The theory is relatively the same, in that the people that chose new foods frequently were more conscience of what they were eating and thought about their decisions.  The control group that mindlessly ate without thinking were trapped in a cycle of bad food choices.

So, to marketing.  I'm sure your getting the connection now.  Real simple: mindlessly doing the same tactics over and over again will not yield the same results as a "mixed diet."

And I think this goes beyond simply thinking about the marketing budget and tactics more before spending.  I'm sure every marketing person out there who is responsible for the budget and has check-writing authority thinks about their tactics.  But they continually choose the same tactics.  They are afraid of spending money on an unknown and untested tactic or strategy and will seek refuge in the comfort of known tactics that have predictable metrics.

But what about the consumer you are trying to reach?  There are two things working against the marketer who plays it safe.  One, technology continues to evolve.  Usually, to battle the intrusion of previous marketing tactics.  Tivo, Pop-Up Blockers, Spam Filters, Do Not Call Lists (OK, not technology, but fits here...right?)  And two, consumers themselves stop paying attention to the same drumbeat.  It takes something new to shake them out of that rut and pay attention to your message.

I saw a tweet the other day that said "there is no charge for awsomeness, but mediocrity will cost you."  We've seen it time and time again, that those who mix their diet up and try new things more often than not, outperform those companies that are in their same old rut of stale programs.  Try something new.  And if you can't think of anything new, ask one of the new agencies sprouting up.  I'm sure they will at least challenge your thinking.

What your clients are asking about social media

If you've taken a minute from your busy schedule evangelizing social media, you may hear them starting to ask questions.  And they're good questions.  We recently compiled a list for an event of the local Interactive Marketing Association (GIMA) and added a few of what we've heard from our clients to the list.  I'd be interested to hear feedback, or use the comments section here to debate the answers.  There is never one answer, but there are some good directions, and great intel to be had in this list.  Take this and share it.  It will help you be prepared for your next pitch.

1. There has been a lot of talk regarding calculating the ROI of using Social Media in the overall marketing mix.  Do you think that we can decipher customer motivation from social media alone outside of the entire marketing mix?
2. Money is obviously a factor in today’s advertising budgets.  If we were going to add these lower-cost digital tactics to our plans and budgets, which ones do you feel have the biggest “bang for the buck?”
3. A lot of these tactics and strategies we hear work well for consumer marketing.  We do B2B work.  Do you feel these digital tactics and strategies have the same impact on B2B clients?
4. Target audiences vary by product.  There is a lot of push-back that these are not as effective for audiences older than 30 than for under.  Is this changing?  Are there things I can show my boss to help change his/her mind?
5. When staffing for these new marketing programs (or looking for an agency) what qualifications should we be looking for in a person/agency?
6. What is a typical budget for social media?  The tools are mostly free, but I’m assuming this isn’t as cheap as our budget planners think.
7. How would a company go about starting off a campaign using these new strategies if they’ve never done any digital marketing before?
8. There are lots of varying ideas on this, but I’m curious...who do you feel “owns” the brand?  (customers, companies, social media “loudmouths”, others?)
9. Why is everyone all of a sudden getting on Facebook?
10. What is your viewpoint on design in the new social media space?  It seems that there is less of an emphasis on good user design in these new tools.  Some of them are downright sloppy.
11. It’s clear that you can no longer “build it and they will come,” so how do you go about driving people to online programs?
12. How is mobile going to change what we all do right now in digital marketing?
13. Let’s say I build a great site where I want a community to start, use all the new social media tools to gain exposure, and have a good background of search, display ads, and other “block and tackle” digital marketing to get it noticed.  How then, so I get people to engage with the site once they are there?
14. Are there any digital marketing tools in the toolbox today that you think are going to be obsolete in the near future?
15. What are the top 3-5 research tools online buyers and planners use?
16. What is the set up of responsibilities for online/mobile buying and planning? Is the planner and buyer one role and handled by one position? Or is emerging media planned in a traditional way by a planning team?
17. How is the buy handed off to the creative team for fulfillment? What software is mainly used for contracting and reporting? DoubleClick or Pointroll or any other?
18. Investment in social media marketing requires a buy-in from all levels in an organization, from those who control the information to those who distribute it via the various channels. What advice do you have for organizations on how to engage all of the stakeholders?  Increase communication between layers?

Technology in a Tightwad Economy (and how small agencies can stay afloat)

Macworld is coming to a close (did you see the new keyboard-less laptop?), and CES is getting up and running in Vegas.  So technology is on the minds of a lot of people.  But how will these conferences fair, and what predictions and new products will they bring?  Many are wondering how all of these seemingly superfluous products will do in the economy we're currently in.

Surprisingly (or maybe not), the predictions are that they will do quite well.  If you need a bit of proof, walk into the huddled masses in any Apple store.  There are no slow-downs there.  In fact, they're working overtime lately.  Of course, that's just one proof point.  I'm sure there are others that are not doing as well.  However, the underlying theory here is that even in bad times, historically, people still seek entertainment.  They may just look to replace more expensive entertainment with less-expensive entertainment.  So, as the theory goes, families that may not be packing up the family and taking a week vacation in Florida and visiting Disney World still will look to entertain themselves somehow in the home.  That could mean a new Blu-Ray Player, or computer, etc.  Technology is at the heart of the entertainment at home phenomenon.  Well, after Milton Bradley and Parker Brothers.

Here comes the jump... hang with me.  So what does this mean for small agencies looking to stay afloat in these economic times?

Marketing is, unfortunately, one of those superfluous things that do get cut in hard times.  We all know that it is precisely the opposite that needs to take place.  If there was ever a time to have a better relationship with consumers, it's during the times when they want to button up their wallets and stay home (perhaps playing Scene-It on their new Blu-Ray Player?).  And even the companies that do cut, know that they shouldn't and worry about their choice, thinking that they don't have other options.

But they do.  Marketing, in and of itself, is not the superfluous thing.  It's not the luxury that can be easily done without for a while until things get better.  It's what the marketing dollars are being spent on.  The luxury today is the big agency (and the big agency price tag).  The luxury today is the marketing tactics that do little incremental benefit in the campaign.  We've been noticing non-profits looking at their budgets and moving dollars that used to be spent on PSA campaigns that air on television and radio and moving them into social media.  We've seen companies look to pull away from full-page ads in industry magazines and look to SEM and other digital marketing strategies.  They're making the cuts in dollars, but aren't sacrificing the exposure that they would suffer if they completely shut down the marketing "machine."

And what about the large agencies?  Well, that's the good news for smaller agencies.  Anyone that has gone toe-to-toe with larger agencies has undoubtedly heard the client use some variation of the phrase: "no one ever got fired for hiring IBM."  I talked about this in an earlier posting.  But now, that brand name of the large agency doesn't seem to be worth the dollars in this economy.  The "laziness" of picking the known name isn't the default mode anymore.  If given the choice between no marketing, and trying a smaller agency that can promise great results for half the price, companies are starting to look at the smaller agency.

What's even more interesting, is that if they get similar (or better) results in these "experiments" with the smaller agencies in these lean times, they just may never go back to the large agency.  Paying for the high-end rent, and feeding the global holding company's bonus pool may not be worth the brand name anymore.  Lean times or not.

So, small agencies, here is your shot.  Being creative, using social media and digital/online marketing to it's fullest, and aggressively going after the big agencies (and their untouchable clients) may just pay off.  But you have to show value.  You have to execute, and you have to shine.  If small agencies can't "hack it" in these experiments from the big companies, they may not have a reason to come back.  It's a fine line.

It's your time to shine.  Make it count.

(Photo: Flickr-Osvaldo)

PR 3.0 - Regaining Credibility

There was a quote about the railroads that still floats around today that talks about the demise of the railroads in the United States.  Put simply, if they railroads realized they were in the transportation business rather than what they perceived as the railroad business, they would have transitioned better and been more relevant to the economy.  Perhaps even taking on a whole new business model as the times advanced.

Now, there is a whole new slew of "PR is Dying" blog posts running around, from Dennis Howlett's "PR is So Over," to Andrew Smith's justification of that sentiment.  This is nothing new, as we saw Chris Anderson drop his hat in the ring by calling out all the PR people that have "spammed" him in the past, countless posts about the death of the Press Release, and a whole host of others chiming in the chorus of how social media is killing PR.  Well, that and Charles Cooper's response to that.

Now, he has a point about Kara Swisher from The Wall Street Journal's All Things Digital questioning: If the message is empty, why bother?  Very true.  And there is a whole other blog post (or 10) that can be written about the vacuum of good story and good messages in pitches these days.

But I want to get back to the railroads.

I've always believed in the inherent credibility of PR and felt that when done correctly, this concept and approach to getting the message out was extremely powerful.  After all, isn't this what social media is asking for?  Transparency, open dialogue, good message, relevancy?  It should be a cake walk.  But it isn't.  Why?

Because PR doesn't see themselves in the credibility business, they see themselves in the PR business.

And that is what is "killing" PR in my opinion.  Not social media.  In fact, social media may only be killing PR by means of the account executives that believe these new tools to be the answer and trying--unsuccessfully--to incorporate them into their programs.  With the level of understanding they have of the tools, this serves as little more than a distraction.

One quick example.  In a recent meeting in a conference room of one of the large PR firms, a conversation about Twitter occurred.  Or rather, a conversation about how to get the message out about a client.  A conversation to gain them visibility (and implicitly, to gain credibility as an organization).  One of the "big" ideas?  Quote: "let's post something on Twitter."

Let's not get into a post vs. a Tweet, or the longevity of the content piece in a conversational medium like Twitter.  Let's look at two fundamental issues with this.

1. Understanding of the tool:  if you "post" something on Twitter, and you have no followers, who (outside of the public stream) will see your message?  (Another quote from that meeting: "well, how do you get followers, then?"
2. Understanding of the role of PR: the answer to "how do you get followers" is exactly what the brainstorm should be about.  That is what your job is.  Not to just suggest Twitter because you read about it in a book talking about PR 2.0 tools.

There are several reasons for this, but I would like to look at solutions.  PR is not going to "die."  But they are "bleeding" at the moment and there is a way to stop it and emerge better for it:

1. Stop the competition.  Staff members at all levels who are afraid of this change are drowning out the good ideas to protect their role on the team and putting forth uneducated ideas of their own and pushing them through to save their job.  Stop it.  Learn from your peers that know what they are doing and become a team.  It's not about you, it's about the client.  It's about credibility.
2. Stop with the writing test.  Now, I don't mean this literally, but I use it as a way to talk about hiring practices.  That same PR firm blogged recently how important the writing test is.  I don't know anyone that lives in 140 character tweets, 160 character text messages, and blogs that are mostly draft quality that will be swayed by a PR person who writes like it's going in a newspaper.  It's the idea, the message, the thought that counts right now.  Not the window dressing.
   
   1.  Update: maybe you can still do the writing test, but ask the interviewee to get the message across in 140 characters or less.  That would be interesting.  But who would grade it? 
3. Rethink hiring.  When print publications was the way to get the credible third party message out, PR firms hired journalism majors, editors from the newspapers, and beat reporters.  They did this to be more aligned with the channels in which they got their message out.  But the channels have changed.  So why not your hiring methods?  Why not hire bloggers, social media consultants, digital marketers and the like? You will have to make room for them and not have them report to old media bosses.  Maybe that's why you aren't hiring them.  But you did it once, you can do it again.  Rethink who and why you hire.
4. Rethink Teams.  There is no "Digital" group.  Only digitally-minded people.  Interactive may need to be separate for the design, code, and otherwise, but the strategy is not different than what is discussed in the meetings on strategy.  Make sure digital strategy is laced throughout the program and your team structures.
5. Rethink the role of PR.  Remember, it's about getting a good message out through credible channels.  Go back to thinking about gaining that credibility.  Throw away the print mentality.  Stop with the press releases.  Stop being in the business of PR and get into the business of credible messaging again.

Digital Agencies Are Taking the Lead

A few months ago, we were writing about who should be lead agency and if Digital agencies could be lead or even AOR.  The thesis of which was that they could IF they had the strategy and big-picture thinking of an integrated AOR, NOT because they were Digital.  ( I believe we even got a Flavor Flav reference in there)

Last week an article was written in Ad Age entitled: "As the Lines Blur, Digital Agencies Are Taking Lead."  This article goes beyond the now commonplace warning articles that Digital is coming and that you need to get on board.  It shows how agencies like Tribal or Tequila are winning AOR for several brands and the trend is just beginning.  Here are the top 5 take-aways from the article:

1. These agencies went beyond great creative directions and, more importantly, they backed them up with strong strategic insights.
2. Clients are becoming less and less fixated on the type of agency handling their accounts and more on the individual brains behind the marketing campaigns.
3. A lot of the old, bigger agencies are trapped in their old structures, so it's really about who has the best talent.  And those same bigger agencies have holding-company politics to contend with, adding to their transition pains. 
4. Digital shops are closer to the consumer, in a better place to mine the rich insights and data available via the web.
5. A prediction: "Ten years from now, all agencies will be digital agencies."

Any agency reading this should take away a few tasks and begin to work them into their core DNA.  For starters, strategy.  Look to go beyond the creative, and when it comes to Digital, give tangible examples that go beyond listing the tools.  And then show how they relate back to the rest of the program.

I'm curious to see how the larger agencies react, though.  The hill is steep for them.  They are built into those old structures, and it's hard to break out of those.  These structures run deep, and no CEO blog and PR pitch that the agency is getting turned on to Digital is going to be the way to compete.  Something needs to fundamentally change.  I'm anxiously watching on the sidelines to see who does it first.  But look at #5 of the take-aways above--"all agencies will be digital agencies."  For those agencies that are nimble enough to make meaningful change, look there.  You have less and less time.  Perhaps the "Digital Group" is no longer a separate group.  Perhaps they do more than Web sites, and just perhaps, they are more strategic in their creativity rather than design focused.  Look to incorporate Digital people in all of the groups in your agency.  Seed the strategy throughout and watch the agency become more digital--organically.

If you are thinking about what agency to pick as you move forward, here is a guide. (of sorts)

I read a post recently that praised blogging because it made us all think again.  I hope this Digital push causes the same in the management of agencies.  Think about your client, think about their target audiences and craft the best message and campaign you can for them.  Let's see how that goes.

More to come...

Elastic Marketing - Moving to a new model

Recently, I was answering a question regarding if Digital agencies were capable of being the lead agency on LinkedIn.  It reminded me of a question Public Relations agencies are pushing--that of who is the integrator?  The thesis of some of the answers on LinkedIn sounded very much like the speeches I've heard from various PR agencies.  The proposition set forth by these PR agencies is that their profession is much better situated to be this integrator than Ad agencies because they have spent years working in an uncontrolled medium.  They talk about Word of Mouth and using earned media experience to better navigate the uncontrolled nature of online communications.  I even heard blogger outreach described as being no different than pitching traditional media.  Probably irresponsible training for new recruits and definitely a good indication why bloggers still complain about being pitched by those not engaged in the conversations on their blogs.  However...

The Digital agencies in LinkedIn had a similar approach in that they talked about how they were better suited to lead the programs because of their unique experience in working in the new landscape online.  They point to their experience in leading similar campaigns and point to the inefficiencies and intellectual gap of the digital communication medium between them and the larger, traditional agencies.  This is definitely starting to get to the point, however, they should not lead (or be the integrator) solely because they are digital.  This assumes that all campaigns should be online, or at the very least, heavily centered on digital strategies and minimally augmented by traditional means.  Chris Rock was on Larry King and said "I'm proud Barack Obama is running for president.  You know?  If it was Flavor Flav, would I be proud?  No.  I don't support Barack Obama because he's black."  Digital agencies don't lead because they are digital.  They can lead if they have the broader skill set and planning foresight.

Though I put forth  a short statement on vision--stating that any agency can lead (or be the integrator) if they had the vision to see the entire picture and appropriately craft the multi-channel campaign.  And that they could be this integrator if they had access to a network talented enough to pull off the program according to the scope of the creative vision (and budget).  Yet, I think there is more to it than that.

What I noticed between the PR agencies and the Digital agencies is something I've noticed in the Ad agencies and marketing agencies prior to the whole Digital debate.  The foundation of their arguments is that their particular focus--their tactical expertise--is what should lead.  You'll see this in the programs they put together.  For example, a direct mail marketing agency will push direct mail.  An ad agency will talk about the places they can get a media buy and therefore jump start the message with "guaranteed" exposure.  PR agencies will talk about the major papers they can get to tell your story, Digital agencies will start online and expand from there (as described above) and so on and so on.  So really, we haven't set up a working scenario for a true integrator.  Letting any one particular agency built on a tactical expertise be the integrator is sort of like letting the fox guard the hen-house.

So, what's the alternative?  I'd like to propose that it's what some colleagues of mine and I call "Elastic Marketing."  (and hence the name of this blog--Elastic thought).  The theory is simple, really.  Don't have a tactical expertise.  Focus on all the communication channels, build on the synergies created by messaging across the channels, and leave the execution to the companies that truly are experts in their fields.  Of course, this requires constantly learning from them what the latest tactical expertise are, and building strong relationships with them so we can continue to provide world class results.  However, bringing a hybrid group together that has expertise in the multiple disciplines and focusing on how the program is strengthened by the various channels is opening a whole new type of marketing group--the Elastic marketing team.

This also relies on a model that begins and ends with the target audience.  Effectively, it looks at how and where the audience consumes media and stretching the campaign to meet those needs.  If it's digital, we go to those channels and come up with creative tactics to best fit those channels.  But that's not the start or end of it.  That audience also consumes media offline.  And if we can harness the power of the back and forth nature (seamlessly offline/online)of the evolving consumer, we'll be sure to have new techniques and new strategies to more effectively communicate.  We won't care if online drives offline engagement.  We won't care that PR traditionally shuns humor or sex, or other creative flexibilities Ad agencies have enjoyed.  And we'll know that audiences don't want corporate speak anymore--no matter what the channel.  A blog that doesn't take itself too seriously and shows the company as "human" and engaging will go further than any story in a paper that has a declining subscription base.  And tomorrow, when the consumer changes again, so will the elastic marketing team stretch and adapt.  They don't have a business model stuck in the execution of a particular communication channel.

They have relationships and flexible communication styles.

And so, clients can now feel safe.  The jury is no longer stacked against them.  I've been in conversations where account teams felt they were "wasting the client's money" continuing to lead programs with outdated strategies based on the "core competency" of their agency.  You don't need to look further than PR agencies to see this in action.  Programs continue to center on getting the story in the major papers and then, as a bolt-on, there are some digital strategies and word of mouth "stuff" they can do to support the story in the wings.  Not all do this, as one former exec at Edelman told me.  Though, he mentioned that it was like "drinking the Kool-Aid" in that EVERYTHING had to digital--even when it didn't need to be.  Again--leading with tactical expertise.  On a side note, I speak to PR more than Ad agencies (lately) as I feel that with a fundamental shift, they are poised to lead.  It appears that their core model can be more easily shifted.  Though...that would take them to actually shift their core model.  That's easier said than done when the executive teams worked their way up to the top using the old, outdated methods of communications.  "Why fix it if it ain't broke?"  Well, it's broke.  You just don't want to see it.

But look for more of these agencies to start popping up--these Elastic, hybrid groups.  It's a great point:  "Who is the integrator?"  I don't believe it is any one existing practice.  It will be a new creation -- much like technology evolving, a mash-up.  Why adapt and force an old model to be the integrator, when you can create a new entity built to be the integrator.  And you can build it with parts of existing models very easily.

More to come...