Tag Archives: agency

Cannes: A Hater’s Guide

rose wine[A version of this article originally appeared in Advertising Age]

It’s easy to mock the Cannes Lions Festival of Creativity. The name alone does a lot of the work for you. Truth be told, I’m usually among those mockers. While there are many things to deeply love about our business, its need for self-congratulations is not among them. There’s no place where this need is expressed more strongly than at Cannes. My favorite complaints when joining the detractors include:

  1. You travel thousands of miles to meet with companies who would happily come to your home office tomorrow if you just asked nicely
  2. You stand a better chance of winning a Lion if you do a good job promoting a noble cause people naturally care deeply about than if you do a good job prompting a common product people naturally care little about. The latter requires 1000 times more creative juice and is the core task of our business, yet it’s scarcely represented among the “the best work.”
  3. As we face ever greater obligations for being responsible stewards of our clients’ marketing investments, we revel in rosé-soaked meetings on yachts in the South of France.

Yet before joining me in a collective eye roll, remember Oscar Wilde’s remark about cynics: they know the price of everything and the value of nothing. So while it’s easy to poke fun at the false glamor of the posers who cavort along the Croisette, it risks overlooking its fundamental substance. Here are the suggested strategies for finding the substance of Cannes:

Cross Some Borders – Because it’s roughly equidistant between Asia and the Americas, Cannes is one of the few places where the industry comes together on a global level. Despite the efforts of Brexit and Trump to stem the tides, our economic and cultural waves increasingly splash across borders. That makes Cannes a critical place for assessing the cross currents of ideas.  It’s a shame how many people run about without studying the work on display in the Palais. Don’t be one of those people. Take time to see the work on display. Even better, use one of the kiosks that allow for more efficient searching. I particularly recommend exploring work from the Nordics, Singapore, and India for ideas, as their audiences and markets tend to inspire fresh perspectives.

Stretch Out – While Cannes has been an industry mainstay for several decades, it has changed considerably in the last few years. The Festival has pushed the industry to move beyond “the ad” as the pre-eminent expression of our craft. They deserve credit for expanding the awards into interesting new categories. Its influence is in the right direction even if sometimes done in a faddish way. The specific categories to watch either in person or online are:

Creative Data

Cyber

Innovation

Product Design

Audition Your Next Partner – Much has been made in previous years of Ad Tech’s rise in the Cannes hierarchy. The names on the beachfront properties have changed, but it’s less about figuring out who’s on top than understanding how all the pieces fit together. Because marketing is becoming less about pure communications and more about the full customer experience, it requires a richer partner network to pull it all off.  The Cannes community embraces a broad diversity of players across content, media, data, and technology. To be clear, it’s nowhere near as broad as the CES start-up roster, but that’s the point. These are companies squarely focused on marketers. To get a sense of the type of partners you should start thinking about, visit the Discovery Zone in Lion Innovations.

The common theme through all these suggestions is to use Cannes to plug yourself into a broader network than you encounter in your day-to-day world. At least this cynic would have to admit that it’s impossible to leave the Festival without the impression that the business of creativity is not an isolated pursuit, but fueled by the competition and collaboration that Cannes puts on full and gaudy display.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Ten Things Your Agency Prefers You Don’t Know: #10

Only two things really matter when picking an agency.

If you are a major marketer, the type of agencies you’ll consider all have the same basic approach and capabilities.  Their processes, for better or worse, are all about the same as well.  Many claim to have proprietary tools or processes, but that’s just not the case. They may have different names and different labels for what they do, but the breadth and delivery of services is essentially the same at any holding company agency or major independent. Pricing is also not different. More accurately, if there is a pricing difference, agencies are quick to match their competitors in order to win or retain a client.

If the basic capabilities are the same at most every agency, what distinguishes them? In my experience there are two factors that really matter. The first factor is the quality of the people working directly on your business.  A great team at a mediocre agency will tend to do great work, and the opposite is true as well.

The second factor is the standards an agency sets for itself – standards for creativity, professionalism, and integrity. The agencies with higher standards make it harder for bad work to get out the door, and are quicker to realize when their work is falling short of what it should be.

If I had to choose a new agency as efficiently as possible, I would do three things.  First, I would look at all their work. Not just their highlights or major clients, but everything they’ve done in the past 6-12 months so I could judge their overall standard of work. For example, on a big retail account there is often a lot of little stuff that has to get churned out quickly and cheaply, like tent cards or shelf talkers.  Do they just jam their print ads into another format, or do they actually take a little time to design it for the environment it’s in.

Second, I would talk to each of their clients to see if they had more than the usual compliments and gripes so I could assess their standards of professionalism and integrity.  No client-agency relationship is without its spats and hiccups, but I’d listen to see if problems get addressed, or if  the same spats and hiccups keep recurring

Third, I would meet directly with the people who would be working on my business. I’d not only assess whether I like and trust their work, but also to sense if they are people who will champion my business back at their place. Big agencies have lots of people competing priorities and opinions, so I want someone who is going to advocate for me when I’m not there. Oh, and you can have them do some work too since most agencies are giving it away for free anyway.

The typical pitch process gets around to accomplishing these things indirectly, but generally takes a lot more money and time.

4 Comments

Filed under Agency Management

Ten Things Your Agency Prefers You Don’t Know: #5

money_question_markAgencies don’t know how much they are making on your business.

Because of the backward retainer system endemic to the industry, it is hard to say what the real margin is on any one business. The agency may be making a healthy margin on the day-to-day delivery team, but there are a lot of costs that are built into the general overhead of the agency. These costs include people and money spent up front in the new business process, the time of agency executive management in supporting the business relationship, and the ad hoc responses to sudden market developments or changes in direction. These costs tend to get mixed into the general administrative costs of the agency, and assigned to agency overhead. That makes overhead a murky number full of costs that may or may not be fairly allocated across clients. A client with a high margin who likes to manage by crisis may actually be less profitable than a low margin client with a more steady operational approach. So while generally agencies know how they are doing as a whole, they have only a fuzzy idea of how they are doing on any one particular client. As a result, marketers assume agencies are making too much, and agencies assume they are making too little.

1 Comment

Filed under Agency Management

Ten Things Your Agency Prefers You Don’t Know: #7

Agencies don’t have a lot of bench strength.
That’s mostly because they can’t afford to. Clients have gotten their procurement departments more involved in agency compensation over the past decade. This procurement movement helped in several respects and hurt in others. It helped reduce some inefficiencies and pushed agencies to be more forthcoming in their fee proposals. It has failed to create a lot more value for the client. It has failed because both agencies and marketers focused on reducing the costs of the inputs rather than increasing the value of the output. In order to reduce costs, agencies have had to reduce the total compensation for their staff. The dynamic has been similar to the effect of salary caps in professional sports. Now there are only so many stars an agency can afford to keep on the roster. So you get what few stars you can afford, and fill in the rest of the team with role players, or unproven rookies who you hope will rise to the occasion. This has pushed agencies to manage their clients like the old vaudeville spinning plate routine. They try to get all the plates spinning, and only give their attention to the ones that are really starting to wobble. The A-team is dispatched to get the plate spinning again, and then as soon as that’s done, they rush to the next wobbler. So for any marketer wondering whether they have a first-rate team dedicated to their business, the answer is probably no. They can’t afford to.

Leave a comment

Filed under 21st Century Marketing, Agency Management

Ten Things Your Agency Prefers You Don’t Know: #8

olsen twinsThere is no real difference in capabilities between agencies.

The marketing services business in heavily saturated. There is no shortage of people willing to manage your social media campaign, make a TV ad, or facilitate an innovation workshop. There may be a brief window in the very beginning of new tool’s life, when there are a more limited number of people who can claim competency. Experts in search engine optimization were limited in 1996, as were television producers in 1938. But the pace by which people master new media has accelerated, such that those windows of scarcity are increasingly short. What that means is that there is no agency that is going to distinguish itself by having some capability that another does not.  Everyone has the same type of experts in the same fields. If not, they are easy to hire. While it is true that the very best in any field will always be rare, that true elite is probably not on staff at an advertising agency anyway. So agencies are not differentiated in terms of what they can do for a client, though a few may be differentiated in how well they do it.

1 Comment

Filed under Agency Management