Can Digital Shops Take Over Overall Brand Strategy?

Damn straight they can. But only if digital agencies can become truly interactive agencies.

Confused? Read on.

This article in Advertising Age states that in order to it, however, there need to be four core capabilities: measurement and analytics, audience research, cross-channel integration and social media.

As part of a study to determine whether or not digital shops can hold their own, the article featured seven leading interactive shops: Avenue A/Razorfish, Critical Mass, Digitas, Imc2, OgilvyInteractive, Sapient and VML. All agencies have a minimum of $50 million in interactive revenue and at least a 20% revenue growth from 2005 to 2006.

And here's where I find fault not with the story's conclusion, but some of the study's findings and methodology -- more specifically, the agencies involved in it.

Most of these agencies have core competencies that are built upon only one or two of the above listed capabilities. From the article:

Avenue A/Razorfish was praised for its quantitative and qualitative audience research capabilities and measurement and analytics and broad experience with social media, but according to the report the agency's "overwhelming focus on the digital space means that it's not yet equipped to lead overall brand strategy."

That last line is a broad statement. For audiences, especially younger ones (12-34) that use digital media more than any other medium, why not let a qualitfied digital agency manage the brand strategy? Why is this different from a TV-focused agency leading it when target audiences are watching less television?

A point I agree with is:

VML, Imc2 and Critical Mass were all praised for strong web design skills, but critiqued for relying on strengths in interactive-marketing basics.

"When it comes to web design, they do a good job, but broad interactive capabilities are still anchored in the website," Mr. Haven said.

This is precisely why I started Deep Focus with the aim of being exponentially more than a web-design agency. There is no way that a web development shop, without real research and media capabilities (and not just a figurehead) can oversee a brand strategy. More than being a digital agency, an agency that can really take over brand strategy must be focused on interactive media. And that means shepherding a brand through every channel of interaction with (not just communication to) the consumer. As I've said many times before, "interactive" should not just refer to digital media. "Interactive" media is a philosophy to be applied to all forms of media and communication.

As a matter of fact, the concept of being a communications firm is outdated -- you need to be a conversation firm in order to survive. And if you can be a creative firm, a media firm, and a publicity firm, then you're ready to take on overall brand strategy.

I really do believe that today's interactive agencies will be the overall ad agencies of the future, as long as they remain nimble, resilient, and continue to be thought leaders. Increasingly (and yes, I'm biased) I'm finding that the current crop of independent medium-sized agencies (and yes, like Deep Focus) seem to be best suited for this kind of role. They may not all be digital, but shops like Deep Focus, Anomaly, Naked, and others have the right personality. But I will also add that the best of the best will be able to execute strategy as well as develop it. And it's something I can say that we are proud to be able to do. Execution, or at least a thorough understanding and seamless integration of it, will set interactive agencies that think and do apart from those that can just think, or just do.

So if you're a digital agency with brand-strategy aspirations, but not a truly interactive agency, start looking at the man (or woman) in the mirror and make that change - hoo!

Comments

[Scott Goodson]

I agree with Ian. However, the challange for digital companies, or anyone for that matter, is to demonstrate that they know how to lead brand strategy. It's a very different culture to deliver strategic excellence over time, guiding clients and many different people, building a brand along a red thread for many years vs tactical assignments. When StrawberryFrog launched Asics Tiger we launched it from scratch 6 years ago. Today they are a global brand with 400M pairs of shoes sold. I think you grow by having done it many times, making mistakes, and learning.

[Tom Ajello]

"the challange for digital companies, or anyone for that matter, is to demonstrate that they know how to lead brand strategy. It’s a very different culture to deliver strategic excellence over time, guiding clients and many different people, building a brand along a red thread for many years vs tactical assignments."

- Good point Scott, but increasingly more important these days isn't your "long term experience leading brand strategy" but rather how well you understand the ethnographic and cultural impact of the "digital" on a brand. Most brands we at POKE play with today are just looking to be more relevant - and assimilate their product or service into a consumer lifestyle that often just doesn't want, need or understand the brand or service anymore.

This snowball is growing and picking up speed.

[Tangerinet Toad]

Ian: You guys need to hire creatives who understand branding and who can do TV and print.

Which is starting to happen- especially with the kids coming out of school.

Right now too many clients still see you as executors. But this will change. Pretty much any minute.

Here's my prediction (from this summer) for how/when/why it will happen:

http://tangerinetoad.blogspot.com/2007/07/toad-predicts.html

[ian]

Tangerine Toad...we already have :) It's been an initiative going on here for quite some time. As a matter of fact, it's a requirement for Creative Directors who join this company.

[Tangerine Toad]

That's great to hear Ian.

My current gig has me running the digital side of things, though my background is in general advertising, and it helps.

But it's going to take a while for the prejudice to disappear. Check out this cartoon I found last week, which does a great job of illustrating the relationship b/w online and offline CDs

http://www.transnationalblueblood.com/ADMAN3/ad3_COVER.html

(No idea who the author, Pete Johnson, is - a friend turned me on to the cartoon and he said he'd accidentally stumbled upon it.)

Enjoy,

TT

[Fantan]

Pete's an ACD at Tribal DDB.

[David Polinchock]

We posted this on our blog a few days ago about the debate, but I originally wrote it about a year ago during a discussion on the value of WOM programs:

My final comment is this. This artificial debate about who's better isn't helping us at all with our clients --€” the brands that buy our services. Frankly, the amount of time that we spend arguing about which tactic is better is why we'€™re not being invited to the strategic thinking table. ALL forms of advertising have value -- based on what story you'€™re trying to tell. It's not a battle between traditional media and new media. We should be focusing our collective efforts on how we can help our clients captivate their audience, rather then on tactical ways we can help them capture their audience.

We believe that agencies will have a greater responsibility in the future to not just help clients talk about their brands, but how to make their brands better and more valuable to their audience. We can't just use cool tactics any more. We have to help clients create relevance with their audiences.

[Kennedy Grey]

Crowdsourcing agency level creative work requires a new kind of PL silo that existing agencies are not built around. But i have a question: to pollinate a field of flowers (i.e. customers), do you want one GIANT bee (rhymes with "WPP") or do you want a millions of hungry little bees?

[ian]

I'd probably opt for a bunch of bees, and only if I could make sure that all those bees weren't pollinating the same flower over and over and over again.

But why would you need to crowdsource, if an integrated agency could handle it all?