IanSchafer.com

The ‘ Integrated (Big) Agency Model ’ . Will It Blend?

As each week passes, it seems another large agency (read: holding company-owned, >1000 people) is announcing their plans for 'integration'. This week, it's MindShare, as MediaPost reports.

As MindShare's North American CEO Scott Neslund declared, "We're making a very clear statement that the time has come to break down the silos."

Intentions? Good. But will it blend?

Various other efforts from the large agencies have been announced in the past few weeks and months, with some announcing digital's move to the forefront. Some, like MindShare, have taken the 'media-neutral' stance.

It seems that the rationale for all of this is positioning -- positioning of the media agency as something that is more than reach + frequency buyers of volume. Positioning is one thing. Being able to back that up with legitimate creativity is another.

The problem with all this is that creativity was not a building block of any of these agencies. They were established to plan and buy tons of media (traditional media) back when the fragmentation of television from broadcast to cable made everyone freak out. It was no longer so easy to buy television, print, and outdoor, and more hands needed to be brought on-deck to scale.

To scale.

Scalability has been the foundation for all these agencies' success. When you look at any of the holding companies' balance sheets, the media businesses are the segments driving those profits and revenues.

And then came the web. And infinite fragmentation. As much as big new media tried to lead us down a 'portal' (broadcast) model, the web has mega-fragmented. And that fragmentation is practically infinite.

Ironically,infinite fragmentation has become the undoing of the very agencies that were born out of the 'original' fragmentation of media. What infinite fragmentation should do is force us to re-think the role that agencies play when it comes to scale. And while the uber-large agencies are re-thinking and transforming, it's imperative that they understand their role.

It's very, very difficult (dare I say, impossible) to scale in terms of breadth (of reach) and depth (of experiences) simultaneously.

As the social media explosion continues, we know just how important experiences can be (although not how we can apply metrics -- but I'm working on that). But scaling reach and experiences at the same time is usually an exercise in futility for brands, not to mention their agencies.

So the question is, can big media agencies built upon breadth, deliver depth? Creativity needs to course through the veins of an agency of any size to apply it consistently to both strategy and tangible output.

In the opinion of this blogger and CEO, there's no precedent of retrofitting something that large into what the industry is calling for. Brands need smaller, more nimble, more innovative agencies built as integrated problem solvers from the ground-up -- with creativity as its religion and the ability to deliver experiences (with the results to back it up) as its practice.

The web can still be a reach medium. But as it continues to fragment, it's costing more and more money to deliver that reach. And maybe that's the role of the larger media agencies. If I'm a brand, I've already got my reach through television. I want to use the web to deliver the depth of an experience that brings consumers closer to me.

Thoughts on Modernista ’ s Website and the Future of Ours.

There's been so much talk about Modernista!'s new ultra-web 2.0 website (or lack of a site at all). It's taken me a while to get around to discussing it, but here goes...

Take a moment to visit Modernista!'s new site.

So basically, what the site is doing is using all the tools that exist at the web's disposal to turn people on to the agency.

Honestly, most of it works like a charm. I really do like it, even though the problem with using search results to provide information is that so many people have been commenting on Modernista!'s new site, that most results are talking their own site launch rather than the work they do for their clients (which is a narcissism problem that plagues many creative agencies out there, and search results only shine a light on that).

Max Kalehoff provides a really good overview of the site today over at MediaPost.

The thing with this site though, is that while it does a great job of talking about press and showing off stills and bookmarks, it doesn't tell me about strategy. Or case studies (everyone always asks me for those). Maybe it's because we're also a media agency, but there's got to be a way to tell the agency's story with personality, without going completely ethereal or puking Flash.

We're working on a new official site for Deep Focus, and are going to be doing some interesting things with it. Believe it our not, we've had the same site design for about 4 years. Hey -- it's been really busy around here.

Stay tuned for an official launch announcement, but hats off to Modernista! for getting us thinking about official agency websites again.

In the meantime, if you've got ideas for us to use for our website, just let me know. I'm listening.

My Final ClickZ Column: Online Advertising ’ s Stunted Growth

Sure. Online advertising spending is going up, up, up. But I want to ensure that if we're going to continue to ascend, that we excel as well.

I'll no longer be writing for ClickZ -- hey, I'm a busy guy -- but I will ALWAYS be passionately blogging right here, and chances are, you'll be hearing from me occasionally in some other publications here and there. Taking my spot at ClickZ will be someone I know and love, so stay tuned for his musings...

In the meantime, here's an excerpt and a link to my final column on ClickZ:

This is my last column for ClickZ, and it's been a great couple of years.

A lot has happened since my first column in June 2005. Video advertising continues to blossom, and rich media is a standard part of nearly every media plan. Online advertising spending continues its ascent, with nary a sign of letting up. Consumer habits are evolving, and social media is a daily part of their lives.

A rosy picture, isn't it?

Not so fast.

This industry, including publishers, agencies, and marketers, is stunting its growth and limiting its potential. You wouldn't know it by all the M&A activity surrounding these captains of industry, but, trust me, it's a big problem. It's like the interactive industry is an advanced second grader the school doesn't know how to handle, so he's placed in third grade for half the day. The student may be recognized as intelligent, but he'll have a difficult time being socially accepted.

If we are to advance on our own merits, we must make some fundamental changes to the way we strategize, sell, buy, and provide online advertising. The following are but a few items we must address before we can be officially labeled "mature"...

Click here for the rest!

Marketers Are At Least Thinking About Social Media. But Not Enough.

As reported by ClickZ, according to report published by TNS/Cymfony (who just bought Compete.com, BTW), nearly 50% of all marketers believe that there should be an executive-level position at their companies to oversee social media.

"The names were all over the place, but it was clear in those names that the companies are really starting to think, 'How do we do it in an organization or structure... and how do we turn it into something that can be part of the mainstream [marketing] mix?'" said Jim Nail, chief strategy and marketing officer of TNS Media Intelligence and Cymphony.

While this sounds great, the report comes littered with expectation management.

"Clients, particularly the slower-moving clients, want best practices," he said. "They want proven models."

That's not always realistic. Whether it's video sharing, social networking sites, or micro-blogging, "clients want to get into it, but want guarantees, want the cookie cutter approach," he said. "That's not going to happen."

So basically, this report says that marketers know they are years behind consumer behavior, but are not necessarily willing to make any marketing changes unless they can get proven results. This, again, is a function of too many marketers looking at social media as a 'campaign' instead of an 'initiative'. If properly executed over a long period of time, a solid social media initiative will yield a bumper crop of results, I can assure you. Agencies have to teach themselves to think outside the campaign as well.

There are a handful of agencies and consultants that DO have the right experience and best practices. Marketers just have to accept the fact that it might just not be their existing media and creative agencies. As a matter of fact, if the agency doesn't have a full media/creative/public relations offering, they probably won't be able to have the right (and unbiased) experience and best practices to succeed in social media.

A Way to Value Engagement … or Value Beyond Engagement?

This post summarizes an ongoing conversation I've had over the past couple years with Brendan Light, SVP Research and Development at Buzzback Market Research: a super smart guy at a super smart company.


The Internet. It happened fast. One day, I was a high school, checking out images of college campuses on CD-ROM, the next, I was emailing from a "terminal" in my college library. The transition from analog to optical media-based digital content to Web-based content happened in a heartbeat and big business (and subsequently, big advertising agencies) had to adapt...fast.


So what happened? Everyone reacted instinctively and created an advertising convergence culture...and I don't mean this in the good, Henry Jenkins way. This was more a convergence of media aesthetics--the creative executions that populated the Web evoked familiar print and TV advertising styles. Even digital DM and CRM programs were really just ports of their offline brethren--not systems reconfigured to take advantage of interactivity. At the time, it was more important that clients and consumers wrap their heads around the medium in a way that was familiar. There's a silly phrase: "we only use 10% of our brains." Well, we marketers (and our clients and consumers) have only been using about 2% of the Internet. It's nobody fault, really; no clients (or consumers) were really prepared for the power of this fully operational battle station. What's sad is, since the advent of online channel, nothing much has changed. Online Advertising still rarely equates to Interactive Marketing. Digital, it turns out really just means not analog.


But, as the search for engagement valuation continues, there could be a way for agencies and brands to work together to create a different kind of value system redefining, or at least taking some of the pressure off of the idea of "engagement". To do it, we have to up the ante: it's time to define and differentiate Interactive Marketing from Online Advertising.


How? When? Where? Whaaaaa?


The onset of the Semantic Web means more powerful targeting. Targeting that could get very close to simulating an online, controlled research panel. Tools like Buzzback's suite of creative research applications (or ones like them) could provide back-end qualitative and quantitative analysis, as well as a flexible creative platform that will allow individual advertising executions to double as learning labs for valuable market research.


A new form of compelling interactive units would be more dynamic, always morphing and relating to user interaction on a collective and individual basis. Because the creative is more responsive, interaction rates would increase and clients would receive new types of valuable data that's far more actionable than what they're getting today (think about it: in addition to today's conventional tactics, these high-powered units could inform product designs...or anything else a client would usually get from a focus group).


This approach could help close the gap between what's measurable and what's actionable for our clients, increasing the value of the creative and the placements.


Some people might scream, "you've got your chocolate in my peanut butter!" but the combination of creative advertising and market research could be the most powerful and most valuable convergence we'll see.


What would it take?


1) A Reality check. Focus groups and surveys are dying. Research companies need to upgrade their approach and enroll their clients in this shift. I expect it would also take independent research companies and creative shops buddying up. If either expect to be successful without the other, they're mistaken (unless they can spend lots of time and money building a best-class department).


2) Pliability. Clients and agencies need to develop more flexible strategic plans...or develop them more frequently. Part of what makes this model so interesting is how actionable it is...but agencies can't do anything if they're constricted by a plan that's 6 months old. There's really no way to predict where a conversation with consumers will go...and the most valuable reactions will be in response to the most current consumer activity. So the way most plans and spending forecasts are developed today, they probably couldn't support this system well enough to extract the value.


3) A Breakout Hit. Money is money is money. How many times did clients ask for Subservient Chicken (without any idea how many chicken sandwiches it sold). Even though this new hybrid model would be more efficient for clients, engaging for consumers and flexible for agencies, it better not taste like medicine. A great execution for a popular brand that yields amazing results (anecdotally as well as statistically) will help this become reality. How do we increase the chances of that happening? Simple. Make sure that all your online advertising ideas are embedded with interactive marketing smarts.

The BCS and Interactive Agencies.

In the spirit of the NCAA Football Bowl Championship Series, I’m going to make an analogy here. Digital agencies are like college football players. The vast majority are role players. They are there to catch the spending that has migrated towards the medium. Some are big, some are small, but there is also a tremendous amount of mediocrity. These are the kinds of players that either accept their mediocrity and prepare for a ‘normal’ career after their last game, or are just blissfully unaware. They might make a big play or two, but they are there to fill a role, whether it’s blocking, tackling, or catching a short pass. They serve a purpose and nothing more is expected from them. And the industry needs role players like that to operate.

But the standouts, the best players on the field, they can anticipate. They seem to know what is going to happen before it does.

Some are purebred elite receivers (digital media agencies) that can catch that spending and be nimble enough to change their routes on-the-fly.

Some are pure elite running backs (digital creative agencies) that can make something out of nothing. They see nothing but an open field in front of them and can make magic happen, but don’t count on them to catch a pass.

Some are quarterbacks (digital strategy agencies) that are capable of calling their own plays, and not waiting for a call from the sidelines. They know when to pass, when to spend, and when to call an audible and change a play.

The best of the best though, the MVPs, are the players that can catch, run, and pass. Maybe they are three players that are part of the same package. But they can not only be on the receiving end of plays but call them as well.

What kind of player would you want on your team? What kind of player would you want to be?

AgencySpy Nails Why Indie Means Better.

Take a moment to read this great post by AgencySpy.

As an independent agency, we come into contact with much larger (less independent) agencies all the time. And one thing that always leaves me scratching my head is the lack of innovation that truly happens at many of those places. Innovation is a culture thing -- not a lab. It's something that should be a part of every employee -- not a "Director of Innovation".

From AgencySpy's post:

Because those indie digital shops operate like trend units. They know what's going. They live on the culture edge. Go on - ask a trad's inner digital unit or media agency what an ARG is. Ask them what that hot new website is. Ask them about usage of the internet, gaming or mobile devices are for kids between the ages of six and thirteen. Ask them how to use Azureus or for that matter what one uses it for. We can go with this list, but... you get the idea.

I consider myself a student of innovation and technology, and I've tried to grow a company with the same values. Unfortunately, many of the larger agencies cannot retrofit themselves to innovate throughout an organization at the pace that's needed to address rapidly changing technology and consumer behavior. Nor are they incentivized to do so.

It's always been my goal to make Deep Focus the most innovative advertising agency in history. Not just of the moment, but in history.

Lofty goal? Sure. But the bar's been set pretty low before us, and we're going to keep on raising it.

Happy new year everyone. Here's to an innovative 2008 and beyond.

Deep Focus Plays Santa for PS 11

Who says advertising doesn't do anything good for children?

Through the efforts of my amazing wife, Cheryl, Deep Focus delivered hundreds of new and used books to some kids in need at PS 11 in Brooklyn.

Check out the smiling faces on these kids. It kind of puts everything in perspective, doesn't it?

What Does 2008 Have In Store for Online Video?

iSpot, from ShootOnline, brings us a feature that asks some of the online video industry's leading executives (and me) to specify the top challenges facing broadband video advertising in 2008.

My portion leads off with this:

The business of broadband video advertising has many, many stakeholders, including publishers, advertisers, techonology companies, agencies, talent, distributors, and copyright holders. As revenue grows for video advertising, how many times can the pie get sliced?

Read the rest of my response, including those of execs from R/GA, DoubleClick, Brightcove, Organic, and others, here.

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!