For the last two years, we've had discussions at Adweek about whether to continue the digital agency of the year. This year, there was real discussion to end it. (We even ran an opinion column on why having a separate digital agency of the year is "nonsense.") One of the considerations was to make Crispin Porter + Bogusky digital agency of the year -- it was regular old agency of the year -- in recognition that all agencies are becoming "digital." This is what I was getting at in my post about the blurring of what can be considered a digital agency.
Of all the traditional agencies, CP+B impresses me the most as one that really understands the power of digital, particularly when it comes to word of mouth. The shop is sometimes slagged as just a bunch of stunts for teenage boys, yet it succeeds where most ad agencies fail in getting people to pass along messages. Just look at what it did with Whopper Virgins and Whopper Sacrifice. The latter, in particular, showed a real understanding of social networking that comes from living it. What's more, years after getting a very bad reputation among digital shops the built the stuff CP+B dreamed up, it's made a big move to build real capability, including buying 60-person interactive shop texturemedia. In all, CP+B has 140+ in digital -- and perhaps as important, a culture that embraces it.
I liked the statement of the CP+B pick, but then I thought it came up short in addressing a larger issue. That's how digital can be used beyond its current dominant role as another media channel for ad messages. In most of the campaigns I see, digital is still matching luggage to offline efforts. CP+B is better at making the Web more than a red-headed stepchild, but it still treats digital, for the most part, as an extenstion of an ad campaign. Things like the Domino's Pizza Builder notwithstanding.
Instead, Adweek named R/GA digital agency of the year. The case is laid out in the story. What I focused on is R/GA's belief in brands building engagement platforms that go beyond advertising and its structure that gives a serious role to technology in the agency. Here's the nut graf:
Rather than pursue the kind of singular creative representations that dominate traditional advertising, the 60-year-old R/GA founder and CEO [Bob Greenberg] has thrown the agency headlong into a collaborative process that results in integrated digital platforms for clients. His vision of skipping the typical attention -- getting advertising in favor of utility has helped the shop establish longstanding relationships with top companies like Nike, Nokia and Verizon -- and makes a credible case that he is building a better agency model with technology at the core.
In some ways, the story is a part of the answer to Randall Rothenberg's question where the creativity is in digital. The problem might be in looking in the wrong places. Something like Nike+ does not fit the classic definition of agency creative -- or "great interactive advertising campaign" -- yet its power is undeniable. Nike's market share in running shoes has gone from 48 percent to 61 percent since its introduction. Thanks to the system, Nike was able to get 780,000 people to participate in a single race with practically no media spending. That's impressive.
To be sure, there are fair arguments against the selection. I'm well aware of them. One Adweek commenter bemoans that we always go for "the top dogs." Part of this is structural. Our criteria is weighted toward agencies that are working for big brands to help them build their businesses. This cuts against smaller shops.
I'm interested in hearing feedback on the selection -- and whether Adweek should even have a digital agency of the year at this point.
It's an interesting question re: whether to have a separate category or not. And, I don't really have the solution. Part of me says don't have a separate category as a means to encourage all agencies to incorporate digital and to see it as a new channel for work as opposed to something separate from strategic campaigns.
But, on the flip side, there are excellent digital-only agencies out there who would be excluded altogether without this category. So, it's a tough question!
:-) How's that for a helpful comment?!
Posted by: Jennifer A. Jones | February 16, 2009 at 13:20
It does seem time to put the distinction to rest. And you may never be able to rate "experience" or "social media" shops of the year, which is what's next.
On the other hand, you'd be doing a great service if you'd highlight some of unsung heroes to your point in the 2nd paragraph, e.g. production shop of the year.
Posted by: Peter Kim | February 16, 2009 at 13:23
of course next year you probably wont have this category. but then the whole industry will be so topsy turvy by then, who knows if there will even be Agencies Of Record? The "agency" of the year could be an inhouse place. or some kid in china. marketers need to get smarter about what their brands ARE so that their agencies can simply make things that express that truth. be it a tool or a piece of content or a t-shirt or a hotdog stand. and agencies need to stop making money on stuff that forces one solution. because if all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
how about simply CLIENT OF THE YEAR? In my experience, thats the difference between the great work and the not-so-great.
Posted by: Cliffbot | February 16, 2009 at 13:32
Do away with the Digital distinction, and stick with agency of the year only. You said it yourself, due to the nature of what you judge on (big brand advertising only), the smaller agencies are eliminated before the process even begins.
The reality is - if you're a pure-play digital agency and are working with big brands, you're primarily doing design - so digital media isn't a factor either. If you're going to do digital agency awards, you'd need to break them into design/media as well.
So just do away with the "digital" distinction altogether and call it what it really is: "Agency of the Year that works with biggest brands doing fancy design work with the most amount of money to play with Award".
Posted by: Michael Hubbard | February 16, 2009 at 13:37
What you are missing is the fact that we are in a place right now where as an industry we need to separate the two. Digital has emerged yet has plenty of ground to cover if it is going to catch up to traditional. The differences are vast and the two need to have separate categories because it is the culture that differentiates the two. CPB does have a very strong digital culture yet isnt a digital agency. A digital agency doesnt do broadcast nor does it care to even venture into those realms. Unlike traditional agencies digital are not banks that hold client money and then sparsely dole it out to smaller shops to get work done.
Digital starts and ends with digital and nothing else. RG/A is a great example of that. Places like AKQA and Barbarian also embody this new culture that is more nimble and completely digitally inclined rather than an agency that is still holding on to the scotch and cigars.
The Whopper Virgin site was simply a video player housing the long form of the commercial, it had nothing to do with interactivity or anything of the like. Was it a website? Yes, but nothing more than the web version of what was on TV.
RG/A has a theory, a methodology behind its digital strategy. Nike has become more of a platform, Nick Law's interview says it all.
As we emerge into the new landscape of advertising we will see more and more clearer demarcations of the two.
The two travel very different paths and while traditional does do lots of digital they still don't fully "get it" and are not completely focused on setting down the groundwork for what will be a digital world. Not to mention the fact that much of that work is farmed out.
Digital is focused on original ideas living within a medium that its culture lives and breathes day in and day out. It is dead set on creating a new culture based on firmly being grounded in the digital realms.
There is no question that there should be two awards.
Posted by: Craig Elimeliah | February 16, 2009 at 13:38
Craig and Michael's comments are really great, and their dichotomy really reflects the complexity of this (admittedly insanely unimportant) question. The only other thing that I have to add is that I think it's interesting that while you considered CPB for digital agency R/GA also has a stated goal of becoming a traditional one. And if I were in Bob's shoes, I'd be doing the same thing. It's all slowly becoming digital, but we're nowhere near the point where it all IS digital yet. At some point, they'll be the same, meeting in the middle.
In the same way we saw watershed events with large brands handing over the entire reigns to a Media company, or a holding company or a talent agency (CAA and Coke), one day we'll say a client solidify its relationship with a digital agency so much that they hand the reigns over to them completely, and that'll be the beginning of the end.
It'll probably come from an industry sector people don't see it coming from - something like Fashion, where the agency never much controlled the brand so much as the media, or a web company, who needs an agency to completely understand the intricacies of its business operations.
Posted by: Richard Webb | February 16, 2009 at 14:23
I have flu and am bored so here's a feverish rant for you: there is a big problem with the (Anglo-?) American/capitalist need for winners and losers. Somewhere along the line advertising got ensnared in the Oscars/Hall of Fame mentality of ostentatiously awarding skin-deep flashiness as opposed to true, largely unsung fundamental business-affecting performance. Most of the conversations I have with anybody connected to the so-called creative community in ad agencies come around to awards or award-winning work at some point. It has come to the point where agencies at the very least equally develop work for the consideration of advertising juries as for clients and consumers. There are creative people in the ad industry who are famous. Are there any famous people in other trades like building or plumbing? The digital community hasn't grown out of this utter bullshit. The digital community has grown up via solving genuine business problems and has an undiluted dedication to creating concrete, game-changing and lasting platforms and connections. Frankly, the medium is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is coming up with the right solution at the right time in the right way while being beholden to nothing - BUT NOTHING - but the business/communications/consumer/reputational challenge the paying client is struggling with. Such solutions are most often unglamorous. Particularly in the short term - which is why all the best digital people use the word 'lasting' a lot. The great thing about Bob G and R/GA is not Nike Plus. Nike Plus is just a natural outcome of a company that has been thinking deeply and unostentatiously about helping clients with their business for years rather than playing to the crowd (something which, by the way, Crispin were also doing for years before anybody was even talking about them). As a grown-up I would LOVE to see agencies honored for genuinely thinking about (if not feeling for) their clients and their problems rather than being good at promoting themselves via awards junkets. Olive Garden (yes, Olive Garden) has a positioning which, as you know, is 'when you're here, you're family'. I don't see anyone jumping up and down and claiming credit for that. It's not Nike, of course. But Olive Garden has had 54 uninterrupted quarters of growth. 54. Clearly there's a business situation at work and a whole collection of supplier (yep, that's what we are, suppliers, not superstars) relationships that is well and truly working. So what I would dearly like to see someone have the balls to do is to have one Agency of the Year and reveal the whole range of complex, unsung, lasting, bottom-line affecting ideas and behaviors - strategic, technological or otherwise - that it brought to bear. Man these antibiotics are weird.
Posted by: Mark Wnek | February 16, 2009 at 14:30
Provocative post. Should there be a separate digital AOY? Never pondered this question before. My gut tells me the answer is no. After all, in this media environment, how can one be Agency of the Year without innovating and pushing the boundaries in digital? And isn't "traditional agency of the year" an oxymoron? The agency of the year should be the shop that brought forward the most innovative ways to make its clients successful, whether through smart creative ideas or innovative digital architecture and platforms.
Posted by: David Murphy | February 16, 2009 at 14:46
I think the standard for awards like "Agency of the Year" should revolve around what I like to call "persistent engagement" -- where an audience is set free, after being kicked in the ass by the marketer.
The big traditional agencies still see engagement as a one-way process -- a spot people talk about (particularly at award shows), or a new single shot engagement (read stunt) that utilizes social media platforms like Facebook or Twitter. Or some sort of submit-a-video contest.
The wonderful Wopper Sacrifice from CPB is still a single event. And in my opinion this sort of effort doesn't really recognize the audience's independent voice.
Some of the same persistent engagement issues crop up with what we call "digital" shops, including a superb technology shop like R/GA. Much of what they do is technology based: widgets, innovative websites, mobile apps, etc, that don't encourage the customer to truly participate over time. (Nike+ was a huge exception, as it triggered true ongoing audience engagement around and with the brand.)
The future of marketing will be about creating a themed party for a brand’s audience -- a party that allows the audience to chart its own unpredictable course. The award will go to the true engagement shop that hosts this party. This is a model that we are all trying to evolve. For the time being we ought to forget about trying to either define or award it.
I say forget Agency of the Year. The standards are all screwy and we're too confused about what an agency should be doing. We're at the pre-beta stage of the ad revolution.
Instead, as someone suggests here, pick the top client or brand. I nominate Zappos, Dell, and Chipotle. They’ve changed their relationship with their customers far more radically than any agency. They are obsessively determined to "persistently engage" their customers. And they are doing it by activating their employees, not their agencies, to continually reach out to customers. That's a true award worthy approach to marketing.
Posted by: Steve Wax | February 16, 2009 at 15:32
Absolutely right.
Posted by: Mark Wnek | February 16, 2009 at 15:33
Mark Wnek's wonderful post (can I have some of the drugs he ordered?) passed in the digital night. I take my hat off to him for putting it best!
Posted by: Steve Wax | February 16, 2009 at 16:01
Brian- You and I have had this discussion (or some version thereof) innumerable times and I still think that given Adweek's charge to name an "Agency of the Year" you made the right decision by separating out the digital ones.
The issue is that not only is there very little overlap between what traditional ad agencies and digital agencies do, but that there’s precious little consistency even among those agencies that call themselves “digital agencies.” To wit, the digital arms of the big agencies are essentially banner production houses, churning out what you refer to as “matching luggage” for the TV spots the main part of the agency has come up with.
Then you’ve got a range of shops from R/GA to Big Spaceship to Deep Focus to AKQA to Barbarian Group to Campfire to Crayon doing work that rarely resembles advertising-as-we-know-it and certainly never constitutes matching luggage. They’re the ones creating something new and special, though I’m not sure the term “advertising agency” is an apt description for what any of them do.
Nike Plus is an excellent illustration of what you’re referring to: it infuriates many old-school ad types who sputter “it’s some kind of store, not an ad—why is an agency doing that?” Which kind of puts it all into perspective. Congrats to Bob, Nick and the rest of the crew.
Oh, and Mark Wnek- thank your doctor for whatever he's giving you. Could not agree more with your entire thesis. Well put.
Posted by: Alan Wolk | February 16, 2009 at 16:37
Well, as always, there will be controversies with awards. I find it interesting that Adweek picks R/GA while Greenberg is a regular columnist for the publication. Regarding whether or not there should be digital agency of the year and ad agency of the year, well, Ad Age already beat you to that punch. But a lot of the comments here bring me back to an earlier comment I made on the previous post: In my opinion, digital refuses to be defined. Digital is everything, from direct marketing to advertising to event marketing to promotions to design to systems blah, blah, blah. Trying to define or categorize it is as pointless as handing out awards for it. That said, I would actually go in the opposite direction. I would give awards for the best digital advertising, digital direct marketing, digital design, blah, blah, blah. Give out literally 1000s of awards. Once digital overtakes all other disciplines in the awards category, then we'll be able to confidently say it has usurped advertising on the marketing totem pole.
And as always, I have no idea what Wnek was trying to communicate.
Posted by: Digitalent | February 16, 2009 at 16:42
It's great the turn conversations take in more interesting directions. @markwnek makes some great points about award culture and how divorced it can be to the unsexy work of moving clients' business. After all, who awards the plumbers. Likewise, @cliffbot and @rickwebb kinda say it's about the client, who the one making the products, figuring out service, building the system. One of the big knocks on R/GA when it comes up to Nike+ is the product wasn't R/GA's "idea." R/GA was a part of making that product/service/marketing powerful, but there were so many others building the party, as @stevewax terms it.
I'm very partial to the start-with-the-client argument. In defining my beat, I look for innovative and effective ways brands are connecting with consumers and building their businesses through digital channels. It's only from there that I look at the ecosystem (buzzword alert) that makes the connection happen, whether agency, media company, tech provider, whatever. So how do you compare agencies when it's not discrete executions? And in such a world, how can anyone claim the agency's central role isn't in permanent decline?
Posted by: Brian Morrissey | February 16, 2009 at 19:25
Brian/
Thanks again for stimulating a terrific discussion. I wrote a post about this yesterday too but sadly didn't garner nearly the response you did. It's been fun to watch it unfold over here. In my post, I wrote the following:
"Here’s the cold hard truth about why you need Digital AOY awards Spyro. They serve as the blueprint for what mainstream agencies need to look like in the next 5 years (maybe sooner).
Adweek is giving mainstream agencies a gift by spotlighting firms like R/GA. It’s handing John, Michael, Maurice and Martin the keys to the kingdom and showing them the path to rebooting their agencies and trust me — they’re taking notes."
The rest can be found here for those interested in reading another rant:
http://bradleykay.wordpress.com/2009/02/16/dont-see-the-need-for-digital-aoy-get-a-clue/
But there's another point I haven't made yet.
Many mainstream agencies are still being run by individuals who never spent time in 'Web culture'. They didn't come up thru the ranks this way and thus, don't really have a true appreciation for what others are building within their agencies.
Many top agency executives built out digital departments because they were 'told' to do so -- that it would increase the value of their agencies and oh, by the way, it's what clients are looking for now.
In the current economic downturn, we're seeing large agencies with indiscriminating scalpels cut wide swaths of talent from every corner of their offices. It's not like anyone is saying, 'wait, digital is the future and we need to keep this capability intact to ensure our future survival'. Agencies are cutting highly paid individuals -- full stop. Many of those people have resided in the digital department for the last few years. So, I'm not convinced we'll see a blurring of the lines anytime soon.
I think pure plays like Big Spaceship, R/GA, First Born, Schematic, Huge and many, many others will dominate and you should continue to delineate AOY going forward.
Warmest,
Brad
Posted by: brad Kay | February 17, 2009 at 11:24
In the middle of this conversation, as Brian predicted, R/GA was awarded Ad Week's Digital Agency of the Year thingie. Not that I expected that this discussion would short circuit that award, but it does feel sometimes like we're operating in a parallel universe over here at Campfire (and Big Spaceship, Deep Focus, AKQA, Barbarian Group, Crayon and 42 Entertainment).
One of the things we rarely talk about, because it would be rude, is how the big agencies, including I dare say Crispin and R/GA, devote an enormous amount of time, money, and energy to publicizing themselves and their campaigns.
I would guess that at this point more big agency hours have gone into self promotion than exploring the true frontiers of new media. So instead of discussing -- I'm going back here -- 42 Entertainment's NIN's promotion (http://tinyurl.com/bqy37s), or Deep Focus and Court TV's Emily project (http://tinyurl.com/djwyvc) we talk about Wopper Virgins, and Nike+.
All worthy campaigns, but the talk becomes about big agency turnaround: will the big agencies be able to pull off a digital/interactive future, rather than the truly innovative stuff the upstarts are creating. The ability of the big agencies, traditional or digital, to throw lots of dollars at self promotion via award shows and publications like Adweek badly skews advertising culture.
Meanwhile -- enough whining from me, right? -- another important missive that floated up around the agency debate last week is Randall Rothenberg's terrific piece "A Manifesto on Interactive Advertising Creativity" http://tinyurl.com/dxezlz.
This essay and it's accompanying comments take the big media companies to task for their lack of imagination. A welcome and very smart relief from all the complaining (including mine here) about the traditional and digital agencies.
Posted by: Steve Wax | February 17, 2009 at 11:40
My two cents (from maybe a slightly different POV), because lots of people I respect already gave theirs...
A major problem with awarding a digital agency AOY honors (and as Steve and Mark mentioned, does it even matter?), is that we lack a definition of what a digital agency actually is.
Lets face it. When traditional agencies do digital, they are either:
1) Building a website
2) Buying banner ads.
3) Creating online video.
I'm glad they are doing it, but there is just so much more to digital than that. It's a dynamic medium, one whose future is beyond 'ad impressions' and microsites.
As a matter of fact, it's almost pointless to define 'digital' because digital can mean anything. A 'digital agency of the year' should be wielding or guiding brands through every channel of communication, and right now, there are just not enough of them that do.
In the very near future, I think we'll be batching agencies into several different categories. Categories that are very different than what we have now (media, creative, PR). There will be 'storytellers' (Campfire). 'Experience builders'(RGA). 'Engagement enablers and facilitators'(Deep Focus). 'Brand integrators'(Mindshare [wish I had a better example]). Direct Response (Datran). Production experts (Buddy Group). Idea manufacturers (Barbarian).
So hopefully we can find less buzz-wordy category names, but that's really what marketers are looking for. Media buying in bulk, for scale, reach, and frequency is a commodity. Digital media is at the same time the ultimate commoditizer AND decommoditizer. It can be used for crazy efficiencies, but also for infinite customization.
AOY declarations are inherently silly because how can you reward both? Because it's impossible to be good at both.
In other words, 'custom' doesn't scale very well. So there will be agencies that do, and those that don't. But both can be very successful. I just predict that there will be more of the ones that don't scale very well doing bigger and more important work -- because brands like work that makes them stand out while increasing consumer awareness, mind share, and improved perception.
'Digital' is not website creation. It's not technology. It's not social media. It's not creative media planning and buying. It's not public relations. It's not customer service. It's all of them. Choosing one as an AOY is shorting everything else that is important about digital.
/unedited_nonsensical_stream_of_consciousness_rant
Posted by: Ian Schafer | February 17, 2009 at 16:34
So far, out of the all the posts, I have to agree most with Ian.
Those of us who have been in "Digital" before it was called Digital (i.e interactive, web or geeks) know there is much to producing good work than a good website, banner ad or widget creative. You have to understand the space, have made the mistakes, know who is full of talk and who is full of proof. You need have a deep bench of people who have "been there, done that" and understand how important it is to have foundation, thought and engagement metrics at the forefront. As a Digital Engagement Agency we support brands as well as agencies. I fear that the definition of a digital agency is defined by the agency itself and not by the depth of their engagement. I take that back, I don't really fear that per se, because CMOs and Brand Managers are getting smarter and smarter and asking more and more questions to qualify the agencies focus and abilities.
More to the point, this economy is forcing the issue that digital is where things are headed. The "traditional" agency is seeing that happen in real time. If budgets would allow, they would be buying up digital companies left and right. Messaging, rather, is changing and digital agencies are emerging from the scraps of what was a prosperous traditional team.
Here is to the future...and to giving digital agencies the distinct and press worthy recognition we deserve.
Posted by: Pete Deutschman | February 17, 2009 at 16:58
First off, congratulations to R/GA on their selection.
It's quite an honor to be recognized by colleagues and the press, even if those of us in the industry can't decide on the categories nor the criteria.
Before we decide on those criteria, we should probably discuss what it means to be AOR in 2009. I wager the definition has broadened. And it's directly impacts AOY.
To me, AOR means working on behalf of a client to create and lead the execution of the best brand idea possible. Beyond creativity, this implies award-winning client service, strategy, media, design, interaction, production, technology, and leadership skills all in one place.
Phew! That's a lot.
Can anyone honestly claim that right now? Especially without the support and help of other agency partners that don't fly the agency flag? I think not. The clients have said so. That's why they're having us all sit in a room across from one another!
That said, I pose we shouldn't worry about it. We should all get back to making great communication in the service of consumers. That's why we got into this business.
Posted by: Bryan Fuhr | February 17, 2009 at 17:20
@Steve Wax: Your perception of parallel universes is not unfounded - take it from someone who travels back and forth between the two. It's got me wondering if in all revolutionary periods, the forward-thinking side spent a lot of time wondering why the other side just "didn't get it." - I mean did the Sons of Liberty wrack their brains to figure out ways to get the Tories to see why monarchy was just so olde school?
@Ian I think you've highlighted an important point: because it's the technology that enabled change, people tend lump all these wildly different companies and experiences together as if the internet were a single medium. At some point soon it will become clear that it's a lot more vast than all that, but until then, we'll have to struggle along as people cling to a narrower definition
Posted by: Alan Wolk | February 17, 2009 at 17:27
The rub in this question is several fold:
First, the tension of the common definition of "agency" versus the - undeniable - power in "building engagement platforms that go beyond advertising." If you succeed at this, you're less an "agency" than something else? Developer? Product company? It's not yet our core business (nor maybe should it be?).
An industry-accepted top 10 Digitally-current, but traditionally created agency developed a kick-ass Widget/product idea for their entertainment/technology client. The client took the idea away from them and hired a pure tech company (not a Digital agency) to build it. It - in the end - wasn't an "advertising" deliverable. An "agency" (of any sort) wasn't the place to get it built right. Agencies don't develop the goo that goes in the soda can either.
If you focus on the "campaign" or creative idea/Marcom (Digital or not), you're "building matching luggage" and are considered "old school" and out of touch, but you're very much an agency and doing what's in your charge/scope. Especially if you're big and have giant clients. Reach - as much as people don't want to admit it - still has value, especially if it's tied to a compelling brand story and is activated across all the mediums and engagements that make sense for that company/product/target. You can't "Widget" or "Nike+" your way to becoming Nike (not remaining Nike). Or at least that case study hasn't been published yet. Linear/engaging story telling still has value. Positioning still has value.
A top "Digital" agency fought over credit with a top agency. The argument was what was more important, the "idea" or the technology execution, how the idea morphed for the medium. Ideas are - still - more valuable. Any of 100 production resources could have been used. Could the Digital agency have come up with the idea?
This leads to rub #2.
Next, while the "Digital" agencies may have greater command of the medium(s) and where the world is going. Overall (yes, you'll throw every exception at me, but look at the whole industry, the sum of daily work), their brand leadership/strategic skills are under developed/atrophied or never existed. Extending a brand into new places in new ways is VERY different than creating brands. In 90% of cases (and it's why we make such a big deal when this is up-ended), the "Digital" agency has "second seat."
And they (the Digital shops) know this. For all the talk above as to being "steeped" in the medium (no, you can't be a Luddite), Nick Law came from the Traditional agency world. RG/A's competition gets this. They are hiring - for the first time - creatives with "reels." Creatives who developed some of the most known campaigns in the world.
Another - simply executional - example: Auto category, client want to add more video to the site, some simple vignettes. No one on the Web team understands how linear video works, they can't storyboard the shots, they can't tell the production company how to shoot it, they don't know how to write v/o. The Luddite traditional shop, led by an older Boomer ECD, had to come in and "save" the day on that project.
Or, strategy? When the positioning is getting tossed around in front of the CMO, who gets more "air time?" The Digital shop? Nope. And they know it.
Example: a top Digital shop with many awards and much scale understands it's too website and back-end focused. Starts hiring traditional senior executives to lead their "advertising practice." The spec: to be able to come in and go "toe to toe with the AOR and get the CMO's respect. We need to be lead agency."
No easy answers here. No clear winners.
But either side crowing about superiority isn't going to get us all where we need to be.
Right now, there are big strengths and weaknesses on both sides and it's - in large part - a "race to the middle" again.
Unless you want to be a technology company, not an agency. Or a legacy business, willing to lose share every day, like the record labels.
Just remember, there is a "Napster" in trouble for every "Geffen." Hulu, the "evolution play" is beating YouTube the "disruption play" in revenue.
Posted by: Jonathan Anastas | February 17, 2009 at 18:01
The rub in this question is several fold:
First, the tension of the common definition of "agency" versus the - undeniable - power in "building engagement platforms that go beyond advertising." If you succeed at this, you're less an "agency" than something else? Developer? Product company? It's not yet our core business (nor maybe should it be?).
An industry-accepted top 10 Digitally-current, but traditionally created agency developed a kick-ass Widget/product idea for their entertainment/technology client. The client took the idea away from them and hired a pure tech company (not a Digital agency) to build it. It - in the end - wasn't an "advertising" deliverable. An "agency" (of any sort) wasn't the place to get it built right. Agencies don't develop the goo that goes in the soda can either.
If you focus on the "campaign" or creative idea/Marcom (Digital or not), you're "building matching luggage" and are considered "old school" and out of touch, but you're very much an agency and doing what's in your charge/scope. Especially if you're big and have giant clients. Reach - as much as people don't want to admit it - still has value, especially if it's tied to a compelling brand story and is activated across all the mediums and engagements that make sense for that company/product/target. You can't "Widget" or "Nike+" your way to becoming Nike (not remaining Nike). Or at least that case study hasn't been published yet. Linear/engaging story telling still has value. Positioning still has value.
A top "Digital" agency fought over credit with a top agency. The argument was what was more important, the "idea" or the technology execution, how the idea morphed for the medium. Ideas are - still - more valuable. Any of 100 production resources could have been used. Could the Digital agency have come up with the idea?
This leads to rub #2.
Next, while the "Digital" agencies may have greater command of the medium(s) and where the world is going. Overall (yes, you'll throw every exception at me, but look at the whole industry, the sum of daily work), their brand leadership/strategic skills are under developed/atrophied or never existed. Extending a brand into new places in new ways is VERY different than creating brands. In 90% of cases (and it's why we make such a big deal when this is up-ended), the "Digital" agency has "second seat."
And they (the Digital shops) know this. For all the talk above as to being "steeped" in the medium (no, you can't be a Luddite), Nick Law came from the Traditional agency world. RG/A's competition gets this. They are hiring - for the first time - creatives with "reels." Creatives who developed some of the most known campaigns in the world.
Another - simply executional - example: Auto category, client want to add more video to the site, some simple vignettes. No one on the Web team understands how linear video works, they can't storyboard the shots, they can't tell the production company how to shoot it, they don't know how to write v/o. The Luddite traditional shop, led by an older Boomer ECD, had to come in and "save" the day on that project.
Or, strategy? When the positioning is getting tossed around in front of the CMO, who gets more "air time?" The Digital shop? Nope. And they know it.
Example: a top Digital shop with many awards and much scale understands it's too website and back-end focused. Starts hiring traditional senior executives to lead their "advertising practice." The spec: to be able to come in and go "toe to toe with the AOR and get the CMO's respect. We need to be lead agency."
No easy answers here. No clear winners.
But either side crowing about superiority isn't going to get us all where we need to be.
Right now, there are big strengths and weaknesses on both sides and it's - in large part - a "race to the middle" again.
Unless you want to be a technology company, not an agency. Or a legacy business, willing to lose share every day, like the record labels.
Just remember, there is a "Napster" in trouble for every "Geffen." Hulu, the "evolution play" is beating YouTube the "disruption play" in revenue.
Posted by: Jonathan Anastas | February 17, 2009 at 18:02
Jonathan: you can say it once, you can say it twice, but that don't make it so.
As to your (Jonathan's) contention that "Digital" shops are not as strategic, gimme a break. We stopped working through the traditional agencies because they were completely un-strategic. Mostly they waited for the creative teams ideas for spots, then brought in the planner to rationalize them to the client.
And, as many of us are saying here, the term digital agency is silly. At Campfire we use live events for nearly every program now. And snail mail, and infomercial time. And all of us non-traditionals use outdoor, wild postings, and street teams. These are authenticating events that drive the web engine.
The differentiating factor between the old agencies and the new ones is really about who's paying attention to the audience, who's watching where they congregate and how they share. And who's engaging in and tracking the ongoing conversation, not walking away after they produce a "thing" some separate media company does something with.
Posted by: Steve Wax | February 18, 2009 at 20:03
Digital is no longer the "under dog" of the marketing world, campaigns and strategies are now built around digital media with digital media becoming the centre piece of any activity, so a digital agency really needs to work at that strategic level with their clients.
Posted by: didier grossemy | February 20, 2009 at 04:41
There is a fundamental difference between what digital and traditional advertising environments can provide and agencies and attitudes like Greenberg’s ‘Apps not Ads’ highlight this. So yes I think the category is relevant - if only for picking the scab off the advertising agency wound.
But the choice of agency is also important. Greenberg’s position allows for the idea that an 'agency' can also be a strategic consultancy and a technology partner - this is not something that scares most digital shops - its what gets them out of bed (or should): that promise of digital platforms to achieve both the literal and figurative representations of brands: http://www.rmmlondon.com/archive/platform-ideas/
If other agencies can lend insights and offline support to that platform then we'd be fools to disregard them but I've yet to see a 'traditional' agency that comes anywhere close to understanding the potential of online; the development of entire platforms, technologies or applications to fulfill business and marketing tasks for our clients.
In this sense I think the tension is really between digital agencies and those with real development credentials - IBM, SAP etc, (although the Open Source movement is removing some of their edge).
And at the same time the McKinsey's and Accenture's circle their wagons around digital as they recognise the strategic opportunities.
As ideas and their execution (though digital) become more about supporting the client's business and less about explaining it - there are going to be a lot of new faces to contend with.
Posted by: Leo Ryan | March 22, 2009 at 12:32