-->
Every year I am asked to write something for BizCommunity on
a trend I foresee, you know, in my crystal ball.
 |
| Image courtesy of Jannoon028 at FreeDigitalPhotos.net |
|
|
Most years it's a variation on a theme. More data,
more insight, customised communication, the power of mobile...This year - it's something
completely new.
Here's my 10 cents worth.
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I close my eyes and picture the world of marketing in 2018, two words come
to mind.
They are Watershed Moment: “a critical
turning point; a moment in time where everything changes; a point in
time when nothing after will ever be the same.”[1]
But doesn’t everyone say that every year?
Yes, there are changes, and things have changed, so what would make 2018 a
watershed moment, a critical turning point? Is it not simply a case of the more
things change, the more they stay the same?
No. Because the truth is that almost everything has changed in the world of
marketing communication.
The only thing that hasn't (enough) is how agencies and marketers work together.
And that’s where I believe the watershed is happening.
We all know that marketers are chasing increasingly tough numbers, and they are
searching for innovation, efficiencies and integration to help deliver their
goals.
Unlocking the full benefits of technology is challenging (and full of
opportunities) for marketing teams. Same for data. But a major blockage to
increasing efficiencies and integration is how they work with agencies and how
agencies work.
Marketers have always needed agencies to create the link between the business
and the people who need to put their hands in their pockets. They needed
agencies to unlock insights to create ideas to change behaviour. They needed
agencies to decide where to place the messaging, to buy the space, and to
implement the sometimes hundreds of elements across numerous channels.
They
still need a central concept (a big idea) which can be simply communicated
based on insights and barriers and whatever will drive consumer behaviour. But
more and more of the pieces of the puzzle could be done, and might make more
sense to be done, in-house.
To quote industry commentator and guru,
James Cannon-Boyce, in his article on curing your adsanity: “There is the
famous old adage about the CEO who said that they knew half their money was
being wasted in marketing — they just didn’t know which half. That was from
over a century ago — these days, the answer is that it’s not half that’s being
wasted — it’s close to all of it. More and more, I feel that I am in the same
meeting — it’s a bit like Groundhog Day if the Bill Murray character was a
frazzled over-whelmed marketing executive and not a weatherman.”
Marketers already have their own insights departments (although sometimes
generating more information than insight). They have their own
relationships with specialized production houses, or in-house production
capabilities. They already have or are building their own social media and
community management teams due to its always-on, strategic and tonality
requirements.
There’s a growing sense that whoever owns the data has the power. As the CMO of Booking.com said recently, "We
have way more data than the agency has. I’d make a very strong case that
anything that generates data, you need to own as a business. You cannot have
anyone else be the expert."[3]
This seems especially true
for brands born on the internet, as they have no “advertising legacy” and have
direct relationships with their customers.
Take a look at the credits for the creative team listed by Adweek, in this latest campaign by Spotify.
They look different because they are all in
house. [4]
Yes, but
that’s there, in the USA. How will this affect brands in SA, with historical
relationships with agencies? Simply, there has to be change, on both sides.
The structure within corporates isn’t yet optimal either. They, as well as
their agencies, will need to restructure to unlock the siloes, open the flows
of insight and information, to reduce wastage and duplication (and cost).
The challenge to agencies is that as the outside bits are being eaten away,
what happens to their business model? As John Mandel from Mediacom says,
"They are still set up for fighting the last war. They haven’t really set
themselves up for the future war. Instead they are trying to eek out gains from
a model than needs to change, while always trying to upsell clients on
services."[5]
I’m not
proclaiming the death of agencies yet as there are a few stumbling blocks in
the in-house agency vision. Marketers have not yet figured out how to properly
integrate all the sources of insight - obviously digital (big, or rich
data) but also from places like the sales/customer channel. The
creative piece remains essential and ever more vital. Unless you hire in this
talent, it’s going to have to remain outside. Hiring issues, like BEE and to
creative culture remain a concern.
Here’s where a new agency
model like Oliver can play
its part. They build agencies inside companies. One of their White Papers
quotes research that the shows the number of brands bringing
digital in-house increasing at a staggering rate, and that by 2020, “54% of
brands think they’ll bring previously outsourced functions back in-house to
match the need for more agile marketing efforts”.[6]
Will
agencies still play a role in the idea development – using insights to create
powerful brand stories and platforms? I think they should. There is now an even
more pressing need for cut through creative. But agencies have to be reimagined
and reinvented if they intend to survive. And the reimagining of the business
model is the most important aspect.
