Trend spotting in the Adbiz, 2018: It's not on top, it's inside.

-->

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.

The watershed moment could actually be a good thing. Marketers are driving this conversation because they have to – the model is not working. But it’s also not working for agencies. It’s time that people own what they are good at, so that everyone in the value chain benefits.


Footnotes:
[1] http://www.answers.com/Q/What_is_a_watershed_moment
[2] https://medium.com/@jamescannonboyce/i-can-cure-your-adsanity-in-three-easy-steps-a9d40f20fa97
[3] http://www.businessinsider.com/companies-are-cutting-out-ad-agencies-and-going-in-house-2017-6
[4] http://www.adweek.com/creativity/spotify-unearths-more-hilarious-user-habits-in-global-outdoor-ads-for-the-holidays/#/
[5] http://www.businessinsider.com/companies-are-cutting-out-ad-agencies-and-going-in-house-2017-6
[6] https://za.oliver.agency/news/a-new-way-of-working-with-agencies/

Bitching about pitches? Here's a new approach.

I recently ran a pitch for a company that was seen as a highly desirable account in the industry because of the calibre of the work they had done. I don't often run pitches, mainly because I hate the standard pitch process. But I told the client that I thought there was an opportunity to do one differently - especially as their brand had a certain cachet, but more importantly because their company culture was refreshingly uncluttered and open, and the partnership with an agency was something they regarded as extremely important.

So the first thing we did was to call it an "Agency Engagement Process", not a Pitch. Semantics yes, but getting engaged, or engaging with someone, just feels like a more appealing prospect than 'pitching" which, let's face it means throwing a ball at someone's face as hard as you can.

image courtesy vectorolie | freedigitalphotos.net

Then we designed a Request for Information (RFI) that was one and a half pages long. No realms of financial information required, no hourly rates per each employee, no names of pets previously owned. Just simple questions, and even an emotional one: what is it about our account that makes you think you would be the right agency to partner with us? We asked whether there were any interesting facts about the Agency that we might not know, and then we asked them to submit the creative work of which they were most proud.

Oh, and when I say 'we' designed, I mean the client was deeply involved in the design and application process. This was no 'cut and paste' tick-box process.

We outlined the process we were planning to follow, and we agreed upfront that we would be transparent and open with all the agencies involved throughout the process. We also agreed the criteria, and the level of importance of each one.

Interestingly the winning agency's MD referred to it as an "empathetic pitch process". Yes it was.

Another feature of this "empathetic" pitch was that we were determined to give each agency detailed feedback, and to answer as many questions as they wanted to ask.

When we had gone through the submissions, we communicated (quickly) with the successful and unsuccessful agencies. The unsuccessful ones who wanted to know why they hadn't made it could ask, and I would tell them. Many of them said it was the best (if not, only) feedback they'd had during a pitch, and it was really useful. Pitches are time consuming and expensive. Why shouldn't agencies be able to use them as a learning process? Even though each client or prospective client and pitch situation is different, there may be some simple things that are screwing up the agency's chances of winning the business. For the work that agencies put in to pitches (usually free, or for a pittance), the absolute bare minimum should be some constructive feedback. IMHO.

After evaluating the RFI's from the long list, we selected five agencies for a short list. They were each invited to a Chemistry Session. The first date.

image courtesy Stuart Miles, freedigitalphotos.net

Before the meeting, we sent the five shortlisted agencies some thought starters in terms of areas they might want to research and have an opinion on. We suggested that they stay away from PowerPoint and bring the people that would work on the business.

The chemistry meetings were illuminating! I'll talk about the 'don't's' below, but overall it gave us an excellent way of discerning who to take into the next round.

After evaluating the agencies against the pre-agreed criteria (and after a rigorous, open and fair debate amongst the key stakeholders), we selected three agencies. There was no "done-deal". Each stakeholder had a different ranking of the 'favourites'. What made this process so unique too was that the key stakeholders in the business, right to the top, were involved in all the debates and meetings, from the beginning to the end, and each had an equal say. The Marketing Director, who was running the process, had a casting vote, if needed.

The brief to the last three agencies was to work towards a Tissue Session, off a detailed brief. We wanted them to suggest a possible "creative platform" that the client could build their next campaign around. We stressed that they were not to develop 'ads', but that this was a test not only of their strategic and creative abilities, it was a test of how they worked with the client in the three weeks leading up to the tissue session.

Why do it this way? 

Because if creative work is presented, the client might buy the right idea on the day, not the right team. And given that most work presented in pitches never sees the light of day (I reckon it's about 99%), and it's done totally in isolation of the marketing team, why choose a team on the pitch work? Beats me.

image courtesy of pakorn freedigitalphotos.net

During this Tissue Session process, the client had many working sessions with each agency, got an inside view of how they worked with their clients, and worked with actual client service people (who are almost invisible in the pitch process, yet so vital in the running of an account). The client also flew to see offices in other cities, and had the opportunity to meet production teams and other support staff. Again, the process was transparent, and questions were asked and answered as they came up.

Finally, the Tissue Session day was upon us. The responses to the brief were different and interesting and gave us all food for thought. It was clear on entering each agency's meeting room, that there was already a relationship between the client team and each agency - it wasn't a case of meeting people for the first time on the pitch day. Even the senior execs in the room had met the agency team at the Chemistry meeting. The meetings felt comfortable even though there was a lot at stake.

In the end, in my opinion, the best fit for the client was the agency that won the business. And funnily enough, the thing that probably swung it was a conversation about the client's business away from the traditional advertising space - the agency had researched all aspects of the business and was able to comment on an activation concept and provide insight that excited the client.

So, why write this post? A number of learnings made themselves clear to me - what the client did right, and what agencies should try not to do in pitches. As I said above, every pitch is different, but hopefully these can help.

Things I think worked well

Image courtesy iosphere freedigitalphotos.net

Care was taken not to waste people's time with the RFI. It was kept short for a reason: why waste agencies' (valuable) time when they might not make it through?

Enough time was allocated to each step - there was plenty of time to complete RFI's, prepare for the Chemistry Sessions, and for the final Tissue Session. Yes some pitches may be urgent, but what can a marketer possibly gain by rushing this process?

The process was open and transparent - most questions asked, were answered. To help the client find time to do his day job, I was given the task of handling these - and was happy to give advice, guidance, and talk people off window ledges. I've been in huge pitches were no contact with the client was allowed between a group briefing, with all the competing agencies in the same room, to the presentation - horrible. And unconstructive.

Detailed feedback was given to both successful and unsuccessful agencies, which I hope (given some of their comments) will help them learn and improve in upcoming pitches.

Evaluation criteria were shared, and feedback was given according to those criteria.

Top management involvement was key - in each and every meeting, even internal debates, from the beginning to the end. The most senior executive expressed amazement that there are pitches in which the CEO doesn't get involved. "Why would they not want to be involved, when it's such an important decision for the business?"

A lot of additional research took place - the client and I spoke to many other people about the agencies - TV directors, other clients, staff, other suppliers.

The incumbent agency was involved and gave advice to other agencies and to client and me. This was a bit weird and probably wouldn't work in the case where a pitch is called because of  a breakdown in relationship between agency and client - but it worked in this case - the best interests of the client were top of mind.

Things I think agencies should bear in mind for their next pitch

Answer the brief (even if it's a brief for a meeting), creatively. The winning agency devised a technique for directing the flow of conversation in the Chemistry Meeting that was clever, simple and creative. The impression created was that if they can think that strategically and creatively for a meeting, then they've got to be good.

Follow the instructions - they are there for a reason! We said 'no PowerPoint", as the client is allergic to PowerPoint's. What happened? Two out the five 'dates', in the Chemistry Sessions - plugged in PowerPoint. I also use PowerPoint, but here's what I learned - it changes the dynamic in the room. It stops people talking to each other as they turn to look at the screen and they listen without engaging with the speaker. Most interesting for me, was that when they plugged a laptop in, it lowered the lights in the room. Then when the PP was done, the discussion took place in a gloomy light. The effect on the 'chemistry' in the room was staggering.

Cartoon courtesy of the remarkable Tom Fishburne @marketoonist

Consider carefully who to bring with. One of the agencies had someone present something (see how discreet I'm being) which somewhat annoyed one of the clients. When I gave them this feedback, the agency said "oh no, but he's leaving anyway'. What would have happened if he was the star of the show, only for the client to find out at the end of the process that he was leaving? Bring the best people,  but make sure if the brief says "bring the people who will work on the business", that's who you bring. If you have to hire to handle the business, say so. Keep the group small. Make sure everyone has a role in the meeting.  But make sure the core team in the meeting will be there for the client afterwards.

Make sure your credentials are relevant to the needs of the Client's business. If you are linked to a global network and have offices in 300 countries and several small planets, consider whether that is in fact relevant, impactful and interesting to the client. I find a lot of agency credentials talk about the agency - yes that's a good thing - but do what you do best. Craft a persuasive message. Define your benefit. Find an insight about your target audience (the prospective client), ask what will encourage them to appoint you. I promise you a standard credentials show ain't going to do it. Bear in mind too, that by the time the client sees you, if he's done his work properly (as was the case in this one), he (or she) knows all that stuff anyway. They've read your submission, they've been on to your website etc. Your job is to answer the WIIFM* question (*What's in it for me?)

Do your research. Introduce some category or brand insights. But and this is a big but. Don't tell them what they already know. Because, worst case, you might get it wrong. If it's about competitors - they probably already know what their competitors are saying and what their positionings are. Add a layer to it that they won't know. Frame it differently. Bring consumer insights that will surprise them, rather than the obvious ones that they may have worked with. I realize this is difficult - because as Donal Rumsfield said "there are things we don't know we don't know". You don't know what they know - but be sensible about it. If you there marketing person of that company, would you know this - or do you think it's an Aha observation?

Find a role for account management. Almost every agency had a 'tag on' account management person, yet the client had rated this is a very important part of the search criteria. Especially in a process like this, the client wanted a sense of how compatible the account management person was with the key members of the team. If the account management person sits in a corner with a mouth full of teeth, that's hard to gauge. And yes Creative Directors, I'm looking at you on this one. Let them play a role - a team role, not a support role. The client wants and needs to see it, because as much as they might love you, they aren't going to be speaking to you 87 times a day.

And - show your soul. The question we asked "what is it about our account that makes you think your agency is the right agency to partner us" gave us some hilarious answers ("because it's nearly awards season"... seriously) but also showed us some incredible insight from agencies that might not have otherwise been  considered. It's an engagement process - be engaging.

And finally...

Make sure that you want the client for the right reasons. Is it right for your business? Does it suit your team's expertise, what you love doing, the type of work you want to do, the categories you know and love. Because if it's just for the money, chances are the whole process is going to have to be redone too soon.

_______________________________________________________________________

Adtherapy is a consulting and advertising skills-building company that is on a quest to #ridtheworldofbadadvertising

Agencies: 

Call me if you want advice on your new business pitch strategy, your credentials presentation, your positioning. Or if you just want to chat.

Marketers: 

Call me if you want to discuss finding a new agency. I'll probably start by asking you if you can make the current relationship work better, and may help you with that. But if you can't, then I'd be happy to work through a process like this with you. Bear in mind though - the success was partly the process, and mostly the involvement from the client. So you'll have to work with me.

Contact details: (+27) (0) 83 2659099

Mail: gillian@adtherapy.co.za