Peer beneath the hyped up claims and overcooked proprietary processes of creative agencies and you soon discover they are all variations of the same thing – creative thinking that generates business success. Of course that's mostly about creative work, but at their best, agencies supply creative thinking that goes much deeper into the business, into NPD and distribution for example.

Look at that phrase again….creative thinking that generates business success. Put crudely, you'll find that the 'creative thinking' bit is the creative department and the 'generating business success' is planning. Naturally it's more blurred than that, a big chunk of creative thinking needs to be done way before it's condensed into a creative brief, and not just by planners, but you get the point.

But look at the amount of people agencies employ who actually DO that. In any agency I've worked at, and 90% of those I've worked with, account handlers outnumber the creative department by at least two to one and the planners by at least twenty to one.

In other words, agencies may claim they exist to create business transforming creative ideas, but in reality, most of the people at best enforce a linear, methodical production line, or at worse 'get the client the work they want'. Yet a read of this book will quickly dispel the myth that great ideas come from a production line process, or specialists working in silos, while we've all met suits who do their best to put a stopper on any idea that's beyond the first page as they try and second guess the client.

Dmat-production-line2 
 

Put simply, most creative agencies have a system that is best suited to churn out average work and gets in the way of the extraordinary stuff that can cut through the clutter of popular culture or indeed, the client culture.

I'm not saying 'kill the suit' of course. Without someone to bring sanity to bedlam, deal with those client situations and keep and eye on the budget, nothing would get done or no one would make any money from it. But there needs to be a re balance between the people who contribute to making stuff and those who make sure they're making stuff.

That's why I find Mother so interesting for example, where there are no suits, but traffic gets stuff done, strategy make stuff work and creative makes stuff great – and all have client facing responsibility.

One of the most enjoyable and interesting times I had was working in direct partnership witj a creative, why not follow this model, and maybe add a technologist in this digital age? Or even a comms planner?

More so than ever, agencies need to focus on business building IDEAS, not 'selling a process'. Let's hope more and more re-organise to make this happen.

Posted in

4 responses to “What agencies really do and who does it”

  1. Paul H. Colman Avatar

    It’s not just Mother that make “great stuff” (which I know you know).
    But the point I’m making is that I’m not sure their model is the answer. Now obviously it works for them, but I think it has a lot more to do with the true motivations of the agency itself, that’s the thing that really matters.

    Like

  2. Brian Avatar
    Brian

    Could the production model may be a symptom of the business model of most agencies?
    High $ investments to win new business/keep business requires a high churn from worker bee bill-ables to stay profitable. That shapes a high churn/low productivity process. And siloing the teams reenforces that.
    It sounds like Mother has taken the simple (and good!) first step of trying to integrate a bit earlier in the process. I’m positive this helps their creative problem solving, but I think it also makes them more efficient, something I think the traditional agency business model doesn’t like.

    Like

  3. andreea Avatar

    I think I’m with Paul – Mother seems to come up in conversations quite a lot, and you only need to look at their twitter feed to know that it’s not business as usual. Would I like to work in a place that doesn’t think about what clients will say when you post about lederhosen on work’s twitter? I would. Will every client get along with that? Maybe. Maybe not.
    Mother are probably coming from a good starting point, and that’s that you can’t do great work without pissing someone off a bit or taking them out of their comfort zone. With some suits, it’s really hard to sell an idea out of leftfield and expect them to convey it to clients the way it was intended so by cutting out the middle man, they’re probably doing themselves a favour. Might not work for everyone though.
    Would definitely love to see it in action though, rather than selling a process that someone concocted in the 70s. Or even in 2005.

    Like

  4. northern Avatar
    northern

    Blimey, I wish I hadn’t used Mother as an example now.
    Totally agree it’s the true motivations of the organisations – for example, maybe not less suits but suits that are judged on what work get’s made as opposed to just selling the process.
    I agree about Mother Andrea, I know from personal experience they tend to get lost in a froth of left fieldism, but the strategists are part suits really and do a really good job of applying rigour to the creative presentations – or at least making it look that way.

    Like

Leave a comment