Clickbait titles are fun, but bear with me, good people. I’m trying the make a point.
This report was wafted under my nose the other day. It makes for depressing, but not terribly surprising reading. The first paragraph pretty much nails it:
Anyone who’s spoken to me in a professional capacity for the last 3 months will probably recognise that Smith & Beta’s report is quantitative confirmation of what I’ve been going on about for ages. Each one of these makes me sad – but also, because I am a shallow, vapid person, I still get to feel happy that I’m right.
1) Good quality creative requires good quality technical implementation
Agencies lead with creative vision and lean on technical skills (internal & external) to deliver this vision. No one ever won a pitch by saying that the creative will be a strong C+ but it’s going to be implemented really well. Sadly, the opposite is almost always true. The industry is generally OK with taking an amazing creative idea and delivering it late, over-budget and on top of a pile of bodies of fallen colleagues.
2) This technical resource – where it exists within an agency – is often siloed and over-committed
Because of the way the creative industry works, creative resource is always going to be an expense the agency is happy to invest in. Investing in technical resource however; is a more expensive, slower, trickier business.
Similarly, investing in older, more skilled resource is always going to be a harder sell when there are countless thousands of young and exploitable juniors clamouring for your attention.
An agency trying to walk the line between capability and capacity in order to really call themselves “Full Service” will end up with a safe but middle of the road offer. Conversely, an agency who shoots for the moon and invests in highly specialised and/or highly senior team may find that they’ve painted themselves into a very expensive corner.
3) It’s hard to hire your way out of this problem
I mean, duh, obviously. It’s hard to hire your way out of any problem. Recruitment, training and increasing retention are sloooooow processes. And the problems that this report outlines are problems of the now.
(Side-note: In my role here at Isotoma, I often end up talking to agencies about projects that we can collaborate on. I’m usually talking about projects that might be coming up in, say, 6 months, but people actually want help RIGHT NOW.)
4) These problems when considered together, reduce the satisfaction of the customer and shorten the lifetime of the account
As abusive as the client/agency model can be, there’s a satisfyingly stark bottom line to it: “Do good work; get more work.” Note that this is distinct from “Pitch good creative; get more work.”
As I said above, no one ever won a pitch for outlining a competent implementation plan, but once the project is over and the smoke settles, the customer doesn’t just remember the pitch.
(If you’re really unlucky, the people who were in the pitch don’t even work for the customer anymore…)
The knife edge that a marcomms agency has to walk is being able to deliver creative vision *and* technical competence in a way that doesn’t fundamentally alter what the company is. Go too far in one direction and you’re unable to deliver anything profitably, go too far in the other and you’ve magically become a company that you don’t want to be.
So this is one of the reasons that Isotoma do what we do. We’re already a technical agency. We’re already geared up to help you estimate, deliver and, crucially, support a creative campaign. We’re good partners. And the better we get at ploughing this particular furrow, the better we’re able to help and complement agencies who’ve chosen to plough another.
And that makes me happy.
(See? I was being cynically provocative to attract clicks. And the pug at the top? The cherry on the cake, my friend. Truly I am a monster.)