5 reasons you no longer need an ad agency

Reason 2: Why build an Edsel?
Most external corporate web presences are over-designed monstrosities. I would argue that almost all businesses could easily survive with a more simplified, streamlined version that could be accomplished with most good blog software. Unless your business IS in business to sell products on the internet, and the website IS your brand, your website is overkill. This is where the consumer need-state comes into play. Your website is a conduit to the consumer's desire, but not the desire itself. Why are you paying an agency so much money to handle it?

Most corporate websites are painful reflections of their internal structure. They spend millions on revamping and solving problems, but in reality, they do not address the core issue. The agency model preys on this behavior. It is as if you built a shack that has had room after room bolted onto it -- kitchens, dining facilities, bathrooms, showers, etc. It may appear to be somewhat cohesive on the front end, but at what cost? This is not an agency problem but the client's unwillingness to make substantive decisions for their external web presence.

When you decide to redesign that shack, all of the extra detritus comes along for the ride. You may discard items here and there, but feature-creep somehow always results in another monstrosity being built, and you end up building an Edsel.

I recently advised a client who had switched from a traditional website to a standard blog template system using WordPress. The company designed the template adhering to its color palette and design philosophy, and for $100,000, the company ended up accomplishing what its agency had estimated would cost $500,000 to build. The end-product did more than what the agency was pitching, and it shaved an additional $200,000 a year off maintenance costs for the company. It also allowed internal staff to update the blog easily and communicate simply.

Another advantage of a switchover like this is that the search engines pick up all that new content much more easily than an overly designed Flash site. Remember, the majority of consumers now use search engines to navigate the web. So when you build a monstrosity of a site, the issue isn't just the cost of the build itself, it's the cost of maintenance, and the agency you need to employ because it wasn't designed for search engines to scan.

Design a system that is templated specifically for your needs, and the control goes back to your company. Isn't that where these decisions should rest anyway?

Reason 3: Scalability, production, and distributed messaging platforms
You used to be able to produce one TV ad and run in one market. If it resonated and helped move product, all you needed to do was scale the effort. The ad was already produced. You just had to spend more money. Same with print, outdoor, and many other traditional media. But with online, the playing field is so disparate that much of it is not as scalable.

You can produce a banner, but for some reason you always need to change it and produce more. Not to mention, you have to do it in four different sizes. Before too long, you have too many little snippets running in too many different places, and you find yourself myopically looking over analytics reports tweaking a tenth of 1 percent here and there. For what? The model is not scalable the way offline is. Sure, you can throw more media at it, but anyone in online media planning knows that with each new site, and each new format, you increase the complexity.

What most brands don't have is the willingness to run a single ad, test and control that one ad, and beat the hell out of it. Now that's efficient! The customization of messaging on the internet for each subgroup has created a cacophony of noise. So why not simplify? It's only a matter of will, and you can probably ditch the huge amount of production, media trafficking, and complexity you are creating for yourself in trying to find the one thing that works with your agency.

There will never be one banner ad that fundamentally changes your business and impacts the consumer in the way one TV ad could. It's the same with SEM. I watch company after company let their ad agency do their SEM ad copy. Are you serious? There is not going to be anything brilliant that an agency can do with 85 characters that you can't. Let an SEM vendor do it. Again, you're spending money on the wrong thing. If you're going to use an ad agency, use them for ideation, not wasting billable hours.

Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, WordPress, blogs, email systems, and a host of other tools are available for you to extend your brand, so use them. Why build internally what other companies have spent millions building, tweaking, and supporting? And why have your agency build them? Look at Facebook the same way you view outsourcing any other aspect of your business. Facebook hosts it and deals with the IT and serving costs. You should be making the decisions, listening to those channels, and managing them.

<< Previous page | Next page >>

 

Comments

Chandler Nguyen
Chandler Nguyen July 19, 2011 at 2:25 AM

It's an interesting article and no doubt with a provoking title. I am in search of a good Digital agency model for Vietnam market and i tumbled upon your articles. A lot of good points here and from reading Sean's profile, his main motivation is to urge agency world to change, to evolve i believe. Thanks Sean for the insightful articles. I am going to read other articles by yours now. Chandler Nguyen

David Shantz
David Shantz October 10, 2009 at 11:37 PM

Totally agree. We see the opportunity as helping great companies and brands use interactive media to build stronger relationships with their customers, based on integrated relationship marketing tools, processes and organizing principals…

Perhaps we could start a conversation about joining forces along these lines? -drop me a note back if you agree…

Domenico Tassone
Domenico Tassone September 5, 2009 at 5:43 PM

Look for savvy clients to take more "analytics" in-house and away from agencies. Marketers want a unified credible view of how their digital marketing programs AND agencies are performing.


Domenico Tassone
Seiche Analytics
www.TipoftheSpearBlog.com

Jeff Molander
Jeff Molander August 26, 2009 at 10:12 AM

"... marketing as it has existed so far that's becoming obsolete.....and agencies are just one piece of the puzzle."

The longer we keep pretending this is true the longer we keep failing at, as you suggest Laruent, "social media". I argue there is no such thing as "social media" (http://budurl.com/9zbr) in a hyper-connected realm. Believing that there is such a think promotes continued ignorance of reality: "ALL the Web is a social media."

Also, to argue that it's a platform, IMHO, fails to move the needle too... because it still supports CMO's believing in *specialists* when they really need marketing *generalists*. Only generalists can connect tactics to strategies. This is why we have Twitter success stories being measured PURELY based on quantitative (not qualitative) measures. Lots of followers=success. Never mind the fact that all the data/research proves that most followers are completely un-engaged... passive... drive-by.

But more importantly -- do you know any social media experts with backgrounds in traditional marketing? I can count them on one hand and a few of them are, unfortunately, "conversationalists" (ie. promoters of mass communications being ported onto the Web -- via worthless, aimless "conversations" that closely resemble "brand advertising" and fail to create customer BEHAVIOR).

As Businessweek recently reported here http://budurl.com/5nu3 CMOs clearly, STILL, see "social media" and "digital marketing" as specialty areas. Ok, I'll buy that but they are BOTH areas that need a dose of one thing and one thing only: DIRECT RESPONSE practices.

The Internet is a direct response medium. Need proof? Look where the money is: Google or take a look at what middle-men like shopping comparison engines, affiliates (of all flavors) and others have done to arbitrage customer demand using BEHAVIOR as the central tenant. Direct response.

Also, Sean asked me to share this link. More proof that "good, creative ideas" are a dime a dozen.

http://budurl.com/x5jq

john wright
john wright August 21, 2009 at 9:04 AM

This guy's a bonehead. Do we need an agency selling us magic beans? Of course not. Do we need technological services, marketing strategy, branding, SEO, and PPC... OF COURSE! Any agency that doesn't offer those services aught to. Is that the point of this article?

laurent pfertzel
laurent pfertzel August 20, 2009 at 7:49 PM

Sean,
Words are sounds to represent concepts ;-)...Broken, Evolution, Revolution and so on. Different words, same idea. Something is changing in the world of marketing.
For sure the agency model as it has existed so far is becoming obsolete (may be more the process side of it along with the culture than the poeple if they know how to adapt and some will). Well I venture to say that marketing as it has existed so far that's becoming obsolete.....and agencies are just one piece of the puzzle. So things will change and right now is just the beginning. As always with changes, we know what's broken before we know what the new deal will be.
The big mistake I see is to take social media as a ..another media...; Probably the name is the #1 reason why it's that way because then it's put in the same bucket as TV, Print, Radio.
It's much more than media, it's a platform. Making the confusion is a big mistake that prevents from seeing the true revolution that's happening through social 'media' between brands and their ecosystems. Whether agencies will be part of the puzzle or not is a matter of opinion. The jury is out and time will tell.

Al Cadena
Al Cadena August 20, 2009 at 6:15 PM

Really interesting article. This is a time of great opportunity for individuals and organizations to really get up to speed with social media and empower themselves in taking hold of their brands.

Don Low
Don Low August 20, 2009 at 5:13 PM

PS. How can you spend a decade working for an agency (6 of which were on the client side)?

Don Low
Don Low August 20, 2009 at 5:12 PM

So, I skimmed your article once and then re-read it again let me make sure I have this down: I need to fire my agency because:
1. It's too big and bloated.
2. The people are mediocre and can't do it all.
3. Big ideas from agencies (but not from a client) are irrelevant to today's marketer.
4. Replace my website with a blog template.
5. Create a single banner ad and beat the hell out of it.
6. Manage the SEM vendor myself and optimize in my spare time.
7. Blow off any kind of focus group especially those that solicit feedback on campaign ideas. The only customer insight that matters should come from web analytics.
8. Take the money I'm spending on my agency and build up an internal agency, made up of outside people because my current employees are not qualified. And make sure my internal agency is managed by a c-level executive so they are not shackled in the organization.

OK, I'm sold. I've fired my agency. They sucked. Now, I need to set all of this up. I need some help. I need to hire these people, get them offices, find a way to determine who has expertise, develop processes and work flow, find a way to keep/motivate/inspire them. Maybe I should hire your firm as my consultant. That is what you do isn't it? Wait, I went to your blog/website and I can't actually figure out what you do.

David Berkowitz
David Berkowitz August 20, 2009 at 3:18 PM

There are a lot of good points here, but I don't think they support the premise of firing your agency outright. If all your agency does is come up with some big ideas or assemble focus groups, they're probably overpaid.

In general though, agencies are much more efficient for marketers. Consider all the staff they'd need to hire in-house to master all the various advertising disciplines. And then consider seasonality factors - many retailers will need far more staff in October than April.

Let's go back to the focus group example. Sure, they can get Radian 6. But they need staff to put together the reports and make sense of them. And that person will need to have something to do with the rest of their time, or it will be another demand on an existing (and likely overworked) hire. Let the agencies tax their own existing and overworked hires to do this for multiple brands at once.

Really, if all of us at agencies have our clients read this and all our clients fire us, then two things will happen. First, it will be clear that agencies weren't providing that much value in the first place, and I don't think that's true as a general rule. Second though, there will be a huge hiring boom in the marketing world as marketers will lose the economies of scale that agencies provide, so with everyone going in-house, far more jobs will need to be created. And thus all of us who have been doing this for awhile will be in such high demand that we'll be living pretty damn well for awhile.

In that case, maybe I should send this around.

Michael Kennerley
Michael Kennerley August 20, 2009 at 2:13 PM

As a retired adman with 30 plus years in Media at both agency and client side, I found your point of view very interesting and enlightening. I have been away from the business for long enough to have some perspective and while I have some difficulty embracing totally what you say I have to admit agreeing with the core of your argument. I always considered an agency's primary role was to translate the consumer for the client and then to POSITION the product orr service to those consumers. I would still like to think a good agency delivers CONSISTENCT, and I believe that's worth something still. An excellent article. I will now follow you on Twitter. Thank you, I learned something today.

Greg DiNoto
Greg DiNoto August 20, 2009 at 11:16 AM

Sean -- have to take issue with the idea that agencies are propping themselves up with unnecessary creative expenditures -- as an agency principal myself, I can tell you that we take great pains to allocate client resources with the utmost care. And sometimes the best expression of a brand requires more than off-the-shelf platforms. The agency model isn't broken -- it's evolving. There will always be a need for objective, best-in class thinking that advertisers are challenged to attract and deploy properly themselves. And big ideas absolutely should come from the client. From what they do, and who they are. A good agency can help them encode and express that -- sometimes outsourcing core competency is absolutely the best business decision.

Brian Reich
Brian Reich August 20, 2009 at 9:53 AM

Terrific post. I've been saying for a long time that we don't need ad agencies anymore (including this little rant a while back - http://adage.com/video/article?article_id=130827). Your points are excellent. Thank you.

Marc Osofsky
Marc Osofsky August 20, 2009 at 8:55 AM

Great post! We here similar frustrations from companies regarding agencies.

I wonder if you are also hearing the following:
A desire to do more content sponsorships where target audiences are already gathering and not just ads?

A desire to take more of a web content management approach as apposed to everything being a 1-off piece of Flash?