Rethinking The Agency Creative Department

Mark Di SommaJune 26, 20154 min

I enjoy seeing people poke business models, but it’s important that when you look to disrupt a business that you do so without assumptions. The call by Marc Ruxin of Universal McCann to rethink the creative department of ad agencies is a great idea but my sense is that his suggestions still assume the battle is for attention, and that winning that attention and holding it via great content, well presented, is critical to achieving consumer preference.

The noise preventing that, he says, is formidable. Brands are trying to get their messages heard and acted upon in an environment of 150 million tweets a day, 700 billion minutes a month on Facebook, 300 million global players of Zynga games, 200 million Daily Deal subscribers…

I’m far from convinced though that attention and preference are a linear progression. And I think we need to insert at least three further filters into that zig-zag of decision making: notice, consider and purchase. You may gain a consumer’s attention momentarily, but until they choose to escalate that attention and actually take notice of you, there’s no way they’re going to consider you, never mind prefer you – and even then, they may not buy.

It seems to me Mr. Ruxin is still trying to run an interruption model based on see, want, get. I feel he still thinks content is the make or break, and he’s now looking to adapt that model to fit the new channels that consumers now occupy their time with. That doesn’t so much require a rethink of the creative department as it requires the creative and media departments to rethink their approach and to adopt new skills. Not quite the same thing.

In his article, the author suggests: “It is a new world: Brands + Skillfully Placed Media Investments + The Right Platforms + The Right Partner + The Right Offer = Creative Success” Two things about that. I don’t think that’s a new world at all. That equation doesn’t look any different from the way it looked when I started in advertising – it’s just that the media, platforms and partners themselves have changed. And there’s no reason to believe that ‘Creative Success’ is the result anyone should be seeking anyway. That’s an agency metric, not a commercial one.

I absolutely agree with Mr. Ruxin that we need to be having this discussion, and I sincerely mean what I say here to be taken as dialogue not refutation. So, rather than just being negative about a call for change, let me give my own perspectives on what needs to run, and I think for the most part is happening, inside the agency world. It’s not a definitive list by any means, but hopefully these six thoughts hint at where the model might go, philosophically at least:

1. It’s not what brands do for people that matters, it’s what people feel they can do with brands. The dynamics of the brand-consumer relationship have almost completely reversed. Consumers identify with brands because they see them as an expression, and perhaps an extension, of their own views. Tricking the consumer, shocking them, interrupting them…these are all outmoded ideas. Increasingly I think it’s just an expectation on behalf of consumers that brands will be where consumers expect them to be.

 2. The creative process is no longer just about what you create, it’s about what you start, inspire and encourage. The creative product itself is only as important as its catalytic effect. If it doesn’t work, it has no value.

3. It’s not just about how much attention you get, it’s about how much uptake you get and how much product you shift – and keep shifting.

4. It’s not about platforms or environments, it’s about encounters, and more particularly it’s about encounters that resonate with people. Resonance, not just presence, generates attention and more importantly, engagement, interest and desire. The platform or environment is the means for that, not the end.

5. Increasingly a communications issue is the flash point for widespread thinking not the defining point for what needs to be considered. I completely agree that a wider range of people need to be involved in the creative process, but I also believe that the creative process needs to extend beyond the realm of preparing and sending messages. If you look at how companies like Ideo, Stone Yamashita or Fahrenheit grapple with a problem, it’s about way more than what is said.

6. Agencies are successfully making the move from advertising to communications to ideas. Now they need to make the radical move to answers. Ideas are wonderful, but that level of involvement alone is increasingly falling short of what’s required. My sense is that agencies need to continue to call on the thinking, disciplines and frameworks of their craft but to apply those to new scenarios. In my own case, while I freely admit that I struggle with the technical aspects of social media, for example, many of the ways one might draw on to engage and involve consumers are straight out of the direct marketing playbook – they just need to be adapted for new dynamics and expectations.

Finally, I am optimistic this will happen. Creative agencies have extraordinary experience in building brands. They have hugely talented people capable of achieving great outcomes. They absolutely need to draw on what they know, because there is huge value and insight in that experience – but they need to do so across a changing commercial and social plane. No one conversation will solve this…but at least a whole lot of people are talking. And that can only be a good thing.

What are your thoughts?

Branding Strategy Insider is a service of The Blake Project: A strategic brand consultancy specializing in Brand Research, Brand Strategy, Brand Licensing and Brand Education

FREE Publications And Resources For Marketers

Mark Di Somma

8 comments

  • luis

    June 27, 2015 at 12:39 am

    Interesting thoughts…I´m not sure the people from agencies will know how to keep catching people´s attention. Its not a matter of being smart, its a matter of the things they are used to, and they still mostly think like 25 years ago: mass media, demographic targets, etc. People are quickly migrating from that approach to ultra-short attention spans, multichannel content, and permanent networked interactions with other people. Not an easy task.

  • markdisomma

    June 28, 2015 at 12:15 am

    Luis – you make an excellent point – those who preach the need for brands to change are themselves struggling to change to the level required … Thanks for your thoughts.

  • Tom Asacker

    June 28, 2015 at 11:51 am

    Great post Mark, and I agree with one caveat: Ad agencies, and their creative departments, will only produce what they are asked to produce by their clients. Ruxin isn’t assuming that the battle is for attention. He probably knows that it’s not. What he does know, however, is that his clients think that it is. Another example of how we become who we associate with.

    • Chris Bofinger

      July 1, 2015 at 8:22 am

      Interesting take on the creative output being a byproduct of poor direction from clients. Does that happen on too frequent of a basis? Yes, but I’d argue that the strongest agency-client relationships have a freedom where both parties can push against and past poor direction without penalty. Additionally, in the same way that the client needs to ensure their agencies are fully aware of market/product/consumer dynamics, it’s the agency’s responsibility to move any client away from direction that’s rooted in old metrics like Awareness. Awareness can be had with a sizable investment. I’d rather have an agency bring forth work that positively addresses and shapes consumer behavior.

  • markdisomma

    June 29, 2015 at 4:36 am

    Great to hear from you Tom, as always. If ad agencies, and their creative departments, only produce what they are asked to produce, then in my view they are not creating answers, they are producing someone else’s. To me, that’s short-changing what agencies are best at, or should be … That being the case, maybe, to your point, some should be looking more carefully at who they associate with. Now there’s an interesting dilemma …

  • Gina Gelabert

    June 29, 2015 at 9:48 am

    It is incredible that communication and persuasion theories are still part of mainstream communication research, yet this knowledge continues to be ignored by many traditional agencies. There are multiple models that explain how persuasive communication works (to some degree). Communication strategy should be a result of clearly delineated communication objectives. Awareness is definitely (or very seldom) not a direct progression to preference or persuasion.

    Unfortunately, the “creative idea” and the multiple Industry awards tend to feed upon themselves. I think that often, ego rather than consumer sensitivity drives creative output.

    Great article.

  • Michael Schwartz

    July 1, 2015 at 8:14 am

    I find this thread fascinating. Does anyone truly know if all of this new social engagement is translating into moving product or is it just one marketing guy trying to out eyeball another marketing guy before moving on to his next CMO position? Seems to me that human nature hasn’t changed a whole lot for a long time. People still respond to the same emotional and inspirational influences that they always have. They’re just exposed to more platforms and places for the influencers to do their jobs.How long before the emperor reveals himself to be naked? How long before the consumer screams out against the subtleties of “native” content for the honesty of an ad trying to sell something? An ad done cleverly and creatively . Not just a another cheap video by someone with the latest DSLR. Now you can tell me I’m full of it and stuck in the old model. Feel free. I can take it. Bet there’s some truth here.

    • Matthew

      July 8, 2015 at 8:27 am

      Michael, to offer my opinion As a mid 20’s person solely on the topic of social media. I believe that disengagement is far more effect then constant presence for a company. As long as that when they do engage the content is thoughtful & informative or even mysterious. For example my friends are glued to their phones, see brands they follow post on Facebook & Instagram EVERYDAY, some 2-3 times a day. Often, generic (hey look I’m here still sh#t) Does that make them want to engage more? Do I see them buying more? Definitely not, in fact the only time I will see a reaction that stems beyond a 5 second attention span to a “post” is when a brand posts something credible. IMO Doing this just 2-3 times a week gives your followers a breath of fresh air from the chaos & allows you to be more considerate/effective with what you choose to post. Over time people respect this far more than the smothering approach

Comments are closed.

Connect With Us