|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 15, 2005 07:44 AM
The IMM -- Three Years Later
The IMM – Three Years Later
The more things change, the more they stay the same…
When we started out, the Internet was already upon us, and – as I said in the
last entry – what we called the “Interactive Marketing Model” (IMM) was the only
model that made sense to us. This model gives clients direct access to the
content, design, production, and search engine optimization, etc., companies
they need – via a direct contact/direct cost model. And that means clients have
more control of their budget and their brand and get a higher return on their
investment.
For us, as fellow marketers working collaboratively with clients and the creative
and professional services companies that serve them, it means open, direct
channels of communication, resulting in a better finished product and a more
streamlined process to get projects done.
Seven years ago, I went around to all of the ad agencies in town and told them
our value proposition: We are a company, not a team of freelancers; we totally
understand writing for the Web and other new media, etc., etc. – ad nauseum. No
takers. One creative director at a mid-sized agency even said, “The Web is a
flash in the pan” – dumb ass. This guy was in total denial. He didn’t get it,
his institution didn’t get it, and the industry didn’t get it. The writing was
on the walls, and they had their hands over their eyes.
So how are agencies getting Web and new media work done (not to mention content,
SEO, and audio/video production, etc.)? With few exceptions, they are getting it
done by subbing that work out to small companies that understand this stuff –
then those companies (you guessed it) mark it up to their clients. And hey, if
the clients know that and are okay with the markup, more power to them. A few
years back, clients typically weren’t aware of the charade, or how much it was
costing them. Now what we’re seeing more and more is clients (even in the
Fortune 500) skipping over their agency relationships and following the IMM – or
just putting up (with some level of contempt) with the way things are with the
agency relationships they’ve inherited. But in these cases, I doubt that those
relationships will survive renewal. I honestly don’t see a lot of CMOs and CFOs
signing off on these big-ticket inefficient models, when there is a better way.
One agency owner that I know put it like this in his advice to fellow agency
owners: “Agencies need to either become very, very niche focused and have
in-house talent and subject matter experts that actually do the work, or be open
with the client about how that work really gets done – because at this point,
the client knows how it gets done.” The jig is up.
I couldn’t agree more. The value that an agency brings at this stage of the game
is oversight of the campaign and management of client expectations. When it
comes to the actual work that needs to be done to complete the project, the
agency needs to step out of the way and let the subcontracted design, SEO or
content development companies interact directly with the client. It really
doesn’t matter who handles the billing. The service provider just wants to get
paid, and the client just wants the project or campaign to reach its outcomes –
and would appreciate the oversight by the agency as well as a more honest
relationship.
You may think by this point in these last two rants that we are “The Anti-Agency”
– we’re not. In their current circa-1980s form, they are a non sequitur. In
seven years, we’ve worked through an agency only two times, so the existence of
agencies has little effect on us – other than as a windmill to fight.
We are, however, anti-scarcity. From a holistic business standpoint, we feel that
there are only two ways to go about life – we can be scarce or we can be
abundant. And everyone’s ultimate success is determined by how we approach the
world, our work, our clients, etc. If we are scarce of mind and heart, the
universe will be scarce to us (no matter what short-term gains we think we might
be getting); and if we are abundant, it will be abundant to us. It’s simple karma.
We never close ourselves off to any option; that’s just part of our values. We’d
love to find a few agencies to work in true partnership with. A lot of talented
people went out on their own when the Net took hold, but there’s still a great
deal of talent and experience in the agencies. We’d love to talk with agency
owners and execs that are changing their model to suit this new paradigm,
knowing that it probably isn’t going to change again in our lifetimes.
The more things change, the more they stay the same…
When we started out, the Internet was already upon us, and – as I said in the
last entry – what we called the “Interactive Marketing Model” (IMM) was the only
model that made sense to us. This model gives clients direct access to the
content, design, production, and search engine optimization, etc., companies
they need – via a direct contact/direct cost model. And that means clients have
more control of their budget and their brand and get a higher return on their
investment.
For us, as fellow marketers working collaboratively with clients and the creative
and professional services companies that serve them, it means open, direct
channels of communication, resulting in a better finished product and a more
streamlined process to get projects done.
Seven years ago, I went around to all of the ad agencies in town and told them
our value proposition: We are a company, not a team of freelancers; we totally
understand writing for the Web and other new media, etc., etc. – ad nauseum. No
takers. One creative director at a mid-sized agency even said, “The Web is a
flash in the pan” – dumb ass. This guy was in total denial. He didn’t get it,
his institution didn’t get it, and the industry didn’t get it. The writing was
on the walls, and they had their hands over their eyes.
So how are agencies getting Web and new media work done (not to mention content,
SEO, and audio/video production, etc.)? With few exceptions, they are getting it
done by subbing that work out to small companies that understand this stuff –
then those companies (you guessed it) mark it up to their clients. And hey, if
the clients know that and are okay with the markup, more power to them. A few
years back, clients typically weren’t aware of the charade, or how much it was
costing them. Now what we’re seeing more and more is clients (even in the
Fortune 500) skipping over their agency relationships and following the IMM – or
just putting up (with some level of contempt) with the way things are with the
agency relationships they’ve inherited. But in these cases, I doubt that those
relationships will survive renewal. I honestly don’t see a lot of CMOs and CFOs
signing off on these big-ticket inefficient models, when there is a better way.
One agency owner that I know put it like this in his advice to fellow agency
owners: “Agencies need to either become very, very niche focused and have
in-house talent and subject matter experts that actually do the work, or be open
with the client about how that work really gets done – because at this point,
the client knows how it gets done.” The jig is up.
I couldn’t agree more. The value that an agency brings at this stage of the game
is oversight of the campaign and management of client expectations. When it
comes to the actual work that needs to be done to complete the project, the
agency needs to step out of the way and let the subcontracted design, SEO or
content development companies interact directly with the client. It really
doesn’t matter who handles the billing. The service provider just wants to get
paid, and the client just wants the project or campaign to reach its outcomes –
and would appreciate the oversight by the agency as well as a more honest
relationship.
You may think by this point in these last two rants that we are “The Anti-Agency”
– we’re not. In their current circa-1980s form, they are a non sequitur. In
seven years, we’ve worked through an agency only two times, so the existence of
agencies has little effect on us – other than as a windmill to fight.
We are, however, anti-scarcity. From a holistic business standpoint, we feel that
there are only two ways to go about life – we can be scarce or we can be
abundant. And everyone’s ultimate success is determined by how we approach the
world, our work, our clients, etc. If we are scarce of mind and heart, the
universe will be scarce to us (no matter what short-term gains we think we might
be getting); and if we are abundant, it will be abundant to us. It’s simple karma.
We never close ourselves off to any option; that’s just part of our values. We’d
love to find a few agencies to work in true partnership with. A lot of talented
people went out on their own when the Net took hold, but there’s still a great
deal of talent and experience in the agencies. We’d love to talk with agency
owners and execs that are changing their model to suit this new paradigm,
knowing that it probably isn’t going to change again in our lifetimes.
