| ||||||||||||
PRINT
COMMENT
SUBSCRIBE
RSSClients, promised the benefits of synergy (a.k.a. "effectiveness") and efficiency, may find that objectivity and differentiability are more important metrics. Let me explain....
In the advertising business, there is no more influential force than the global account director. They are the cream of the crop; the most articulate, persuasive, and polished people on the planet. Which is how they get to sit at the right hand of the client company CMO and provide advice and counsel on all matters relating to brand and customer marketing. Yet these people are paid to maximize the profitability derived from each account in their portfolio. Despite lots of talk about "big-picture" and "long-term perspective," their compensation and longevity are directly related to hitting quarterly targets. And since good jobs for global account directors are about as plentiful as good parts for actresses over 50, it should be no surprise that global account directors jealously guard the continuity of their client revenue streams by controlling access to the key client decision-makers. They need to make sure that all the component parts of the agency network are "on-strategy" and "aligned."
In the research business, the most influential people are the technocrats: the people who design surveys, select samples, run multivariate analyses, and produce bubble charts condensing complex statistical subtleties into actionable advice. Their brilliance stems from asking the right questions and seeking the technical path to the most insightful answers (within a budget and timeframe). They tend to be introspective as a whole -- with quieter and less dynamic personalities. They don't generally have the "presence" of a typical global account director.
When agency and research supplier each have independent relationships with the client, they often disagree about the direction or the interpretation of success. The client gets to hear both sides of the argument and presumably makes a more informed decision as a result. But when they are merged into the same team, and placed (formally or informally) under the overall watch of a global account director, those disagreements are no longer transparent to the client. Instead, the client is presented with at best some additional "options," and at worst, a single mediocre solution wrapped in statistically valid rationale. At this point, the fox is actually running the henhouse.
In time, the dominant power of the agency account director nudges out the most independent research minds, and replaces them with more "compliant" ones who know a good commercial solution when they are told one. Objectivity and transparency walk out the door, replaced by efficiency derived from more streamlined methods and processes replicated hundreds of times over -- not because they reliably succeed, but because they hardly ever fail. Is this the measure of "effectiveness"?
And in an era where we desperately need more independently minded researchers to help figure out the implications of fragmentation across traditional and digital touch points, is this even helpful?
So, the agency holding company gets the benefit of non-advertising revenue streams as a hedge against economic downturns.
The shareholders of the research firm all receive a nice cash benefit from their years of hard work.
Employees get, er, nothing. Maybe less than nothing.
And the clients -- they get the burden of having to be ever-more diligent in soliciting and accepting advice.
Where's the efficiency in that?
RSS FEEDS
I liken this situation to another underway in which Targetbase and Claydon Heeley are getting together to apply analytics to creative development. In this case however it is the Creative power (capital C mind you) versus the insights team.
These are organizational developments worth watching - and hoping - that the 10% of truly "best solution" global ADs will take the measure the analytics team brings to the table.
Of course, in the meantime, Sir Martin warms his hands over the pile of money.
The CMO and I met with the agency team later on that day. My unenthusiastic response to the agency's (grotesque and sleazy) marketing initiative planned for our firm enraged the global account director. I was surprised when, in front of six or eight individuals, he violently attacked my evaluation of the research (which I hadn't yet reported to anyone but our CMO), saying that I had obviouly not read the report and making other inaccurate statements. It took all the patience I had to not reel off the 8 or 10 reasons for feeling uncomfortable with their work, and lashng back at the account director for his stupidity. Nevertheless, I held my tongue because I sensed that this fellow was in his waning years at this agency and I didn't want to hasten his demise by embarrassing him in front of his peers and bosses, as he had embarrassed me.
I doubt many were surprised when the agency lost our account. Perhaps not all global account directors are as "articulate, persuasive, and polished people" as management wishes they were. Now, years later, I am looking back on these memories and having quite a bit more fun in semi-retirement at www.lastinglinks.com
Rob Dunford, CMO www.LastingLinks.com robdunford@lastinglinks.com