Too many agency management people hold that an ad agency can’t afford to turn down any business, and that the agency must change its philosophy to reflect the needs of its eclectic clients. If an account director comes with a client request to redo advertiser’s roof, the general manager is apt to heartily accept the project and ask if they can charge a commission on tarpaper. Agencies that fail to stick to a specific value proposition, however, become opportunistic parasites on the marketing industry. There’s no real management in managing such an agency – instead it’s just sales and more …

The grousing continues. As the year has worn on past the half-way point, folks within the industry still wonder why they are not getting their fair share of the advertising budget pie, while those who only write about the business are in awe that the industry still survives at all. So the question remains, why is it that this fine industry of ours does not get the respect (read: MONEY) it deserves?

The Brand. The Brand is the holy grail of advertising. When marketers look to spend their ad budgets they always tout the strength and importance of The Brand. When a medium cannot clearly detail the effectiveness or power of their advertising it usually states that it’s strength lies in developing the Brand. Is the strength of a Brand positive or negative? What truly is its power?

I've been following the threads on the Spin Board concerning Dave Smith's column of August 1 ("Send Me Your Stories"), as well as the August 8 follow-up column by Jim Meskauskas ("Dave Smith is Right"). Some interesting points were raised by both articles, as well as by the subsequent posts on the Spin Board.

As we get closer to September 11, many of us are reflecting backwards to 9/11/2001 and what has happened since. And if you are like most Americans, you are starting to think about what is the proper thing to be doing this year on September 11.

The entire premise of a new business pitch does not reflect the day-to-day reality of how an agency serves advertisers. Different people are put on the project than would actually service the account. The processes and tasks they perform are almost always different than what the agency does in the normal course of business.

Dave's column last week was not an attempt to take a pot-shot at the industry or call for other people’s mud to be slung. It is borne of a love for this medium and a desire to save it from the worst practices that are fast becoming the primary feature of the public’s understanding of what the industry actually does.

The customers are eating their tuna melts and sucking down their vanilla milkshakes. Flo is colorfully singing out the orders with her hairnet pulled tightly back around her head while Mel is in the back, charcoal spatula in hand, sporting a filthy apron covered in 13-year-old grease. Mel hollers back, “Cheeseburger, extra pickles.” Ding! “Order Up!” This is my impression of the technology behind most Inventory Management Systems in place for the major online publishers these days.

Last weekend, at a friend's wedding, I struck up a conversation with three gentlemen who worked as research chemists for a large pharmaceutical company. As is the case almost any time I tell someone that I work for an online marketing firm, they had plenty of feedback for me. As I listened to their frustrations, I began to see a common thread running through all of them.

As we approach the reality of reach and frequency programs in the marketplace from companies like Atlas DMT and Nielsen NetRatings, the subject of frequency capping keeps coming up. It has been the assumption on the part of myself and others that this aspect of ad serving will be of great benefit to us as we learn more about what frequency levels are optimum in communicating various strategies. But once again, everything we know is wrong.