No Titles at Mindshare?

I don’t know about you, but I am thoroughly enjoying watching the big media agencies attempting to “reinvent” themselves. 

First Sorrell talks about his breakthrough idea of creating a small agency to service a new client (at their demand.)  What a unique idea!  Or is Martin so out of touch that he doesn’t realize that there actually are small agencies out there?  And that many of those small agencies do a far better job because they are smaller?

Then Carat decides to slam together er… join their previously separate digital and traditional agencies.  That was definitely a rousing success resulting in loss of clients and sadly well-publicized staff layoffs.

But the prize for silliest “reinvention” is the notion of deleting everyone’s titles at Mindshare.  And exactly what is that going to produce other than mass confusion and unrest at an agency of this size?

You do have to give these agencies some credit as they suspect they are outdated.  I’m not sure the dinosaurs were smart enough to realize their approaching doom.   But then, the dinosaurs probably wouldn’t have run around in circles in a vain attempt to prevent it.

What Happened to the Great Media and Creative Divide?

I believe that this divide simply cannot exist in the digital space.  Imagine trying to present a mobile marketing campaign with no more information than we estimate the program might reach this many consumers?  Your client would give you a blank look and enquire about the purpose of the mobile plan.

It’s a fair question and one we would not have gotten 10 years ago when we recommended 200 TRPs a week in Network TV.  The medium and the creative are not inextricably linked when planning and buying traditional media.  More often than not the planner or buyer never even saw the creative unless they were lucky enough to chance upon it accidentally.

But now the media strategist has to present both the medium and the creative idea that will be used.  Ideally this would be a joint venture with both the creative director and the media strategist involved. But, as anyone who has worked at an ad agency knows, the creative is never finished before or even at the same time as the media plan.  Usually media will get a desperate call from the account group to ask them to move up the due date for the media plan so they can present it during the meeting originally scheduled for the creative group to share their ideas.  Only the creatives are late yet again and can not meet their original deadline so media gets served up instead.

So now our brave media strategist must imagine both the medium and the message.  All without any idea of where the creative group’s head is in terms of concepts, themes etc.  By the time the creative group comes up with their ideas, the media plan is presented, adjusted and sold in to the client.  One can only hope that there is some connection between the media idea and the creative.

This change in the way we must do business due to digital has had some very interesting results.  My media department has not only concepted in-banner games but outsourced them to a gaming software developer to design.  We reviewed and tweaked them (creative was still nowhere at this point), presented them to the client who chose eight of the nine games we pitched.  Within two days the banners were being served by Eyeblaster.  The media group evaluated the individual banner performance and dropped one of the games as a result.

If I were in a creative group at an agency doing digital, I would be very worried.  Things have changed.

 

Five Rules for the New Agency Construct

It’s pretty simple to define what the successful agency needs to look like right now:

1. Must be staffed by right brain and left brain thinkers so all not only understand how to analyze metrics but are capable of dreaming up new ways to do this – and create new vehicles to measure
2. Has to include digital and traditional media and creative folks covering every communications discipline – and determined to make up new ones
3. Has to have a serious Account Planning/Ethnography/Any New Way of understanding consumers group
4. Must included a digital technical group who do not know how to say “That can’t be done.”  They are allowed to say “That has never been done.” which is the best response of all.
5. Ideally will get to the point where the agency has no more than 5 clients (large is good.)  Each client will only be allowed to stay at the agency for 5 years and then must go find another shop.  Of course, the agency will add a different 5th client to their roster at that point.  This will keep both client and agency fresh and constantly tackling new challenges.   It may also eliminate the need for a New Business Director.

One is the Loneliest Number

Adults 25-54.  One single target.  It covers men and women.  It includes millionaires and welfare moms, 25 year olds working on oil wells and 48 year old CEOs and vice versa, introverts and extroverts, techno-nerds and techno-phobes, conservatives and liberals, the healthy and the deathly ill, grandmothers, hetero and homosexuals.  You get the idea.

If I never have to write a plan again with age and income as the target audience definition I will rejoice. We have the tools to be much more precise so why aren’t we using them?  Let’s take a page from the web developers and use personas.  Not personas as featured in last week’s Ad Age – that really breakthrough idea of personifying this one target group we are trying to reach.  Personas as in plural, more than one target, lots of targets with different attitudes, life situations reflecting the true nature of the individuals we are attempting to communicate with. The idea of three, six or ten target audiences seems to boggle some minds.  Yes it is more difficult and time consuming but it is the only approach that begins to address the myriad of individual ways in which we relate to our world.  It addresses not only the communication opportunities we have for the first time in advertising history but what it will take to get any potential consumer to be interested in what we have to say. Stop whinging and get to work.  Media planning is more challenging now – and will be much more rewarding if we do it right.

Don’t Look

Don’t look before you leap into media because you can’t afford to these days.  That’s the theme of the Ad Women of New York’s Boardroom Breakfast address that Nancy Mullahy gave (as reported in Ad Age http://adage.com/mediaworks/article?article_id=112451)

So smart and so true.  We are no longer going to have the so-called measurements to use before we try something new in communications.  The only way we are going to know if something works is to try it.  And if someone else tries it first and has a great experience there is no guarantee that our experience will be the same.

Our old/current measurement systems are a big hoax anyway.  Reach and Frequency?   We are still using the same “black box” curves from the days of the big three networks.  What a joke when a schedule reaches 98% of adults 25-54 3+ times.  MRI and SMRB are a year out of date as soon as we get the data online.  But to be fair, data that was gathered yesterday is probably out of date right now. 

It seems that few marketing folk realize that humans are constantly evolving the way they interact with the world.   That means that we poor sods in advertising who want to communicate and be relevant must also be constantly in touch with our targets and constantly changing the way we communicate with them. 

The Media Measurement world is kind of like a sieve – you pour in the data and it immediately falls out the bottom and you still don’t have a good idea of what is going on.  We are left the ponder and try to instill meaning into the few lumps left at the bottom of the sieve.

Videographer Needed for Media Department

All of the current syndicated resources providing data on target audience habits (MRI, SMRB, Scarborough, Media Audit to name a few) are out of date even before they are published.  

This is a gap that will need to be filled by someone.  Ideally, the ad agencies would step up to the plate and incorporate consumer knowledge as one of their key functions.  There really is no better way to get a deep understanding of what our target groups are up to.  Researching changing consumer habits with the kind of detail and insight that is needed to put together an effective media plan is simply not a function that is economically scalable.  Which means, no one else will touch it but it can become a valuable part of an agency offering – and one not easily duplicated by another agency or outside source.

To my mind, the best way to understand the consumer is to – sort of – live with them.  This has become known as Ethnography and it is an art done well by very few people.  First of all, you have to keep your mouth shut most of the time which is very hard for the egos that live in the ad agency space.  Done right, ethnography will tell you that this family does not read Smithsonian even though they said they did on the MRI survey.  People will share their passions (as in pets, sports, photography etc), what they value and what they don’t, who has the real purchasing power in the family and all kinds of wonderful nuggets that can be turned into marketing that speaks to them in meaningful ways.

Hence the need for a videographer in the media group.  OK, maybe it should be in the Account Planning or Research group but many medium sized shops don’t have these.  This approach to media and marketing is absolutely critical for smart media and creative ideas.  We need to do this NOW.

The Passing of the Dinosaurs

Why do agencies like Carat think they can jam together two previously segregated groups (by media specialty and location) and make it work?  Anyone could have predicted this disaster – all they had to do was ask one of their clients.  Which, it seems, no one bothered to do.  Sounds like no one bothered to ask anyone currently working at Carat, either.

No wonder David Verklin is leaving.  Word is he didn’t get along too well with his boss so it is hard to know who was responsible for putting the hole in the side of this ship.  But with the ship listing dangerously, like any smart person, he sees no point in going down with it.

And the self described “breakthough” new model of advertising agencies brilliantly conceived (the client made them do it) and executed by WPP?  Mr. Sorrell, really, since when is a smaller agency a new idea?  I guess about the time that it appeared that a big one is a bad idea.

Big agencies, with individual departments organized by medium, are dinosaurs.  Unfortunately they will not die a quick death by meteor. These businesses will die a slowly by attrition.  And, like the dinosaurs, they probably won’t even see it coming.

Hopefully small to medium shops will realize that the pendulum has swung back in their direction and take advantage of this.  By truly integrating all forms of media, they will be ready to serve anyone – even a P&G.  Let’s hope that they not only see this opportunity but move quickly to take advantage of it.

Who Are Those Guys?

I still can’t figure out why media planners and buyers – both traditional and digital – continue to use the outdated notion that age and sex are enough to define their target audiences. This is akin to buying household ratings on network TV which went out in the 1970s (or so I have been told.)

Agency planners spend an inordinate amount of time doing research on their ostensible targets using MRI and/or SMRB syndicated research. I have seen hundreds of printed pages of data illuminating every possible nuance of their target’s life yet it all seems to get boiled down to something like: Men 18-49, $25,000+ income live in C and D counties. Or maybe a fuller description of these guys with some inferred lifestyle commentary – but this never really gets used for planning or buying. It is simply in the media plan as window dressing to show the client that the agency really understands the consumer. Huh?

The saddest truth that is never acknowledged by anyone is that any SMRB/MRI/Scarborough/Media Audit is immediately 12 to 18 months out of date as soon as it is “published.” In this day, that is a lifetime of changes in people’s lifestyles and attitudes. Why do we continue to use this old information? I can venture a few defensive answers from these planners:

• This is the way we have always defined our target audience.
• MRI and SMRB are the only reliable sources available to us.
• The client wants us to do it this way.
• What else could we do instead – guess?

Media Planners, Buyers and even Media Directors are not known to be the most creative people around so I don’t imagine many have thought of this problem much less addressed it. Another part of the problem is that the Media Department in a full-service agency generally ranks at about the same level as the Accounting Department.

So what is to be done? Stay tuned, dear reader, as I have a few suggestions…

Be a Generous Advertiser

At this year’s AAAA Media Conference, the P&G Marketing Director delivered his usual, brilliant sound bite. “Advertisers need to be generous.” Jim Stengel said.

It is a fairly simple concept that has often been forgotten by advertisers and agencies alike. You cannot force people to buy your products. Yet how often has an agency recommended a sponsorship or a sweepstakes and the client asks “So what do I get out of this?” Guess what, those days are over if they ever truly existed.

The Brits have long laughed at us because U.S. advertising has usually been based on a rational presentation of the merits of the product. This product has these attributes or this product is better than all others because… They know better. Even if Product A is somewhat better than Product B but consumers hate A’s manufacturer…they will find a way to justify buying B instead.

The most obvious and popular “generous” approach is portraying a company as “green.” This is certainly debatable for some companies and may do them more harm than good. However, I think the product and the company shown in the ad at the end of this column definitely qualify.

In our newly consumer-centric world, all companies badly need their consumers good will and that cannot be forced. Only a show of generosity; by providing something useful, entertaining or informative without openly requiring a return on this investment, can companies hope to succeed.

 

The Clout Myth

Why do clients (and agencies, in some cases) fall for the notion of “clout” in buying media? The big guys are always touting the fact that the more money you have to buy with the lower the costs for your clients.

Clout works only if there is an unlimited amount of media inventory available. It works against you if there is limited inventory and the demand for it is reasonable. It’s just logic, pure and simple. Let me give you a common example of media agency at work using their clout. We will call this agency Hugo Media.

Hugo Media Buys Network TV
Let’s take the idea of “clout” as applied to network and spot buys at Hugo Media. Assume I am a network TV buyer at Hugo. I have clients with boatloads of money and I can afford to buy 10% of all available network TV inventory in a given year (this is not a fantasy game.) By the way, I am 22 years old and have only been doing this for 13.5 months but that is incidental to the story.

Network TV inventory is, for all intents and purposes, a limited commodity. Not even the networks are dumb enough to cancel programming and substitute advertising (yet.) So, I call up the big five networks and ask them for avails for my 10 big clients. After all, the concept is that all clients will have their buys around the same time in order to take “advantage” of my enormous clout. I don’t have much clout if the networks don’t know the enormous amount of money I am spending.

Note to reader: This is not speculation. I have actually bought network TV at some of the largest agencies around…and some of the smallest.

So I guess this would be the thought process envisioned by the leaders (during a new business pitch) at Hugo Media:

The networks are going to rush to give me 10% of their inventory at much lower prices than the smaller network buyers because they want to discount most of their best programming. Networks sell the majority of their inventory to the big agencies so why wouldn’t they slash the prices for them? Yeah, let’s sell 75% of my limited ad time at a deep discount and gouge those those little guys that represent 25% of my inventory. You know, the little clients who really have other options besides network TV. Sure.

As a network buyer I know my clients need and want to be on Network TV. The networks know this as well. Another incentive to deep discount prices? Not in any rationale universe. The top 3 to 5 networks know I will have to buy most or all of them as ratings are so low that I can’t afford to leave any viable network out of the buy. Unless my target is 55+ year olds which is when CW doesn’t make so much sense. Lots of those buys out there…

So which agencies do get the best rates? The medium to smaller shops who don’t have to deal with the New York reps and can easily fly under the radar. Any Media Director worth her salt can figure out how to buy network as it is a lot easier than buying spot TV.

So why do clients fall for the “More is better” line? Beats me.