Advertising: Innovate or Die. Vol. 1

I thought I had found my dream candidate.  Someone who understood the language of both design and business.  Someone who could think in pictures and express concepts with prototypes.  A creative problem solver.  An individual with a firm grasp on “Web 2.0”.  Someone who saw the potential of emerging technology as enabling us humans to make the connections we've always desired.  I brought him in for an interview.  I showed him some of our own concepts.  Our prototypes and visualizations of better, more fluid interactive experiences.  He was impressed.  He didn’t think that marketing firms did this kind of thing.  He was curious to hear more.  So I did my best to articulate the role of the digitally-integrated agency in creating brand experiences.  The kinds of experiences that people reward with their time, attention and participation.

I knew he was being sought after.  He had just graduated from the Illinois Institute of Technology, but he had that aspect about him—like a lot of people were in the process of pursuing him.  I sensed that I probably would not be successful in recruiting him—but it was still worth a shot.  He possessed a blend of skills that I was looking for.  Analytical.  Expressive.  Curious.  Empathetic.  He understood technology, but more importantly he understood why people behave the way they do.

In the end, he went to go work for Google.

Why am I sharing this tale of love and loss?  I’m sharing it because I think it’s time for Advertising to get serious about innovation.  Rumor has it that the Ad Industry is in it’s death throes.  I don’t think that’s completely true—but if Advertising doesn’t start innovating for real—they will be dead as a doornail.  Max Kalehoff of Nielsen BuzzMetrics recently featured a post that made the case for how the Advertising  industry model isn’t equipped to handle R&D.  In it, he cited the following reasons:

“1. The Deliverable. Advertising agencies produce content for a living; specifically, memorable stories in print ads and broadcast spots. Moreover, these stories are to be one-of-a-kind. Storytelling does not require R&D, nor does originality in storytelling.

2. The Value Proposition. Like all professional-services firms, agencies sell expertise, which by definition reflects what has worked in the past. R&D reflects an intention to try what hasn’t been tried before.

3. The Culture. Like all vendors, ad agencies are risk-averse. Proposing the untried to results-oriented clients is a risk with long odds, an unknowable payoff and a steep downside.

And more recent contributing factors include:

4. The Ownership. The big agencies that have the requisite resources are all publicly owned these days, and Wall Street has little patience with company spending that cannot be tied to short-term results.

5. The Environment. There’s been general erosion in R&D spending by U.S. businesses recently.”

Then I thought about my dream candidate.  The one that went to work for Google.  Google does R&D.  They experiment with new products, features and services.  They certainly innovate (though the case can be made that this is overstated).

Traditional Advertising at the core is still about telling stories.  T-E-L-L-I-N-G.  Not experiencing for yourself.  Hearing about it.  Reading about it.  Passively taking it in.  Now I’m all for good storytelling, but there has to be more in order to thrive in the world of creative, empowered, individualistic, fickle consumers who spend more time engaging the social network then they do watching TV.

OK, you heard me ramble on about my dream candidate.  The one that went to Google.  So what do I think the “Dream Agency” would look like? 

Hmmmm.  Well, right off the bat, it would need to stop acting like an agency.  That would mean replacing the Dog and Pony show with things like cultivating real customer insights and utilizing Ethnography.  My vision of a dream agency would be filled with people who think with both sides of their brains and visualize different solutions to the same problem.  The agency would need to have a toolbox of methodologies, but still be nimble enough to act quickly.  Maybe the dream agency will be part IDEO.

But it also has to be really creative.  It would need to know how to both tell stories and craft experiences.  It would need to be well versed in the multitude of digital channels and be able to execute in them.  It would need to be able to present brands in ways that are consistent with the lifestyles of the people who swear by these brands.  It would need to understand how to engage people as opposed to just telling stories to them.  So maybe the agency would be part R/GA.

But none of this is enough.  Sometimes you need more than creativity, strategy, design thinking, anthropology, and a good media plan.  Sometimes you just need some plain cooky, out of the box thinking that stops people in their tracks.  Sometimes you need to be one step ahead of the curve culturally to deliver something that’s never been seen before.  Sure, some of your efforts might be better then others, but you wouldn’t be afraid of taking risks and doing things like putting people in Chicken suits for all the Web to see (and interact with).  So maybe the dream agency is part Crispen Porter + Bogusky.

Food for thought.  I’ll be writing additional volumes about advertising + innovation.  In the meantime if you have ideas about this subject matter, please share them here.  Thanks.

Comments

[Stas Kravets]

David,

I do agree. To think "it worked 100 times and will work just great again" is a big mistake.

Also, in this year 2 of our most innovative and bold projects were most successful things we have ever done. We did not expected such a result, honestly.

I just listened Across The Sound #47 and there was one great saying by Seth Godin: "Be safe is risky". Be traditional is risky, in other words.

Stas

[Max Kalehof]

David,

Thanks for your mention. Another key hurdle for agencies is very simple: the silo departments (especially on the media side). Results for the client should not be media-specific, they should be media-agnostic.

Another growin challenge is the holding company. I keep seeing holding companies or agencies within make bad decisions for their clients; specifically, recommending services within their networks, versus whatever the best services are out there.

Cheers,
Max

[ming]

I predict, that agencies will scale down. The hiracy of personal will change to resemble teams.

there will be a high level of respect. and fair compensation to all 'members'

high accountability.

less jobs ber 'agency' more agencies..

the benifits of having a 'big' agency are waning.

a few individuals with overlaping skills will put the agencies out of business.

Agency2.0 ?

[Gavin Heaton]

Thought provoking as usual David! The dream agency? What about the dream client that would hire such an agency?
It is interesting that your dream candidate chose Google. Also very telling. At this point in time, Google is still a flexible organism ... with a self-propelling agency dynamic operating within a new media company structure. Makes for a compelling and challenging career.
Those organisations that are more fluid are going to appeal to the very talent that agencies need to compete ... and until agencies uncouple their services from their networks, they will continue to miss out on the talent that will drive the next wave of strategic innovation. And clients will go elsewhere ... perhaps to places like Google who may emerge as an uber-Agency.

[Adam]

No more agencies.

Rather, networks of individuals pooling skills on a adhoc basis.

http://www.thisisrealart.com
http://www.openintelligenceagency.com
http://www.senseworldwide.com

[DC1974]

IDEO is an interesting model for an agency -- in part because they are a direct result of the bring lots of "non traditional" people together, and let them play. It's the Google model too, in fact its part of the whole R&D process in the Bay Area. From PARC on down. What agencies have to have are going to have to have are labs with artists, technologists, thinkers and dreamers working away -- while the suits try to figure out how to market these insights. I'm not sure if most agencies are ready to sacrifice their profits for something different.

[Geof Harries]

I still wonder how big agencies thrive and prosper in today's market, where smaller, more agile agencies (or informal collaborations of like-minded people) are repeatedly doing the most innovative, forward-thinking work.

Is it because the clients of these big agencies still think in a big reach, low accountability, mass-media mindset? They aren't up to speed on the trends occurring and the execs capitalize on their ignorance. They're cloaking the client's reality.

To that end, how will smaller agencies pull in the big clients? Actually, is it even important that they do?

In the spirt of Web 2.0, perhaps the long tail effect will produce more revenue for the smaller agencies and their smaller clients than the big agencies and their big clients, with their short-term results and revenue paths?

The advertising world is a'changing every day.

[Jeremy Abbett]

Interesting post. I don't think the current ad agency structure is set up to be innovative. Even an interactive agency, like Digitas, will be hard pressed to create innovations that really impact people. Perhaps being innovative in advertising for advertisers but very rarely will advertising be innovative. This post brings this to mind:
http://jeremy.abbett.net/2006/07/27/idea-company/

[DA]

Thanks everyone for some really good feedback. I'll be including some of your thoughts in the follow up to this.

[Stan Lee]

Excellent piece. Many good points. Agree with most, disagree with a couple. An article worth sharing so I have posted it on to marktd.com

[andrew Van Hook]

how much did Google cost to create? Or Flickr?

Agencies can invest small amounts of money into new ideas - and the best part is they will own them forever. So the next subservient chicken, or the next converse film project they create can generate royalties, and licencing fees - instead of just pay for time spent.