In case you missed the news from research firm Forrester, they have determined how much today's ad agencies suck. Not sure if that is "newsworthy" or "new" but here's a snippet:
Forrester quotes a marketing exec saying that agencies are "a necessary evil," rather than a strategic partner to grow his business. Another says, "Most senior ad execs appear more comfortable with conventional channels, which they claim are 'integrated' because they have tacked on a Web site."
If agencies have become a "necessary evil" for this executive, them I bet he and/or his marketing staff are:
A. A damn lazy bunch
B. Incompetent of having original thoughts
C. Both lazy and incompetent
Look, few people are more critical than myself when it comes to how inept some of the bigger agencies and holding companies can be, however, no-one is forced to hire them. Until brands stop relying on search agencies that ONLY send RFP's to multi-billion dollar agency factories or until CMO's start thinking for themselves, the smaller/better/smarter/hungrier agencies will continue to miss out. Yes, the system sucks. Yes, some big agencies are dinosaurs that amazingly still win huge business for which they fall short on. Yes, life is not fair.
Albert Einstein once famously said "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results." If we assume this applies to continued hiring (and firing) of today's "leading" ad agencies, then why do they keep getting hired? I'd like to know what you think. Chime in.
Love this post. Dead on about the selection process. Smarter/faster/better informed does not mean more effective. The old-media empire, though, has its claws sunk deep.
ReplyDelete