Monday, March 29, 2010

The last agency isn't gone yet

OK, so this little piece of creative has cropped up ALL OVER THE SHOW.

Not sure what you all think about it, but I think it's a bit shit. Not the production, or the cleverness of it, just the overall message. Even though it talks about obsessive blogging, something that I might know a couple of things about, it just really isn't doing it for me.

The Last Advertising Agency On Earth from FITC on Vimeo.

What you have with FITC (and let's be fair - this is from 5 mins of reading) is, as they say, a 'Design and Technology Events' company and this video was produced with S&S Canada to promote one of their events. As they say on their site:

"What will the future of advertising look like? The answer depends on whether or not traditional advertising agencies truly embrace the power of digital to reach consumers and build brands in new, exciting ways. 'The Last Advertising Agency on Earth' is a film is about what might happen if they don't."

So basically what they are trying to do is scare marketers into digital/online because apparently their agencies don't know what they are doing.

Now, this might just be the case in some agencies - what they are talking about, hanging onto the TV script and re-purposing print ads for web banners - however not all agencies are like that and certainly not in NZ.

From what I have heard and witnessed, a lot of the time it is the agencies that are trying to push their clients into online, but just can't quite get there because the clients are not sure. They know television and print and therefore feel safe. You have to remember that like we agencies have to answer to our clients, our clients have to answer to their bosses and boards and stakeholders. Sometimes taking a gamble (especially in the recent climate) isn't worth it in their eyes, even when the research is telling them that is where they should be.

Yes, it is totally our job to make the clients feel comfortable with their decisions and make sure that their advertising works as hard for them as possible, but sometimes, there just aren't enough words to convince them. (Perhaps they need a TVC or newspaper ad to convince them?)

So, I have seen this video reposted on a number of different blogs around the traps in the last week, but there hasn't been a lot of comment that goes along with it. If they are posting it because it is a very nicely shot, interesting piece of work, then I agree. But are they posting it because they agree with what is being said in it?

We agency kids need to stand together through these kinds of scare tactics. What you're talking about are agencies who want to handle digital in a silo. Now, in some instances, I can see how a separate digital agency could be a good thing, but please people, if you don't stand up for your agencies in house abilities to produce great ideas and grand online campaigns, you are handing money to people who are one stop shops of limited online ideas, which go something along the lines of:

This is what I've done in the past.
These were the results.
Look at this small CPC/CPA.
You should do the EXACT same thing.

No recognition of brand awareness (which even Google is now reporting on differently acknowledging view through on the content network), it is all about the click.

What I think we need to be doing is getting the creative teams excited about the possibilities of online, it is a whole new world out there for them to mold and manipulate.

I just really firmly believe that a media strategy should include all media which is being utilised. Whether it be TV, print, cinema, outdoor, ambient or online, a campaign needs to flow together, picking pieces off isn't going to create a cohesive and seamless campaign, and isn't that what we all want for our clients?

4 comments:

communico said...

My understanding of ad agencies is that they make money from big mass-media campaigns, ideally where the media channel is costly and thus provides room for a decent sized kick-back.

New media doesn't especially reduce the need for good creative, but would seem to present some challenges to this revenue model.

iChild said...

Thanks for your comment communico.

I think stating that agencies push for certain media because of potential revenue is a dangerous path to go down. Certainly the agencies I have worked for analyse the data available to us and recommend media based on how the audience consumes media, not on how they can make the most money.

At some level, it needs to be recognised that television is still one of the best ways to reach a mass market.

Anyone out there with quick access to IMS able to tell me how many people in NZ have 2+ TVs in their household and how many have computers? I'm still learning to navigate Roy Morgan...

cj lambert said...

I heard it was produced by Saatchi?

iChild said...

Hey CJ,
Yeah Saatchi & Saatchi Canada - I was just lazy and called them S&S.