Why big agencies don’t always know best
The argument that brands should stick with their existing agencies because they know them best is utter tosh says Eaon Pritchard, in a piece that first appeared in Encore.
For an agency to claim that they deserve to hold on to an account because they are the only agency to really ‘understand the brand’ is just about the best case I’ve heard for them to be fired. Immediately.
One of the conundrums you face when switching from big agency to small agency is the realisation that the business development boot has landed squarely on the other foot. And it doesn’t fit so well.
In my big agency days, I quite happily trotted out the following statement to clients whose account was with said big agency but whose heads were occasionally being turned by the advances of smaller boutique or specialist agencies.
“We (big agency) understand the brand. Why would you (the client) risk handing over any part of the marketing to a small boutique or specialist agency? They don’t get the brand.”
The reality of this statement, looking at it now from the challenger viewpoint rather than the incumbent viewpoint, is that it is utter tosh.
If the brand manager and the big agency are the only parties who ‘get’ the brand, who ‘understand’ the brand, then clearly they have not been doing their jobs properly.
If they had been doing it properly then everyone should understand the brand.
Everyone should be clear on the values, meaning, purpose, image and voice of the brand.
If they – the brand manager and the incumbent agency – have been doing their jobs properly then there can be no doubt about what the brand idea is, so the door would therefore open for any agency to have a valid point of view on how the values, meaning, purpose, image and communications should best be expressed. In any case, the real question should be, “which agency best understands the buyers?”
Eaon Pritchard is the head of strategy at Sputnik.
This story first appeared in Encore. Download it now on iPad, iPhone and Android tablet devices.
I’ll tell you what’s utter tosh: the notion that size has any bearing on the quality of work or advice you’ll get from your agency.
There are bad agencies, mediocre agencies, good agencies and great agencies. And in each of those categories you will find agencies of all sizes.
The trick is to make sure you’re only working with good and great agencies, and avoid the bad and mediocre ones.
User ID not verified.
“In my big agency days, I quite happily trotted out the following statement .. “We (big agency) understand the brand.”
And now in your small agency days you are saying the opposite – which one should people believe? Or is it whatever one you are selling right now?
User ID not verified.
the read ex-reader has a very good point
and in making s/he highlights the core problem that we advertisers have with ALL agencies
you bullshit your arses off to sell yourselves or your ideas to prospective and current clients – but it’s completely transparent to anyone with half a brain
all we want is to be not treated like idiots by agencies of all kinds and sizes
User ID not verified.
Great things can come in small packages. A small agency can deliver results that are just as amazing. Plus they love small clients – some of the larger agencies don’t because they don’t find them worth their while. I do!
User ID not verified.
This is irrelevant as to the size of the agency; however I agree that it is very important to understand buyers and their motivations, and not just the brand itself.
User ID not verified.
@Respectfully disagree – actually we agree.
@the real ex-reader – see respectfully disagree’s comment. I’m not saying the opposite, I’m saying that knowing the brand is a given, knowing buyer behaviour is the important bit, who gets that wins.
@nell a bit harsh.
User ID not verified.
Link these thoughts in with some of this
https://mumbrella.com.au/heres-specialists-180225
and I think it’s quite a strong argument against ‘big agencies’, but since when have clients ever gone for rational over easy & comfortable.
User ID not verified.
I have to agree with Eaon. An agency talking about “understanding the brand” would alert my BS detector. As if the brand is some complicated thing, rather than simple or (arguably) complex and capable of being understood in lots of different, potentially explosively creative ways.
User ID not verified.
Small clients should always be with small agencies.
I worked at a large multi-national agency with a $3 million media account and a $30 million auto account.
Getting things done for the $30 million account was no problem. Trying to get things done for the $3 million account was a pain in the arse. Everyone treated it as such a small account, hardly worth wasting time on.
If small advertisers think they are getting the best of the people and resources at a large agency – they are kidding themselves.
User ID not verified.
Absolutely. It’s not about “understanding the brand”, it’s about knowing how to communicate with people about the brand.
Some agencies have real people hard-wired into their approach. Others don’t and just talk in slogans.
User ID not verified.
When it comes to this debate, I’m with Jon Winsor: https://twitter.com/jtwinsor/status/361869843206643712
Nimble and flexible systems with clients who know what they’re doing at the core, is waaaay more fun to be a part of.
User ID not verified.
Having worked at ‘small’ and ‘large’ agencies and owned a few, the size is totally irrelevant, its the people that make a business. Large agencies with a core of great people will be great, small agencies the same..
The problem, especially in Australia is that the talent pool is so small, this small pool means there is more shit than great, and if you are a business of 100+ people, the crap will out way the great.
Also agree with @Tom Donald, clients who are great, work with great people and cut through all the agency wank and bullshit… Choose who you work with and for and life is a lot more rewarding.
User ID not verified.