Has tradition made creative agencies stagnant?
The current creative agency structure has existed for upwards of 75 years. Now might be the time to try something new, writes management consultant Henry Innis.
When you talk to most creative agencies about what they do, there’s a consistent theme that springs out. ‘The Big Idea’. ‘Creativity’. ‘Innovation’.
They’re little more than buzzwords these days.
But for a business built on creativity and change, they’ve changed very little themselves. Let’s look at their structure.
Bang on the money.
The problem (too much focus on the big stuff, not enough on the detail) is well documented but, if you think the problem is agency structure, I don’t think you’ve diagnosed the true cause.
I’ve worked with creative teams that will put as much effort into the all the little bits as they do the big idea, ones that make sure every channel, every brief, no matter how big or small, is used to the greatest effect possible. Emil is one of them.
But far more common are creatives who treat the small stuff as insignificant and unworthy of their attention. You can change structures, introduce different creative team combos etc etc etc, but that means nothing if you can’t change the attitude that the only thing worthy of a creative’s full attention is a big, glamorous film or Cannes winning activation.
A good creative team, irrespective of of the combination will seek out how to make the best of any brief, within it’s limitations. Where they lack knowledge, they’ll look to acquire it or collaborate with those that have it.
In short, it’s not a structural issue. It’s a cultural issue.
Couldn’t agree with you more. Truly talented creatives want to own every part of their work. They don’t want to see their idea let down by an unsupervised junior or just a plain hack.
Should be summed up with “inability to adapt”
Only want to do the cool stuff and not the grind work, with an inability to translate ideas into realities
Nothing new here, clickbait Henry at it again