Agencies have to change their structure. It just doesn’t work any more. It is way too hard to be a one stop shop. There is too much pressure on overhead and CMOs need a very diversified level of skillsets. The old days of marketing use to look like this: Do some great creative and buy as much media as possible. That used to get CMOs by. But now the world of marketing is much more complex. CMOs are finding that they need their marketing to get closer to sales, human resources, R&D, facility design etc. and all the while they have to find a way with their messaging to stand out and break trough all of the clutter. Add on other issues like increasing pressure on marketing dollar justification, fragmented agency relationships and rapid CMO turnover and what you have is CHAOS…exactly where the industry is today.

The answer is agencies have to change their structure. We built an agency after talking to 300 leading CMOs that looks like this. It is virtual. We only staff the account side of the business and we only do the account strategy. After that we broker out all of the creativity under our supervision. It is more cost effective for everyone involved. It also gives us and our clients 100% flexibility. If our cleint needs to do some internal brand training to engage their employees we have partnerships that we rely on and manage. If our clients need high end TV commercials we have partners for that. If they want low end TV we have partners for that. If they want a guerilla campaign we have partners for that. See. It is a leverage thing. The traditional ad agency model is inadequate in every way. Just as most CMOs. We did.

Hope this helps.

Links:
http://www.stacygentile.com

Surely a big agency with strong cross media competences. The focus point is program management to drive critical actions to success!

it’s both for me:
In order to keep one clear direction and be flexible enough, agency network is recommended, harder to manage, though.
You also need a one-stop-shop agency that can understand your complete value-chain and churn an integrated campaign on the go.

think it really does depend on what the client is using an agency for.

Smaller companies can work with purely below-the-line agencies, and as so many position themselves as full-service they are able to create and implement integrated campaigns and in this case one agency would probably be sufficient.

Whereas the blue chips do tend to have a roster of agencies which cover all disciplines that they require, for example it’s rare to find an agency that specialises in experiential yet is also a top DM agency (I could be proved wrong but haven’t come across one yet!).

As long as there is one lead agency - i.e. the agency that has worked on the brand proposition, messaging etc. then this can filter down to the other agencies in the form of brand guidelines and brand policing.

Having 3 or 4 agencies on your roster, in my opinion, strengthens your outputs - you might have a specialist branding and packaging agency, an above-the-line agency and a DM agency for example. Working together, and managed well, you have created your own network!

But each client is different and some do want that pure one-stop-shop, and these days there are many agencies with sister agencies working with them to offer disciplines that they might not cover.

In short - it’s a minefield of agencies out there. We would always advise clients that before they start the process of searching for an agency that they plan exactly what they believe their marketing requirements are going to be, we then shortlist agencies against that criteria then ask each agency to submit tailored credentials. But the real test will be once you meet an agency - as the chemistry is so important in a long term relationship.

Well that’s my thoughts on the subject!

Business owners are not looking for a marketing agency, they are looking for results.

The agency’s corporate structure and even its location will not matter in the future as long as there is a solid ROI.

As businesses migrate to the web, interactive will be a major part of any future agency. And companies like my little one are used to seeing the results for every page on my web site (visitors, views, sales, etc.).

So a future agency should have interactive as the cornerstone, and then have a process in place to show ROI whether the other agency components are inside or out-sourced.

I’d also like to see a future agency take the lead as a teacher/mentor to the business rather than simply a supplier.

Hope this helped. These are just the views of a small business. I sure don’t have all the answers - but I liked your question.

All good points. To build on this, it boils down to culture: it really depends on the needs of the client, the extent of their service/content/product offerings and the management heirarchy.

Nike, for example, just announced it was going to extend its agency roster to facilitate a few of its sub-brands, running shoes in particular. Weiden + Kennedy is of course a fantastic shop that is responsible for creating the Nike brand; the decision was made simply to enhance and leverage niche sensibilities that can be overlooked in a larger, corporate relationship.

As a boutique agency, our target accounts are middle-stage companies or those in redevelopment. Again, it’s a cultural affiliation. That is not to say that we don’t work with Blue Chips either because we do, we just tend to focus on niche businesses within those corporate structures. The value proposition to them is that we are flexible and adaptable, something that a lot of big agencies can’t offer in the same ways.

I’ll agree that is does have a lot to do with the client.

I’ve worked with some large clients in the past that had a lead agency and my shop provided services as directed. Sometimes it was because of a specciality, sometime is was brand specific (Shop A handles Brand 1, Shop B handles Banrd 2, etc).

While I have had my hands in practically every type of project over the last 15 years (and can do a solid job at them) now that I have my own firm, I specialize in what I’m really good at (brand-based print advertising, collateral, and packaging).

belive that Mark Garrett said it best “Business owners are not looking for a marketing agency, they are looking for results. The agency’s corporate structure and even its location will not matter in the future as long as there is a solid ROI.”

Marketing agencies that have a solid background in traditional media often lack or neglect the expertice that is need in the online marketplace. As a society we are so saturated with marketing that have grown cold to the efforts, yet we have embraced the power of the web and the third party referrals and reviews. No one wants to hear Ford say they are “The Best in Texas” they want to hear Joe, the guy next door, say that Ford is the Best in Texas.

Larger agencies will start to come around and eventually the will start to get what the web community is all about and how to tap into that; however, until that day comes they will reley on the skill sets, knowledge and agility of companies like ours.