Traditional Agencies and Social Media
Jason Falls of Social Media Explorer wrote a really thought provoking post a few days ago called “Why Ad Agencies Struggle With Social Media.” Jason makes a really interesting argument. He says he feels that the primary obstacle in the way of “traditional” agencies getting more social is the time factor. In other words, where once you placed ad space, waited for the magazine to come out, and then waited another month until your next ad came out, now, with sites like Facebook and Twitter, you could literally be talking to your audience several times a day. Certainly several times a month. This must, without question, stand as a major change from what agencies used to do (and what some still do).
Jason was speaking specifically to agency creatives because his post concentrated on the creative output agencies are putting out there. Now, in our agency, I do a lot of the copywriting but I am not a graphic designer by any stretch of the imagination. However, having worked in the agency world for close to seven years now, I would like to offer some ideas on why agencies might not be creating social campaigns, or at least not social campaigns in the same hemisphere as “Old Spice.”
1. Relationships must be redefined: While Jason is right to note that the time factor is a major change, Social Media is also asking agencies and their clients to redefine how that whole relationship can and should work. As we know, Social Media is very much about the “now now now.” The thing is, if an agency is responsible, they don’t sneeze unless their client authorizes them to do so. The ones that go off on their own are the ones that give agencies overall a bad name. We don’t place space without our client’s consent. We don’t send art to a vendor without a client’s approval. We believe this is good business. I’m sure a lot of agencies do things in a similar way. To work in the fast-moving world of Social Media, the agency and the client must sit down together and work out how that good business relationship can be maintained without negatively affecting the Social Media campaign. This can certainly be done, but the issue needs to be recognized first, and then worked through.
2. The client needs to make some decisions. While an agency can certainly consult with its clients about how best to approach Social Media, there is a lot to the social space that really must be hammered out by the company being represented. An agency can advise on what the corporate voice should be, but the company needs to be completely on board with that proposal. An agency can suggest what to use for a blog design or a Facebook company page, but the company needs to approve those things. That approval can only stem from a corporate understanding of what the goals and objectives are, and that takes a lot of planning.
3. Companies may not feel that traditional agencies can do it. There certainly are plenty of blog posts out there condemning “traditional” agencies, as I discussed in my response to Jeremiah Owyang’s post about Social Media boutiques, digital agencies, and traditional agencies. And, as I said, there are some agencies out there who are still trying to make it as production houses. They certainly can’t make a case for being effective Social Media advisers. Factually, though, agencies can help with all facets of a Social Media campaign, from consultation and design to actually implementing facets of the campaign itself. The issue is that if agencies are doing things right, the definition of “traditional agency” is changing rapidly to become that “hub” I’ve talked about before.
4. Agencies need to figure out who’s doing all of this work. We are all pretty familiar, probably, with the job titles most agencies have. You have your creatives, your copywriters, your account executives, the media department, the accounting department, and so on. So, which of those departments handles Social Media? This is something agencies (and digital agencies count for this as well) need to work out. I think in the end it’ll turn out that the creatives and copywriters and AEs can still work together, just like they did when graphic design moved from pencils and markers to computers and FTP sites. But this is all a transition, and transitions often seem a lot more complex before they are finished than they do after.
5. Agencies need to be treated as a many-headed employee. As I wrote on Dawn Westerberg’s site a couple of months ago, agencies need to make themselves as easy to work with as if the entity was a single employee. This is especially critical when it comes to Social Media. Agencies from top to bottom must be aware of what their client’s objectives are for a Social Media campaign, what roles the company’s customer service department and others are going to play in the campaign, what the expectations are, and many other details. The work should shift seamlessly from the client to the agency as much as it would between different people within that company (maybe even more seamless than that). Again, there are agencies out there who would stand in the way of this happening – but the good ones will want to work with you this way.
One final footnote, as I alluded to in the comments section over at Social Media Explorer, I come from (primarily) the B2B world. Executing a Social Media campaign in this sector of the marketing world can be (though is not always) very different from the B2C world. We aren’t talking to people who will use the products all of the time. We’re talking to the people who will buy the product to make another product that people will use. That can be at times a tough message to get across via a Facebook page or a Twitter account. Not all companies are perfect matches for Social Media, though I know that may be shocking to hear. Painting with broad paintbrushes is almost always a dangerous endeavor because there is always at least one person, case, or company who will prove to be the exception rather than the rule.
Those are some of my thoughts on traditional agencies and Social Media. What have you got going on in your brain? I’d love to continue the conversation with you!
1st Image by Frank Köhne. http://www.sxc.hu/profile/frko
2nd Image Credit: http://www.sxc.hu/profile/cfi02
11 Comments
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I think you have mentioned this, but two big challenges are expectations and responsibilities between the agency and client.
In my history, we (the client) saw agencies as lacking the elements we needed to execute. While I was at Best Buy, they had their entire advertising agency in-house. Then they went out to BBDO, then they went to Crispin Porter, then they went back in-house. Best Buy’s expectations of agency execution were (and to my knowledge still are) not aligned with the competencies of the agency.
The second is responsibility. Why should an agency handle social media for a company? I’m assuming that the company has the resources here, but why should the agency manage the accounts, and develop the voice? The issue with this is that both the agency and the client are probably learning the ropes at the same time and same pace. Agencies don’t necessarily have an advantage here unless they can prove it.
Agencies are at a disadvantage because I think they are where the real capability is. But, when unable to move forward without the approval of a client who doesn’t know what he/she is doing to begin with, it’s a total catch 22.
However, the bottom line here is something you mention which I cannot stress enough because I have experienced this first hand: TALK. TALK TALK TALK TALK. And when you’re done, talk some more. I was stunned at how little the agencies talked with Best Buy (both out-house and in-house ones!).
Sorry to gobble up so much space, Margie. But you’re on target here, and it’s something that I think is important to every person or agency who has a client that wants to do a better job of helping that client create engagement.
Looks like you should add your own post to this conversation, Paul! I love it!
In response to talk talk talk, I would add “listen listen listen.” For the agency and the client. There needs to be an underlying trust among all parties if anything will work. You need to hear each other out. This holds especially true, though, for the agency side of things, and it’s something I think a lot of “experts” don’t grasp – you’re not the know-it-all. You don’t have to be. Guide, don’t push or boss around. Big difference!
Agreed on both parts. I have a post coming out soon about how in digital signage, the networks are the ones who don’t get it. The agencies are doing all they can. I guess from my POV it’s time to start sticking up for agencies.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Brandie McCallum and Cheryl Burgess, Marjorie Clayman. Marjorie Clayman said: On traditional agencies and Social Media – a response to a post by @jasonfalls: http://bit.ly/fqDGhz […]
Margie,
I think you brought many points which sometimes I think it is a local issue. Here in Puerto Rico the traditional newspapers, radio, and TV have more of a following than in the U.S.
Which puts most traditional agencies in a tough spot if they move their clients into new channels. One of the main reasons is a huge lost in profit. These agencies where use to getting packages of ads for traditional channels at a great discount and selling them along without much effort and taking a huge chunk of the profit. Locally this has created a huge battle to keep clients away from any social marketing efforts because it is detrimental to there revenues and overall profit. Just like you mentioned we have large production houses that are worried about profits not giving their clients what they offered.
I have to agree with your points of how waiting on the client can kill the momentum or make any effort useless. There should be a playbook on what can be done with the clients approval ahead of time. There also needs to be a level of trust especially with small clients since if both parties are learning not reaching agreements will be like shooting yourself in the foot.
Love the line painting with broad paintbrushes… I will use that line in of my presentations with your permission of course… 🙂
Very interesting insights, Raul. I think you’re right – in some case agencies may be worried about the profitability of Social Media, so they may hesitate in recommending it even if their clients could really benefit. Again, those are the kinds of agencies that give all of us bad names!
In the end, I believe that if an agency is going to survive (and this goes for consultants, gurus, experts, specialists, and everything else), you have to recommend what is going to be best for your client. That’s your bread and butter. If a service with a client isn’t going to be sustainable, that is your challenge. Your clients should not suffer because of that hesitation on your part.
And yes, you can use the paint brush line whenever you want 🙂
One of the big issues here is measurement. For as flawed as the television/radio/print metrics are (and have been), they are still common metrics that all advertisers use. If it costs me $X to put ad ad on TV, I can mark it up by X% for the client to make my profit.
With Social Media, there is no real, defined, or common metric…yet. So some of the philosophy is to just throw it out there and see what happens.
The good news is that Social Media, in terms of resources, is not as costly. You can take a :30 ad already produced, edit it a little, and spit it out – not too much work there. But the measurement of that effort is a sticking point. If agencies can’t prove it works, they’re unlikely to recommend it.
Paul and Margie,
You guys have great points. I guess in the long run the one who are not acting to benefit there clients will lose the race.
Paul mentioned metrics. Yesterday I had a conversation with a directory who automatically renewed my customers contract without there consent. They asked me what was the main reason I wanted to cancel I told them I could not measure ROI.
After a long talk they answered back that the advertisements on their directory where meant to be paid ahead of time and no need to measure ROI we just had to do our job making sure those clients they sent our way where spending money. (I am not going to bore you with the rest of my story) but in conclusion they knew that there service does not work so they decided it was easier to put fault on the client.
Measuring is key some small business have a marketing budget just spend it and don’t analyze how effective each channel is.
yeah, directories and publications are starting to get a little bit sneaky. It’s no secret that click rates on banner ads are doing great if they get, to what, .2%? People who said that there was a revolution in marketing were correct. I’m not sure if all of this would have happened without Facebook and Twitter around, but factually, people are ready to be communicated with, not to. That’s across the board. We need to create new ways of doing things, then new ways of measuring those new things. It’s a lot of work!!
Margie
I see this as a challenge in the structure of the agency. In an traditional agency there are set tasks: the copy writer writes, the artists creates the images, the accounting dept bills, etc. The AE has a dynamic role as they the liaison between all the departments and the client. This is where I see agencies having a challenge with social media. The departments have to work as one cohesive unit in social media (this is not to say that the departments do not work together in trad adv because they do but not on the level that they do in social media). Each department has to be on board with the social media efforts. If the agencies are not working this way then how can they have their clients?
The responsibility of who will actually be the voice of the client in the agency is a valid question. I separate department would be created but then is the AE responsible for the social media and the client too? Sounds like it would make sense but does it? The clients are seeking the guidance from the agency but if the agency is not structured properly then how can they guide?
We know that clients want measurable results. Is there enough trust in the agency and this new department (sometimes it is one person) to be the voice? The client is apprehensive to put it all out there. The approval process sometimes is lengthy but social media is instant and time sensitive (not always of course but for the most part). Does the agency have the trust to be able to lead and guide the client with posting things to reach the overall goals or is there the lag of approvals?
Traditional agencies making the jump over to social media need to first learn and fully engross themselves into the world of social and how the community reacts. They cannot guide if they are unsure as to how it all works and fits into an overall marketing plan. It can be done as we have seen it with some of the big trad agencies. They have taken the time to learn before they the pushed their clients in. That I think is the real difference.
Great points all the way around.
You are correct that an agency can’t really preach integrated marketing to a client if the agency isn’t fully integrated within itself. Much like an agency really shouldn’t say, “Oh, we’re experts in web design” if they don’t have a website, etc. And companies who work with agencies need to speak with one voice, too.
This is not to make it sound like working in Social Media, or working with an agency to execute a Social Media plan, is a horrible, time-consuming swamp of despair. BUT, I think we’re all agreeing that there needs to be a desire to change on all sides of the issue – the media, the client, and the agency. That’s a lot of people to get on track. If you don’t do that though, the ramifications can really be pretty scary. Is it worth the risk? Eh, I don’t think so.
But then that’s just me 🙂
Glad you weighed in! I was looking forward to having you in the conversation!