Agencies are to blame. Really?

"Fragmentation of media, the mainstream movement of the Internet and the mobile revolution are redrawing the contours of communication and agencies will have to understand and align themselves for a role within the emerging space."

"The first step is accountability. Clients want results and agencies will have to figure out a way to deliver them."

"However, all response-led advertising will be driven by the Internet and mobile simply because these media offer a fabulous opportunity to micro-target and deliver advertising, to a precisely defined audience and track results. In addition, it will help develop a feedback mechanism that helps to improve offline targeting as well."

"We also believe that agencies will have to share in the risks of the business like their clients do. They will need to evolve pay-for-performance models, which we already offer, to prove that they mean what they say and performance measured in terms of actual sales, not just intentions. It’s going to be a rough, hard ride."

More repetitive writing about the chronic blame game at: http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/catalyst/2007/11/15/stories/2007111550090300.htm

What I am contesting, specifically, here is them saying "If ad agencies have diminished in stature, their shrugging off responsibility of the clients’ business and embracing escape routes is to blame."

From the time I started looking at advertising as an interesting industry to work in I have read identical articles in several newspapers, magazines, online forums and so many places. It now just seems like a fashionable opinion to have. Everyone just wants to be on the goody side of the mess, no surprise.

But what's even more ironic, the writer of the one article in question belongs to an agency providing brand services.

Internet/ Mobile
Coming to my points of view... I agree to the fact that several marketers are turning to marketing using mobiles and internet. Yes, of course the message is delivered to the individual you want to talk to and you also know exactly how he responds to you. Measuring is easy. Point taken.

But, do you remember getting a message on your cell phone once asking you if you want to stop receiving sales calls on your mobile. All you had to do was send out a Do Not Disturb message. Several marketers from banking and retail opened their eyes to see that many people they called prospects were in fact not. It did save them from making a negative impact on the consumers, in turn stopped bad mouthing that they could have faced.

TVC still strong
TV ad volumes this year are up by 33 percent. More channels are blossoming, proving that TV is increasingly being consumed. If not increased consumption it indicates that audience has more variety of channels to choose from. The content we have is not extra ordinary in any channel, the channels at the end of the day only form a part of a category, and the audience for a category can be easily guaged. Reach is thus still getting measured.

Going back to the claim of TVCs not being the biggest things. Then why is it that once in every month some Biggy from the advertising world is called upon to write a half page article about himself and comment on a set of ten tvcs.

I think the Indica V2 ad is funny and remember it but I just dont like the way the car looks. Hence, wont buy. Period. TVCs, according to me, still are a good way to inform.

Whose idea?
Simply coming down to the most important reason why agencies are not even close to being as responsible for the performance of the brand as the clients or unaware writers like our man here want them to be... How many client - agency relationships exist where the client lets the agency make some decisions on their own and buy it? How many clients today allow their agecny in upon all the research data they have about their brand to understand exactly what needs to be done?

If the TVCs are made, it is because the clients start talks with mainline agencies only after they've made up their minds about airing one. The agency cannot and wont ever say, "sorry what you really need is just PR."

Every client wants to direct more than half of the creatives. The size of the logo, haha! That makes me laugh. Brand managers come and go. Everyone wants what they want. Isnt it? And how do you expect proportional returns for your expenditure when you fish out perks from this and take an indoor TVC shoot overseas and use international models for no logical reason except a good holiday for biwi aur bachhe.

The client always has the final call. They are the ones who 'approve'. So why are the agencies held responsible after all that drama? Make the agency the approver on certain aspects, give them a larger role, let's see why they would want to not take responsibility for brand performance.

If the talk is about questions and accountability... then why can't the agency ask some? Should we now have a standardised process for the agencies to double check the truthfulness of the clients' claims? Why not a process check on the manufaturing, just to confirm if the fridge is really going to take care of the nutrients in our food. Or if your employees really treat the customers with care and if the client does deliver loans in 2 days flat...

Who is going to answer these questions for the agencies? Who is to blame?

Let's add a little perspective...
if clients are paying agencies to lie...
People will know its a lie, thats how good the communication is...
there... now... how's that for accountability???

- Deepika

Graduates have become more demanding

14 Nov, 2007, 0119 hrs IST, TNN
www.economictimes.com

The strength of the economy means recent times have been good for marketers, and they can be choosy about where they work. Employers, meanwhile, are being forced to get smarter at attracting and keeping talent. This year’s pay survey by Croner Reward for the Chartered Institute of Marketing shows that marketers’ pay is holding up well, with increases averaging just over 3% in 12 months.

A third of marketers now receive a bonus equivalent to 10% of their salary. Some employers that dropped bonuses are bringing them back, and companies are paying more attention to motivators such as flexible working arrangements, training and development programmes.

“Job-seekers can hold out for what is right for them,” says Nicola Clark, director of marketing and communications at Investors in People. This is challenging for employers, who concur that graduates have become more demanding. “Before you can ask them what they bring to the company, they are already quizzing you about what the firm can do for them,” says Jonathan Harman, president EMEA of Carlson Marketing. Younger marketers — those in their 20s and early 30s — in particular appear to feel they have real bargaining power. “If what they want is not on offer, they look elsewhere,” says Katherine Turvey, consultant at recruitment agency SG Group.

Interestingly, Turvey says money is not the priority for most candidates. A marketing graduate joining an agency tends to be offered a starting salary of about £18,000 a year, compared with £28,000 for graduates entering financial services, she says. Marketers at professional firms face an even wider salary gap, receiving as little as a quarter of what lawyers and accountants are paid. A higher priority is flexible working. In a recent survey by recruitment agency Blue Skies, 51% of respondents said this was of vital importance, compared with 39% who cited high salary.

“Creative people hate being chained to desks — they would rather be treated as grown-ups, and not have to keep strict hours, as long as they get the job done,” says Blue Skies director Anita Baglee. Harman says Carlson Marketing tries to accommodate employees’ needs within reason. Some candidates want to work a four-day week, while others admit they plan to stay for only two years because they want to travel. “People value their time more than they used to, especially those with families,” he explains. “If you want the best talent, you need to be as flexible as you can. I’d rather have someone right for the job working four days a week than not at all.”

Flexibility can be applied to financial benefits. Bigger companies might offer an annual bonus of £3,000-£4,000 a year and let staff choose additional perks such as a personal assistant, or a bicycle to travel to work. While such practices may give some companies the edge, they play a relatively small role in motivating marketers after they have got their feet under the desk, according to employers — what really counts is the company’s culture and values, and the opportunity to work in a challenging and creative environment.

“Recruitment agencies are always asking me about what benefits we offer, and I tell them they’re the same as before,” says Mike Colling, managing director of Mike Colling & Company. “It’s less about schemes than about a philosophy that puts the individual first.” Recruiters say employers should take into account marketers’ desire for training and development — a benefit that’s the first to be given the axe when cutbacks are necessary.

For Tullo Marshall Warren client services director Chris Freeland, it is the day-to-day work of an agency that provides motivation. “It can be soul-destroying working with clients that don’t ‘fit’, so we are very careful about choosing brands,” he says. “That helps keep people motivated. Also, candidates at interview consistently say they don’t want to spend time doing the same thing.” Employers are going the extra mile to attract and keep the right people, and although marketers’ salaries may pale in comparison with other industries, their benefits are plentiful, with particular attention paid to work-life balance.

- Deepika