The agency of the future is not an agency

Not sure what the agency of the future looks like. But I reckon the strategist of the future looks a lot like today. A wanker.

Well said Matt. Agencies locked into profits-at-any-cost models mostly see brainpower-on-demand as a function of client servicing capacity – overload, maternity leave, unexpected vacancies etc. Clients are the losers. Smarter agencies see the value of teaming their principals with specialist consultants to deliver a better product faster. Clients are the winners.

Some good points there.

As a business coach to creative services industries I agree that the current model isn’t sustainable as a wide spread industry, and there is a weakening of the talent base which ultimately undermines the business value. There is much that can be done to change the operational process to be more efficient and keep more cash in-house though and still add value to the clients.

The Hollywood model is a fairly old way of working, actually, and there are hiccups there too if not done right. It is a false saving to hire freelancers when the rest of the business is under-utilised not just because of the obvious cost of people sitting around but also because of the lost overheads – so it is a double loss, and is often an invisible loss that catches up with businesses in the long run. They live on the cashflow and focus on the P&L which is too long range, and it catches up with them long term. I’ve seen businesses go broke on this model.

It can’t be purely a model of co-operation either, because the ever important strategy and brand objectives can be lost with a bunch of individuals all plugging away at their own game. (The one with the loudest voice or new shiny thing winning). I believe that there needs to be someone working with the client’s best interest in mind, and then pulling the right team of providers together. This is a different model again. The clients/brands are becoming capable of doing this themselves now, more and more, and that’s the real issue – leaving the industry scrambling after the projects or to do the execution only. That in itself isn’t a bad model completely, and businesses can flourish on it if done right, but they often struggle with the idea of becoming this.

Ultimately, there isn’t one universal right or wrong way – this industry is full of clients/brands with different needs and there is a multitude of business models that work for the different niches. The trick is just in marrying the right ones together.

The way around it is new recruiting, new process, really understanding your fees and the market, getting the cost per chair calculations right, independent strategic services and project management services done by people who have no vested interest in the solution for the client, matching the right providers for the brand’s needs (reviewed at the time and being flexible along the way too to meet changing objectives and capacity) …..and who makes sure that the brand is actually getting the best solution.

This is a complex issue and sweeping concepts that suggest there is a one-size-fits all is where the industry is really going wrong in my humble experience.

Surely this going to be the natural evolution of platforms like freelancer.com and Upwork?

Ummm. Another article short on the advice, sorry. There isn’t one model that’s unsustainable. It’s a myriad of models full of two types of professionals. Those that are honest about their capabilities and limitations and those that aren’t. If you think there’s one model you should get out more.
There is nothing new about outsourcing to specialist consultants you just need to give a shit about whether it’s adding value. and keep and eye on budget leakage. TrinityP3 (for one) always has good advice on this for one.
When “lifer” politicians think that they know best about politics so people should stick their naïve noses in you end up with Trumpism.
Advertising might have some parallels.

Teams could even convene to pitch for retainer style accounts.

There’s the problem.
1.) retainer style accounts don’t exist as much as they used to
2.) if they do, client wants to know you can support retained hours with a full-time team… where do they come from?

I hate to say it – but as an ex ad game person – i have done precisely that of late and it works extremely well!…. Retained talent is expensive talent and not always nor necessarily the right talent for every opportunity/campaign/project that comes through the door… Why in todays age would you cop the huge over heads of salaries/bricks and mortar etc etc when you are so able to speedily pool together the right talent to get the job done – To the very best it can be for your end client and at a profitable margin?… By all means keep it up – but not for me and agree with the sentiment of this article…. Those moaning probably know their old agency days are somewhat numbered….

Satellite of love friends. Find the right team of people, regardless of location and you will find success. Clients buy people first and agencies second. A great agency team is like a car engine. Everyone plays and knows their part and works smoothly together for one overarching objective. Proven track records, combined with deep client relationships and the balls to jump out of the existing safety net of the old agency model are the key to success.

Matt, this is way too binary.
Clients want service. At times service needs to be consistent, collaborative and on call for many roles.
Shared learning and thinking and a powerhouse of collective talent are the advantages of an agency. As is the workflow. There is not much place for developing talent in oceans 11. It’s also such a feat that it is worth making a movie about it.
For certain roles and projects this model can and does work.
But the agency brings much more power and value that is simply traded off here.
To maintain that combination and energy is they key.
This does not go far enough into explaining how to keep that magic.
Here’s are some answers:
-Build a new agency from the ground up, only top talent, who understand the world we are moving into. That is the only solution to agency.
-Allow work from home days for self important types (joke) and come together time, so that all members of the company are washed with the right thinking.
-Kill the fat. Be transparent. Deliver an office space that is smart and lean. Drop the hype (and cost). But a share space that inspires staff and clients alike. A great work environment with great teams colliding does provide a magic that is just not achieved in a distributed model. We all know that deep down.
-Deliver on top talent and charge properly. The industry needs a wake up call. Stop competing for zero. Ditch clients who won’t pay properly. Develop a CODE whereby pitches are regulated – ‘base pitch’. A top line response, then showing existing work only – being forced into pitches that cost in excess of $100,000 is ludicrous!!! It must end. It kills profit, disrupts teams, absorbs the best talent (who the clients then do not have access to). Holding groups, clients and agencies have pushed the model into a destructive territory, where sweat shop conditions are now the norm. Demand to be paid for work beyond ‘base pitch’ this. Clients / Marketers – front up here. End the practice. It’s just not right and holds no good will. You get a false reality. This is date night. It’s not who you end up living with.
No more unpaid pitch insanity.
-Get out of the holding groups. There goes your cream – to the USA, France, Japan etc Puclicly listed holding groups that need to show profit and growth. Matt you are right there. What professional would work for free on pitches and then send all of the profit oversees? Then try to get by with low level team support becuase there is no money.
But Matt, you know there is place for the new ‘agency’. There is also a place for the concepts you are talking of. Especially for some types of roles, on some types of work. In fact, more clients accessing top talent, that’s a win. But an agency is much more that this. It’s more than a production house.
The question is when an ‘agency’ type of company is the answer, what does it look like?