Big Red joins Target roster, spelling danger for Campaign Palace
Ted Horton’s agency Big Red has been added to the roster for retailer Target in a move that signals further worries for struggling agency The Campaign Palace.
Lynn Semjaniv, Target Australia Corporate Affairs Manager told Mumbrella: “We are always utilising the skills of different partners for different areas of the business. The Campaign Palace and Big Red are just two of many suppliers we use in marketing.”
It is the first time that Big Red has been publicly named as being involved in Target’s marketing. Target is owned by Wesfarmers, which also owns Coles.
Semjaniv said: “Big Red have previously worked with other Wesfarmers businesses and Target has recently utilised their marketing services for the first time.”
So the essence of Big Red is ‘the to ability to swiftly create effective advertising’
Isn’t this what all creative / media agencies should be doing?
I personally believe that the industry should stop using wanky buzz words such as integration, media neutral, channel neutral, engagement etc and just produce work that well…works.
Paul, there are just as many agencies, if not more, who say that they have “done away with the wanky buzzwords and just produce work that works”
I agree Clint, it’s just a shame that you don’t hear enough about them
I really hate it when advertisers use the term “suppliers” when relating to ad agencies. It just shows you what they think of us. We’re just another supplier like a shoe manufacturer or a plastic bag supplier.
We might like to think of ourselves as “partners” with our clients (and I believe we are more than suppliers) but obviously many clients don’t see it that way.
Does David Jones know that Ted is working on Target , I wonder?
Having been a client with significant advertising budgets and now the MD of an independent advertising agency, I’ve always believed that good clients get good work.
But we are suppliers – agencies, designers, PRs, whatever we do. Yes, we ‘partner w’ith our clients – in the sense of trying to get alongside them and work with them to achieve their aims – but at the end of the day, there is no entitlement to the work. Like any other supplier, we must deliver what we say we will, and it must work for the client, or they have every right to change suppliers. I really think that part of the problem in marketing services industries is that too many people forget that.
Hey Joey, The use of language is so important in any relationship – personal or professional. You use the word ‘Client’, but don’t use the word partner to describe them. Maybe you need to stop calling your advertising partners ‘Clients’ and then they might stop calling you a ‘Supplier’.
Now having said that, you only truly have a partner relationship with your advertising clients when you share a focus on the outcome. If your outcome focus is on making ads and providing a creative production service – then you are just a supplier and not a partner and you will be treated like any other supplier.
If, however, your are focused on a shared outcome then you can claim a partnership. Remember why you are here. Is it to make ads or is it to deliver an outcome for your partners business? You determine this more often than any client does. I learnt this from some great people who work in agencies and not from the great people I worked with on the client side. The agency I work with today is focused on my business outcome and that is why I am happy to call them a Partner. Good luck in 2012.
Yes once a great agency, has fallen on hard times, and lost a lot of talent
Thanks John & Robyn for your comments. I agree…mostly.
Robyn, I agree that “there is no entitlement to the work” but like John says, it’s all down to language used. If we portray ourselves as mere suppliers, then that’s all we are and clients will see us no differently to say, their stationery supplier.
And yes, the idea of focussing on shared outcomes is undoubtedly the platform for a proper partnership.
John, great to hear a client see their agency as a partner. Good clients are just as important as good ad agencies.
@paul – without buzzwords, how will we be cromulent?
Spewing I missed this thread. In reality, the way consumers used media and chose brands changed dramatically in 2011 and many creative agencies were in denial, most media companies lacked the resources and training to evolve the media expenditure into the right areas and that leaves you with a bunch of clients who are probably wondering where the right advice is going to come from in 2012. How to make money will be the key issue for agencies in 2012, but I’m not sure that will go hand in hand with helping clients get an ROI in 2012? If the World doesn’t come to an end in 2012, it should be a great learning year