Ideas for free

so whats your suggestion?

Hi Darren,

I agree with every word you had to say. So many trap doors and we are all guilty of overlooking or looking the other way. We need to be better at protecting our brand and putting a value on our IP (brand).

We are in the ‘communication’ business and it’s a perceptive world. It’s full of two way conversations e.g. our target market, customers, colleagues and suppliers. At all levels we exist in a creative partnership.

The grey matter (IP) we all talk about is now a grey area – it’s no longer black and white – how to negotiate that value is difficult with our partners. However, I believe anything is possible if you set the right expectations. You have my support on this IP evolution.

Interesting read and thanks for raising very good questions for us as IP practitioners.
Tiffany

Darren

You’re right. Agencies do give their ideas away.

One of the defining moments of ‘discounting’ was in the early 90’s when Patts Melbourne offered to do all Myer media for 1% [or thereabouts].

And once one client started paying 1% they all wanted to pay 1%.

Recently, when negotiating fees with a new client I was advised I’d need to reduce my fee proposal because – quote: ” [Insert name of large, well-known agency] will do it [work on the business] for cost for the first 12 months”.

Discounting is rife in our industry and always will be. Unless you’ve got something of real value to sell clients [and let’s be honest, not many agencies have], knowing how to sharpen your pencil is just one more skill you need to keep making a buck.

Sad, but true.

@ from experience.

How can agencies do it for cost or 1%, when they all make margins of 15 to 30%, something does not add up.

Surely they must there be making their “revenue” from other sources and therefore transparency becomes a huge issue for clients. A 1-2% saving on fee will lead to a lot more media inefficiencies if the said agency put the money in the wrong environment to support a media deal that provides the major revenue source on that client.

Maybe that is why they all chase the billings as fees are not the only source of revenue. This to me seems the real issue, if agencies were forced to be transparent then they would have to charge clients for the service they were getting.

Everything gets done for a reason. I work in media and I can’t tell you how many times I have coached the client in every aspect like creative, co-branding opportunities, marketing direction even other types of media they should be spending with! I share my contacts with my clients and my years of experience in my part of the industry.
I do this because I know that for the next brief, the client will automatically come to me first and I get first bite of the budget apple.
We live in a very different world than the one we wish we were in (as in the world where we are paid what we’re worth and for what we put in). As such, we have to be willing to give a lot to get a little.
It’s less than ideal, but everyone is dealing with it, we’re just not all whining about it.
If you don’t want to share your value, I’m sure that another person would be willing to take that client off your hands and give it all they’ve got.

Darren is right on the money. Having clear guidelines between parties is the key in ensuring no one is being abused. We can’t ever expect anyone to treat us well if we are fearful and don’t value what we do likewise and the ‘rules’ protects us all.

Often the fear pushes us to accept less than market value and other times it is ignorance about how to measure your value.

Firstly, not having a point of difference or something that you can say is your unique offering means you are unlikely to have anything of value other than a commodity that is negotiable and subject to $ scrutiny in my view.

I see so many businesses that look at the P&L as the only way to measure their business success but when they get down to the project profitability there’s no money in it. If you’re not making money on the jobs you’re not making money full stop. This is the best indicator if you are valuing what you do.

There’s a balance of course – demonstrate your value, ask for it, but also have your operations and process in line so it is efficient and the money is in the work.

Hi Darren –

I don’t think agencies gouging back production dollars is why there’s so much crap out there.

For me it all comes back to three things:

1. Generic briefs devoid of any insight.

2. Lazy creatives.

3. A fundamental lack of understanding of how real people judge advertising – the focus group hoax.

Pinching dollars here & there from production budgets merely leaves less polish for the turd.

Great post Darren. And it begs a broader question: how do you protect IP when the digital world makes it so easy to share, lift and “borrow” ideas, and so much more unlikely that the creator to receive due attribution, much less remuneration…

By happy coincidence, we’ll be debating this very point on Tuesday at the next Digital Citizens’ event “Intellectual Property in the Digital Age” – detail here
http://www.facebook.com/event......9943961850
Hope to see you there…

Meanwhile, what’s your response to the theory that ideas have no value without execution?

This is a great topic to discuss and shines the light right on one of the biggest challenges we all face – having confidence in the value of our offer.

It’s hard to have that confidence when you don’t have a clear handle on why a client should prefer you – in terms of distinctive capability and relevant culture – and why your proposed solution is really the best way to create business value from the client’s opportunity.

I also whole-heartedly agree with Darren’s call to pay attention to terms & conditions in client negotiations, and in fact to use them as a kind of platform to back up your client proposition, and reinforce exactly how it is that you add value. Discussing these matters openly and honestly with client-side lawyers and procurement people is not as hard as it might seem…

I like @ Anne Miles comments around brand value and bottom line. Plus @carrob comments inferring to “contra deals”. Commercial market space for business dealings is never dull for the passionate.

Agree wholeheartedly Darren.

Agencies remind me of mobile phone companies. Always pulling the price lever instead of holding the value and quality line. Suggests overcapacity or unwarranted focus on revenue over margin.

This leads to Adam’s point – If you don’t value and charge appropriately for your product, why will the client value your input and output?

A good article Darren

I think the issue is a structural one where the agency replicates the client internal hierachy

To be honest most agencies don’t do themselves any favours on this. Having worked both agency and client side managing large agencies I have seen this up close. In particular the remuneration models which are based on full service and production capability. The challenge is to offer a differentiated value proposition based on key staff and the quality of the idea. For me that is a good GAD,CD and an insightfull Strategy Planner. Clients are no longer want to pay for an entire team including and specialists and production facillities. Who’d want to sign up a retainer when you may not use the staff for the communication requirement? The problem is that the client briefs a communications challenge and the agency logistical tail wags the dog…..and it happens because the agency has headcount to keep busy to maintain margin.

I have been horrified how some agencies turn up mob handed with a cast of 1000’s to present an idea that should be a simple conversation between key people( and I think WTF I am paying for this!!!). Conversely I have been horrified in agencies where “brainstorming” a big idea and insight involves people who are not needed(Project Managers etc). It all ads to the cost … on both sides. And the clients are getting wise to it.

The other bit I have to laugh at is the new breed of Strategy Directors who are in reality digital producers or media planners. So Strategy and Planning is now being morphed in to channel planning?? Quite distinctive functions I feel to a traditional planner role..and that is what clients want to pay for…insight.and IP. You only have to look at the jobs board here to see what I mean. In trying to reduce costs and morph roles agencies are doing themselves and clients a disservice. In my view Its like insisting an architect is a qualified angle grinder or get the anle grinder to tell the architect how to pitch a roof

…again clients see through it.!!

Bit of a rant but duly derserved me thinks if agencies truely want to offer great communications ideas that clients will pay for.

@ Adam Hunt…. be interested to know how you think ‘real people judge advertising’, and why focus groups are a ‘hoax’

Here’s an interesting thought from Siimon Reynolds about pricing and value:

http://alturl.com/mqofo

He’s utilising psychology of persuasion tools proven by Dr. Robert Cialdini in behavioural science studies. There is definitely some real back up that supports that raising your fees makes you more desirable.

Many of the roles agencies have traditionally claimed as their own are now done by clients themselves.

Great article Darren, thanks.

@DigitalCitizens “Meanwhile, what’s your response to the theory that ideas have no value without execution?”

That’s not really true. Execution is an important aspect of what the organisation delvers to its client but an idea could still be stolen from its original author and rendered valueless by another agency with indifferent execution. by which time it’s too late for the originator of the idea. And for the client.

And how many times have you seen an invention that’s been better when adopted by another organisation that executed it better than the original inventor?

In reality, both idea creation and execution have separate distinctive values. Both must be done well for the client ti gain the maximum benefit.

@ Mark G:

Real people (that definition refers to people who don’t work in advertising/marketing/PR etc) are exposed to approx 3000 ads a day.

They’re lucky to barely remember even one of those messages – which means that there’s an awful lot of boring shit out there, because 2,999 ads pass them by like an asteroid on the dark side of the moon.

If your ad is one of the hen’s teeth that captures a millisecond of interest, it’s probably because you’ve caught their attention visually & rewarded that attention immediately.

If you’ve left them with a smile then you’ve hit the jackpot.

But in reality the odds of anybody judging your ad beyond your client and your mum are pretty low.

If that judgement gets to happen at all, it happens in a millisecond, it’s either a thumbs up or a thumbs down, and it happens in an emotional environment that’s as far removed from a rational focus group as the dark side of the moon is from us.

I’ve said this before (& I’ll keep saying it now because… well… because I can) that after sitting in focus groups for over 20 years in 5 countries I’ve concluded that you can no more predict the outcome of a TV script that you can predict an earthquake – especially a TV script that involves dialogue & performance.

Focus group testing of a script that hasn’t been made is a hoax because the entire process is about as scientific as Intelligent Design.

When you throw a bunch of strangers into a room and ask them to look at storyboards you can be sure of the following:

1. Despite the best efforts of moderators, most people don’t understand what the hell is going on. They just don’t get it – the common: “Is this going to be a cartoon?” response. They’re being asked to use imagination that most of them just don’t have.

2. People don’t tell the truth. No matter what they’re thinking, they’re in public, they’re confused, & they’re vulnerable to whatever stranger group dynamic mentality is hatching.
Real people do not consume advertising this way.

3. Research is based on a fallacious belief that people give a shit about your ad. Nobody does. So unless your message attracts attention visually & rewards that attention immediately with a smile, the whole process is somewhat academic & reminiscent of deck chairs on the Titanic. You’re one of the daily 2,900 & no amount of box ticking or pie charts will save you from the journey past the dark side of the moon.

4. Frame by frame objectives are an Orwellian absurdity. Come on. If you think real people look at ads that closely or in that amount of detail I hope you lubricated your head nicely before inserting it up your bum. Naval gazing doesn’t come close here.

5. New ideas scare people. People reward the familiar. So focus groups fuck ideas – not only fresh ones, but especially ideas that rely on dialogue & performance for impact. How many times have you heard someone destroy a great joke by telling it badly or fumbling the punchline?

6. Focus group methodology for the testing of ideas via storyboards has remained largely unchanged since the 1960’s. Do I need to add anything here?
I’ll leave it to my much more eloquent mate Bill Bernbach:

“Can you really judge an idea from a storyboard? How do you storyboard a smile?”

YouTube used to have a 1-5 number strip to judge how much you liked or disliked a clip. Now they just have a thumbs up or a thumbs down. Maybe research should catch up a bit.

If 85% of new products fail, but 100% are researched, what does that say?

Julia Gillard’s recent election campaign has to be the most focus group tested in Australian history. Didn’t they know it was unmitigated shit before they unleashed it?

How much cash is being burned (like lung tissue!) by big tobacco on focus groups as they seek fantasy reassurance that they actually have an argument against plain packaging?

Excuse me Mark whilst I take a deep breath & have a quick lie down…

I absolutely love research when it’s used to uncover an insight about someone whom you’re trying to engage. But on the whole a focus group is a failed attempt to box the passionate madness of ideas into a cubicle where robots poke & prod & attempt to predict the unpredictable by translating flawed data into an adspeak language that nobody out there gets.

…OK… lets’ temporarily enter the real world for a moment & talk about two of the more loved Australian ads of recent years: “Not Happy Jan” & “Rabbits”.

Neither faced focus groups & both would have died if they had – because both relied on talent, performance & direction. It’s hard to imagine a storyboard being shown & a script being read to Taylah from Toongabbie where a woman sticks her head out a window & says: “Not Happy Jan” eliciting much more than a look of bewildered confusion.

Actually that would never have happened at all, because on the day of the shoot, the window actually jammed for real before she uttered the immortal line: “Not Happy Jan”. You can’t focus group test that sort of stuff – which is why advertising is, on the statistical whole, pretty fucking boring.

P.S. @ Mark G:

Mate is there any particular reason why you’re afraid to use your real name?

@Adam Hunt.

Could not agree more.

Nailed it!

WOW! @Adam Hunt that really was one of the more succinct run-downs on the value of research and focus groups that I have ever had the pleasure of reading! And for the record, I agree with every bit of your rant.

Such great conversation – bring it on.
I’d love to add to what Adam Hunt has said to bring some further insights into human behaviour:

1. People don’t have imagination – I do agree that this is a problem and I’m curious as to how these research groups are framed before they do them. If the right process was used to tap into all types of thinking styles they may be more successful at this.
2. I’m not sure that people are intentionally lying – I’ve been in a focus group once about white goods. All the room were asked their opinion of a new colour range. Everyone answered honestly that they liked the colours and picked their collective favourite. Before leaving they could order a product of their own – everyone chose white! It was the questioning that was all wrong. Neuro-marketing is more likely to give an ‘honest answer’. I also believe that research doesn’t understand Social Proof (Dr. Robert Cialdini). Even people have stood around watching a woman being brutally murdered and no one did a thing – all because no one else did. We have collective minds in a way when together with others. It’s a mirror response trigger we can’t help. So, factor this into research process and you’re more likely to improve it.
4. People don’t look that closely at our ads – I agree, but it doesn’t mean that it isn’t taken in by our unconscious mind. It does.
5. People don’t like new ideas – actually certain personality types don’t like new ideas (and frankly you may be one of them if this is something you see in others – i trust you’re ok with me being frank here?) There are innovators who love new things and are bored if there aren’t new things. So, I don’t buy that.
6. Research has been used since the 1960’s – I agree it is time to re-look at the process but I cannot imagine that clients will let go of it. We have some basic needs to drive us all and one of them is certainty. We want to know the outcome before we take the step and some of us are driven more by this than others. I think we need to accept this need and find more appropriate ways of doing research to fulfil that need. I’d suggest that there are many that would rather stick with a flawed system than to have nothing to rely on at all. So, it’s about reinventing now not about complaining and throwing the whole thing away I feel.

7. ‘Not happy Jan’ – I agree there is magic that comes from being open and experimenting but in a commercial environment it has to be done with respect to the need for certainty, that there does need to be some process to get ideas out there. The trick is in establishing a process that allows ‘Not happy Jan’ to come out but to have the certainty of a result even if that magic didn’t happen on the day which is equally as possible. It’s about control in the right places and freedom in the right places all in harmony with each other.

BTW: Neuro-Marketing, according to Martin Lindstrom, claims that warning signs on cigarette packets increases the smokers desire to smoke because the images activate their ‘want to smoke’ reflex. So, cigarette companies love the warning signs and want them to stay. The ‘big brother’ campaign is smoke and mirrors to their real cause I suggest.

@ Anne Miles:

I agree with you that people in focus groups may not intentionally lie – but the artificial & public nature of the group inhibits honesty to the point where much of what comes out is pretty meaningless – especially when measured against how real people judge ads out there in the world beyond focus groups.

However, your desire for “commercial certainty” is up there with religion as far as I’m concerned. People want to believe in the afterlife. People want to believe that their idea will work before it happens. It’s the same bizarre series of rituals to me.

As far as your suggestion that I don’t like new ideas…. well… I’ve given up advertising & opened a bar – so that’s something new. Although… I guess 20 odd years of advertising saw me spend a fair bit of time in bars, so maybe you’re right!

@ Ron Jeremy: I once met your pornstar namesake. I was trying to use him as a presenter in an ad, but it failed the focus group test. Anyway, he gave me an autographed photo that said: “To Adam – a true stud amongst men. Sincerely, Ron Jeremy, (your student)”

Some people will have you believe anything!

Getting back to Darren’s point about giving ideas away for free – i
I think the solution lies in the quest for this ‘certainty’. Clients want to know the work works and that the agency is right for them, and agencies want to be certain they’ll win the account. Until agencies have something more that they can lean on to be certain they’ll have the best chance of winning they will keep giving free stuff away (or fitting in with conformity) and clients will keep asking for it. We can’t just stop – we need to replace it. What that is is the real challenge and as Adam Hunt rightly points out it may be an alternative to current research methods.

(thx for being a good sport too Adam 😉

Yes!

back to what Darren says – he raises many good points… I particularly like his Red Hot Chilli Pepper’s analogy: “Give it Away Give it Away Give it Away Give it Away Now!” when it comes to Agencies & Clients.

Perhaps an even more accurate Pepper’s song title when it comes to the pitch process is: “Suck My Kiss” as agencies outdo each other to devalue the only true difference between them – their creative offering.

The challenge is as it’s always been – how to convince people who know the cost of everything but the value of nothing that ideas are everything.

And if you’re going to drag those ideas through focus groups in some hopeless quasi scientific quest for “certainty” then all you’re going to do is add to the landfill on the dark side of the moon.

@ Adam Hunt.

and yes i am anon, because… well… because I can be!

why not ease up on the Bill Bernbach.

twice in one day on two different articles, really?

Adam when you’re jaded, tired, and full of bullshit it’s time to leave the business and open a restaurant.Put the experience of bludging food and booze in the viewing room to good use if you weren’t clever enough to be a researcher

But first, since research is a hoax give back the money to all the clients you defrauded by your own admission..

Sorry Anonymous –

I’m completely guilty of over-loving Bill Bernbach.

It’s such a shame that nobody’s said anything better on the topic since, and that what he says is as ignored today as when he first said it. But you’re right – I’ll shut up.

Your argument for not putting your name to your words doesn’t really stand up.

Are you afraid of standing by what you say?

What possible negative consequence could there be?

For me,

It’s not the clients whom we are giving away our ideas to, but it’s usually the clients that give our ideas away to their contracted agencies, as they love your idea and just want to see it happen in market.

Sadly I haven’t seen an agency if my 24 years as a client or agency member who has said, “sorry we can’t do this because it’s not our idea”, whether there’s a piece of paper involved or not.

Key is to make your idea as close to market ready as possible, so any other agency can’t hit the in market dates or you just drop your pants on margin to try and close the deal, either way your under the pump which is the beauty of being a leader in the industry.

Let them try and catch you, they never will.

A lot of Australian agencies have international retainers thanks to agreements in the USA or Europe.

They receive an often over inflated money every month that they really can’t lose. Leo Burnett Australia for instance, gets oodles of cigarette money thanks a deal done in the USA.

International money streams enables local agencies to take on board other clients for a lot less money. It looks good to the press and the Board overseas. (Win the business first, oh… then try and work out how to make money from it.)

Clients in Australia can also point out to their boss they screwed the agency down. They look good too!*

If agencies in Australia had to really stand on their own two feet financially you’d see a sudden and seismic shift in behaviour.

@Adam Hunt. Thanks for answering my question. My thoughts? Some ideas are unresearchable and probably shouldn’t be, and there are plenty of good ideas that get killed off by research. But I personally don’t think it’s the methodology that’s the issue. It’s just bad research – conducted by researchers that don’t understand advertising, and/or the limitations of focus groups. Groups shouldn’t be used to ‘test’ and idea…only to help in its development. Just gotta make sure you use a researcher that knows what he/she’s doing….

WARNING
Client perspective follows..

Some agencies have to “discount” their inflated charges because their fees are often, well, inflated, unsubstantiated and non-transparent.

They don’t try to justify high fees on the basis of value because in many cases they can’t.

And don’t get me started on retainers and overstaffing projects. The only reason to pay a retainer is to keep a gun firm working for a competitor. Otherwise they become a game where the agency services the client as little as possible, spending their annuity income on chasing new business. And I will never forget being told by two digital buyers that they couldn’t note down action points in WIP mtgs because that was the job of an account manager.

Such practices, like media commissions, are anachronisms that don’t belong in the modern commercial world. In my opinion.

I agree with some of Mr Hunt’s comments about focus group, but I do think they serve a value when it comes to checking for understanding and clarity.

Sometimes agencies and clients are too close to a concept, know the brief and industry backwards, and assume the concept is clear to everyone else who doesn’t have that knowledge.

I think focus groups are good for checking things like that.

As a client for a large marketer, I have seen a few ideas that we all thought were good, but the great unwashed out there didn’t get what we were trying to say or misunderstood it.

Cheaper to kill that in focus groups than find out after the campaign has run.

But I also believe that in some ways, the ad industry is like the movie industry according to William Goldman, in that nobody knows anything.

Very wise people in the industry can produce duds at times and other times, duds can produce great stuff.

Oucho Groucho!

I suspect there might be a researcher hiding behind your accurately named anonymous persona.

I’m sorry if my observations of my experiences in your field have offended you – and that I was not clever enough to follow in your illustrious (I’m guessing here because you’re anonymous) footsteps.

I never did bludge much food in focus groups – not just because it was universally atrocious, but watching ideas go through an outdated pseudo scientific bullshit process often turned my stomach.

Just to correct an erroneous assumption of yours – I never made a cent from clients, so how can I defraud anyone? It’s the client wanting “certainty” that pays the research company that’s being defrauded (In my opinion) as I don’t believe that the focus group process reflects any form of reality whatsoever – for all the reasons I mentioned above.

Maybe that’s where I ingested all the bullshit you accuse me of being full of?
Just a thought! Anyway I’d love to chat more with you – if you had the balls to front up to my bar & look me in the eye & say g’day. We can swap bullshit stories… & I’ll even buy you a beer (We have Asahi & Sapporo on tap & you sound like you need the warm hug that cold beer can provide 🙂

@ Everyone’s a winner:
You make a very, very interesting point. By the way, do you know who’s doing the plain packaging campaign?

@ Mark G:
Thanks for asking the question!
I agree & disagree with you – I think the outdated methodology and bad research are one & the same. I agree with you that research shouldn’t be used to test an idea – but to help in it’s development. For me the best research helps to uncover an insight about who you’re trying to have a conversation with. But somewhere long ago in a galaxy far far away the idea that you can test an idea (without any execution) took hold & an bloated industry of science fiction fantasy reassurance ballooned – complete with it’s own adspeak language that nobody outside the castle walls understands.

It’s why the vast majority of ads are sermons rather than conversations.

@Sweet Sally:
I completely agree with you about agencies & clients getting way too close to things.
Advertising is a pretty incestuous industry which has it’s own language – and unfortunately once that language permeates the brief & the research process, and the idea is judged according to the jargon of that language, the finished idea is almost never a conversation – it’s a gobbled together recitation of the brief masquerading as dialogue that’s been through a spin dryer & sounds about as natural as a radio V/O.
And thanks for quoting William Goldman – so succinctly too – because nobody really knows anything when it comes to ideas, which is why I’ll always trust gut feeling before I’ll believe a research debrief chock full of adspeak.

But let’s leave the last word to Mr Goldman:

“Life is pain, anyone who says differently is selling something”.

Adam you make sense in your replies to Mark G and the beuatifully nom de plumed Sweet Sally that wasn’t evident to me before. As a researcher it seems to me that the rule that research should only ever be used as an aid to judgement not a substitute for it is too often broken. This is frequently done by marketers without the experience or the wit to know better. That doesn’t make it wrong, just misused.
Researchers too sometimes lack the skill, wit and courage to say to clients that on the surface the research says ‘x’ but underneath my experience and judgement says ‘y’
And, I would be delighted to turn up for a cold one at your bar. If the food and drink are as good as the design of the menus on the net, and the conversation as entertaining as this discussion it would much more enjoyable than research.

To paraphrase Andrew Lang:

Many marketers use research like a drunk uses a lamp-post. More for support, than illumination.

http://www.adweek.com/news/adv.....ing-132903

old spice due to P&G ditching testing:

P&G Does Dan Wieden’s Bidding

Creative icon insists packaged goods giant drop rigid conditions, and wins at Cannes

By Andrew McMains on June 27, 2011
The success of Wieden + Kennedy’s “The man your man could smell like [1]” campaign for Procter & Gamble’s Old Spice is well-documented: explosive brand sales growth and a slew of top industry awards that continued last week [2] with a Cyber Grand Prix at Cannes for its “responses” effort.

Less known, however, are the un-Procter-like working conditions that gave rise to the groundbreaking work.

At the concept stage, the campaign wasn’t subject to the usual rigors of P&G testing. Also, the approval process was streamlined, with Wieden taking its cues from a single executive. Both conditions are atypical for the world’s biggest spending marketer, but not for Wieden, whose core client, Nike, prefers to think with its gut.

P&G’s decidedly different approach—in process and execution—reflects a company loosening its tie, embracing change and moving faster, eight years after first storming the beach at Cannes.

One byproduct of P&G’s annual trips to the global ad festival was its introduction to Dan Wieden. The marketer first hired the agency in the summer of 2005 to work on a relatively small pet food brand. Eight months later, in early 2006, P&G shifted the bigger Old Spice out of longtime global agency Saatchi & Saatchi.

At the time, Unilever had goosed the U.S. with the launch of Axe body spray, suggesting, in a series of cheeky ads from Bartle Bogle Hegarty, that the product will improve a guy’s sex life. Axe not only introduced a category but set the tone, with great success, both in terms of sales and creative awards. Its splash partly spurred P&G to seek a new agency for an old brand whose equity was a whistling jingle.

What Wieden came up with—after some fits and starts—was a character that appealed to both the men and women who buy such products. Played by former NFL player Isaiah Mustafa, the “Man your man could smell like” exudes male confidence and savoir faire. But in storyboard form, the half-man, half-horse with a towel around his waist would have garnered quizzical looks in focus groups.

Former Old Spice brand manager James Moorhead acknowledged as much last year. The campaign might have been killed or neutered beyond recognition. Instead, P&G just did it, with Wieden demonstrating that agencies—great ones, anyway—can still influence marketers, provided they can demonstrate success.

P&G, though, being P&G, downplayed any hint of process deviation last week. A company representative noted that Moorhead had to vet his ad decisions with his boss and even suggested that his admission of no testing was a bit of storytelling.

Other agencies, however, are aware of the leeway P&G affords Wieden, if only because it doesn’t apply to them. “Obviously, we would love to have the same hall pass,” says a top agency executive.

Don’t expect the whirlwind success of Old Spice to change the time-honored traditions of P&G, which, after all, is a global giant with billion dollar brands. It may, however, make it easier to sell innovative—and award-winning—work.

@Andrew – great case study. Process in the right places it seems with Weiden Kennedy, more so than a deviation of process altogether. I don’t believe that great creative can reliably come from lack of process. It just needs to be the right process.

I think the key point you’ve raised is if you can prove results/success then marketers will listen, which in turn means not having to rely on giving away what you have for clients to feel certain.

A lot of times the agencies don’t have results or success stories to call on because they don’t ask and don’t set up this as part of their process. There are still a lot that think that they have delivered if they have done what they’ve been asked to do as opposed to doing a job that has a purpose – to get results for the client. The results seem somehow separate for many and has had its day now. Those that don’t keep up with this will be left behind. An indicator is having to focus on the money like this.

Thanks for that Andrew.

A simple & funny idea that relied on talent, direction & execution to elicit the inner smile was spared the focus group.

Imagine if that notion caught on…

Are you Michael Vaughan?

90% of agencies walk, talk and chew gum exactly the same as each other.
They’re the ones who’ve turned the business into a commodity based business.
And commodity purchases are driven by price.
I bet Clems don’t discount, or Droga5, or the very few others who actually are
different. The rest – the 90% – discount and give away anything to get the sale because they’ve got nothing worth paying top dollar for.
i know it and you know it.

Spot on Darren.

@from experience, I absolutely agree. The clients that I see are often in two categories – (a) those that want high performance since they’re at the cutting edge and want to leverage the best out of what they do or (b) those that are suffering and need to rethink what they’re doing. All of (b) are without a point of difference – exactly your point.

The difficulty is in making a point of difference when you don’t have one. The key is in listening to what the client’s want and what the feedback about the business is. What is it that people say you do different than others and what combination of things can we combine together to make it work?

Just about every digital or design agency says they are about strategy, film companies about providing content and only a visual point of difference, agencies that are only about personality difference or being ‘full service’…. it’s all the same.

I feel so sad for these good people doing what every one else is thinking that this is the ‘way its done’ when it is actually harming their business. There are great people in our business that deserve some success. A simple switch turned here will make the world of difference.

Often there is fear about being specific because they fear it will turn away opportunities, when in fact it opens them up. My pet subject! Thanks for raising it.

One of my favourite maxims is “Good Design is what is left after the bad stuff is removed”. I paraphrase.
Your time-honoured process seems to be one of reductionism by committee headed by a visionary leader. Reducing to the essence. Seems simple till you try it yourself.
I think everybody appreciates that when it happens and voila . . . marketing magic.

The key is in focusing on why we’re all there – as I say, ‘We’re working for the idea’. When everything else is put aside and the focus is in this one place it really changes how the process is used.

Once agencies get a handle on their own process and can protect the bits that matter they’ll be better equipped to stand up in these moments when they’re choosing if they’ll give creative away for free or stand by their own results knowing with confidence that they can deliver – and the clients can see that they can.

Giving away ideas?

Clients agencies to help them with their marketing. Agencies do not give anything away – they charge shed loads for their services!

“clients hire agencies to…”

I think that guessing about a client’s specific business circumstances isn’t appropriate (although interesting conversation), likewise to assume that TrinityP3’s advice about one client makes it the advice that would be given to all clients, or a general policy for the way that TrinityP3 works.

My experience, as one that was audited many times by P3, was that he was very fair and if anything was highlighted as being excessive it was fair – or when I pointed out the value in spending the money the way we were it was understood and appreciated – got through. So, having $3m taken out of a budget could be many things including the agency not being able to demonstrate the value in that spend even if it was there.

I believe there are agencies that overcharge as well as there being many that undercharge and don’t get back what time they spend. Just because agencies believe that they need to charge the way they do or spend the time on projects the way they do doesn’t make it right. Often businesses don’t know that another way of working exists because they haven’t seen it themselves. I see this often.

Generalising isn’t appropriate, that I know for sure.

Thanks Anne for giving some perspective to @Anonymous 2 July discussion point. It’s important to have a moderator. Darren – professionals see through these opinions.

Can anyone comment on all the agencies out there who have old fashioned business models? They seem to make most of their revenues from production costs? Do they direct their clients into mainly old media campaigns that pay the bills and are expensive?

There are people starving in Africa…

What people think and what people feel are not one and the same. Facial coding can and is used in some countries to distinguish the real emotion in reference to xy&z.

Agencies essentially exist to help clients raise their brand profiles and shift their product/services. So, if that’s where their expertise is, why can’t they do it for themselves?

I often tell clients ‘We don’t pitch ourselves on price for the same reasons we’d recommend you don’t. There’s a difference between cost and value.’

Perhaps that’s because, despite being agency-side, my qualification is in marketing and not comms or design…

I admit it. It is true. We lie.
I have sometimes filled in an online survey for example, with a load of bullshit lies.
The so-called ‘unimaginative’ punter just might have sussed out you/us are lying to them. So we all know it is lies all round then.
So let’s forget about the content and focus on a highly polished, stylish and surprisingly new and original presentation. I can’t be arsed to go back through the comments, but whoever said that people love the familiar must be living on another planet.
People YEARN for novelty. That’s what they are scanning the dross to find.

Bravo @OtherAndrew – believing in your value and being able to demonstrate it sounds like it is working for you. You can speak their language and understand the value of what you bring above your competitors. Others should really take note of the nuance here that you offer. It’s a subtle difference that will change results for those stuck in the price cycle.

The challenge is in finding/creating a differentiation for many.

As a copywriter who’s spent 15 years working on big multinational brands I’ve had more than my share of ideas bashed to death, or at least beaten beyond recognition, in focus groups. And I reckon I’ve figured out one of the major problems and it’s this. When creatives grizzle about their ideas being researched, they’re usually referring to comedy. And here’s the rub. Real people have acquired a taste for “black” humour in entertainment. It’s everywhere from the Simpsons, Family Guy and South Park to Funniest Home Videos and most of the dialogue out of Hollywood. Rightly so, creatives want their ads to be as funny as the shows they run in. But, black humour researches badly.
That’s because, among other things,people in groups feel suddenly worthy. Show them a storyboard of an angry boss yelling out the window at her terrified employee who’s fleeing the workplace and guess what they’re gonna worthily say?
Clients aren’t stupid, they know all this. So why do they even research ads? It plays out like this.Your agency, by showing other people’s funny ads, finally convince a younger brand client with a trip to Cannes flickering in her eyes, to ignore the research findings or not research the TVC. Then away you skip to make your funny ad. In the production process the actors reckon this spot is funny, the crew think it’s hilarious, the editor is rolling on the carpet. So you finish your ad, and you take it back to the agency and glory, when… WHAM! Schtunka-stunka-stunka.(sound of gallows trapdoor opening). It’s a dud. A $250,000 dud. And everyone knows it. You’re not baptised as a creative until you meet and learn to live with that sickening feeling as everyone in the room, tipsy with expectation, realise the truth. The ad, your ad, hasn’t turned out funny. And to make things worse, in all the excitement any bit of sell had been banished from the ad for making it resemble an ad. There goes the backup chute. Trust is lost, fear rules, creativity withers and now the agency is doing stuff like the last ad. That one got ok results. No-one loved it but at least no-one hated it like your supposed-to-be funny TVC. But It’s all just the nature of taking your chances with comedy. Comedy pros like Rob Sitch tell of how risky any comedy sketch is and how they just don’t know what will be funny, and what will die, until it’s made. They made loads of gags each week, then only ran the ones that turned out funny.

So the odds are stacked against agency creatives who attempt humour, from the start. And that, patient blogger, is why clients research ads. They are looking for reassurance against bad odds. And rightly so. Imagine if most passenger jets crashed. Wouldn’t you be looking for a way to find out how your flight was going to go? resort to a psychic even? And a psychic is about the level of guarantee you get when you ask focus groups if an ad will be funny.

The way I see it, there’s two ways of solving this–if it is solvable. Firstly the creatives have to try to decrease the chances of an unfunny flop by improving their skill base. The mistake I see over and over is a black character in an ad who just comes across as a miserable son of a bitch. The same sort of character on Big Bang Theory, is funny because we’ve got to know the character. A man throttling his child is evil. Hommer throttling Bart is funny. The other thing snuffing out comedies chances are cliches. Ask a hundred writers what the boss would yell out the window to Jan and I’ll betcha only one would have have up with the famous line. It’s not a cliche: you haven’t heard something like it in an ad and you don’t predict it. Otherwise agencies should realise there’s a limited number people out there who can write funny. (And don’t ask me why, but they’re not usually the witty ones in the Creative Dept, they’re often the awkward introverts). You can spot them by their work. Whoever writes Super Cheap Autos retail ads is one: funny 5 sec gags consistently. If you don’t have one of these people, admit it to yourselves and don’t do funny.

As for focus groups, how often do you read a researcher on industry blogs saying that research is just a useful indicator. And how seldom do you hear it from a researcher, intoxicated with power in client research debriefs. But they are required to at least handle client expectations, to use the cliche. It never fails to amaze how advertisers are so out of touch with the man-on-the-street, to use another two. You’d think they were looking at aliens through that one way glass. And so they’ll jump on any comment that backs up their view of how they wish their target market think. And if your researcher is offside, idea idead. How sweet it has been seeing the dreaded focus groups, get their comeuppance in the political arena. Ok that’s bitter, but when, like Allan Hunt it seems, you’ve watched enough of your babies die in their bassinets through the glass for too many years you’ve got to feel there is a better way to guess whether an ad will achieve it’s goal or not then ask people in groups. And you don’t feel it’s going to come from the focus group industry who naturally won’t wish to surrender their power. I suspect social media will hold the answer to people being gronks when asked for opinions in front of other gronks.

P.S. speaking of gronks my social-mediac son says that anyone who gets in a protracted debate online is one, Adam.