Should ad agencies advertise themselves?

James sorry to say it but this article is very very silly. The language is all muddled and it doesn’t really make sense. Advertising agencies do advertise – and it’s called ‘self promotion. If you mean should they ‘advertise’ like on TV then why would they? They are a B2B proposition with a limited number of clients. They may do it for ‘self promotion’ but you’ve ruled that out as a legitimate reason for some reason.

The obvious answer is that the advertising we create for our clients is ultimately an advertisement for ourselves.

What’s the point spending time and effort TELLING people how good you are, when the work you do for your clients should be SHOWING people how good you are?

Obviously, you need to also focus on a good PR strategy, and get the agency story right. But any agency that actually spends money on paid media to advertise itself is either a start-up, or pretty much admitting that none of the work they actually produce is good enough to demonstrate their capabilities.

James, as a freelance creative I just recently accepted a similar challenge to advertise UNO MARCOMS a great little sharp-as-a-tack agency in East Sydney. You can send out whatever DM you like, but the reality is most new agency business comes from recommendations. Word of mouth. And because sites like Mumbrella allow everyone to have an unedited opinion, if the contributor has proven industry credentials on Linked In, it has almost the same effect as word of mouth.

All you gotta do is find a way to introduce the agency in a way that’s transparent, topical and helpful. For instance you wouldn’t say “I recommend UNO MARCOMS because they know how the power of Ideas can give you a return out of all proportion to investment”. As true as it is, it sounds bought. As is, “UNO MARCOMS have strategic insights are second to none.” Equally true, but bought. If you’re smart you find a way of bringing the product features into the discussion naturally.

Hope that’s helpful….to everyone.

@X Thanks for your comments. My impetus to question the merits of B2B advertising came from when I was thinking about specifically placing a print ad in Mumbrella sister title, Encore. Full (unedited) version of this opinion piece is posted on my personal blog, http://www.listeningtostories.com It might make more sense there. But then it might not.

@Hmmmm…. Agreed. Telling v showing. But how can you show when people don’t know you yet?! DM whether snail mail or email is one way. But I still wonder which ad agencies have created ads for themselves over the years. I’ll create a list of the examples people are sharing with me and post them over the weekend on my blog.

OK, firstly the smart marketers (there are some) will make it their job to know what work is out there, and have an opinion on campaigns they are impressed by.

It’s as easy as a 10 second google search to find out the agency behind a good campaign.

Secondly, you do things outside of your core competency to help you sell the story. When 3 Drunk Monkeys does something for Sculptures by the Sea, do you think they’re doing it for fun? To release their inner artist? They’re doing it because it’s a great way to tell the brand story they want to tell: that of a cool creative indy which thinks beyond the standard approach to advertising.

Their giant straw sticking out of the water WAS an ad for their agency. Only, actually doing ads that say “We’re 3DM, we’re awesome, give us your business” are beyond naff and just don’t work.

So yeah, agencies DO advertise. Leo’s thinks it’s advertising its brand by getting Todd on Gruen. Droga is advertising its brand when it creates the campaign to encourage agencies to hire the disabled (have you seen the video? It makes you LOVE the droga guys to pieces. brilliant).

It’s just that you have to forget about thinking that advertising is an ad. It’s an ongoing conversation. The good agencies know their story, and do lots of stuff to continually reinforce it. The agencies that don’t get it, don’t.

More interesting is seeing how various individuals within our industry go about advertising THEIR brands.

One other thing. If you put a link to your agency’s site in your blog or tweet, say for instance it was, let me see just off the top of my head… http://www.unomarcomms.com/ , then you need to offer compelling case studies that you don’t have to wade through hype to find. Ad agencies consistently have sites full of slow-loading pompous “insight.” All the bullshit , big shots and awards in the world come to nothing if you can’t show results.

James makes a good point

When I worked at O&M the agency made 2 TVC’s. One with John Cleese that didn’t air to my knowledge.

The other was an ad using Jesse Birdsall. It aired on UK TV and we did a campaign on Sky, which aired across Europe at the time.

It depicted a man watching TV and who gets up and makes coffee when the ad break starts and sitting back down when the ad break finished. It had a billboard for O&M at the end.

@Peter Rush glad you came back a second time, I note you corrected the spelling of your agency’s name the second time round!

@Hmmmm… Agree. Again. Good reference point is the film Coke is sharing re content creation: Content 2020 (see the adjacent mumbrella article!) Vs the 80s agency ads that James Vogel talks about. A sign of our times: just as we create content (as well as ads) for our clients so we should all create new stories (content to spark conversation) of our own. Love the Sculpture By The Sea example. A great place to showcase a brand, demonstrate design aesthetics etc

@James Vogel. Thank you for those TVC examples. I doubt they’re on youtube but I’ll have a dig at the weekend. (Unless anyone has any contacts that might have them to hand – do let me know!)

If agencies believe in their own product, and if they believe in their own brand, and if they are capable of positioning, and articulating their offer then why wouldn’t they advertise? What better way is there for them to show they believe in themselves than to put their OWN money behind their work? Saying their work for their clients is their advertising is a cop out because it is the client’s money and the client’s approval which inevitably modifies the work.

I would be asking an agency that doesn’t advertise in some form what they are frightened of.

I’m not sure how much value Leo’s actually is getting by having Todd on Gruen.

He comes across as rather smug – pretty much what comes to mind when you think of a typical ad agency wanker.

Now that may be unfair to Todd – he may be a great guy who is humble and not a tosser at all, but he always comes across to this viewer as smug and condescending. And Leo’s may be doing fantastic work, but the viewer doesn’t know this.

Anyway, once you are on the TV, you have to get used to criticism, so that’s mine.

I think agencies need a good PR person or PR agency to promote themselves.

I know Y&R had a great lady doing their PR when I was last there and Hamish McLennan and the agency were always in the media and the agency was on fire.

Business was going so great they had to turn 1 person cubicles into rooms for 2 with an extra desk – they even had to more some storage cupboards to fit in extra desks.

I can’t remember the ladies name – she was very nice and also extremely good at her job.

She was only part time or freelance – not sure, but she knew how to weave her PR magic to get results.

I thought James was raised 2 points: one that most people are notoriously bad at promoting themselves and so need some Outside Help; and two that it’s difficult to get right. Many have tried and I’ve worked in those that failed with weak puns – but I do remember a brilliant piece by Robin Wright entitled “Interrogate your product until it confesses to its strengths”, which was a long press ad featuring a can of baked beans strapped to a chair, wilting under a strong spotlight and the caption “Alright Robin, I’ll spill the beans” – I think the full agency name was Wright, Collins, Rutherford, Scott… It’s worth a look if any one has copy out there… Anyone?

Let’s not forget the Sunday Times full page that Charles and Maurice Saatchi ran to announce the launch of their agency in 1970. ‘Why I think it’s time for a new kind of advertising’. Written by Jeremy Sinclair. Characteristic chutzpah.

Paul A – it was Robin Wight – without the R. Don’t have a copy, I’m afraid.

Not Hamish – I think you are right. Agencies need great PR people who can develop a narrative to then hand to a journo. The media ‘media’ in AU are generally (not all but most) a bit lousy at generating story ideas (and most are under 25 and have never worked in any sort of proper advertising or media role) and most often need a theme fed to them … a good PR person can do this.

Momentum is key for agencies and PR can create the perception that an agency has it.

This is one of my pet subjects. Some of this depends on our definition of advertising versus marketing. To me marketing is all encompassing (like Sculpture on the sea, PR, anything that gets us seen). Advertising, I feel, is exactly in line with what James Welch is talking about and that’s paid exposure – and only that.

Big things that I disagree with above is that :

(1) Good work no longer is enough. If you’re good at what you do that’s default these days, and unless you have a clear point of difference and able to tell people exactly who you are then you are invisible. It also has to be targeted at what clients want and not just about what you do. Clients expect good work from everyone and sometimes they can’t actually see what you see, and don’t know that what you have done is actually any good. That’s not their fault but yours.

(2) Recommendations are great and probably in the top 1 or 2 of methods to get work but if that’s all you rely on you are not gaining the full potential for your business – that’s old school thinking. I’m being direct here.

(3) Reading that someone thinks that advertising means being on TV is a shock to read here for our industry, frankly. To also define advertising as an activity that is like Sculpture on the Sea is a little off too. Advertising that is done where the advertising agency’s market hangs out can be useful as part of a mix – but like anything it has to get results and be measurable. I’m sure that Encore is not a client market – however if the business was a VFX house then I’d say to go for it. If the business is FMCG then no. Advertising agency’s market is not where their suppliers hang out but where their clients hang out. Marketing Mag perhaps. Additionally though if part of the growth strategy is to attract good employees then that would be a sound strategy to be in Encore – but a VERY different strategy and for very different reasons.

(4) Case studies are great and important but not enough -they need to be presented in context with the client’s problem and not just about what the agency does. Make the credentials as part of the solution to the client’s problem. That’s very different.

(5) I think that @Peter Rush is right that referrals are powerful and that the headlines he’s proposed are cheesy. None of them are in the context of the client’s needs though – and that’s actually why they don’t work. Those cheesy statements are not grounded with the right positioning, some strategy, some point of difference and that’s why some marketing doesn’t work. If the product and the positioning is not right then any marketing that is done will fail. The copywriting is without sound strategy behind it it seems. A lot of advertising agencies just don’t get this right – they have no point of difference and think it is all about THEM and that’s why it sounds cheesy and all wrong. Doing nothing is just as bad IMHO.

I’m a bit concerned that so many advertising agency’s don’t know how to market themselves, and so many people that claim to be able to market and consult to agencies don’t either. How come they are still all so vanilla and it ends up being a price war? How come when the likes of Darren Woolley at TrinityP3 who works with these clients every day says that there is no point of difference and no unique position with so many and yet they still keep doing it? My concern is that if they can’t get this together how can they truly be effective at doing great advertising for their clients? It amazes me.

To me, the little ad about ‘Mumbrella calls us the best automotive agency… ‘ is all fluff and nothing at all of value to a potential client – luckily you agree about that @James Welch. The issue is because the agency doesn’t have a point of difference that makes them great at automotive advertising – who are they? Why do they do great automotive? Is there even a market in being a great automotive agency when they already have an automotive account ? Who says there is room for them to have another? What is it that they do that applies to the types of clients they actually want to work with rather than who they have as a client now?

In my personal opinion – even the link that was a shameless sell to an agency’s website in this thread is just another bland and vanilla agency. To claim that you’re about creativity to get a ROI is default. Client’s expect that – it is not a point of difference or any big deal at all. The real question is what do you to that is different to anyone else that gets that ROI. That’s what I love figuring out. That’s news that all the marketing and all the advertising can fall off – wherever that ends up being and for how much.

I agree Anne M, the intellectual pursuit of figuring it out is absolutely everything.

Thanks @Paul A – at least someone gets the value of the depth of this and the success that comes to those agencies that do have this point of difference and distinction.

No great ad agency ads? What about Y&R’s1965 BACKBONE ad.
A full page with an engraving of a backbone, and this copy

“This is a backbone.
You can’t run a good advertising agency without it.
It often makes you say an honest “no” to a client instead of an easy “yes”.
It means giving service instead of servility.
Very often the result is outstanding advertising.
Young & Rubicam”

It was as much a statement of operating principles as anything.

In an effort to remind the much diminished company of what it used to be about, I showed a real medical-model backbone to the Y&R shareholders meeting in NY that approved the shameful WPP sellout in the 90’s.

Ah, when advertising agencies stod for something moral.

Interesting topic… here’s another thought. What about advertising to both potential clients AND consumers?

I have seen this done. Back in ‘old school’ days in the late 80’s/early 90’s in NZ, Saatchi & Saatchi NZ (the main office was in Wellington back then) used to proudly advertise themselves… on TV. Saatchi’s produced many award winning and well-loved/high profile campaigns for clients such as Telecom NZ, NZ Lotteries, National Bank and Toyota. They also created TVC’s for themselves eg. a montage of all their finest work to an emotive or catchy soundtrack. In particular I recall them softening the blow to the NZ audience when Sunday advertising was first introduced. The audience loved it and in the days when we didn’t have the option of fast-forwarding ads – they actually found this kind of advertising entertaining and couldn’t get enough of it – it made Saatchi’s a household name.

I worked as a junior in the TV production department of Saatchi’s back then and had daily requests from the public for VHS copies of their commercials – they were so popular. If my parents ever mentioned to anyone where I worked – every day, regular people – they would all respond – ‘wow – she works for Saatch & Saatchi’ – they knew exactly who Saatchi & Saatchi were.

There is no doubt that by making themselves a household name among consumers that every head of marketing in NZ wanted them to pitch for their business.

Could this strategy work now? Probably not – this was the good ‘old school’ days when there were only a few mediums to choose from. It’s so much more complicated now and you have to be very clever to make it work, like Saatchi’s were.

@Jane, I was there in those days too and remember those ads.

I think these days there is so much of a focus on results and getting to the audience with the most return. I can’t imagine this would win the cost per lead test unfortunately.

In those days there were also more cost effective methods available to Saatchi’s but the novelty factor may have created the PR that really leveraged.

I remember a couple. Back in 1999 The Palace did a big glossy lift-out in one of the papers (The Australian? SMH?).

Advertising Advantage used to run TV ads for themselves. (I’m sure they’ll draw the wrath of a few readers because they weren’t ‘sexy advertising’, but hey, that’s not the angle they were going for).

Also, I think there was one for Saatchi’s Sydney – it was a shot of someone’s head with a VHS tape drawn over it. The lines said something like “which bank?” (and then two other brand lines that I can’t remember), then something like “You have the pictures in your head. We put them there.”

I’ve just seen the new look Encore and think I should update a previous comment I made about that magazine. I agree the new format is much more TV content focused and that marketers would now be a target reader.

The older format was more from the production aspect of the programming and feature industry and very different markets which is what I was referring to. When I talk about advertising in that magazine I would preface that by saying that aiming for articles/editorial coverage is far better than paid advertising space. So, actually being and doing what it is that clients in there are looking for will make you news worthy.

If you are paying for advertising you need to be walking the talk and not just paying for brand awareness that doesn’t mean anything IMHO.