We need new models, not Naked 2.0

Jen Davidson’s thoughtful article last week on the potential return of Naked 2.0 has sparked plenty of conversation about future agency models and how we adapt in an ever-changing landscape. Having been part of Naked 1.0, and trying to replicate its best bits ever since, I couldn’t resist responding. But before we posture about the future, it’s worth revisiting why 1.0 failed in the first place.

There were two major factors unrelated to the model itself. First, the business was sold to the wrong acquirers, with Photon entering a death spiral. Second, the GFC created significant financial pressure across the industry, including for Naked.

These pressures exposed a third issue: building a sustainable, consistent, and profitable model not tied to executional output. In strong economic conditions, clients were comfortable with a strategy-led model directing a village of specialist executional agencies, creative, media, PR  and digital, to deliver agnostic, strategically grounded work. ‘Share a Coke’ is a perfect example of how powerful that model could be.

But as financial conditions tightened and procurement influence grew, Naked was increasingly positioned as an “extra” agency, and its strategic remit absorbed by executional partners. The reality is that thinking talent is more expensive than executional talent.

To compensate, Naked pivoted into creative, first as an ideas agency, then as a strategically driven full-service creative agency. In doing so, it lost its differentiation.

Interestingly, a similar agency model in South Africa, Nota Bene, faced the same challenge but chose a different path: it moved into media buying.

That decision paid off. Nota Bene was eventually acquired by WPP and has been one of the most successful agencies in that market for two decades. Its founder, Pete Vogel, is now CEO of Wavemaker. So, while creative execution diluted Naked’s proposition, media execution done right proved highly effective for Nota Bene.

The fourth, and perhaps most relevant factor for future models, was the lack of serious investment in analytics. Naked Numbers, while directionally right, was ultimately a limited media mix modelling product.

As a result, much of the agency’s work, however innovative, was difficult to measure and quantify. Under pressure, CMOs were left without the evidence needed to justify the additional cost.

So, while I agree with Jen in principle that separating thinking from doing is elegant, how many clients can genuinely afford it today?

Especially in a market where CMOs are increasingly focused on consolidation, group pitches, and in-housing to reduce costs. A more viable path is this: agencies must evolve their commercial models, so they don’t rely on execution to make money while simultaneously becoming radically more efficient at delivering that execution.

Clients won’t continue to pay for multi-million-dollar shoots when technology can deliver comparable outcomes at a fraction of the cost. Nor will they tolerate bloated agency structures filled with layers of client service and creative overhead when more agile alternatives exist. The same applies to media; manual, analogue processes used to justify fees won’t survive in a machine-driven world.

Agencies absolutely should lean into strategy, supported by robust analytics and reporting, and build commercial models around it. But that doesn’t mean abandoning execution. It means fundamentally rethinking how execution is delivered.

Ian Perrin is Managing Partner at Speed, an independent media agency focused on strategy, analytics and buying media efficiently.

Related Content

Podcast ABC workers strike, Kyle strikes with a lawsuit, and AI-generated PR strikes the wrong chord

Analysis Davidson: It’s time for Naked 2.0