As you know, it´s not about idea driven vs. channel driven. Ideas pushed into channels or a framed and narrow channel solitions can never compeat with customer driven concepts. Yes, you´re right they dont know shit. But they dont know that. So, we just have to aproach bold (and/or nice) with some respect weather they deserve it or not.
The end product should always a concept that’s customer-driven. The different philosophies of arriving there differ however. An idea-driven agency will deliver concept based on ideas. A channel specialist will deliver channel-formatted ideas. With various new digital opportunities, the old saying “it’s the idea that matters” no longer applies, because the web allows you to create totally new types of interactions and behaviors. The Whopper sacrifice is a good example of a bottom-up solution that requires good knowledge of technological possibilities, rather than adaptation of a top-down-idea. Being an expert on this AND an expert on classic media such as film AND direct is very tough.
If you look at it harshly there are not that many Generalist Agencies, as they too favor TV and Print as channels. Not only because they know it, but because it gives greater prizes. So as long as the Generalist Agency says they offer solutions for all channels, but internally are biased towards traditional, then they are in fact a Specialist Agency in Generalist Agency clothing.
Prizes is one thing, but I think a bigger obstacle is the media planning that hardly takes place in the ad agency, but in media agencies. Their business model strongly favors traditional media, not innovative digital solutions. Us at Jung von Matt are really trying to be a true generalist idea agency, but it’s no easy – it requires constant education of all personell, not least production and project managers, a general shift of risk perception, and you have shift your whole recruitment policy (hard to teach old dogs web 2.0).
i’ll think you have to be idea-driven (using the word in your ((good, by the way)) way) AND know your thing in each different channel in order to be really sucessful. The problem is if you let the the idea itself stand i in the centre instead of the one you’re pithing it to. A lot of agencys still love the concept so much it’s hurting the exection and alternation in different channels. Pardon my spelling.
I think that the answer to the million dollar question is: Yes. If you are big enough. In this case size really matters. The bigger agencies can offer a wide range of specialists that all together gives a we-can-do-everything-generalist offer thats trustworthy. Coming from a smaller agency the same offer turns into a we-know-a-little-about-everything offer where the will to be broad affects the deeper knowledge. When looking at the Swedish Adv industry during bad times this is shown very clearly. Bigger generalist agencies and smaller specialists goes better, and mid size generalist agencies takes the hit.
I agree that all communication should be driven by the message, and not the channel. Also great point about media agencies. I think knowing everything about all channels is great, but beyond that we will find attitude. Even if a Generalist Agency knows everything about all channels, they will lean towards one or the other. I think it would be interesting to make a study in Generalist Agencies in Sweden to see which channels the creative teams favor. I speculate that the attitudes favor TV and Print, partially based on the rock star connotation of prizes. So in the end the Generalist Agency concept has to be questioned.
Sorry I don’t mean the “Generalist Agency concept” itself is to be questioned, but the actual existance of it. I doubt it exists beyond the imaginative realm!
Osk: you are right. Many idea/concept-driven agencies (including ourselves) are too much focussed on the abstract idea rather than execution finish.
Petter: a large agency with specialists – a.k.a departments is back to square one if you ask me, and I know that even the best large agencies have difficulty in driving edge. Profitability and size is partially correlated because of client size etc, but take a look at Brindfors, Ogilvy, Storåkers… Perhaps it’s a matter of how well an agency is managed.
Elia: award-advertising is only a small part of an agency’s total output, analog and digital. I think competence (or lack thereof) is really the key issue.
The ironic thing about the whole discussion about classic vs digital agency is that digital agencies are becoming more conceptual and idea-focussed (Greatworks are integrating a PR function). Even digital production companies are focussing more on idea and less on the actual programming/production. So, the gap may not be that big after all.
Elia: forgot. I do agree that there’s definitely different levels of unwritten prestige to each channel/format among creative agencies. It goes something like:
1. TV/film
2. print/press
3. web
4. ambient/alternative
5. direct
Sad but true.
Elia: I don’t agree. I think the generalist agency is more relevant than ever for one single reason: there’s no time to become specialist as technology changes from day to day. Time to go back to basics: creativity is the only competence that lasts.
Most modern creative agencies are generalist agencies of some sort. A look at their output easily proves that there’s little inherent media preference.
Leon: What I mean is that as a smaller/mid size agency you have to differ in some way to survive. You can (and if you ask me, if you’re not a production company you should) be a generalist when it comes to the output channel, but then you have to differ in your communication approach. And not just by an extrodinary high creative level.
Elia: I think that an agency that choses channels for any other reasons than efficiency for the communication task (in relation to budget… ) is doomed in the longer run.
Petter: Definitely. The discussion here was not about total agency positioning, it was related to channel specialisation. I do think that many agencies do have some sort of edge that keep them alive, be it channel specialisation, extraordinary salesmanship, creativity, strategic competence, big brands, industry focus, close client relationships…
“I think the generalist agency is more relevant than ever for one single reason: there’s no time to become specialist as technology changes from day to day”
Well put. Real knowledge and skill is as important as ever. No more trick mirrors and hiding behind buzztechnology.
February 19th, 2009 at 02:34
Good breakdown of reality. I like it!
February 19th, 2009 at 10:01
As you know, it´s not about idea driven vs. channel driven. Ideas pushed into channels or a framed and narrow channel solitions can never compeat with customer driven concepts. Yes, you´re right they dont know shit. But they dont know that. So, we just have to aproach bold (and/or nice) with some respect weather they deserve it or not.
February 19th, 2009 at 11:02
The end product should always a concept that’s customer-driven. The different philosophies of arriving there differ however. An idea-driven agency will deliver concept based on ideas. A channel specialist will deliver channel-formatted ideas. With various new digital opportunities, the old saying “it’s the idea that matters” no longer applies, because the web allows you to create totally new types of interactions and behaviors. The Whopper sacrifice is a good example of a bottom-up solution that requires good knowledge of technological possibilities, rather than adaptation of a top-down-idea. Being an expert on this AND an expert on classic media such as film AND direct is very tough.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:49
If you look at it harshly there are not that many Generalist Agencies, as they too favor TV and Print as channels. Not only because they know it, but because it gives greater prizes. So as long as the Generalist Agency says they offer solutions for all channels, but internally are biased towards traditional, then they are in fact a Specialist Agency in Generalist Agency clothing.
February 19th, 2009 at 13:02
Prizes is one thing, but I think a bigger obstacle is the media planning that hardly takes place in the ad agency, but in media agencies. Their business model strongly favors traditional media, not innovative digital solutions. Us at Jung von Matt are really trying to be a true generalist idea agency, but it’s no easy – it requires constant education of all personell, not least production and project managers, a general shift of risk perception, and you have shift your whole recruitment policy (hard to teach old dogs web 2.0).
February 19th, 2009 at 13:27
i’ll think you have to be idea-driven (using the word in your ((good, by the way)) way) AND know your thing in each different channel in order to be really sucessful. The problem is if you let the the idea itself stand i in the centre instead of the one you’re pithing it to. A lot of agencys still love the concept so much it’s hurting the exection and alternation in different channels. Pardon my spelling.
February 19th, 2009 at 13:38
I think that the answer to the million dollar question is: Yes. If you are big enough. In this case size really matters. The bigger agencies can offer a wide range of specialists that all together gives a we-can-do-everything-generalist offer thats trustworthy. Coming from a smaller agency the same offer turns into a we-know-a-little-about-everything offer where the will to be broad affects the deeper knowledge. When looking at the Swedish Adv industry during bad times this is shown very clearly. Bigger generalist agencies and smaller specialists goes better, and mid size generalist agencies takes the hit.
February 19th, 2009 at 13:51
I agree that all communication should be driven by the message, and not the channel. Also great point about media agencies. I think knowing everything about all channels is great, but beyond that we will find attitude. Even if a Generalist Agency knows everything about all channels, they will lean towards one or the other. I think it would be interesting to make a study in Generalist Agencies in Sweden to see which channels the creative teams favor. I speculate that the attitudes favor TV and Print, partially based on the rock star connotation of prizes. So in the end the Generalist Agency concept has to be questioned.
February 19th, 2009 at 14:05
Sorry I don’t mean the “Generalist Agency concept” itself is to be questioned, but the actual existance of it. I doubt it exists beyond the imaginative realm!
February 19th, 2009 at 14:08
Osk: you are right. Many idea/concept-driven agencies (including ourselves) are too much focussed on the abstract idea rather than execution finish.
Petter: a large agency with specialists – a.k.a departments is back to square one if you ask me, and I know that even the best large agencies have difficulty in driving edge. Profitability and size is partially correlated because of client size etc, but take a look at Brindfors, Ogilvy, Storåkers… Perhaps it’s a matter of how well an agency is managed.
Elia: award-advertising is only a small part of an agency’s total output, analog and digital. I think competence (or lack thereof) is really the key issue.
The ironic thing about the whole discussion about classic vs digital agency is that digital agencies are becoming more conceptual and idea-focussed (Greatworks are integrating a PR function). Even digital production companies are focussing more on idea and less on the actual programming/production. So, the gap may not be that big after all.
February 19th, 2009 at 14:20
Elia: forgot. I do agree that there’s definitely different levels of unwritten prestige to each channel/format among creative agencies. It goes something like:
1. TV/film
2. print/press
3. web
4. ambient/alternative
5. direct
Sad but true.
February 19th, 2009 at 16:02
Well, then we are in synch, and good observation on the trends of digital agencies broadening.
February 19th, 2009 at 16:12
Elia: I don’t agree. I think the generalist agency is more relevant than ever for one single reason: there’s no time to become specialist as technology changes from day to day. Time to go back to basics: creativity is the only competence that lasts.
February 19th, 2009 at 20:11
Well, the generalist agency is a great concept, because in theory it focuses on the message. However in practice I don’t think it exists.
February 19th, 2009 at 20:25
Most modern creative agencies are generalist agencies of some sort. A look at their output easily proves that there’s little inherent media preference.
February 19th, 2009 at 20:57
I like at the same output and draw opposite conclusions. I guess this is another dead end for us.
February 20th, 2009 at 10:31
Leon: What I mean is that as a smaller/mid size agency you have to differ in some way to survive. You can (and if you ask me, if you’re not a production company you should) be a generalist when it comes to the output channel, but then you have to differ in your communication approach. And not just by an extrodinary high creative level.
Elia: I think that an agency that choses channels for any other reasons than efficiency for the communication task (in relation to budget… ) is doomed in the longer run.
February 20th, 2009 at 11:40
Petter: Definitely. The discussion here was not about total agency positioning, it was related to channel specialisation. I do think that many agencies do have some sort of edge that keep them alive, be it channel specialisation, extraordinary salesmanship, creativity, strategic competence, big brands, industry focus, close client relationships…
February 20th, 2009 at 15:18
“I think the generalist agency is more relevant than ever for one single reason: there’s no time to become specialist as technology changes from day to day”
Well put. Real knowledge and skill is as important as ever. No more trick mirrors and hiding behind buzztechnology.