Recently we earned the opportunity to function as a brand’s “total” agency for one of our clients — a multi-billion dollar, multi-national corporation. Interestingly, the client was very concerned about offending the ad agency that had previously handled the work, and didn’t want our work to be promoted inside or outside the company. As this brand’s new promotion/integrated marketing agency, we dramatically transcended their media-focused strategy, and with the same budget brought them into sponsorships, co-marketing, partnerships, targeted media, events, etc., to yield double-digit growth.
This desire to keep our efforts covert was not that of some irrational or paranoid brand manager, but a symptom of something commonly occurring at America’s leading companies. Traditional advertising is finally feeling the scrutiny of fiscal accountability, but many company leaders and their ad-agency cohorts are too vested in the past to let go of their dependence on it. In the case of our client, as in many cases, a brand chooses not to question the wisdom of continuing to live “above the line” because they are comfortable in it, they understand it, have a partner in their ad agency that helps them believe it, and they are adverse to what they perceive as the risk of moving below it in more integrated, non-traditional directions. “At least I know I’ll get my 3% growth this way vs. maybe getting 30% growth that way” is the common logic
So, what is this dramatic line of demarcation dividing marketing disciplines as either north or south, above or below? In theory, any distinction is troublesome, as it serves to distinguish marketing approaches in vague media terms of reach (mass vs. targeted) or in agency terms of services offered, instead of strategic approaches (what will it take to make consumers aware, try and convert). More succinctly, the line drawn by the ad industry (deliberately or not) suggests that mass media drives all.
To this I respond: hogwash! All marketing should emanate from the core of a brand’s essence, and gravitate to what is right and true for the business — media, promotion, direct mail or tattoos! — not from the heavens, as if brand advertising rains down upon all other marketing disciplines in some holy wash of purity.
Promotion marketers are charter members of the non-traditionalist club. We arrived first on the scene to try new ways to drive business that were not media-centric. And as the conversion to more logical, fiscally responsible, results-driven marketing occurs, we are still fighting to sit at the table to engage in planning with the CEO and our ad agency siblings. What’s wrong with this picture?
Ironically, if you look at the advertising agencies that are hot today — the ones winning more than their competitors — you’ll see that a good many of them are marketing themselves as we have for decades. That is, as firms competent in promotions, events, p.r. and direct marketing. They call it a non-traditional approach. We call it the approach. These maverick ad shops have boldly rejected traditional models of advertising, and client companies desirous of ROI are lapping it up in an “oh wow” spectacle because for the ad industry this is new!
While we have functioned as “total” agency for a handful of smaller clients, as I’m sure many other promotion/integrated agencies have, more often than not we do not get invited to conduct the entire symphony. At the same time, the ad agencies (or general agencies, as they are often labeled) ride in with advertising, promotion, events, p.r., direct, etc. Is it fair, or logical, that the generalists are given carte blanche to stretch south, but our capability is challenged if promotion firms stretch north into the forbidden zone of image building?
Of course not. The slow transition from this antiquated perspective is a result of simple corporate psychology. History, inertia, comfort, risk aversion and other human issues that cause people to hold onto what is familiar and comfortable must be weighed. And the people who need to change the most are often at the top of the food chain. But as media becomes more fragmented, channels become more interactive, retailers more powerful, and consumers even more empowered than they are already, the evolution will quicken and the playing field leveled.
There is a prevailing perception that a brand is, after all, defined by its image, its essence. And ad agencies are the mystical image-makers. That’s how they are perceived. Non-ad agencies are not considered image makers. Ironically, the emphasis on image above all else is why traditional advertising is finally being more aggressively challenged. Keeping us out of the game only perpetuates this vicious cycle.
The cobbling of sibling agencies, asked to play in a client’s sandbox together, is not the solution. It is more basic than that. It starts with the breaking down the mythical “line” so the best players can build brands and businesses with clients and, be it one agency or multiple agencies, all sit at the same table. On a level playing field it will be insight, ideas and creative executions that produce results that will win the day.
Let us put our money where our mouth is and challenge our advertising brethren to do the same. Give us a seat at the table before the plan is drawn. Integrate test cells into every plan that provide unbiased empirical opportunities to demonstrate what moves the needle now, not in 12 months after brand building has a chance to seed. Include pay for performance overrides and above all else, lose the line!
If we, as promotional marketing professionals, don’t stand up and fight for that seat at that table we will miss opportunities to demonstrate, test, and prevail with better ways to build business while building brands — and take a rightful place as leaders in the marketing world.
Howard Steinberg is the CEO of Source Marketing, based in Westport, CT. He can be reached at [email protected].
Network
