Is it a wise move for clients to “expand their agency roster” and spread their work out among a bunch of shops that don’t communicate with each other?
For better or for worse, we all think short-term now. To do project work for a client means the advertising needs to cause a quick, sudden splash, even if it’s completely forgotten in a month or so in favor of some other campaign. Results? Effectiveness? No one in the ad world gives a crap, because we move on to some other project so quickly. Agencies who work on a project basis are essentially freelancers. And hired-gun freelancers care about the end result for only as long as they’re paid to care.
It’s the subject of my new column on Talent Zoo. Click on the link to read the rest.
Any body copy longer than a paragraph ends up being changed to PowerPoint-esque bullet point pablum.
Danny,
You make great points about how the quality of the work is impacted by multiple shops. It does usually turn into a real turd fest. The biggest problem is usually that it’s demoralizing when everyone feels like they’re the “B” shop.
But when it comes to lasting campaigns, I think that ship has sailed. Not because clients and agencies have ADD but because consumers do. There are a few brands
I agree with you, Dean–there’s no going back to the way it used to be. It’ll be interesting to watch how the really big, conservative clients handle this–if the P&G’s and General Mills and GM’s of the world decide big intergalactic agencies can’t cut it more, and have no need for long-term agency relationships at all we’ll see some big big shifts.