Digital Recruiting

The end of Advertising agencies as we know them

This is pretty much a completely lifted article by Sean Carton posted on ClickZ.com, but I just thought it was so well put that I wanted to paste it across. I have taken the liberty of amending it in a few places to make it more UK recruitment industry relevant (talking about TV ads isn't really us), but I think the parallels are so striking overall it holds up. See what you think (oh - and there are some great posts linked to from the article too - so give yourself 15 minutes, get a coffee and have a good read).

The end of Advertising agencies as we know them

Do we really need advertising agencies anymore? Are we witnessing the great "reboot" of the advertising industry hastened (but not caused) by the current recession?

It's pretty obvious to any reasonable person watching the tens of thousands of layoffs in the industry along with the simultaneous implosion of the newspaper industry that the ad biz as we know it is in serious trouble. Couple that with the ongoing decrease in advertising spending along with new studies (such as this one from Microsoft) that predict that the Internet will overtake TV in 2010, and it's clear that advertising as we've all grown to know it is on the way out.

I'm not predicting the death of advertising. That's baloney. If anything, we're witnessing the rebirth of an entire industry that's going to expand in ways we've never thought of before -- especially if we expand our concept of what advertising means. And we'd better. Before we blow it like the newspaper industry has.

To understand the tectonic shift we're in the midst of now, it's helpful to remember where ad agencies came from. Originally advertising agencies were "agents" for newspapers, placing ads produced by clients in newspapers. In 1877, the J. Walter Thompson Co. figured out it could sell more advertising space if it created the ads instead of relying on clients to create ads. The modern agency was born.

As new media developed, the advertising agency adapted. Radio and TV required new creative skills and new people. Agencies kept growing and adding more overhead. Agencies became more unwieldy, more rigid, and more set in their ways.

Then along came the Internet and all that changed.

It took a while, but today advertising is less about the big colourful press ad campaigns and more about producing measurable results across a host of media and channels. Social media, search marketing, and online direct response (with its associated need for candidate-relationship management and other data-handling technologies) have required new skills and and a new way of thinking.

And that's the crux of the issue. Advertising as we've known it has always been about an "interrupt" model that requires candidates to pay for content by sifting through pages of classified print ads. It's been about grabbing and holding attention in a linear way because that's how media worked.

It doesn't work that way anymore. And neither does the advertising agency as we know it.

Why? The full-service monolithic agency model worked fine in a world where there were a small number of national newspapers, a local/regional champion or two and perhaps a niche industry magasine too. It doesn't work when you have to deal with dozens of media channels and a plethora of options within each that change on a nearly daily basis. New technologies pop up (social networking, Twitter, online video, etc.) and new skills and new thinking are needed to deal with them. Large organizations with large payrolls, hierarchical structures, and well-defined (and well-defended) areas of expertise can't possibly hope to make any money when they have to staff themselves with a constantly expanding cast of experts to deal with new media challenges. Add to that a compensation model based on a world that's long gone (retainers and media commissions) and the agency model we've all grown up with starts to look like a relic of the past. Turmoil in the industry provides proof.

So what to do? Simple: explode the idea of the monolithic agency. Get rid of the concept that only an agency that does everything can possibly create and manage large campaigns. Look for more flexible and fluid models that expand and contract as needed, bringing in new expertise when needed and ditching it when it's not. Think distributed, not centralized. Think "collective," not "company."

As more people get laid off and can't find jobs at other agencies (who are also laying people off), more people hanging up their shingle and do whatever it is that they do best, creating an explosion of entrepreneurs and experts who (without the overhead of a big company) can do things cheaper, faster, and more flexibly than their counterparts at big companies.

If this sounds suspiciously like the "free agent" and "new economy" predictions we heard eight years ago, it kind of is. But there's one big difference: now we have the (free!) tools to actually make it happen. Social networking, collaborative tools such as Google Docs, and advances in mobile technologies make it possible to create a distributed team that doesn't need to be in the same place to work effectively.

So what's the agency of the future going to look like? Probably a lot smaller and focused on strategy, account/project management, creative leadership (but not execution), and media strategy (but not planning and buying). Most agencies will revolve around these hubs if they're honest with themselves. Agencies will exist to provide high-level strategic guidance that clients need in a media-chaotic environment. Agencies will expand or contract as needed or will explore radical solutions such as crowdsourcing to get work done for less money.

Whether this scenario turns out to be completely accurate or not remains to be seen. But nobody can look at what's going on today and say that the agency of tomorrow is going to look much like the agency of today or yesterday.

So what do you think? Has Sean hit the nail on the head - or am I just part of that "explosion of entrepreneurs and experts" and therefore my judgment is clouded by desperately hoping that the new world that Sean talks of is to become the new reality?

Advertising not a "good model" for Twitter

Twitter, the microblogging website, is focusing on creating value for consumers and companies before attempting to increase its revenues, but doesn't think traditional advertising will be a "good model", says co-founder Biz Stone. WARC

The future of the workplace

Interesting discussion about the future of the workplace ... very interesting points on how the design of the building helps to attract the right level of talent. 

http://www.monocle.com/sections/design/Web-Articles/The-Future-of-the-Workplace/

The Philosopy of Work

So, I was at the SouthBank centre last night attending a talk by one of my favourite writers, Alain De Botton. I've read all his books since one of my good friends bought me the book Status Anxiety a number of years ago for my birthday (take from that, what you will....).

The genius of Alain is his ability to articulate and make simple the biggest challenges and issues we face in life, be that love, success, friendship etc. He makes philosophy accessible to the masses.

His latest book is all about work called The Pleasure and Sorrows of Work.

He noted that if you were to look to art - be that TV, movies, books etc there is very little coverage of our real working lives - something that takes up a huge amount of our time.

It would seem in movies and TV that everyone works in three professions - Medicine, Law and Criminality and spend most of their waking lives, falling in and out of love etc.

Where is the movie on the world of recruitment advertising I ask?

He said a few interesting things from a recruitment and employer branding perspective. He explained how he had spent a number of months with the HR department of the UK's largest Accountancy firm (whose HQ's are by the Thames..).

He was suprised that there was a whole floor of these HR bods, all working on initiatives and processes for their staff. However, he began to see the important role that HR played, as when you think about it, there were over 15,000 people in this organisation - all of whom, had to get on with each other as much as possible to ensure maximum productivity and ensure success.

Unlike in love when if you p*ss each other off you can 'throw the crockery' at each other, this really isn't possible in the working environment.....pity.

What this example did reveal for me, is that a company's culture and values should really promote openess and straight-talking to alleviate stress, upset and miscommunications etc. 

The other interesting thing he noted is that there is a universal desire in all people to have a 'meaningful' job- this is what makes them happy and fulfilled.

This doesn't have to be through saving a persons life in a hospital - this can be making a difference in peoples lives through; fixing their squeaky door, booking them a holiday or producing beautiful photgraphs that make people happy etc

If a company can show employees what they do is something 'meaningful' - then jobs a winner, as they say.

Sinead

A couple of interesting posts about Twitter

When Stars Twitter, a Ghost May Be Lurking - IHT

Is Twitter becoming like MySpace - Brand Republic

I actually have no real opinion on twitter as I do not use it ... but i thought i would try and get down with the cool kids and post a few links to interesting articles about twitter.

I am going back to my hole now, texting people, searching for things and checking email ...