IPA Future of Creative Services

I recently attended the IPA, Future of Creative Services Debate http://creativeservicesuk.blogspot.com/. A great deal of the evening was given over to Phil Nunn (Executive Media Director, TBWA\London) and Andy Fowler (Executive Creative Director Brothers & Sisters) who both had some interesting things to say about what it is that agencies produce and are likely to produce in the future.

The actual debate was all too short and revolved around the question of what roles do people in creative services play in this multi channel world we work in and what they should be called?   I'm not sure it entirely matters what you call someone as long as their role is defined and understood.  Andrew Dobbs from the The Talent Business somewhat agreed maintaining that each agency has different requirements and demands.  A small agency can have a Project Manager who is hands on for everything, now deemed to be a Super Producer, something that the large agencies seem to be demanding.  I wonder though whether this is actually a case of multi channel demands affecting big agency working?  My discussions afterwards with one or two people in big agencies seemed to reflect this.  If you are in a small agency with just a handful of accounts it's easier to become a Super Producer than if you are working on a two handful's of accounts that are global as well as multi channel.   

Years ago when I moved from JWT to a small business-to-business agency, I had to become a Super Producer of sorts, as I no longer had departments that did art buying, production buying, typography and print buying.  Luckily though having worked closely with those departments over the years I had a good grasp of what was needed to get the job done.  And this is where I agree with Tim Bath (CSD of AMV) who likened a PM in an advertising agency to one on a building site. They don't have to be able to lay bricks, but they certainly need to know a good man that can! 

So did it work?

I read with interest this recent blog http://blog.procurementleaders.com/procurement-blog/2011/2/18/guest-blog-time-to-unbundle-your-advertising.html .  It's sentiments not dissimilar to a blog that Simon Steel wrote http://blog.supplymanagement.com/2011/01/decoupling-strategy/.

Having once worked at Schawk and recently consulted with Mundocom, the Publicis Groupe Global Production platform, these are comments I'm all too familiar with.  However what I'm not hearing is any clients talking about how successful their decoupling project has been and the savings they have made.  Some years ago the COI did issue some figures of savings they had made and how successful it had been but given what is  happening to them now, I'm not so sure that's a good advertisement.   

At my recent meeting with procurement about how they issue tenders, we did raise the question of what is it that procurement are trying to achieve.  What I asked is at the end of the tenders is anyone doing an analysis of whether they achieved their goals.

So if anyone out there would like to share their experiences or let me help them find out if they have achieved their goals, then drop me a line. 

Meeting with procurement

I had a great meeting with the CIPS Group on Valentine's Day last week.  They listened to my concerns and had some interesting thoughts and suggestions around the matters I raised in my previous blog.  They also had some concerns of their own, mainly regarding the creative agencies and their poor response times, lack of preparation. 

What did come out of all of this is that there is lack of resource on both the supplier and client side which doesn't help the process and indeed delays the result. They were surprised to hear that it can take from the issue of a tender to a supplier earning revenue as long as 18 months. What company (client or supplier) in these times of recession has 18 months to invest with the possibility of no return? 

But more importantly there seems to be lack of clarity as to what the client is trying to achieve which leads to confusion.  So whilst there may be a clear process outlined, that process tends to crumble under the weight of questions or issues arising that were not expected.  

There is no easy solution here, but we have to make a start.  Define what it is you are trying to achieve and engage all stakeholders.  Discuss your thoughts with a handful of suppliers that can help flesh out the issues you will face along the way.  Only when you are certain of the outcome you want to achieve, should you proceed with the tender.   This all sounds logical and sensible but it seems that with the recession biting at all of our heels, the tendency to react, and perhaps badly, rather than think has been our response so far. 

Working with procurement

I’ve been talking to Tina Fegent about RFI’s and RFP’s and my experience working on them over the past few years.  I'm concerned that there is duplication of effort on both sides and that the end result is often lots of work and a slower response to achieving real cost savings or efficiencies.   Tina has very kindly agreed to let me discuss these points at her CIPS Marketing Group, which I will be doing on Feb 14th.  I hope that by opening a dialogue we can start to improve processes and results on both client and supplier side. 

Outlined here are some of my findings.
No real structure on RFI's and RFP's with every company doing it differently, so duplication of effort on both sides

Deadlines quite tight for supplier but procurement then miss set deadlines and fail to communicate

Using old RFPs to create new ones thereby using the wrong terminology or category definitions

Lack of understanding re TUPE and it's implications

Sharing of supplier questions

Lack of understanding of volumes

Quality of debriefs (if there is a debrief) 

I'll let you know how our discussions go. 

And in my spare time...

Those of you who know me well will know that I'm a keen motorbike fan and ride a Kawasaki Ninja 250.  You can see it on the picture in my profile.  Well recently I decided to train as a marshal for both motorcar and motorbike racing. 


It's been a very interesting journey with a full days training at the Lydden track in Kent.  There we were taught how to remain safe whilst marshaling a track event.  We even got to set off fire extinguishers and wave a few flags. 


Then I had a taster day at Brands Hatch where I not only got a free breakfast but got to dress up in an orange bib which had marshal written across the back!  The basis of the job is to hang around until someone crashes out of the race and then help the driver back to safety, warn the other drivers and remove whatever is dangerous from the track.  It sounds simple but as everyone mentioned no two incidents are the same so you have to be prepared for everything.  And as all the marshals said, the quiet races are the best races.  Doing nothing is a plus.


The one thing that amazed me is how hard the marshals work and how difficult it would be to run a race without any marshals.  Yet amazingly the entire network of marshals is voluntary.  Hundreds of individuals give up their free time, often traveling miles and camping out over a weekend due to their love of motor sports.  The photograph shows a few of my marshal buddies when the track was 'dead' who guided me through the ropes on Post 2 at Brands Hatch. 


So if you are ever off to see or participate in a motor sport event, keep an eye out for me and be sure to give the marshals a thank you. 

Show me the money!!

Last night I attended the launch of the Kingston Smith W1 Financial performance of marketing services companies annual survey 2009. There were some interesting facts and figures presented which are contained in detail in their 161 page report.

What I found astonishing is how little money marketing services companies make, unless they are media agencies, and furthermore how little digital companies are making despite the increase in digital spend by most clients.

 

The survey covers 50 independent UK marketing groups and UK quoted groups. As such the report covered only a part of 2009 due to financial reporting, so the full effect of the recession is yet to hit. However interim results aren’t encouraging with 80% of groups showing a reduction in profits. All disciplines from digital through advertising to public relations are covered.

There was only a revenue increase of 19% with much of the growth due to previous acquisitions activity. Margins fell to 9.8% with only 13 groups making more than the magical 15% margin.

But as I said my biggest surprise was the operating profits of digital companies which were noted to be the worst ever and the lowest across all sectors. Why is that? At a recent digital social networking event I attended there was much discussion about the latest social/PR networking solution to come of age. However one question frequently came to mind. How do they make their money? Whilst these companies may have exceptionally talented creative thinking people, the fact remains they are a business and unless they get their act together quickly, they won’t have one.

A techology if only...

Tina Fegent has recently made some comments on her blog about “the lack of technological systems and processes that an agency had in place, both for its own internal use and for the interaction with clients.” Whilst I’ve commented that it’s not just agencies, clients can be slow to adopt new technologies, I’d like to discuss here the age old problem (and I’d like to ask why) of the lack of technology between media agencies and production houses/production departments.

Why are schedules supplied by media agencies on a good old Excel spreadsheet. Then updated without any real indication of what’s been updated leading the production staff to spend hours trawling through the schedule to spot the differences. Added to which there is little automation between the production agency and the publisher so it’s still down to phone calls and emails about whether there has been a booking and what it’s for. Phone calls from publishers to production agencies saying they have a booking for which the agency have no knowledge, is all too common.
There is no financial benefit to the media agencies to introduce a system that helps the publisher and production agency so they don’t. Production agencies and publishers can talk, discuss and highlight the problem areas as much as they like, and believe me they do. It’s up to clients to put the pressure on media agencies to introduce a system that will produce cost saving benefits down the line.
If companies such as Adstream and Vio could automate the process (and I believe they can), then so much time could be saved which could significantly reduce man hours at publishers and production houses alike. If I was a client and spend the majority of my marketing budget on press, I’d be pushing for a system that could ultimately reduce my production costs. I’d demand it of my media agency as a term of my business.

So, I want to know clients. Why aren’t you?