Recently, I was answering a question regarding if Digital agencies were capable of being the lead agency on LinkedIn. It reminded me of a question Public Relations agencies are pushing--that of who is the integrator? The thesis of some of the answers on LinkedIn sounded very much like the speeches I've heard from various PR agencies. The proposition set forth by these PR agencies is that their profession is much better situated to be this integrator than Ad agencies because they have spent years working in an uncontrolled medium. They talk about Word of Mouth and using earned media experience to better navigate the uncontrolled nature of online communications. I even heard blogger outreach described as being no different than pitching traditional media. Probably irresponsible training for new recruits and definitely a good indication why bloggers still complain about being pitched by those not engaged in the conversations on their blogs. However...
The Digital agencies in LinkedIn had a similar approach in that they talked about how they were better suited to lead the programs because of their unique experience in working in the new landscape online. They point to their experience in leading similar campaigns and point to the inefficiencies and intellectual gap of the digital communication medium between them and the larger, traditional agencies. This is definitely starting to get to the point, however, they should not lead (or be the integrator) solely because they are digital. This assumes that all campaigns should be online, or at the very least, heavily centered on digital strategies and minimally augmented by traditional means. Chris Rock was on Larry King and said "I'm proud Barack Obama is running for president. You know? If it was Flavor Flav, would I be proud? No. I don't support Barack Obama because he's black." Digital agencies don't lead because they are digital. They can lead if they have the broader skill set and planning foresight.
Though I put forth a short statement on vision--stating that any agency can lead (or be the integrator) if they had the vision to see the entire picture and appropriately craft the multi-channel campaign. And that they could be this integrator if they had access to a network talented enough to pull off the program according to the scope of the creative vision (and budget). Yet, I think there is more to it than that.
What I noticed between the PR agencies and the Digital agencies is something I've noticed in the Ad agencies and marketing agencies prior to the whole Digital debate. The foundation of their arguments is that their particular focus--their tactical expertise--is what should lead. You'll see this in the programs they put together. For example, a direct mail marketing agency will push direct mail. An ad agency will talk about the places they can get a media buy and therefore jump start the message with "guaranteed" exposure. PR agencies will talk about the major papers they can get to tell your story, Digital agencies will start online and expand from there (as described above) and so on and so on. So really, we haven't set up a working scenario for a true integrator. Letting any one particular agency built on a tactical expertise be the integrator is sort of like letting the fox guard the hen-house.
So, what's the alternative? I'd like to propose that it's what some colleagues of mine and I call "Elastic Marketing." (and hence the name of this blog--Elastic thought). The theory is simple, really. Don't have a tactical expertise. Focus on all the communication channels, build on the synergies created by messaging across the channels, and leave the execution to the companies that truly are experts in their fields. Of course, this requires constantly learning from them what the latest tactical expertise are, and building strong relationships with them so we can continue to provide world class results. However, bringing a hybrid group together that has expertise in the multiple disciplines and focusing on how the program is strengthened by the various channels is opening a whole new type of marketing group--the Elastic marketing team.
This also relies on a model that begins and ends with the target audience. Effectively, it looks at how and where the audience consumes media and stretching the campaign to meet those needs. If it's digital, we go to those channels and come up with creative tactics to best fit those channels. But that's not the start or end of it. That audience also consumes media offline. And if we can harness the power of the back and forth nature (seamlessly offline/online)of the evolving consumer, we'll be sure to have new techniques and new strategies to more effectively communicate. We won't care if online drives offline engagement. We won't care that PR traditionally shuns humor or sex, or other creative flexibilities Ad agencies have enjoyed. And we'll know that audiences don't want corporate speak anymore--no matter what the channel. A blog that doesn't take itself too seriously and shows the company as "human" and engaging will go further than any story in a paper that has a declining subscription base. And tomorrow, when the consumer changes again, so will the elastic marketing team stretch and adapt. They don't have a business model stuck in the execution of a particular communication channel.
They have relationships and flexible communication styles.
And so, clients can now feel safe. The jury is no longer stacked against them. I've been in conversations where account teams felt they were "wasting the client's money" continuing to lead programs with outdated strategies based on the "core competency" of their agency. You don't need to look further than PR agencies to see this in action. Programs continue to center on getting the story in the major papers and then, as a bolt-on, there are some digital strategies and word of mouth "stuff" they can do to support the story in the wings. Not all do this, as one former exec at Edelman told me. Though, he mentioned that it was like "drinking the Kool-Aid" in that EVERYTHING had to digital--even when it didn't need to be. Again--leading with tactical expertise. On a side note, I speak to PR more than Ad agencies (lately) as I feel that with a fundamental shift, they are poised to lead. It appears that their core model can be more easily shifted. Though...that would take them to actually shift their core model. That's easier said than done when the executive teams worked their way up to the top using the old, outdated methods of communications. "Why fix it if it ain't broke?" Well, it's broke. You just don't want to see it.
But look for more of these agencies to start popping up--these Elastic, hybrid groups. It's a great point: "Who is the integrator?" I don't believe it is any one existing practice. It will be a new creation -- much like technology evolving, a mash-up. Why adapt and force an old model to be the integrator, when you can create a new entity built to be the integrator. And you can build it with parts of existing models very easily.
More to come...
