The Agency Gets It. You Don’t.

For a few years now the inner circles of digital media, specifically digital signage, have maintained the mantra, “Agencies don’t get it, and don’t care,” because agencies weren’t banging down the doors of venues, begging for time on networks, and paying top dollar for the traffic. It is assumed they either don’t see digital out-of-home networks as viable channels, or don’t care enough about them because they’re getting their numbers from the traditional channels (including online).

Agencies are the very first adopters of new media. They are R & D labs. They have to be. They try out new platforms, new formats, they see what works and what doesn’t in engaging an audience. The iPad? I’m guessing most agencies were handing them out when these things appeared on the market, with the execs saying, “Here, let’s figure out how this works.”

While I never completely subscribed to the aforementioned mantra, I was puzzled by what appeared to be a degree of apathy (or hubris?) from agencies to jump into the out-of-home sector. It seemed to take forever.

Now? I’m beginning to believe that it’s the other way around. The networks are having trouble understanding how agencies play in this world, are losing faith in those agencies to partner for compelling engagement, and seem comfortable waiting for those agencies to get their acts together.

In short: The networks don’t get it, and don’t care.

Three factors are keeping agencies out of the market right now.

Measurement. Agencies will be reluctant to make any effort to advertise in your venue because you cannot explain to them why your audience is more valuable than the other networks. “But I have your 18-34 demographic!” You say. Great, so does MTV. (Not sure if you have seen, but Jersey Shore is kicking the hell out of everyone for that demographic.)

The agencies want eyeballs. You’re not proving you have them.

Customization vs. ROI. You want a customized version of advertising just for your network. That takes time and money. The more money they pour into a custom version for you, the greater return they desire for the ad buy.  Coupled with the lack of metrics above, agencies are constantly trying to figure out which network deserves unique content and expenditure for the optimal impression.

Who is responsible for this? The network, not the agnecy. It’s not the agency’s job to go into the venue and measure the audience. While they can offer some tremendous insight into the creative execution, their core function is to find impressionable eyeballs and put impressionable content in front of them.

You’re Not The Only Game In Town. Mobile. I hear it’s all the rage. I’ve heard that from the bajillion people who own a mobile device and every agency that is dying to get on it. According to the Association of National Advertisers and the Mobile Marketing Association, 88% of client-side marketers will drop their dough in the mobile machine in 2011 even though they can’t quite prove it works. There’s another game in town as well: Facebook. With 1 in every 13 people on earth on Facebook, and roughly half of them, or 250 million, logged in at any given time, it’s not hard to encourage some spending there, either. Agencies don’t have all the time in the world to dedicate to every new medium. Maybe you need to wait your turn because, frankly, you’re not as important to them as you think you are.

Every screen on the planet is an opportunity for an agency to send a message. The more you help them understand the why, the better off they’ll be at developing the how.

(Image: Pascal)

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention The Agency Understands Advertising On Your Channel. You Don’t — Experiate -- Topsy.com

  • http://www.bluevolcanomedia.com Marjorie

    I do think that MANY agencies get it, but many also DON’T. To their credit, though, they recognize when they need assistance and are willing to reach out to partner with those who do. Thus, they’re able to leverage that additional talent and experience when approaching new and existing clients with ideas that may be the next, “new” thing. nnI say this as someone who runs a boutique Internet marketing agency that frequently is asked to partner with more established marketing firms who lack the knowledge and experience in, say, social media and web marketing, but who would like to add these services to their portfolio. nnHave you read the Fast Company article from late 2010 about the confusion rippling through old-line Madison Avenue firms as they grapple with the reality that is “new media?” Very illuminating! http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/151/mayhem-on-madison-avenue.htmlnnBy the way, mobile marketing has proven to be a great boon for the Asian economy. It’s not a big surprise, though, given how ubiquitous mobile phones have been in the region — they were mainstream years before they ever were here in the U.S., primarily because decades of government underinvestment in telecommunications infrastructure (which resulted in most homes lacking even a basic landline telephone connection) made it easy for mobile operators to swoop in and take advantage of huge pent-up demand for mobile phone service. It remains to be seen how it will play out here in the North American market — despite the expected widespread adoption of smartphones in 2011, most people still use it to browse the Internet or occasionally play Angry Birds, not engage with retailers and other advertisers.nnCheers,nMarjorien

  • http://www.experiate.net Paul Flanigan

    Marjorie,nnFirst, I’m sorry for such a late reply. I have no idea how this got past me!nnYou’re right on both accounts. I see it this way: Agencies get it. All of them understand it. The ability to act upon it is unique in each case – and therefore tough to handle.nnMy main contention is that, working on the other side, that networks and venues aren’t doing enough to partner with agencies. They aren’t being proactive ENOUGH to get the agencies to understand. For the big brands out there (Best Buy, Walmart, Target, etc) it’s not a problem, but those aren’t the only places people go, and it can be argued that impact is more valuable in smaller, more intimate venues.nnAs for mobile, I really don’t see us (U.S./North America) competing with Asia for some time. They knew the potential for mobile long before we ever saw this, and the population has accepted the mobile revolution as part of the culture much faster than our culture, making the relationship between buyer and seller much easier to access.nnThank you for the comment, Marjorie.

  • Anonymous

    On the one hand, online strategy is a whole new can of worms. For example, great online strategy goes way beyond creative decisions and choosing channels. It presumes organizational change or, at least, shifts, i.e. the social organization.

    As you argue, the big agencies often have insight. Depending on the office and region. The challenge for the best agencies-offices may be selling it to a client who just doesn’t get it. You can’t blame the agency for that.

    Been there. Done that.

    On the other hand, Ogilvy, for example, has an office in Bucharest. As do other global agencies. But the people on the ground in Bucharest are just selling a brand promise sans brand – the people don’t bring experience, creativity, insight, vision, or results. In other words, they’re hacks.

    I know because I know some of them, personally.

    Stuff happens.

    Perhaps, the greater problematic is the wide-spread lack of recognizably awesome outcomes. If agencies are delivering wowing outcomes, they can sell practically anything – online or offline.

  • http://twitter.com/stephenrandall Stephen Randall

    Well said. And DOOHheads need to understand how to connect their screens to as many valuable screens as possible – and quick!

Previous post:

Next post: