The agency model: Standing out in a sea of sameness

www.legogh.com_MOCpages_LEGO-Quest-Software-Building-0-White.jpg_SPLASHI’ve seen, and written, more than my share of agency new business proposals over the years. Stepping back from a recent one, I realized that the proverbial agency new business presentation is a decent snapshot of the struggle agencies face today.

The most glaring characteristic is that today’s new business deck is a series of small parts and details. The larger cohesive narrative is lost in the granular explanations necessary to address a fragmented media environment. Each deck still has the standard stuff – agency background, management bios and case studies. Then there’s the agency competencies section, the workflow processes with their “proprietary” terms and of course the strategic recommendations. Taken at face value these are usually obvious statements. “Know your customer really well.” “Build your marketing around your customer.” “Start with a clear strategy.” “Integrate your message across all touch points.”

Marketing agencies approach clients preaching the value of differentiation, yet they themselves rarely differentiate in a substantive manner. When you set aside the veneer – the lexicon, the fonts, the colors and stylized graphics – the substance of what is being communicated and sold by any agency is rarely very different from competitors.

This problem is compounded by the belief that ‘no one reads anymore’. I am all for brevity when called for, but at a certain point, if you strip away enough words, it is impossible not to sound like everyone else. All that’s left are the buzzwords and jargon.

The second challenge is the endless expansion of the arena in which agencies must compete. Not only do they have to explain how they work, who they’ve worked for, who does the work, and what the result was, but now also how they handle data and what their technical capabilities are. Then they have to prove that they are on top of social media, responsive design, mobile, apps, big data, Vine, Snapchat, etc. etc.

Any agency that  answers all the questions asked in an RFP produces a behemoth deck that is hard to tie to a cohesive narrative let alone wade through. I’ve always wondered how much of an agency pitch deck is actually read, absorbed and remembered – especially when you get halfway into a stack of twelve agency pitch decks. It’s not surprising that the budget, which is always the last slide, tends to be the first one looked at. It is a  sign that at some level, most people believe all agencies are basically the same. In parity markets, price drives decisions. That’s a dangerous position to be in.

Some time ago I read the book Blue Ocean Strategy which put forward the idea of zagging when everyone else zigs. The exercise was essentially to identify industry conventions and map where everyone landed. Then, you’d look for areas where no one was competing and start there – hence the open “blue ocean”. The idea seems obvious, but doing it operationally (as opposed to just with a coating of marketing spin) is not easy. So I decided to run the agency model through this process. In my mind the commonalities among agencies are these (in no particular order): They all…

  • Offer ‘case studies’ which are brief and uninformative
  • Claim expertise in any industry – CPG, healthcare, finance, tech, whatever
  • Do everything – online, off, digital, social, CRM, local, mobile, events, viral…
  • Preach integration across touch points (which is related to the bullet above)
  • Claim to offer strategic thinking
  • Advocate for data and research at some level
  • Believe the consumer should drive all marketing
  • Claim their people are their most important asset
  • Have proprietary processes
  • See themselves as service oriented and client-centric
  • Insist that marketing is all about ideas… preferably big ones

Ok, so let’s zag now and see what we’re left with:

The emerging agency looks like it would be a highly specialized company that focused on doing one thing very well, likely in a narrow set of client industries. They might contribute to strategy but would not assume to deliver the broad strategy given their narrow focus. They would eschew too much research and data analysis and wouldn’t necessarily believe the consumer knew what was best for them. They wouldn’t talk as much about their people being the source of their success. They’d steer clear of proprietary processes and speak in plain language. Client service would obviously be a part of their business, but they wouldn’t be lapdogs and might occasionally take a hardline or even fire a client that didn’t work. Lastly, while having ideas is expected of any business (how does one achieve innovation without an idea?) they probably wouldn’t hang their hat on the tried and tired “big idea” spiel that’s been pedaled up and down Madison Avenue since Bernbach’s day. Who knows, this company might even keep some secret sauce unrevealed. No case studies. No “how we did it”. Instead, a little mystery.

Three things struck me as I typed that passage above.

First, that description looks a lot like the kinds of small agencies that get bought up by the big holding companies once they achieve an early level of success.

Second, it feels a little like Apple under Steve Jobs; Aloof, secretive, a bit arrogant, extremely confident and somewhat rebellious with an air of “my way or the highway”. The kind of outfit that believes in what it does so much that it’s willing to settle for a smaller, more passionate client base (which Apple did for decades).

Lastly, that company would likely never create a PowerPoint deck as a means of winning business and may not even deign to respond to RFPs that require it to do so. (After all, this confident company would know that by putting itself in the boxed-in world of deck-as-RFP-reply, its chances to truly stand apart would be greatly diminished.)

This invented agency would struggle to be sure. It would have a hard time as all iconoclastic businesses do initially. It would be mocked by industry leaders and panned by the trade press. It would make enemies as well as friends.  And likely make some big mistakes too. It is certainly not a guaranteed financially viable model. Most certainly, it wouldn’t be an agency for every client – which is precisely why it would definitely be the perfect agency for some clients.

Importantly though, on the same desk as the other dozen replies to the RFP – assuming said agency chose to participate – this company would stand out and stand for something. That’s got to count for something in a marketing presentation right?

Marketing is not about Storytelling

storytelling

Storytelling assumes a captive audience. Marketer’s shouldn’t

“Storytelling” came into the marketing lexicon a couple years ago. It continues to circulate and some agencies have positioned their entire company around the idea. Personally, I have always been suspect of the term.

Storytelling may have worked back in the 70’s when all the advertising prior to it was dry, drab, and mostly about features and benefits. It even hung on as the dominant thought process in the 80’s while Bernbach’s ‘creative revolution’ was still playing out. Around the 90’s there were signs it was losing some steam. With more and more choices and more and more marketing noise people simply weren’t seeing and remembering as many TV commercials – and TV commercials were the dominant form of ‘storytelling’. And then there was this emerging World Wide Web thing to contend with…

Story telling in an elevator pitch world.
We all know it has only gotten worse since. More noise. More options. More ways to miss that clever joke or heartstring-tugging TV commercial.

Even today, TV (or more specifically, video) is still the best medium for story telling. Video’s strengths are in combining images and sound and music. As one who edits my own family video every year, I have sat teary-eyed in coffee shops on several occasions as I’ve laid that just-right song over images of my little girls playing at the beach. Such is the emotional power of video.

But as we conduct marketing in today’s splintered media environment when engagement is measured in ever shorter bursts of time, the notion of ‘storytelling’ seems like wishful thinking. Who is sitting still long enough to absorb a story and remember it? And do we really assemble a ‘story’ over all those brand touch points? A perception, maybe, but a story? How much ‘story’ do you really get from a mobile app? A banner ad? Search engine optimization? A Twitter strategy? Most of today’s emerging marketing tools are not especially good at story telling. Even when they do manage to eek out a story, those embedded videos or passages of well-written prose are usually surrounded by buttons, calls to action, share bars, tickers, etc. It’s a frenetic world out there. Storytelling works best with captive audiences. Today’s aren’t.

The same old story.
The other issue I have with story telling is that it assumes consumers care. I’m doubtful. If you’re like me, it feels like you have less and less time and more and more to do.

We’re all out there trying to balance our lives, further our careers, find time for friends and family, and sneak in a few moments for our own interests. Some of us even layer ‘personal brand management’ on there, Tweeting, Facebooking and Pinning lest we not constantly keep ourselves in front of our own personal audiences. With all that going on, are we really interested in brand-sanctioned story telling? If you want a good story you watch a movie, play a video game or read a book.

Frankly, I think brand “storytelling” is the old advertising model re-skinned with a modern veneer. I don’t think the average consumer or even many of your loyal customers care about your brand’s story and even if they did, I don’t think they have enough time (or the desire) to sit down and absorb it.

“Oh, but wait,” you say, “What about those brands people organize their lives around? Brands like Apple with its fanboys or Harley Davidson with its horde of weekend warrior execs-clad-in-leather.”

Yes, there are a number of these brands. I would argue, though, that it is not ‘storytelling’ about these brands that give them their appeal. Rather, I think it is our own innate narcissism at work. We’re attracted to brands that reflect back to us the values we see in ourselves.

Most viral video is funny, so in sending them along to friends, I become funny. Sometimes these videos are self affirming, as with Dove’s video portraying ‘real women’, and by sharing that around I tell you I too believe in real women. The entire premise of social media sharing is to be identified as someone who broke the story first among your friends. It is about being recognized for what you share.

In candor, I like what driving my Mini says about me. I like what Hendricks gin says about me. In the same the way I’m guessing you like what your shoes or shirt or coffee or game console or whatever you buy because in one way or another, it says something flattering about you. We don’t buy brands because we aspire to what their ‘story’ is about. We buy brands that reflect who we think we are. We dress up in brand decisions as a way of telling this to the world without having to say the words themselves.

But enough about me. Let’s talk about you.
When marketers embrace narcissism as the organizing principle behind their efforts it does a few helpful things:

1. It breaks you out of brand-centric, myopic, echo-chamber thinking.
It’s very easy for a company to get all caught up in telling you what makes them great. This is narcissism too, on a company level. It’s understandable, a company works hard at its products. Unfortunately, it’s also inward looking at a time when prevailing marketing wisdom is to focus on the consumer. You can’t be consumer-focused if you’re trying to tell your own story.

2. It helps organize how you communicate your value proposition.
You may have a nice list of features and benefits – emotional and rational. The question is  how do you align these in such a way as to reflect back what your customer wants to say about themselves? The rational shopper may want four-wheel drive for New England winters but the consumer driving the Jeep does so because it says something about them, the outdoors and they’re willingness to go off-road – literally and metaphorically. This is the ‘emotional sell’ that accompanies the rational sell. It’s a part of every buying decision and its rooted in our individual self image.

3. Narcissism informs how your brand should behave.
We act the way we like to see ourselves. Brands should too. I’ve long held that brands are not claims or promises, but behaviors. We live in a post-advertising world where no one takes a headline at face value and where everyone can look up peer opinions. That being the case, you better live what you sing about because inauthenticity gets found out fast these days. Appealing to your customer’s self image can tell you exactly how to lay out a wireframe, what features to include (and omit) from an app, how to orchestrate that live event and what your social media community managers should do when a ticked-off customer starts flaming your Facebook page.

So what does buying your brand say to your customer about how they see themselves? Does it make them feel smart? What about sexy? Does it make them feel geek-chic? Like a first mover? Like an enlightened spirit? Knowing that (which should not be confused with taking a guess, because your own self image can interfere there) will go a long way to making your marketing resonate with the people you’re trying to appeal to.

After all, as every salesman or person on a first date knows, the best way to create a relationship is not to talk about yourself, but to talk about the person you’re with.

Musings on the Mobile Wallet

imagesI had a digital first today. I paid for a latte and a black and white cookie using my mobile phone. I’m sure some of you have done this already, but I am particularly sensitive about financial matters and digital tools. I’m a bit of a late adopter when it comes to moving my money online. I still haven’t deposited a check via my mobile phone and I can’t bring myself to carry my plane ticket to the gate on my phone. Some of you might laugh at this luddite side, but I know I’m not alone. Trusting your money to the ether takes some getting used to for some of us.

That said, my coffee purchase experience went well and once I did it I will admit, it felt cool. I wonder how long it will take to become truly popular though because the reality is, debit cards are still far easier. This got me thinking about Apple’s Passbook, Google e-wallet, loyalty programs, mobile purchases, etc. I think the adoption of these new technologies will either boil down to perks or convenience (or both). A mobile payment option needs to satisfy at least one of these or it will struggle with longterm viability. The trouble is, winning at either perks or convenience is a challenging business proposition.

Convenience: Cash vs. Debit vs. Mobile
I have a few transactional apps but chose Starbucks to test an actual purchase – mostly for convenience (there’s one within walking distance of my office). It seems the general process for any of these apps (retailer or 3rd party) goes something like this:

  1. Download the app
  2. Set up an account with the company
  3. Acquire a gift card (for the retailer version)
  4. Register the card with the app (again or retailer versions)
  5. And then register a credit card with the app to refill the account.

That’s a lot of effort for a cup of coffee. And my Starbucks app can only be used in Starbucks. Even my Target app has limited use. From a convenience standpoint the retailer-branded apps are at a disadvantage.

What about the likes of Square Wallet and other would-be third party providers? I downloaded the Square Wallet app and set up an account there too. When I opened the app to see how many companies accepted Square for payments I was not too surprised to find the number minimal (though the Starbucks I was just in was one of them).

Without broad acceptance by merchants it will be hard for a mobile payment system to compete with the debit card in my wallet. And even if it does, is grabbing my phone and tapping the screen a few times that much more convenient than opening my wallet for cash or a debit card? Probably not. Unless you could fit attach unlimited number of loyalty programs to that e-wallet and the e-wallet would ‘know’ during the transaction which to apply points or perks to. Which means perks are a big part of the larger convenience story.

What makes a perk persuasive (and profitable)
To choose a retailer-branded app to make payments means I am choosing that brand over some obvious conveniences. What would drive me to do that?

I’d have to be in this store a lot.
Or, I’d have to really love the brand a lot.
Or, I’d have to really find value in the rewards.

These are interesting reflection points for a retailers. Some stores are more conducive to frequent visits but a whole bunch are not. Some retailers are more conducive to true brand affinity but many are not (even if it breaks the brand manager’s heart to admit this). And largely speaking the more valuable the rewards offered the more it cuts into the profit margin of the company offering it. So one has to be careful as retail margins are often squeezed to begin with.

The fuzzy middle.
Possibly the most challenging aspect of the e-wallet is that both the convenience and perks camps are not mutually exclusive. Any successful e-wallet will need aspects of both. To do that means taking on the banks and Visas of the world in terms of being accepted broadly while also offering enough true value-added perks to keep people involved with the platform as it competes with multiple payment options from cash on up.

There seems to be room for a big player here. A ‘glue’ platform that ideally would ship with the operating system of the phone, be backed by a big financial powerhouse and open enough that retailers could license into the platform and use its API to integrate their loyalty program. Oh, and someone would probably be very interested in getting their hands on that data.

That’s a tall order. My guess is it’s a ways off too. Meanwhile the rest of us will likely download more apps and be burdened with yet another decision at retail – which of these apps or options should I use to pay for this cup of coffee?

The AR-15 & Gun Control Debate: A Marketing Perspective

ar-15The AR-15 is currently the polarizing icon of the gun control debate which was recently rekindled by another horrible mass shooting. I have been participating in conversations with friends both in person and via social media. Along the way I have tried to keep an open mind, educate myself and acknowledge when either side has a valid point.

As usual, the media has focused the gun control debate on so-called “assault rifles”. The gun lobby is quick to cry foul citing such issues as the general misunderstanding of what ‘semi-automatic’ means. They claim to dislike the term ‘assault rifle’ because they think it puts an inaccurate stigma on a whole classification of firearms – comparing them to AK-47′s and other action movie favorites. Owners of the AR-15 are also quick to point out that the gun itself is really not any more powerful than a hunting rifle which they say a greater proportion of society seems to have less of an issue with.

So what is it about this particular style of gun that stirs such strong convictions both pro and con?

As any marketer knows, packaging matters. Take the Honda civic. In steel grey, off the line, it’s a sensible mid-range car, good on fuel mileage, fast enough to commute to work, with room for groceries in the trunk. What happens though when you take that same vehicle and paint it acid green and then add a spoiler, fins, neon lights under the chassis, and a noise modifying muffler? It’s still the same 4-cycliner, sensible engine, but the person drawn to that Civic is now a very different one – more Fast & Furious than weekly commuter (even if the kid mostly just drives around town at 40mph blasting his radio and trying to draw a little attention).

I’d like to talk about the AR-15 this way: Not in terms of how it works, how big the magazine is, the “stopping power” of a discharged round or even what it’s really used for. Instead, I’d like to talk about how it’s sold and who it is designed to appeal to. Like the tricked-out Civic, the mechanics inside the AR-15 are part of the sale, but how that gun looks defines the person drawn to it. What might the psychographic profile of that person be?

Look into the many after-market parts available for the AR-15 and an answer will become clearer. Vertical forward grips, scopes, lighting systems, night vision systems, flash and sound suppressors. Whether it is in fact a military-grade “assault rifle” or not, it is very clearly sold as one. This is not a firearm designed for hunting. (As one woman noted, if you need a 30-round magazine to hunt, you’re not a very good hunter.)

The AR-15 was in fact originally a military weapon. Colt bought the design and began selling it to the public. The ‘consumer’ model remains clearly modeled on it’s military predecessor. While laws prevent gun manufacturers from introducing civilian firearms that can be easily modified to allow for full automatic fire, the weapon itself, to the untrained eye looks every bit as lethal as an M-16, AK-47, other any other gun Arnold Schwarzenegger might take into the fray. Whether it is or not is beside the point,  that it looks that way cannot be debated. That’s important to note because it is about the only aspect of the gun control debate that everyone agrees on. The only difference is, some people want the AR-15 precisely because of how it looks. Others want it banned for the same reason.

Combat AR-15.indd

The aesthetics of the AR-15 leverage popular culture and military heritage to serve two psychological ends; to intimidate an adversary and to give the wielder a sense of strength and confidence. The advertising language follows suit.

I take issue with the gun lobby claiming the media is vilifying guns like the AR-15 and mis-labelling them as “assault rifles” when they are very clearly designed to look like assault rifles. If you look at how they are marketed, the AR-15 is pitched to a prospective owners self-image as one who could “hold their own in a firefight” – whether defending their home or truth, justice and the American Way.

Yes, the words ‘self defense’ appear sometimes in the AR-15′s sales pitch, but the definition is necessarily different. You can’t carry an AR-15 in public (at least not without causing a panic) so its fairly useless for preventing a surprise streetside mugging or carjacking. What about a burglary? Well, how often is a home robbed by a dozen people such that a firearm with 30 rounds is necessary? Usually it’s one or two interlopers and frankly a pistol (with just a few rounds) would likely do the job. …Unless you’re expecting (or fantasizing about) a cinematic firefight.

The AR-15 is designed to look like the type of gun you’d use in a military-style engagement. Combined with a popular culture that depicts its heroes with similar weapons and glorifies gunfire – especially the “one hero against many bad guys” scenario – it’s easy to see why the AR-15, impractical as it is, remains iconic and may be desirable by someone who would like to seem themselves protecting their family, friends, countrymen or whoever against a legion of evildoers.

While the fringes on the far left and far right are crying out with their usual extreme perspectives (and poorly photoshopped propaganda on Facebook), I wonder if we’re not really missing the crux of the matter. Fewer people begrudge the hunter his rifle or even the single woman living alone a pistol in her nightstand, provided both are responsible gun owners. No, emotions seem to run highest when guns like the AR-15 come into play. Why?

A former business partner of mine, who is also a psychologist by training, believes (rightly, in my opinion) that marketing works not because it portrays the aspirational but rather satisfies the narcissistic. We buy products that confirm what we think of ourselves.

Consider that. What does the car you drive, the beer you drink, the cell phone you own or the brand of shoes you wear say about you?

What then does the lucrative market (and subsequent marketing) for weapons like the AR-15 say about how a significant proportion of our society thinks about itself? Addressing that core issue of self-perception might do more to resolve the “gun issue” than a lot of the noise being spouted by both sides.