In domains like financial services, the buying and selling of data is commonplace, and providers such as Bloomberg and Thomson Reuters are well-established. Elsewhere, too, there is recognition that data supports good decision making when creating new products and services, both for businesses and the individual […]
Let’s talk about money.
The marketing agency business is a strange bird. Brands are strange birds too. It’s a complex web of relationships that is often confusing, evolving, thrilling, beautiful, painful and more. As the marketing industry evolves, we have all experienced massive shifts in how the business is won and done. First, there is the procurement component. More and more, the procurement department is leading the charge not only in the negotiation of fees, but in the running of the bidding for the business. That, in and of itself, is book-worthy content. For the moment, let’s put that aside and look at a more predominant and frustrating component of pitching. Let’s talk about when there is no budget allocation.
Why would anybody pitch on a piece of business without a budget?
It happens all of the time. Agencies will be given these massive RFPs (Request For Proposals) or RFIs (Requests For Information) that take days, weeks and more to complete. These phases in agency new business are not only disruptive to the work flow (because agencies never know when they are coming in and then have to divert resources to make a run at this new piece of business), but cost a tremendous amount of money to complete. It’s amazing – after all of these years – how brands fail to understand the simple business model of the marketing agency (which is this: agencies charge more for a human unit of time than they pay for it). From there, it has been well-documented that these requests for proposals or information are usually littered with unreasonable requests (like providing strategic and creative direction for a particular problem with no promise of compensation). As a brand, to not afford the agency the courtesy of knowing and understanding the budget that is being laid against the request demonstrates a complete lack of understanding as to how this business works.
Harsh? But it’s true.
I have been in the marketing business since the late eighties. I’ve worked on the publisher side, the brand side and the agency side. From a brand perspective, this all makes sense. They can milk and bilk as much free information out of as many agencies that are willing to play along and then choose one, while still benefitting from the knowledge and insights of many. Smart. From the agency side, this is another story. This is why organizations like the American Association of Advertising Agencies (aka 4A) exist. It is also the reason that they have an extensive resource section on their website with documents like, Best Practice Guidance: Ownership of Agency Ideas, Plans and Work Developed During the New Business Process. Sadly, all of that hard work goes mostly ignored when there is an opportunity for a brand to grab a bunch of ideas off of agencies who are doing a ton of comp work on the front end to score the business.
What is the prize?
Most RFPs and RFIs have a section titled, budget. Sadly, in the past few years there has rarely – if ever – been a true, formal and final number assigned to that part of the document. More often than not, you will see language like: “we’re looking for a best-in-class solution and are open to defining the budget once we see the thinking and costing based on the agency’s work and ideas.” The unspoken truth here is simple: if a brand tells an agency how much they’re willing to spend, the agency will spend that entire amount (and maybe a little more). And, while that may have been true in the past, the argument could also be made that agencies simply want to know what the potential business reward will be against the amount of time, effort and cost it will take to complete the RFP or RFI in an effective manner.
Why else does money matter?
Here are some other reasons why allocating a firm budget to a piece of marketing business matters:
- It demonstrates that the brand is serious and has committed the financial wherewithal to make it happen.
- A budget also gives the agency “rails” to work within. In a world where no budget exists, the brand will get a myriad of responses that are all over the map and will not allow them to compare apples to apples.
- A budget demonstrates the brand’s knowledge of the space. When a brand doesn’t know how much something costs, it is an early indicator that they are not sophisticated.
- A budget allows an agency to better understand if this is the type of client that they can work and grow with. I recognize that this may be a contentious issue, but it’s true. There are many agencies that are scaled to operate a certain way and budget is a prime indicator in relation to fit.
- Budget is a two way street: in as much as the brand is trying to find the right agency, the agencies are also trying to find the right brands. Budget is a major factor in this.
- How much is a house? Without a budget, you may as well be asking a contractor, “how much does a house cost?” It depends on the location, value of real estate, how big of a house, how many rooms, how many floors, what the needs are and beyond. If a brand doesn’t know what kind of house they want (in terms of the raw info) along with what they’re budgeting against it, what is the point?
- Brands will get what they deserve. I’ve seen this happen time and time again. You have inexperienced agencies willing to lose money on the upfront to win a client, so they can add the brand logo to a PowerPoint deck slide to impress others, and the brand winds up getting cheap work with minimal (if any) impact.
It sounds like bitterness, but it’s really about transparency.
This isn’t about procurement or sour grapes, it’s about a healthy and transparent partnership because that’s what the best brand/agency relationships look like. If you’re hiding what the true value of the work is from the beginning, the relationship starts out in a deficit. This is the marketing business. In business, all parties should be clear on how the process will unfold, who the participants in the competition are and what the prize will be for the winner at the end. This shell game of fishing for ideas, creative and strategy with no commitment to following through on the mandate is a thorn in the side of the marketing industry that doesn’t need to be there. Things have, sadly, progressed to the point where agencies are putting weeks against a competitive pitch to only uncover that the project has been shelved, budget wasn’t allocated or the brand was simply kicking some tires to see if a better solution was out there.
Brands may think that this makes them smarter at the marketing game, but look at the overall results and costs for that effort? Sadly, this strategy seems like a lose/lose for all parties.
This is not about media convergence. It’s about something bigger.
Things change. Things change so fast that sometimes, it’s hard to see it. We tend to think about our businesses and our lives in terms of keeping up with change. This creates a metal imagery of a mouse running on a wheel, doesn’t it? At some point you’re just chasing your own tail. Instead of worrying about how much the world is changing, why not focus on the things that have changed?
A new paradigm.
In both of my business books (Six Pixels of Separation and CTRL ALT Delete), the case it laid out for just how much technology, innovation and connectivity has changed business (yes, it’s much more than just the media and marketing sides of things). In both books, I discuss how anyone from any city now has access to a global audience. Because of this, the concept of opening up a local retail outlet seems counterintuitive. Why sell to a small segment of people in a local town, in the hopes that they will walk into your store, when the Internet grants you access to a global customer base that allows you to sell (and stay open) even when you’re asleep? Well, it turns out that there’s a new convergence in town. It’s not about how media converge (TV becoming connected screens or newspapers and their digital siblings). This is about a new world where the physical meets digital and the digital meets physical.
It’s powerful. It’s big.
Think about what Jack Dorsey is doing with Square. He’s taking mobile connectivity and adding in a layer of the physical to turn ever smartphone and tablet into a merchant account. His vision statement is clear (and genius): “no more cash registers.” This new business blends the digital and physical. LEGO offers the Digital Box in all of their stores. These interactive screens allow consumers to hold up the physical box in front of this digital box, which then creates a three-dimensional augmented reality build of what’s inside the box. This form of utilitarianism marketing blends the digital and physical seamlessly.
We’re seeing it everywhere.
Laugh at people wearing Google Glasses all you want (they’re now being called “glassholes“. The ability to change the paradigm of how we interact with technology (moving from holding, hands and fingers to using your eyes and voice to engage with content) is another nascent example of how digital is meeting physical and vice-versa. All wearable technology (think Nike Fuelband or Jawbone‘s Up) beautifully illustrate this major movement and what the present (and future) of business holds. Robotics, 3D printing push the idea of physical meeting digital and digital meeting physical to the very brink.
It’s still early days.
Ultimately, it is fascinating to see media and marketers adjust to the digitization of industry. It’s still fascinating. It still fascinates me (and I’m hopeful that it fascinates you as well). What is even more fascinating is this brand new breed of startups and entrepreneurs who are truly moving The Internet of Things into a viable business model. One that is more than just profitable, but one that is setting the stage for what will be the next industrial revolution. Former Wired Magazine editor-in-chief, Chris Anderson, makes a very compelling case for it in his latest book, Makers (which is an incredible book, if you’re looking for something to read this summer). New technology seems weird when it is first introduced. It feels raw. It feels nerdy. It feels like it’s only suitable for a small and affluent niche. While this may be true, we are in the era of exponential growth when it comes to technology and adoption by the mass audience (consider this: the iPad didn’t exist four years ago). The new convergence of digital meeting physical and physical meeting digital in a seamless and easy-to-use and adopt fashion has brought us to this magical moment when technology has removed the technology from technology. For my dollar, media convergence suddenly got a whole lot less exciting when compared to the new convergence of our digital and physical lives.
What do you think?
Carrier mobile data revenues are set to pass mobile voice revenues in the fourth quarter, according to analyst Chetan Sharma. When that happens carriers will find themselves facing a fundamentally different kind of business.
It’s strange how much of a brand’s foundation is laid by the people who represent it.
It could be a pristine service with a genius business model that is created with the latest in cutting edge technology, but none of that matters if the people who re…
Is Kickstarter still the most exciting thing happening in the digital media channels these days?
In June 2012, I penned a blog post titled, The Most Exciting Thing Happening In Digital Right Now. It was all about Kickstarter. I’m as bullish on Kicksta…
Freemium can only offer the hope that customers will fall in love with your product and be willing to pay for it later. This is a scattershot approach to monetization. Rags Srinivasan argues that it’s time to take a deliberate and more targeted approach.