agency model changing gears

3 Habits Marketing Agencies Need to Break in Order to Grow

by Shauna Nicholson on January 25, 2012

in Business, Entrepreneur, Marketing

The agency model continues to demand change. Agency models based on optimizing media continue to collapse, but it seems like the typical response of marketers is to simply continue optimizing the buys. These habits are still crippling marketing agencies ability to grow. Some of habits that need to be broken:

1. Strictly Hiring by Marketing Tool
Job descriptions for new hires are still based on (channel) tool-specific strategies without hiring strategists tasked with tackling client business goals. Tools jobs are everywhere: Social Media Strategist, Pay-Per-Click Campaign Strategist, etc.

Of course we need human resources to execute and deliver on these channels. I’m arguing that by identifying strategists by their tools is a self-serving model. If you’re hiring hammers, everything looks like a nail.

Not only that, but gears are ready to be turned by the global market. Customer relationships are managed by call centers around the globe. Who’s to say the widget you’re hiring for (or turning) can’t be outsourced next?

Instead agencies can hire by business objectives. As an example, nix the “Social Media Strategist” title in favor of community development. Focusing on the business objective creates consistent consumer experiences (between social media, communications, on site touch points, etc) and allows agencies to measure results by what makes a real difference to the client.

As an additional note on this practice: Agencies hiring resources in this way aren’t setting themselves up for long-term profitability. Optimizing tools is short-sighted and leaves money on the table for both the agency and the client. (Continuously optimizing investments means less budget is inevitably required to gain the same results.) Put another way, channel hires optimize channel or tool return on investment without consideration for true growth.

Smart businesses have already begun to take note and things are already stirring:

2. Underestimating Data
Even as marketers begin to finally focus on data, technologies outpace them. “Big Data Scientists” identified within Mashable’s Career of the Future: Data Scientist are already automated by data synthesizing and predicting tools–but we’re only just catching up the the IDEA that big data is widely available and ready to “drive product and operational decisions”. Big data isn’t just driving decisions, it’s able to predict outcomes.

data scientists

“Big data” allows us to understand data outside of siloed channels. Big data allows us to understand individual behaviors regardless of tools. Big data lays a foundation for actual business growth. And it’s already been automated and organized.

3. Optimizing Existing Models (Instead of Making Real Change)
Companies continue to pat each other on the back–while downsizing–and aren’t putting a clear direction forward. (Consider: Clickable’s article GM Consolidates $3B Media Spend With Carat) As a Detroiter, this kills me. If all automakers did was optimize Ford’s Model T, where would we be? Yet this is the same approach GM is taking with media buys.

There’s an opportunity to innovate and change the way humans relate to and use their transportation. In the same way Borders didn’t sell books, GM doesn’t sell cars (they sell a means of transportation and lifestyle). Refocus marketing on that relationship and how to use relevant marketing channels will logically follow.

Creative campaigns will only bring companies so far. Campaigns are fantastic ways to connect with the hearts of people. But strategists need to focus on building programs that will address business goals–before connecting with people who’ve heard variations of the same messages over and over and over.

What will win?
Building marketing agency models that focus on program development–solving business problems through individuals–will win. (Consider:  Tools Execution is Not Customer Centric: Recreate The Marketing Agency Model)

Your thoughts?


  • http://www.barefeetstudios.com Roxanne Darling

    Great insights Shauna. The answer is that the traditional ways are easier and they are known quantities, even if not well applied. This is an age-old human challenge. How do we upgrade our consciousness to keep up with not just marketplace changes but in the case of today – the intersection of change across markets, politics, education, and humanity itself!

    Dare I say “it takes a blogger” to give us pause to reflect on our own processes and how they might become more effective.

  • http://www.shaunanicholson.com/ Shauna Nicholson

    Thanks for the comment, Roxanne. You bring up a good point about intersections of change. Each intersection brings up so many new opportunities to evolve and grow!

  • http://www.shaunanicholson.com/ Shauna Nicholson

    Thanks for the comment, Roxanne. You bring up a good point about intersections of change. Each intersection brings up so many new opportunities to evolve and grow!

  • http://nikkilittle.com/ Nikki Little

    You know I agree with a lot of what you share, but I think your issue with titles like “social media strategist” may be tied to perception. And for the record, I’m not just bringing this up because it’s my “official” title. We don’t live and die by titles at Identity, and frankly, no one title could ever fully capture all the things I’m responsible for handling on behalf of my clients and agency.

    When you see the title “social media strategist,” to you that immediately indicates that the person is tool centric rather than business centric. But that’s not always the case. Yes there are many SM (fill in the blank) who do only focus on the tools, but you can’t lump us all in that same category. I think “personal branding” is another one of those phrases that irks people, simply because they perceive it as meaning you should focus on “me and only me.” But, just like everything, there’s a right and a wrong way to do personal branding.

    Going back to my previous comment about summarizing responsibilities with one title, I could never have a title that focuses on business objectives because no one title could full capture all the business objectives I help clients achieve.  Yes, community developer and community manager are parts of my job. But a title like those are too limiting. I actually include in all my bios that I’m a “PR professional and social media strategist” so that people know I have a background in PR because to me, it helps show that the work I focus on goes deeper than just managing a Twitter page. It’s all tied very closely to the fundamentals of PR.

    I definitely see where you’re coming from, but hopefully you get my points, too.

  • http://www.shaunanicholson.com/ Shauna Nicholson

    I think you bring up a great point, Nikki. As a PR Pro, you even have a unique approach to social than someone with a different background may have. It’s clear you aren’t focusing on the tool, but I still think we can explore further to better define what the role is.

    For example, “customer service representatives” aren’t telephone strategists; so I’m looking to meet the challenge of describing the role outside of the tool.

    In Chris Barger’s book, he included a Scott Monty’s recap conversation about Scott coming to work at Ford. His warning was to ensure the Social Media role fell under Communications (not Marketing).

    Every organization will organize this differently so I’m challenging new hires to focus on the roles and objectives of the position rather than the tools employed to execute.
    Great points (especially relating to personal branding)! Thank you!

  • Pingback: Why is the “Next Evolution” of Agencies so Focused on Tools and Channels? — digital mark

Previous post:

Next post: