[...]Cafeteria Google vs New Restaurant Facebook -[...]…

[...]Cafeteria Google vs New Restaurant Facebook -[...]…

[...]Cafeteria Google vs New Restaurant Facebook -[...]…

Media agencies are indeed in a great position right now and have been so for some time already. With the fee splits being 60/40 or more, in their favour, they have done very well over the years. They will continue to do so for the time to come.

Yet, I do wonder, how is their performance actually being measured? I’m really not sure if their performance is actually being seriously measured, and that by this I mean, the fancy or not so fancy presentations that they make are being accepted as satisfactory, because they did something. Anything. Just something will do. I’ve other thoughts on “Do Something!” – as an approach that some brands are taking to get a marketing campaign out the door, instead of doing – something of value – that’s for another time though.

Anyway, I think that times have actually changed, yet media agencies have not changed their offerings. Yes, they can today book media in to blogs and other sites, which is all great and fine, however, what are the actual results of those media bookings in comparison to other media outlet placements?

What I see is different now or perhaps even an opportunity is in the areas of portable content or widgets. Media agencies have been buying ‘widgets’ – and we can call them banners – for quite some time now, on behalf of brands. As ‘widgets’ and other forms of mashable content become more popular, users, consumers, fansumers and customers, can embed content from a variety of sources as their own content [branded etc.] in to their blogs, homepages and social media sites. Product catalogue applications, brand communications and so on, can be facilitated this way, creating a ‘broad fan’ of communications, that can tap in to a long tail, over time. Widgets to some though, seem to be media. In fact so do ‘platforms’ seem to be media. The definition has become quite blurred. It might be time to evaluate everyone’s role in the communications value chain as to who does what and why; if not to separate and distinguish, then to combine and maximise.

I think that in the roles that CMO’s play and we can definitely empathise with them, that they trust those around them and what they hear and know from the industry to guide their decisions. Their objectives are business objectives. We could summarise them as – build the brand or build the bottom line. CMO’s are supported by teams of experts and these experts implement their 10,000 foot helicopter views. The problem may be though, that as you get closer to the ground, those down below, don’t understand the objectives above and those above, don’t understand the realities below. It’s a knowledge gap. Is it easy to address? Probably not immediately. Legacy thinking is involved, and perhaps unfortunately there is no “Y2K” bug about to explode on the scene, so the need and or wish or will to change, does not exist.

What interests me though, and in particular for some market segments across certain product ranges, is that smaller, more niche brands are on the rise, eating away at the market positions of bigger brands. They’re cooler and more nimble, grassroots driven run, maintained and inspired. They possess and enthusiasm that drives them forward. They generally don’t have a lot of media money, but a lot of social credit. Their media is viral, because it is relevant or topical. It’s not a big brand blast. It’s rumours and whispers. These smaller brands, and I am going to go out on a limb here, are making more rapid progress than what the bigger brands realise. Throwing more money at media to combat a changing marketplace, is not necessarily the best solution. CMO’s answer to CFO’s and someone is going to answer to the shareholders at some point in time.

This is not gloom and doom. It is opportunity. Media should be fluid and dynamic. In line and up to date. This way CMO’s can get actual information to make better decisions as to where and how to instruct their media agencies to act. I am sure that media agencies want to do their best, but they are in a bit of a bind themselves. They may not have all the tools and insights they need to sell new ideas through. If it is indeed something new, this might fall outside of a set budget. Many things don’t happen, because there is not enough finance allocated or enough leverage granted to spend or barter a deal. Corporations in particular, may be skeptical of entering partnerships, concerned that if an equal or worthy enough brand is not to be found, that the benefits of such a relationship may be skewed. We might say that above and beyond what we’re discussing here, that an approach towards “Complementary Partnerships” might better serve the best interests of all.

Collaborations seem to be one approach, however whether or not they are sustainable, due to a focus on the high end joining forces with other high end forces [brands], the counter-intuitive approach towards more effectively joining an up and coming or off the wall, unexpected alliance with a smaller or less obvious brand / business partner, might just be what the doctor ordered.

The same might be said of media partnerships and approaches. This however is not in fashion, in a meaningful way, as far as I am aware. It might be in the future.

To be a bit more concrete. I think that if CMO’s are made aware and are provided with the tools to make those aware, within their organisations as to what is possible and what is going to be [we hope] be a good spend of their budgets, in advising their media agencies, then there’s a better chance of selling better ideas in and through to the end recipient or in this case, the consumer.

Another thought. It would not surprise me if sometime in the future, Google decided to split off some of the business units it has created, to reinvigorate what it has to offer.

Nice to have a dialogue with you.

Kind and best,

Lyndon

I really like your approach and agree with you in full about Google!

On media agencies, you are certainly right: some of the thinking is outdated and only covering a too small part of the marketing value chain.

On the other hand, media agencies are often in a very strong relationship with clients and their budgets, that they really do own a large chunk of communications show.

In many cases I have heard from CMO’s: must ask it to my media agency first… the media agencies mostly seem to be consulted more often than advertising agencies by clients?
Sometimes this ‘media agency trust and power’ suprises me, but I don’t see it changing very fast… or CMO’s should be willing to change their behavior..

Looking forward to your reply.

Cheers