After over a year as Head of the Account Management department at Saatchi & Saatchi London, I have seen a lot of CVs. And it’s the second time I’ve tried to do the tricky job of finding great talent, the first time being at Dare. I have seen a ton of CVs in that time, at all levels and across most specialisms in Account Management, so I thought I would share what I look for and find helpful in choosing people to interview.
“content” [kon-tent]. Noun.
something that is to be expressed through some medium, as speech,
writing, or any of various arts:
“a poetic form adequate to a poetic content.”
significance or profundity; meaning:
“a clever play that lacks content.”
substantive information or creative material viewed in contrast to its
actual or potential manner of presentation:
“publishers, record companies, and other content providers; a flashy
website, but without much content.”
Philosophy, Logic. the sum of the attributes or notions comprised in a
given conception; the substance or matter of cognition.
Source. dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/content
Richard Huntington wrote a great piece of content on his blog the other day about how the word content is useless, Richard and I work together and nearly always entirely agree with him ;-). But not this time.
In this case I kind of agree that the word content is in danger of being over-used, and in danger of becoming an empty buzzword and generally bandied around. But I don’t agree that it is completely redundant and a completely useless generic label for all sorts of creative products like film, telly, journalism, apps, and advertising. For me the word “content” is a powerfully loaded with positive meaning and can help to create an essential mindset shift for brands trying to operate in a digital world.
As we all know, it used to be that brands could buy media space and interrupt peoples’ lives to get their attention. People could then try to mentally edit out brands and their messages, and the brands that succeeded were the ones that interrupted people in the most engaging and entertaining way, such that people actually quite liked being interrupted – this was the fabled and I suspect apocryphal era when the “ads were better than the telly programmes”. But then media fragmented and digital technology came along which enabled people to physically edit their now vastly more varied media diet. And so the ability of brands to interrupt was much reduced. Telly advertising hasn’t died of course, it remains a massively important part of any large brand’s marketing mix because it is really important to people and still the best way of reaching a mass audience. But peoples’ relationships to brands did shift. They became more able to chose the things that mattered most to them.
In this context the reason the word content is so useful is that, as per the dictionary definitions above, it connotes something that is useful or entertaining, something that someone might chose, and it implies the consumer is in control of whether the content is consumed and shared or simply ignored. And so thinking of the output of the brand’s creative activities as content – whatever that stuff is – means a massive mindset shift.
That mindset shift is from that of being an interrupter, crassly dressing up commercial announcements with the wafer thin patina of emotion. To the adoption of the mindset of the producer of culturally relevant and welcomed entertainment, or utility. Moving from thinking “what do I want to say”, or “what do I want people to hear”, towards “what might my brand have to offer” or “what could I do that might be interesting to people?”
Quality does matter with content, because the form that content takes is a format like advertising, video, social media posts, or even film, music and TV shows. And so it is competing for attention against all of those formats, to get viewed, or to mean something to someone and be shared. It isn’t a separate thing from the rest of culture, it competes with culture for attention.
It would be lovely to think that as an industry we’ve always thought about the things we make in this way in the past and so it isn’t necessary to use the word content, and therefore more explicitly just talk about specific format instead, i.e. if we are making a film lets just call it a film rather than giving it the generic label content. And from time to time this has probably been true. However, in the main, old habits die hard. The marketing industry has relied on paying for eyeballs for so long, and remains so desperate to prove a short time ROI rather than drive long term growth, that it is all too easy to end up serving your own corporate agenda and under emphasise the need to genuinely delight people with content that is high quality and worth them having in their lives.
As such the word content it is a really powerful tool for forcing us to keep thinking differently about brands and how they should interact with the world and consumers. To bastardise Google’s phrase – to keep putting the user first, and create content that connects them with the magic at the heart of the brand by making things that are relevant, distinctive, and worth people’s scarce attention. And thinking like that should also help us face into the future, where the longevity of reliable channels that deliver mass attention which are underpinned by an ad business model, like TV airtime, are less assured.
There is a lot of talk at the moment about Growth Hacking and it’s very similar cousin Full Stack Marketing . The idea being that start ups need individuals with a full range, or stack of marketing skills, just like they need full stack developers who can create technology stacks from top to bottom including UX, front end , back end, database management etc. The full stack of marketing skills ranges from skills in the understanding of building brands, design work, social media, SEO and PPC, eCRM, analytics, banners, content creation and distribution and even dare I say it advertising.
It strikes me that all those skills exist within many creative agency businesses and of course across the industry as a whole. So how might it be possible for a cash-poor start up business to access those skills. After all, start ups, even those that are well funded, are unlikely to have the capital to spend on agency fees given all the other things they need to spend on to maximise their runway. An answer to that challenge is that start ups contract with marketing services companies or individuals with a sweat equity arrangement. That is nothing new, and obviously this is entirely possible at the moment on a one to one personal basis. There are plenty of people from the marketing and advertising community working with the start up community in this way already. But the problem on the marketing services supply side is that there is a limit to how many start ups you can work with, and therefore a great degree of uncertainty and risk as to whether the sweat will pay back with equity that is worth anything. As Ben Horowitz puts it “1% of nothing is nothing”. And so many players are forced into a part fee, part share of revenue and part equity arrangement, which adds friction into the system of connecting up supply and demand.
One possible solution is an online brokerage service that connects start ups who have marketing needs, with marketing services companies who can help them, and which automates the financial side, spreading the risk across multiple deals. The service would be part matchmaker, part legal service and part hedge fund. How it would work is that the start up would input their needs on the demand side, and the service would recommend the best partners on the supply side. The service would then allow the start ups to contract services in exchange for an equity share or a share of revenue. The service would take on the responsibility for the deal, and aggregate the returns across a number of deals when they reach maturity, and then pay out to the supply side companies a share of income. In this way the supply side is insulated from the risk of working with individual partners and can share in the overall returns, when as is highly likely most deals return little, and a very small number pay out big. The whole thing would work best at scale, 10s if not 100s of deals, and multiple partners. It isn’t going to make any one individual a millionaire, but it is a way for supply side marketing services companies to add a revenue stream, and increase the utilisation and productivity of its people, often on interesting, different and challenging projects. The service would take a commission/cut for its part in bearing the risk and brokering the deals.
So it’s a concept, no doubt the legal hurdles are substantial, but it would be incredible to connect up supply and demand in this way and do so at scale so that it is financially viable for everyone.
If you would at all be interested in something like this, and maybe participating in a trial or experiment if there is enough interest, you can sign up here – strata.marketing
Here is a little personal perspective on why I think it’s important to do this job called advertising well, adapted from my intro to our last Account Handling department meeting at Saatchi and Saatchi.
So I live in a suburban idyll called Bushey. It is near Watford. But crucially it is not Watford.
Anyway this is a picture I took right near the railway station.
A couple of months ago I went by there and saw this street art. It is by part of the Burning Candy street art collective, Mighty Mo and Gold peg. There is a near identical piece just off Shoreditch High Street, and you can see this collectives work all around town if you look for it. It is part of the urban culture of London.
I know I know, ad guy likes street art, massive cliche, But still I was surprised to see street art in the land of hunter wellies and snotty 2 year olds.
But what really got me thinking was going past there a few weeks later and seeing this image…
It is of the street art replaced by fresh prime outdoor poster sites.
It reminded me of why I love the challenge of being in this business. That challenge is to put something in that space that is worthy of being part of culture and not just edited out by an attention poor, normal person who really just wants their rainy Monday brightening up.
Something that is entertaining, or has utility, or helps them see their lives differently, or makes them feel part of something bigger than themselves, or makes them feel good about the brands they choose.
Of course that is really hard to do, you might only get to do it once or twice in your career
And you never really know which project will be one that does it. Things can go from great to shit in a heartbeat. But they can also go from good to great in the same time.
Whether you can create something great that becomes part of culture depends on the small daily interactions we all have, account people, planners, creatives and clients and folk from partner agencies.
So every month we are going to be sharing stories about how things got made. That way we can learn from each other’s successes and failures. And increase our chances that the things we make will be great. So do sweat the small stuff, it can be what makes the big stuff good enough to mean something to the world.
You need to have money to make money. So goes the old saying. And with all the conversation about the disadvantages of capitalism right now (debate about Piketty’s mathematics notwithstanding!) this has never felt more true – the fruits of economic activity benefit the owners of capital disproportionately. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer.
At the same time you can’t open a paper without someone lauding the importance of creativity. It is dead hard though to make money from creativity. And it’s getting harder as digital networking lays waste to the old formats that middle class creative people have used to monetise their skills – things like books and records. As a society we need new ways to recognise the value of creativity and new business models and economic mechanisms to profit from the value creativity creates. And not allow 100% of that value to flow upwards to the owners of capital, platforms or siren servers.
“Technologists repeatedly apply the extreme efficiencies of digital networks in some area of endeavor in such a way that the sources of value, whatever they may be, are left more off-the-books than they used to be, but we end up in control of the server that runs the scheme. It happened to music and other media early on, but the pattern is being repeated everywhere.”
Jaron Lanier. Who Owns the Future.
The advertising industry also needs to find better ways of profiting from creativity too as was recognised by both clients (Martin Riley, Pernod Ricard CMO) and agency leaders alike (Debbie Klein, The Engine Group) at this week’s IPA event on agency remuneration. Let’s face it, our industry’s way of monetising IP and brand value added is hopeless. Despite the huge value that creativity can generate we get paid by the hour regardless of any value created. It is high time we developed new business models and disrupted our own industry paradigms, before it is too late.
Creative agencies are filled with creative people who think they make a product – a brand strategy, a design, an idea or an manifestation of that idea in a piece of communications, .product or digital service. And those ideas often have the potential to generate huge value for our clients brands.
However we don’t get paid for making a product, or whether that product generates value (I am sure there are plenty of great performance related schemes out there but mostly the upside is minimal and not anything to do with the true incremental sale/revenue increases). We monetize our work with a service business model. Agencies have been coming up with great ideas for years, contributing to reliable sustainable growth for clients and their brands, but since the death of the commission model we have been paid like lawyers or accountants. The clue is in the name – we are our client’s agents. But with less perceived skill and thus worse hourly rates, and fewer recovered billable hours.
This is of course a decades old set up. It made sense for agencies to cast themselves as agents back in the day when clients only had one agent, and could use that agent to help them make decisions about what strategies to pursue and where to spend their money. But now that has changed. Media fragmentation has led to agencies specialising and so their role as agents is much further downstream. Creative agencies like to think that their most important contribution is the big idea. But clients are increasingly taking ownership of the big idea and all they want from their agencies is to have that idea executed or specific deliverables produced.
“One CMO, who requested anonymity so as to avoid disparaging the shops currently working on his account, said he thinks that in five years agency networks like BBDO , McCann , Y&R and Saatchi & Saatchi will matter less. “The agency model is really dead. I don’t need all these different agencies working for me. I don’t want it to be about [agency brands]. I just need less overhead and more efficiency.” ” Ad Age.
The implication is we are less and less valued agents, and becoming a commodity, interchangeable makers of deliverables. If the industry shrivels and dies it won’t be because the 30″ commercial is no longer relevant. It will be because the service business model failed to support an industry that continued to fragment, specialise and slip down the value chain despite the continued value of its core product – creativity.
“For years agencies weren’t accountable. Now they are and the model is crumbling. Advertising that doesn’t drive business will lead to a quick end to the ad budget and perhaps the agency as well.” Anonymous CMO
Part of the reason we find ourselves here is that the service business model pays pretty well and CMOs can still justify agency fees when a slightly better/newer marketing campaign generates a positive ROI or percentage point sales increase. The other part of the reason is that the industry has been distracted by a macro argument about how the media and marketing landscape is changing and what it means for clients and agencies, and has assumed that the same business model would apply to a new world order. Even digital creative agency business models are largely the same as their traditional forebears, despite the measurable nature of the media in which they operate.
So there are two questions we need to answer to put better value on creativity:
Firstly, the age old question of how do we better demonstrate the value we create? How might we make the impact of creativity more measurable? How might we put more skin in the game and not expect to get paid when things don’t work out, but feel confident in sharing in the upside when things do? How do we change the conversation with procurement teams away from simply about getting to a lower number for a specific line item and get to a place where a true partnership can emerge.
And secondly, the new question of how do we change the business model that underpins the value that we create? How might we apply our creative skills to new ventures and spheres where the outcome is completely unknown but the potential is enormous? (see Taleb on optionality/convex payoffs)
What is exciting is that it used to be that you needed vast capital and resources to scale. In a mere few years Instagram built a $1billion dollar company with 13 people and a great idea and largely the same skills as is present in many creative agencies.
So time for us to get on and find new ways to monetize what we create. Sure it isn’t easy, and I speak as someone who’s current day job is 99% tied into the old way of doing business in the creative industry. But we’ve got to find the time in the day to try new things out, have tough conversations with existing clients, and find new and often smaller ones who want to do things differently.
The only constant is change. Heraclitus
Here is a quick go at a top 5 of the threats and the opportunities facing creative agencies that are created by technological change.
- Decline of Paid media models e.g. Newspaper ads revenue, Online Display CTR decline. Impact of on- demand/connected/OTT TV to linear TV ad revenue
- Platform brands (e.g. Google, Facebook etc) forging direct relationships with clients
- DSPs /programmatic buying taking up more client spend and therefore requiring less agency engagement
- Move from brands telling stories in paid media to brands creating value with their behaviour in owned and earned media and through utility and entertainment
- Media fragmentation leading to change in the role of agency partners as downstream providers of services/deliverables and the move of ownership of the idea towards clients. Ultimately leading to the “hour” we sell ever more commoditised
- Shareable ideas/memes and their manifestation in content, conversation, services and products are the currency of the web and creative agencies are all about ideas
- Fewer barriers to sharing/spreading ideas than in the industrial era means more ways of reaching consumers without huge spend
- Opportunity to use agency skills of understanding culture and what people need to better understand what people want from technology, and help clients shape their use of technology so that it is Open, Human centric, Diverse, Collaborative, Value based, Expressive
- Attention is more scarce than ever as media fragmentation overwhelms people with noise. Creativity has never been more relevant as a way for brands to be the signal in all that noise
- New ways of demonstrating tangible added value and theoretically more ways to get paid more fairly for creativity – more on this in my next post.
Last list-based post for while I reckon….