Bob on Ron

Bob Liodice keeps on impressing me. Not only because he’s blogging, but specifically because of the caliber and quality of his content. In his latest post, he pens an open letter to Ron Berger, who caused a rather large tempest in a teacup with his remarks at the recent AAAA’s Management Summit.

In a nutshell, Bob takes Ron to task on the latter’s assertion that clients should neatly place all of their eggs into the basket of a one-stop-shop. The former disagrees with the latter’s stance…and so do I.

From my new marketing corner of the world, this couldn’t be more appropriate. Agencies saying “of course we can do that”, but in reality representing a capability that is superficial at best and tantamount to fraud at worst.

My 2c (1c per point) is the following:

-         agencies defined as “companies specializing in advertising” should stick to what they do best…which in reality, is another problem for another day, namely the fact they’re not doing their jobs as well as they should (looking at the work product) There’s a reason why agencies (strategic, creative, media) are crowing about folding in mobile and gaming into their interactive capabilities…it’s because they’re the only new marketing approaches in which they can place terrestrial ads; there’s a reason why you’re not hearing about agencies reorg-ing their interactive departments to champion and marshal consumer generated content, podcasting or social media in general – it’s because they can’t manufacture, distribute and monetize ads against them.

-         In general, I believe that where capabilities are essentially mutually exclusive, clients not only should, but must seek out the best of breed players in their particular specialist spaces. Promotions. Search. Point of Sale. Public Relations. Sponsorship. Social Media. Multicultural. Branded Entertainment etc

Where I do want to interject is to examine the opposite end of Bob’s continuum. In a world where the only constants are fragmentation and proliferation, at what point does the scale collapse under the weight of seemingly endless best and brightest partners?

There’s a saying about too many chiefs and not enough Indians, and in the case of one client and way too many agencies (all of whom feel they are both smarter than the other agencies in the room, not to mention the clients themselves), there is the danger of in-fighting, back-stabbing and political shenanigans, or in the case of the exceptions to the rule (the agencies that truly are committed to collaboration), there are the practical challenges of bureaucracy, unnecessary layers, remnant silos on the client side and the tyranny of an obese “cc” list.

 

In my book (www.lifeafter30.com/live for the free chapter on the agency world), I introduce and offer up the role for a new kind of agency – the “integrators” – whose lot in life is to help coordinate, streamline and mash the multiple gourmet cooks in order to create the kind of finished product capable of pipping any Iron Chef at the post (yes I know…that extended metaphor sailed a long time ago, but you get the gist)

 

To be sure, there are many models and possibilities that exist today and will emerge tomorrow. Back to Bob’s point…the client-side marketers who figure this out sooner and commit themselves to the process will win. Big Time.

 

In addition, there’s no reason why mini-stop-shops won’t claim a handful of like-minded specialties in a win-win or Bob-Ron situation. The best example of this today might be interactive.

 

At the end of his retort, Bob says the following:

·        Ron, I fundamentally disagree with your thesis.  However, I think that the advertising industry is better off because of the dialogue we are now having!  I enjoy this discussion and debate, as I recognize that ours is an industry that requires multiple points-of-view.  Being challenged by you is beneficial to us all.  We should have more thoughtful debates such as the one you initiated.  And we should all appreciate the courage you had to voice your opinions and share your perspectives.  So while this may be a “backhanded” way to thank you, it is a thank you nonetheless.

Is this Liodice being snarky? Not at all. I know Bob and he is as genuine as he comes across. This is too critical to overlook…the problem with our industry today (one of them) is the fact no one is prepared to stick out their proverbial necks and take a stand. It is a fundamental weakness and flawed character trait – namely, the passive aggressive stance of an industry that only seems to lay it on the line when nothing is at stake.

Berger went on a tear and clearly he was venting frustrations which boiled to the point of no return. The scary thought is that he is most certainly not alone and no doubt is joined by way too many agency execs to count.

If the considered debate had been taken up earlier in time, not only would his blood pressure have been at a more acceptable level, but arguably the industry could have taken up the charge in a more constructive fashion.

Irrespective, he should not be looked at as a “grumpy old man” (even if he is), nor as a scapegoat; instead consider Berger a catalyst – one that unfortunately is holding onto delusions of grandeur, but hey…that’s what makes creatives great, right?

Final thought…will Berger respond to Bob’s post? Or how about mine? Or better yet…does Ron even known what a blog is or how to access one? Watch this space.