July 17, 2009 by Jack Miller

If one were to count the vast number of articles, forums, blogs and position papers dedicated over the past several months to the changing relationship between client and agency, they would no doubt amass a mind-numbing amount of coverage paralleled only to the recent exploitation of Michael Jackson’s death.  And similar to the controversy surrounding MJ, experts in the ad community can’t agree on what part of the agency legacy should continue or go down in a blaze of glory.

Of greater interest in this controversy of structure is whether the debate continues because agency interest is evolving to meet clients’ needs or whether traditional agencies are looking for justification in order to continue operating in their comfort zones.  Today, marketing and advertising is not about companies and brands as much as it is about consumers and understanding their needs, wants, and behavior.  Yet, traditional agencies continue to focus on top-line brand building and creative as the catalyst to fuel the client/consumer relationship as opposed to consumer analytics and communication vehicles driving brand discussion and even product creation.  

Case in point, after viewing the General Motors commercial titled “Reinvention," (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_Dpxls8138&NR=1) I’m curious to know at what point did the client determine that “8 different brands no longer made sense.”  It seems that this ah-ha moment came very suddenly as the bottom completely fell out of the US automotive industry.  Had the client and agency had a “consumer first” mentality, the conversations over the past several years would no doubt have focused less on brand pillars, product platforms, identity dashboards and their eventual evolution into ineffective creative messages but rather on the rapidly changing interests and behavior of consumers.  This change of focus would have impacted better product decisions, different marketing channels, and possibly the American taxpayer not having to own a percent of a failing company.  But this would have required a complete change in the thinking and structure of both GM and their agency. 

In comparison, companies like Zappos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWQ_5LOhbiA) continue to grow as a result of molding product, distribution and communication strategies to match changing consumer behavior.  Zappos understands their customers and how to communicate with them.  Just look at how many people are following the tweets of Zappos CEO Tony Hsiel compared to the CEO of GM.  Success in the multi-media, multi-cultural, multi-linguistic world in which we live requires a client/agency relationship where consumer behavior, analytics, and media usage should be the driver of brand conversations and creative—not the other way around.

To add weight to this argument, one simply has to look at how social media has changed the definition of brand.  I recently heard an agency define brand as a “promise.”  It was done so as if this “promise” is completely controlled by the President or CMO of a company in cahoots with their agency’s Creative Director.  In this 1950’s euphoria, the client and agency brainstorm this “promise” or brand and then push it through mainstream media with the goal of the consumer public swallowing it whole.  It is as absurd as it sounds.  Today, primarily because of the growth of social media, brand is better defined as a “compilation of conversations that are going on about a particular product or service.”  Companies can participate in these conversations, but the reality is they do not dictate these conversations—you cannot dictate brand.

Today, the client/agency relationship should be led by competent media strategy teams in conjunction with qualified consumer researchers/ethnographers who can translate consumer trends and behavior into actionable communication strategies.  This approach allows the brand and product to evolve with the changing nature of consumer preference and ultimately to produce the greatest ROI.