Aren’t all agencies pretty much the same?

Spending some time scrolling through advertising agency websites will leave most people with the same overall impression. Companies that are keen on, but struggle to point out their differences to their competitors, appear overly interested in shaping culture and that produce work on behalf of their clients eliciting a judgement and reaction from the audience ranging from impressive to indifferent. You could be forgiven for thinking that agencies all do the same thing, more or less, and there’s not much to distinguish between them.

In the 26 years of consulting to agencies, CMOs and the marketing community, I’ve learnt that this couldn’t be further from reality.

Advertising agencies have two levers on which to pull that can distinguish them from their competitors. The first is their people, which I believe is by far and away the most significant factor that defines an agency, sets it apart from others, and determines the chances of success. The second is the culture that an agency’s leadership chooses to shape for the business. I’ll expand on both.

I’ve spent most of my career helping CMOs and their teams review the agency landscape to identify and select the right partner for their requirements. In a marketplace that’s very well supplied, the most potent and tangible differences that CMOs identify between agencies are their people; their personality, style, tone, how they engage with the CMO and the marketing team they are looking to persuade, and no less importantly, how the agency team interacts and engage amongst themselves.

Because when undertaking a review of their agency arrangements, CMOs don’t make their decision based on the entity that is the agency, but on the seven, 10, 15 people who are going to be the team working on the account. When it comes to any agency leaders who thought that such benefits were shaping the culture of their agency. to the decision, the team is the agency and the 10, 100 or 1000 other people in the agency do not figure in their decision making.

At the final stages of a pitch in which three or four agencies are competing against each other, if sufficient due diligence has been undertaken, the CMO and their team should be confident that any one of the agencies meets their threshold criteria of capabilities and expertise and if not, why are they being invited to pitch? What then determines the winning agency from those that come a close second, is significantly influenced by the persuasiveness of the people who make up the winning team.

And when it comes to reasons why CMOs look to review their agency arrangements, the reasons cited always include a significant element naming a lack of confidence in the agency people, too often because the original team who the client has bought into has changed beyond recognition.

The tangible evidence of the power of people in an agency is when they leave, either to join another agency or set up their own agency. There are numerous examples of CMOs with who they have the best relationships moving their business (often without a pitch, which is to be applauded) to the agency that their team has joined or set up.
Moving on to culture, which is actively shaped by an agency’s leadership, this too has a strong influence on the type of people and relationship agencies can cultivate with prospective and existing clients.

Which of these is more appealing and says more about an agency’s culture… ‘We want this agency to be where people come to do the best work of their lives’, ‘We want to be the biggest agency’ or ‘We want to work with people who are on a mission’? I suggest two of these are clearly more appealing than the third.

Too often culture is mistaken for pool tables in the office, free breakfasts or Friday’s off in the summer months. This is not culture, and the post Covid expectations in our ways of working should have confirmed the superficiality of these perks to any agency leaders who thought that such benefits were shaping the culture of their agency.

Agency culture is hard and tangible (not soft and intangible) and can be actively shaped by the leadership (credit to Chris Hirst for identifying and applying this when he was leading agencies). Examples of agencies in which the leadership has actively shaped the culture include Adam&Eve, Wieden & Kennedy, Lucky Generals, The Martin Agency, and amongst the more established global networks Ogilvy, BBDO and Leo Burnett.

Like anything that is successful, and sets you apart from the competition, culture has to be worked at and there are times when agencies have had to re-boot, recognising that the secret sauce that is their culture needs some attention. But anyone who has worked at or with these agencies when they have been at their best will recognise what I’m talking about.

In conclusion, if I were ever in the position of needing an advertising agency’s services, yes I’d look at the work (but lots of agencies do good work). Far more importantly, I’d want to meet the people, walk the creative floor (not on a Monday or Friday) and make my judgement on these defining characteristics – people and culture.