A lot has already been said about last night's IPA Social event, just look up #IPAsocial on Twitter to track the various tweets and posts about the night. A few of us (Becca, Chole, Nicolas, Paula) went along last night, we had a really good time, it was very thought provoking and genuinely interesting. But, something even more interesting happened while we were at 44 Belgrave Square: a massive fight broke out, but it quickly turned into a really good conversation.
They started it.
The fight started after we'd listened to some thought provoking talks from Mark Earls, Neil Perkin and Amelia Torode. Mark shared a distilled version of the talk given at Proximity on Monday night, minus that really cool video, and our Mexican wave was much better than IPA Socials! Neil and Amelia's slides are available via the magic of Slide Share on the IPA's site.
Commercial Break: That cool video from Monday night for those who missed it...
The scary bit
After the main presenters had spoken we had to break out into groups and attend 'hosted' conversations about related subjects. Scary because I don't think any of us signed up with the intention of actually speaking about anything. After some egging on from Paula & co., I hosted a conversation entitled: 'which agency discipline is best for social?'. Thankfully, I was joined by Paula, Becca, Chloe and Nicolas (so plenty of backup!). We were joined by Charlotte from New Media Age, Tim at Cake, someone who's name I forget (sorry!), Robin Grant of We Are Social, Priyanka at Rapier and Katy at Naked.
The Royal Rumble
Obviously, with the brilliant Silver Lion winning work from Debi and the RNLI team I was convinced that agencies like Proximity with a direct background are best placed to do social. After all, we invented the concept of one-to-one communications. Here's a question for you, was it (a) our direct background, (b) our digital background, or (c) that we are a digital & direct agency that made the RNLI campaign such a success?
The good conversation
The fight turned into a really good conversation when we picked up a point made earlier by Charlotte of New Media Age: 'which client department should own Social?' Is it PR, Marketing or Customer Services? Maybe we were arguing about the wrong thing, shouldn't social campaigns start within the client's business? In my opinion an agency can't speak for a brand, it'd be the equivalent of a ventriloquist act, someone would find us out. The exception to this being when there's a Meerkat like character who's obviously the creation of advertising. But, in every other instance the voice should be that of someone employed by the brand (Ford Motor Co. were shared as a good example).
All good to say that clients are best at social but...
Most client businesses aren't structured in a way that would make social possible, there are too many silos. And, it is not only structure but also ways of thinking that prevent conversation e.g. "we'll need to build in two days to get that tweet approved by our legal team?". So, for now clients still need guidance from agencies to create and continue conversations with their customers. And, where social is a "campaign" there's still a need for something agencies have always been best at - a creative idea.
And, if you're still wondering what type of agency is best for social campaigns just look at our RNLI case study.
Posts
11 comments:
It was a shame I couldn't come along. Sounded interesting.
I think one agency should lead the strategy, and a pool of agency people should feed into the conversation, to be honest. The more the merrier, to keep it moving along and fresh.
I don't agree about PR and brand narrative; in fact, I struggle to find high profile examples of cracking brand narrative like say Compare The Meerkat or anything which tells a proper story. 'Brand narrative' is a woolly term anyway; if it's a brand's voice, it should come from the brand itself, with agency advice.
Partisan bias aside, I'd agree that good collaboration definietly = better work.
hey there Nick, great post
I was that other guy in the group with you guys ;o) and I thought there was a really interesting point made that I totally agree with re who a client should trust with their social media strategies...
...they should trust the (agency) discipline most closely aligned with the role for social media they have identified ie
> if a brand needs to combat negative brand perceptions they should use a PR agency
> if its about generating sales leads or building communities that should be a direct or media agency
> or if its about extending and improving customer service brief the call centre to run it
media that is social ie connections that are created by and for other people is something that will affect us all and we all need to think about how our different disciplines can be the better for incorporating it in relevant and appropriate ways
thanks for hosting the discussion - really enjoyed it.
No-one argued for creative agencies being best placed as you didn't have anyone from those in agencies in your group!
;-)
I would have put up a pretty good defense I like to think.
@Amelia well spotted! And I am sure you would have. But, is it only ad agencies who are "creative agencies"?
(Fight, fight, fight...)
@6p00d8341fa9ad53ef you will forever remain anonymous as you didn't give away your name on your last post.
Perhaps that is his name and he has sadistic parents ... X
or, he's a robot i.e. C3PO and R2D2...
Great post! Like Amelia I would certainly have been fighting the battle for what you might call a "traditional" ad agency. My elevator pitch...
More often than not, we are the 'brand owners', and therefore we're best placed to bring social media upstream (rather than just an after-thought).
Social Media Marketing in basic terms is often about taking a brand personality online, and the ad agency most often has the strongest brand and consumer insights.
Ad agencies are better placed to think in terms of real business solutions, as opposed to fancy technical solutions.
If this is about 'social ideas' rather than simply social media campaigns, the thinking needs to take place at the core strategic and creative development.
I would say digital agencies more easily fall in the trap of technology and media first, consumer insight and idea second. Shiny new object syndrome alert!
But contrary to all this, when the lines are increasingly blurred, and agencies begin to drop the concept of "digital" vs. "traditional"; it really is an open playing field...
Hi Nick,
You're absolutely right. Collaboration=Better work.
I've been knocking a few heads together on other sites to no avail.
Some traditionalists will never change, so I let them get on with it.
Some people don't like change, others embrace it, I just think it's
inevitable. The next big question will be who is going to win through.
Virals on TV or ads on Computer. That's the big switch to watch, and
some people like Rupert Murdoch have already made moves.
It's going to be interesting now. Remember the Campaign article about
viral agencies when Campaign asked 20 heads to sit around the table
and discuss the future? Remember what happened next? Half of them
were bought-out. I'm sure they were relieved too, because the future
was unpredictable. Agencies were already losing money to the new
media, so they either had to absorb them or destroy them. It's much easier to absorb them, which in some ways is a shame. Clients could have helped here by providing a new budget for digital rather than stealing it out of the adbvertising budget. Clients who have done this have short-changed themselves because now both media are half as effective.
Going back to mergers and acquisitions, I'm glad agencies chose the former. It allowed the independent ones remaining, more room to prosper through fall-out, provided a choice for advertisers, and some stability. Why is this so important to have a choice?
Let's say a big agency cocks-up. They pull in an independent digital consultant. If the independent does not deliver, the independent gets changed untilthe right one is found. It saves the business from walking,
and that saves jobs. It also provides a hotbed of new digital talent.
Big agency integrates digital. Much greater control over the single-mindedness of an idea. If the two groups are in conflict only the client suffers. This way the dirty washing is not in the public domain, and there is a clear strategy being executed across the board. Clients like that too.
At the end of the day, it should be down to the client's needs.
Of course, then, the question is who does the client confide in?
That is the real tinderbox, and it's all about ego's.
Thanks for the sharing of such information.This is a great stuff of reading. I will pass it on to our audience. Thanking you. los angeles seo agency
Post a Comment