Tue 21 Apr 2009
In-house versus Agency
Posted by Mike Bawden under Account Service, Corporate Leadership
[3] Comments
No, it’s not the latest iteration of Mad’s classic “Spy vs Spy” comic drama.
When it comes to advertising creative, it doesn’t always have to come down to an “all or nothing” proposition, does it? For small and mid-sized businesses especially, the hard reality is that many times the design, content and sometimes finished production of a piece needs to be done in-house or it won’t get done at all. Some agencies look the other way, some get all “high and mighty” about it.
Here’s the reality: it’s gonna happen, get over it.
I lay part of the blame for this conflict on old-line agency thinking (that died off in the early 80′s, although nobody quite realized it then). Contrary to that particular group-think, the agency/client relationship IS NOT like a marriage. In fact, it’s not anything like a marriage.
It’s a business relationship – and it’s built on pragmatic, self-interest.
S.A. Habib, writing in the Brand Tracks blog, opined on the dangers of a client taking its creative work inside. The post made some good points, among them:
[F]or every dollar saved by doing in-house creative, you’re losing five in the erosion of your brand. … I’m not saying that all in-house creative departments are inept. On the contrary, many companies, including some of our own clients, employ talented designers and writers.
The problem is something far more serious — tunnel vision.
Whether it’s a CEO, sales guy or in-house creative person, when people look at the product through the eyes of the company, they’re not thinking about the customer. Over time — and not much time — your brand stops communicating with your customer. Your competitors’ smart ads and creative communications steal your market share, and your marketing director is left trying to explain why sales are down.
But all this good thinking aside, it ignores a financial reality that most small and mid-sized businesses face: sometimes, there just isn’t enough money to use “the experts” on every assignment.
So how should an agency, consultant or hired gun do? The answer is simple: focus on the big picture. Make sure the strategy is sound and position yourself to be there if and when the wheels come off. In S.A.’s defense, he does advocate a collaborative approach between agency and client to make sure the client becomes involved in the process.
From a professional marketer’s perspective, this is about more than just keeping the production work and making the account profitable, though.
At our PR firm, my partner and I concentrate on helping clients define strategy, market position and key messages. We do a lot of planning and then hand parts of those plans off to other agencies to implement. (Hey, there are only two of us and we don’t want to add a lot of staff.)
But even though it looks like we’re giving away a lot to third parties, we maintain the high ground with the client and help maintain an objectivity that can only be provided by an outsider.
Concentrate on providing the value that can only be provided from outside the four walls of the client and you’ll find plenty of productive (and profitable) middle ground on which to work.





Your position as you describe is valid and noble. But we all know that the vast majority of clients do not or can not implement the big picture as much as you hope they will. There are just certain things the agency/consultant “gets” because they have been living and breathing it for months or years while some ideas may be new to the client. Once you leave the room, half of these people will forget what you said as well as not be able to answer one of 100 questions that will assuredly come up internally. Plus all important client stakeholders are not always involved no matter how hard you try. My advice — find yourself a small shop or a virtual shop that can give you more bang for your buck.
I totally understand where you’re coming from – we’ve all worked with a client or two who weren’t the brightest bulb in the box. But that can be said for plenty of agency folks, too.
I think we, as counselors and advisors, run a horrible risk if we dismiss the vast majority of clients as dispassionate, ignorant noobs who don’t care about their own future.
But as I think about your post, Chuck, I think this may be a case of both of us seeing the same situation and just calling it differently. I think there’s as much value in thoughtfully selecting your clients as clients see in carefully selecting their agency/agencies.
FWIW. (Maybe there’s another blog post in there trying to get out. Hmmmm.)
Thanks for the feedback.
Mike Bawden
Brand Central Station
Perhaps you are right. But even with the perfect scenario, i.e. best intentioned agency and best intentioned client, I see the potential for a huge drop off after the agency has done its best. In today’s eviron, clients run so lean that the best of people are stretched way too thin. And while clients can execute somethings just fine, I have found their efforts at anything beyond basic to be lacking. And maybe I have just not worked with the right clients…