Back in the 1970s, we didn't care about the brand. We didn't know a creative director from a copywriter. We knew nothing about art direction, but in our eyes it didn't matter. All we cared about was cost per order or cost per customer. Clients didn't understand if or how we could be negatively affecting their businesses. We were out to sell as many products and services as inexpensively as we could.
Strategic planning. What was that? Research, at best, was a focus group. Client service directors were order takers. Media was mainly mail, using rented lists not segmented databases. It was mass mailings or two-minute commercials. We never integrated with the general agency campaign. We didn't care about the general agency and they didn't care about us.
Our knowledge about what worked and what didn't merely added to the overall confusion. The general agency controlled the account and the client. We were third-class citizens at best -- and there was no second class.
But I learned a lot. Especially about the power of media, strategic planning. And the quality a producer could add to the creative. What a brand was and how advertising could affect it. But clients wanted to know more about what we did, so the general agencies tolerated us and tried to figure out what to do with us. But we resented them; their control on the account.
So, we started to hire the best research, planning, media and creative people and said, "Let's figure this out together. Make what we do better and we'll make what you do work harder."
In the late 90s you could buy great talent. You could expand your reach, and learn about new things like digital and event marketing. But it was hard to integrate it all.
We added event marketing and digital capabilities, fully integrating them into our direct marketing and promotional roots. We were one-stop shopping below the line. We were different.
Think about what we did versus the way the general agencies came at it -- first they built great brand advertising shops, then they tried to bring full integration underneath it. We simply moved from direct marketing to full integration of below-the-line specialties.
We don't sell ourselves as a general agency, but we understand the role of branding in all of our disciplines.
When it comes to integration, the brand agencies still want to control strategy, but the below-the-line agencies are closer to the consumer through databases and segmentation. Who really understands them better, the general agencies or us? Maybe sometimes us? Sometimes them?
So I started thinking about when integration worked well and when it didn't. Maybe it's time for a seismic tweak, ie, time to stop arguing about who's in charge and come up with a new playbook.
Could it be that clients should choose their marketing partners based primarily on what type of business they're in? Perhaps we should all quit thinking we can work together the same way every time with every client.
What if we all came to accept -- agencies and marketers alike -- that for some categories or brands it makes more sense for the general agency to lead the way while with others, the below-the-line agency should take the pilot chair and the general agency should follow.
By general, I mean the classic brand advertising agency. With below-the-line shops, I'm referring to agencies which do full below-the-line integration. A third hybrid category: full integration agencies, where all of the disciplines, above and below the line, can work together seamlessly at one agency.
Here's how it can play out for different client categories:
General agency leads:
Below-the-line agency leads:
Full integration agency leads:
Some campaign examples of how this plays out. First, Bank of America, which uses the integrated model at the holding company level.
Two examples of where one agency -- either below-the-line or general -- takes the lead with outstanding results: an infomercial from L'Oreal, where McCann is the lead agency, but ID Media came up with a concept that brought this category of marketer into a new medium; and an example of where the below-the-line agency leads is Verizon, where Draft took the lead where a relatively small amount of budget is spent on general advertising by Verizon.
Two more fully integrated examples: Mitsubishi and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, by Deutsch and Draft respectively.
Will this seismic tweak work? A few months ago we decided to experiment with a new model. This idea of having the general agency lead in some cases and us lead in others. We call it Lowe Plus Draft. We're the first to say it's a work in progress. The genesis of this Lowe Plus Draft idea was a campaign for Saab in the UK. The outstanding results of the campaign showed us just how strong this concept is.
What makes the Lowe Plus Draft partnership and this campaign work is clear leadership. Respect. Understanding of everyone's discipline. If we don't have it, then everyone loses. We're coming together now. It gives me hope. We can build great brands and sales cost-effectively if we learn who should lead by category. Sometimes them and sometimes us. We may finally be on the right path to the future.
The above is an abridged version of Howard Draft's keynote speech at Cannes Lions Direct last week. Draft has become a pioneer and leader in direct and integrated marketing over the past 25 years.
If you have an opinion on this or any other issue raised on Brand Republic, join the debate in the .