What seems to have been forgotten is that the creative is paramount to a campaign; it can mean, quite literally, the difference between success or failure for many businesses -- particularly within B2B communications.
In direct mail, a well thought-out, "get everyone talking" piece will captivate and generate response. A dull, grey and boring piece is worth little more than the paper it is printed on. The creative is often underestimated and undervalued.
The DMA's recent introduction of the agency rate card clearly doesn't take into consideration that some creative is simply "better" than others and that the same price tag can not be applied to all agency work. How can you put a fixed price tag on something that works, and the same price on something that doesn't? I appreciate that fee negotiation is a tricky subject but with the creative it has to be argued that a set fee is more than a little naive.
When an agency produces a dazzling direct marketing masterpiece that is innovative and thought provoking, it ultimately generates revenue for its client far in excess of the initial client investment. So is it necessarily "fair" to reward an hour of thought involved in accordance with a rate card?
I would have to argue simply, no. Value should be placed on the ideas, on the ability to achieve the desired result. Not on the time spent, not on the materials used, but on the thoughts, the creations, for that special something that the agency clearly possesses above others.
Good agencies need to understand the value of their work, not be forced to think of it in with the same terms as all the other dross out there. All creative agencies are different, producing a varying quality in work, which is the precise reason why the rate card is not appropriate within creative circles.
One solution offered throughout the years, prior to the introduction of the rate card, has been payment by results (PBR), a valid concept, albeit nothing new. In my experience, clients only want to pay when a campaign works but even then, only pay as little as possible. Those clients will undoubtedly love the rate card.
I note that Mike Barnes, DMA director of marketing and business development, suggests that in time the rate card may evolve to incorporate factors such as number of agency employees and location.
Well, for such an agency as Birddog, with a proven portfolio of high creativity and even higher results, I envisage further rate card related problems lie ahead. Birddog is based in Hampshire and employs less than 20 staff. Accordingly to the DMA's thinking, we deserve to be paid, in the future perhaps, a lower rate than a company in Central London employing hundreds, without even accounting for the creative ability. Can I just question what that is all about? Size really isn't everything.
This is challenging ground. The introduction of a rate card is a nice idea in principle as a guideline for the client, but why not just specify a project and ask the agencies you're interested in working with to cost it? Review their portfolio for creativity and performance then make your decision -- pay the price or don't. Let the market decide.
The bigger rate card picture highlights obvious flaws, especially relating to the creative agencies. How should creative agencies tackle this? It would be a great idea for agencies to be financially rewarded for excellent creative but the problem lies with measurement and formulae for measurement. Results are easily measured with direct marketing campaigns but how would PBR work for brand strategy development and delivery?
At the end of the day, the creative needs to be embraced for what it is -- a series of inspiring concepts that deliver added value. Concepts do not have a fixed price -- they have an agreed price.
If you have an opinion on this or any other issue raised on Brand Republic, join the debate in the .