Ask the experts. See what the smaller marketing agencies are saying...
The merger between advertising agency giants Publicis and Omincom is one of the biggest happenings in the industry for decades. We asked three MDs of smaller marketing agencies what they thought the impact would be for clients and how the landscape could change.
First, Becky McKinlay is Founder and MD of communications and marketing agency, Ambition.
As an ex-client who previously selected and managed agencies but now runs a smaller, independent marketing agency, the Omnicom/Publicis merge, and speculation around it, raises a number of questions.
It has always been our view that in many instances, smaller agencies, offer clients better value for money, client service, access to senior personnel, response speeds and often creative impact, than larger agencies. There is no argument that some big, global clients require the resource of the big network machines, but certainly not all.
There has also been much comment around the fact that the industry may need some consolidation and certainly the recent changes in spend patterns and remuneration models supports this. What is unknown, and will remain unknown for some time, is how this merge will ultimately benefit clients, staff and the industry as a whole.
Bidding power could become unbalanced
The increasing role of marketing procurement in client companies, plus some concerning trends in the development of client /marketing agency relationships, raises some considerations about both client choice and the role /opportunities for smaller, independent agencies.
For example, the recent coverage of Premier Foods requesting an agency to pay a considerable sum to be on their roster is a relevant point. Smaller agencies simply cannot afford to ‘buy’ clients in the way that larger ones may be able to – and in this particular example, the requirement to pay for the opportunity will limit client choice to only the agencies that are prepared, or can afford, to work this way. This also shows that some clients don’t fully understand how and where different types of agencies add different levels of value to client businesses.
Better for smaller marketing agencies?
In recent years, clients have required greater speed, commitment and flexibility in delivering final solutions from their agencies than ever before. From my client days, what I found most disappointing from the larger, network agencies was the seeming commitment to the account in the early days from senior agency personnel, only to see them all but disappearing from the account once appointed. Client access to senior agency staff is almost always easier and more regularly delivered in smaller agencies, than it is within large ones.
From an employee point of view, smaller agencies suit some staff who want to immerse themselves in particular client business and have more client exposure from day one, larger agencies provide broader opportunities to work on multiple accounts. But in my experience, clients want consistency, time investment and a relevant, informed perspective on their business from their agency team – not just an efficient process and a demand for them to fit in to the agency’s way of working.
Holding on to personability
The best client/marketing agency relationships are fulfilling and where experience is at play, they see each other as partners, both appreciating the other’s skill sets and expertise. The account teams are matched to their clients’ teams in terms of seniority and skill set and there is an open and robust dialogue between the two teams at all levels. To develop the best solutions for their customers, be they business or consumer audiences, clients need constant access to senior personnel who work as their partners and are seen and treated as such.
What remains to be seen is if these big groups can deliver the same level of service, strategic input and on-going commitment to their clients (whatever their size) as smaller agencies do.
