I do sometimes hear an ad agency people say “we don’t care about creative awards, we are totally dedicated to each client’s business objectives”, especially when in front of clients. It makes me wonder whether they are lying (that’s bad), or that they are deluding themselves (which may even be worse), or if they are admitting that they simply aren’t good enough to win creative awards (and that’s not good either).
I think it is important to be grown-up, honest and up-front about conflicts of interest.e.g. Martin Sorrell wants to sell marketers stuff, his empire (like his competitors) will sell whatever marketers will buy that he can deliver profitably. This matters far more to the agency than whether or not it is the best way to build their clients’ brands.
Creatives want to win awards. And if this doesn’t sell a single extra of your product they aren’t really worried.
Media agencies want to do what they know, what’s easy, and they have to sell media space they have committed previously to buy.
Market research agencies want to sell standardised products, ideally that use automated data collection and analysis, or low-level people. They can’t make big profits from stuff that requires in-depth analysis by expensive people. They do far more R&D into reducing data collection costs than into better research.
Retailers want to win share from other retailers. They don’t care if this means selling another box of your product or not.
So partners yes. But there are conflicts in the system. This is fine, so long as everyone understands the conflicts then they can be managed – it’s possible for everyone to win. But pretending these don’t exist is dangerous.
Professor Byron Sharp