Week Notes // 16th October
The process of writing these notes is probably stopping me from actually writing something of consequence. But, having said that, the process and practice is helping. Stuff is coming out of my head and onto the page quicker and with slightly more clarity.
And, it’s helping me make connections. Joining dots between stimulus to alight on potential angles for new thinking that I can commit to paper. Two topics are taking shape. As I’d mentioned in last week’s notes, there is probably something quite interesting to be explored in the question of ‘what next for advertising agencies’. Almost as soon as Campaign published that article WPP announced the merger of VMLY&R and Wunderman Thompson, two entities which were themselves the product of mergers. There was also a study published by the WFA suggesting that only one in ten marketers think their media agency is fit for purpose.
It’s easy to get sunk in the quagmire of the ‘end of days’ narrative. The agency sector is too big and filled with people who are too smart for it to die out completely. So, if it’s not death then it has to be evolution, right? The likes of Uncommon and Lucky Generals have proven that even good old fashioned adverts, when done right, are still a very viable business model. No wonder they get snapped up by the likes of TBWA and Havas, respectively. M+A is a route to change and to growth…especially when legacy structures prove too significant a barrier to incumbent networks changing as quickly as they would like. Similarly, stars of the screen such as Idris Elba and Ryan Reynolds are building creative companies from the ground up. The world of influence is still inherently interesting and full of commercial potential (as this brilliant article in The Face about the boxing match between Tommy Fury and KSI demonstrates) - but has the industry backed itself into a corner? Has it become overly efficient? Has it forgotten what made it special, losing it’s magic? And ultimately, is it over supplied to the point where the client now wields the power to either replicate the same capability elsewhere or perhaps more interestingly, can go places which negate the need for difficult conversations (either financially or strategically)?
So the question then becomes: what if you were launching a communications business today? What would that look like? What would you sell? Who would you staff it with. Why would it be unique and why could advertisers not simply build a version inhouse? I think you could ask ten people and get ten different answers. It’s an interesting question to explore. I wrote the chart below for a recent presentation. I keep coming back to it. It’s a useful prompt.
The second thing I’m interested in exploring relates to the state of challenger brands, especially within the current economic context. In a recent edition of his new Podcast, Adam Morgan says this of Challenger Brands, that they are organisations who really want something and are impatient to get it. A cursory glance at some of the ‘second wave’ of challengers - people like Oatly, or Van Moof - shows that now that the era of ‘cheap money’ has ended it is creating some financial challenges. Often, these brands are accused by analysts on Wall Street and the The City of over-expanding. Accused of being impatient, in the context of Morgan’s statement. Is it a result of this impatience, that means when the market slows or falters, some find themselves being left without a chair when the music stops? Do the deep rooted foundations of ‘boring, grey’ incumbents make them more adept at weathering the storm of a recession and all that comes with it (increased cost of borrowing, squeezed household budgets etc etc)? A question I keep coming back to is whether challenger brands, or at least early stage ones, are a regulatory force: creating jeopardy for incumbents. And does this jeopardy force the smart incumbents to innovate and change the way they provide for their customers?
Finally….
Had plenty of time to spend reading, watching and listening this week (some of which is already captured in the above)
I am nearing the conclusion of Doppelganger: for anyone interested in modern media, it’s effects on the spread of information and how it fuels extreme views I would highly recommend it. Klein quotes James Baldwin at one stage, noting “an invented past can never be used; it cracks and crumbles under the pressures of life like clay in a season of drought… to accept one’s past - one’s history - is not the same as thing as drowning in it; it is learning how to use it”. The quote called to mind the discussion last week between Mark Ritson and Jon Evans on The Uncensored CMO podcast - a conversation which talked about how brands could find gold in their archives: old adverts, old assets and ideas and insight into why the company started. This sort of material can be useful scafolding: not just for culture inside a company but for the way it interacts with culture outside the organisation too. Lastly, Autumn is here, with it comes lots of new telly. Enjoyed The Fall of the House of Usher on Netflix and looking forward to watching Bodies too.
On the working and doing front it’s been an unusual week. I have half term off, so last week was mainly spent trying to start or advance projects to the point where I could switch the computer off. Enjoyed conversations with Andrew and Charlie about side-projects and how to approach them. Out of the conversation with Andrew came an instruction to ‘make it smaller’. To keep reducing ideas and reducing ideas until there is barely anything there. Validate this. Then expand. A good reminder and a useful provocation. As someone once said - things should be as simple as possible, but no simpler.
