No Mission, no Culture -- No Agency

Fair warning, this entry is a long one. Apologies for that but hopefully the length is worth the read.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The congruities between business and advertising and military planning and operations have always struck me.

Like advertising, armies don't "make anything" -- there is no product they produce other than, I guess, destruction and death, so perhaps unmaking is something of their business, however armies like advertising agencies are only as good as the soldiers who show up every day.

And like armies, agencies win or lose their battles, which is success for the client, on morale and sense of purpose.

I'm reminded of a history recounted by Napoleon's secretary Louis de Bourrienne whose memoirs of Napoleon have largely served as a "look behind the curtain" on the man that conquered most of Europe in the name of the French Revolution.

One of Bourrienne's anecdotes has always stuck in my mind and has been one of my guiding principles in management.

I believe it was during the Danube campaign (which largely took place in what is now the German state of Bavaria but at the time was a separate kingdom allied with France) wherein Napoleon was facing (as always) a larger army fielded by the Austrian Empire. After some initial maneuvering battles which gained the French the geographic and strategic upper-hand, the Austrians tried to slow the French advance by sending light calvary behind the French Army. This essentially cut the French off from any reinforcements, communications, food etc. For most armies of the time, being cut off in this matter was serious concern -- they would not be able to feed the army and, more importantly for imperial armies which largely were manned by mercenaries, to pay the troops which would very quickly led to mass desertions.

The Austrians had hoped that this would force Napoleon to counter-march, i.e. turn around, and march back toward France to reopen the roads. Napoleon, as always, responded to this by continuing to follow his strategy, in other words continuing to marching forward and, in this case, onward into Bavaria.

The campaign would end in what would be a series of running battles across a fifty mile front over three days culminating in the Battle of Eckmuhl which was a serious tactical defeat for the Austrian Empire and ended their designs on Bavaria.

On the eve of these battles, Bourrienne recounts his warning Napoleon that the pay for the army was still being intercepted by the Austrian calvary and that the army would be going to battle without pay and that it might be wise to counter-march to open the roads to France instead of undertaking a large battle. Bourrienne's implication being that because the French troops hadn't been paid for nearly two weeks they wouldn't have the morale to fight.

Bourrienne recounts that Napoleon initially said nothing but continued to examine the campaign maps. Bourrienne, thinking Napoleon hadn't heard, in a louder voice started to warn Napoleon again, to which Napoleon cut him off:

"My dear, Bourrienne, do you really think that men join an army, to wake every morning before dawn, to march 20 kilometers a day in the heat and the rain and the snow, and do it day after day, and do so often without food, far away from their wives and their families the prospect of which is that they will be fired upon by the enemy, all for a palm full of gold?

Do you, Bourrienne, after all this time?*

No, Bourrienne, men march for an idea. They march because they believe in something that the man next to them does as well. Ideas are what our armies are made of and why against every army arrayed against us, and always outnumbered, we are successful.

Bourrienne, in two hours every soldier in this army shall begin to wake as they do every morning, they will check their powder, musket and bayonet, and they will take to the line, and in three hours they will be facing the first of the cannonballs and many will watch their comrades die and quite possibly fall themselves. They are veterans, they know this, but Bourrienne, they will not run -- they shall stand and they shall fight and they shall win and they shall do so without a palm full of gold.

 

Now surely in advertising we are not fighting for the freedom of an ally, nor democracy, nor keeping our homes safe, nor to bring enlightenment to the world and typically our days don't end under small arms fire.

However, we often ask our people to put in endless hours, to be interested in and to live their clients' brands, to work through last minute changes of campaigns they have toiled months on, spend endless weekends and nights working on new business, or filling in for sick or missing team members and do so with a positive enough attitude that they will simply take up the next impossible request with the poise, confidence and initiative that were instrumental in solving the last impossible task they were given.

I have found that the agencies that simply rely on the fact that people are getting paid and don't give their people a sense of why they are different, why they should come to work in the morning, why they are working with the person next to them are those that overpromise and underdeliver, those with which clients seem chronically unhappy, those that can't seem to keep anyone on a business longer than six month, and are the ones that start losing an account the second it is won

If I was a client in a new business process I think I would pay a lot less attention to the agencies' presentations, their purported differentiated process, their "tools" and pay a lot more attention to what it feels like to walk around the hallways and see if the people there are working with a purpose and with people whom they would want to be in their foxhole.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

* Bourrienne and Napoleon were in he same class at military school, and Bourrienne had served as side-kick and secretary since that time and they had been through a number of campaigns by the time of the Danube Campaign recounted here.

The Digital Taliban

Advertising and marketing clients and agencies seem to have a need for novelty. When I say need, it is something like needing Heroin -- the industry just can't break the trend drug.

The industry lurches from one fad to the next and everyone tries to outdo the next guy on how up-to-date and "with it" they are on the trend du jour. Remember Optimizers? remember Econometric Modeling?

In our defense creating "trends" and recognizing them is pretty much what we do, and we haven't cornered the market on lemming-like behavior, just look at Wall Street.

However, at base we are hired by our clients to act as their agents and councilors on the marketplace and how they should take advantage of these trends or sussing out if the trend is just mere snake oil. But all too often in our rush to appear like we are different than the next guy and part of "in" crowd, we end up being cheerleaders for those things that we should be taking a skeptical look at.

Digital is our newest trend and has developed its own Talibanic following. Yes digital has been around for a while and for a long time it was almost wholly (and wrongfully) ignored; we now seem to have done a 180 and to not a big and largely blind supporter of any digital trend or company isn't tolerated.

This has become so prevalent that the very people that clients have been paying to offer them advice on how to take advantage of the new and changing playing field have become unskeptical cheerleaders for whatever is new.

A case in point was an article published last week by the digital head of a fairly large agency in one of the trade publications; the topic of the article was the coming ascendancy of Facebook and Twitter in the mobile marketplace. The point of the article was largely to say that both Facebook and Twitter would become arbiters on the mobile marketplace because they had "nailed" tracking of mobile users. (Mobile usage is difficult to track as one can't drop cookie on mobile devices).

The problem is that nothing in the article is anywhere near fact:

1) Yes mobile usage is going up but how does it follow that Facebook and Twitter are going to become the main beneficiaries of that growth even if they have better tracking?

2) The fact is that both companies are increasingly having a hard time being relevant. Twitter investors are running for the door because they can't make any money and Facebook for the first time lost users last month. They had a 1% drop in US unique users. 1% is a small percentage but when you are as big as Facebook, 1% means that 1.4 million people who previously were using Facebook just didn't bother to login in the past month. Nothing says "you got trouble" for a media outlet than when people can't even be bothered to log-in, or tune-in, or read anymore.

3) Add to this the fact that young demo cohorts almost universally don't see the point of Facebook and Twitter and think they are yesterday's technology and really only useful as a way for them to "keep up with mom" and things are only going to get worse for both companies.

4) Last I heard, most advertisers were feeling the jury was out on the effectiveness of advertising on both Facebook and Twitter. Very few are finding that there is ROI there. So saying that somehow better ability to track is going to make everything great just doesn't... well... track.

5) Far from "nailing" mobile tracking, just off the top of my head, I can think of at least two other tracking services, and three other trading desks and other media owners who are much closer to "nailing" it and doing it across all media.

Now it is everyone's right to have an opinion and say what they wish. The trade magazine in which the article appears allows comments to stimulate conversation and the whole of the industry is welcome to comment and discuss this as well as any other opinion.

But here's where the orthodoxy and the Digital Taliban come in.

Is a conversation developing around this opinion?

Sadly, no, there was only one comment on this article, which praised the article as "a really good post" and the article has been passed on 86 times on Facebook, 132 times on Twitter, and 110 times on Linked In all of which I assume were positive. How many times have you passed on an article you thought questionable?

Now if I'm a client I have to start wondering just what sort of advice am I getting on my digital plans from my agency and just how deep the person who is supposed to be guiding my investing is in the Digital Taliban.

Publicis and Facebook Announce...A Tempest in a Teacup

You might have already read the WSJ announcement last night that Publicis and Facebook have signed a multi-year, multi-million dollar deal. If you haven't read it, one can read it here: http://on.wsj.com/1vAksHD

The article explains that the deal will give Publicis enhanced data to use for targeting and that they will be able to use Video on Facebook/Instagram (owned by Facebook) to a greater degree, and that Facebook will be receiving a substantial amount of spend from Publicis clients.

I have already had a couple of emails this morning asking about how this deal is going to affect the marketplace.

Details in the article are vague, but I do suspect that It will have an effect, but not just for Publicis but for everyone.

The fact is that Facebook announced several new API enhancements with regards to targeting, the use of video, and tracking across both Facebook and Instagram just three weeks ago.Those enhancements sound suspiciously like the ones mentioned in the article, the only difference is that they were announced as open to everyone.

In other words, every trading desk worth their salt is probably already working on how to incorporate this data into their buys and targeting, not just the buyers at Publicis

Equally, as Publicis client's (Verizon, Coca-Cola etc) probably already spend millions of dollars on Facebook and Instagram and are the sort of advertiser who would be jumping head first into the just announced use of video on the sites; I'm not sure that saying that FB is going to making millions is really news as they would probably would have in any case.

I think the biggest winner here is for the PR people who put the story together. Brewing what seems to be a tempest in a teacup is what they are paid for: They seem to have done their jobs very well.