Feeding The Lions

Seems that the snubbing of Big Spaceship by BBDO in regard to the gold Cyber Lion for the HBO Voyeur site is causing a bit of a stir. After reading the above two quotes by Mr. Rosenshine (from earlier this year) it starts to make a little sense. When you read the response of BBDO's current chairman and CCO, David Lubars, it becomes even more clear:

"Ideas are timeless. Ideas are what inspire people. Ideas are the root of all execution. On 'Voyeur,' BBDO thought of the idea, shot the idea, then brought in Big Spaceship to do what they do. They did a great job (and we've made every effort to acknowledge them). What's the issue? Maybe Cannes should consider the idea of a Palme d'Or for digital production."

While on the surface this appears to be an argument about who should have received credit for an award, I think it's really a bit more than that. In fact, it just might not be about the award at all. It's not even just about BBDO and Big Spaceship. Instead, what it's really about is money and control and a big network agency not wanting to lose any bit of either with any of their clients.

BBDO wants to retain control over as much of their client relationships and budgets as they can. By painting Big Spaceship as just a vendor/production house who executed BBDO's idea, BBDO positions themselves as the power-player with the ideas and strategic leadership. They're essentially saying, "Without our idea, Big Spaceship never would have pulled this off."

It also works to present Big Spaceship as the equivalent of a talented photographer or director that BBDO might use on a print or TV ad campaign. Yes they bring value to the overall work, but the clients wouldn't ever just go to the (TV) director or (print) photographer directly. They need BBDO to come up with the strategy and ideas first. Then the director or photographer get involved.

In saying Big Spaceship was just the digital producer, they're saying that the clients still very much need BBDO first and foremost.

The bigger behind the scenes issue here is that BBDO and the other major agency networks are often sitting on significant contracts from big clients to be their lead brand agencies. The BBDOs of the world want to keep things as they are. Meanwhile, smaller agencies working on small- to medium-sized projects here and there for bigger clients are wanting a bigger piece of the pie and can't get to it because of these contracts.

If it becomes clear to the clients that other agencies can and are pitching-in great ideas on the work being done for them, it doesn't bode well for the enormous retainers the network agencies have grown to love. So, if BBDO admits that Big Spaceship played a larger role in this, it begs the question of why wouldn't HBO just start to work with Big Spaceship directly on some future projects.

Not only that, but it could additionally raise eyebrows around the globe as to whether or not the traditionally air-tight contracts between large agencies and their clients need some re-tooling to allow for more flexibility in the modern age of marketing. (The answer is yes, they could and should.)

All of this is symptomatic of the biggest issue facing the ad industry right now - massive change. Any time you're dealing with large-scale change, there are bound to be conflicts, frustrations and turf wars. Both BBDO and Big Spaceship are doing what's best for their respective companies here and you really can't fault either of them.

What's tough for BBDO is that by pushing down Big Spaceship and fighting to claim they deserve all the credit, they're making themselves look like the big bully who doesn't get today's culture of openness and collaboration and instead showing that they're stuck in the era of control and possessiveness. As Clay Shirky points out, that might not work out so well...

And if that doesn't say it clearly enough, I don't know what will.

Comments

[Ana]

First thing that crossed my mind in relation to Mr. Rosenshine's comment on the Internet vs. the "emotional content" of branding was Burger King's Whopper Freakout campaign, http://www.whopperfreakout.com/index.html

Also, if one wants to look further than just messages in thinking about capacity of the internet to deliver emotional experiences in relation to branding, think about these responses "i LOVE google", "i HATE [insert site name]", "I spent 6 hours a day on Facebook", "i was nervous about eBay bidding", etc. These are all pretty emotional responses and all come from people actually using digital brands - and not from some emotional message about those brands....

Also, in terms of ideas vs. execution concept: i don't think that there's a dychotomy between the two actually -- but more of a "bird's nest" approach -- someone prototypes something or has an idea, let it "out there" and allow other people to add to it, and then add some more, and the final result is not what you predicted, but it may be something even better.

One can also say that Rosenshine vs. Big Spaceship = medium is the message. There is no idea separate from its execution.

In conclusion, this may make us rethink the dynamics (conceiving, planning, implementing) of our marketing campaigns. Traditionally, most of creative efforts and majority of budget was spent before the campaign launches. But if most ideas are added after the campaign launch - i.e. in people's interaction with the campaign, than creative efforts and budget should be redistributed. In the past, most campaigns launch and immediately start losing value (how many times do you really want to see an ad, no matter how funny or "emotional" it is?). On the Internet - and with digital in general, launching un-finished "product" actually increases its value as the time passes. Think iPhone applications; think Nike Plus; think your Netflix movie recommendations. Or, if you want to stay in realm of messages, think comments/searches/blog posts/tags/youtube spoofs that your ad campaign generated.

[Shoneequah]

Love your post, Paul. Even though it is online. Reminds me a bit of our conversation at lunch yesterday... :)

[Anjali]

Very interesting post. Quite a few people have been mentioning the issue of the big agency trying to safeguard its interests. In the current climate, they don't have an option but to start paying attention to the smaller agencies because some bigger agencies are so steeped in their ancient way of doing things, the smaller ones are a better value proposition for clients. And even though digital and integrated agencies (for the large part) are trying to define themselves right now, they have an advantage in that they are going with the flow rather than trying to stop it and steer it in their direction for their selfish purposes.

[matt]

Hi Paul.
Fantastic post. I''ve begged , borrowed and stole a few pieces for my opinion here:
http://www.gottaquirk.com/post/1469/ideas-and-money-moving-online;jsessionid=99A709CB2D66C91373AC5F9E5C5E0F10

[Jacob Wright]

LOL@ fail post.

SRSLY.

It might help to turn the Shirky quote around and apply it to digital agencies. Why are digital agencies frequently not at the top table with the client?

In my experience its because they cannot look beyond their medium (the "professional mindset") to the big idea that transcends media.

Voyeur is exactly the kind of big, ambitious idea that big, ambitious agencies do well. I have time and time again rescued my clients' digital agencies from failing to crack the brief by giving them strong steers and starter ideas which, often as not, end up as the final web idea. And guess what? I don't get any credit.

Now I don't really care because most of the time this stuff isn't going into awards. But in the case of a great idea, BBDO are absolutely right to assert ownership, and claim credit.

Of course a good digital agency producing a TTL agency's idea do have a significant input. Just like a director does. But the precedent is set by the relationship between agency and director - it's the originator of the idea who deserves credit, not the executor.

The trouble is that clients want to have it all. They want integrated campaigns across all media. But they also want competition between multiple agencies. Now the two are not mutually exclusive but they are damn hard to pull off. And in a situation like that someone has to have the idea first, and someone has to execute it. And funnily enough, most of the time the big idea that works across media comes from the people who have experience at doing exactly that.

[suz]

the comment "it's the originator of the idea who deserves credit, not the executor" is asinine. people can sling the best ideas all day long but if they're executed poorly then the idea is dead. no matter the medium.