Who should run your PR these days? Traditional agencies or digital shops?
It’s an important question as more brands begin experimenting with social and mobile agencies that are far ahead of their traditional counterparts. But are new social media agencies equipped to handle everything a brand might need? What happens when the blogs, tweets, facebook and other social work is done? There has to be more right?
Check out this bit from an article at eConsultancy:
Advertising agencies may be shifting toward becoming one stop shops for online and offline advertising needs, but marketers aren’t buying just yet. According to a new study from Forrester, only 23% of digital marketers think that traditional shops are capable of executing interactive marketing.
But digital shops aren’t taking over the world just yet. According to the study, interactive marketers aren’t ready to put their whole brand in the hands of digital agencies. Forrester says there is a “great race” going on between digital and traditional agencies to win the accounts and confidence of major brands. But the idea that there can be a one-stop-shop for all advertising needs may be wishful thinking as goals and channels diversify.
I definitely agree that there is a “great race” going on between traditional and new agencies. And it will definitely take some time to work out. That being said, my money is on new agencies taking more and more of a leading role in marketing brands and businesses.
Why?
1. Traditional Agencies are “Stuck on Stupid”
Traditional agencies exude a 20th Century mindset that is all about control, protection, crisis management and most of all, gate-keeping. In other words, the exact antithesis of everything the social world is about. Traditional agencies are full of creative people, no doubt. But they are also led by people who rose to prominence when the rule set was different. When the rule set said: get magazines and newspapers to cover your brand, advertise with them, and bang for your buck will follow. The bureaucratic mentality numbs the nerves. They broadcast well, but they are lost when it comes to listening. It’s not embedded in their DNA.
And those rules have been demolished. We are inhaling their ashes daily.
The value in traditional PR firms, from what I can tell, is that they have access to the power players. Whoever that is. Newspapers, Magazines, TV Producers. Except, newspapers and magazines are going out of business, or already have. And television has become so fragmented that it doesn’t even matter if you air an ad on the CBS Evening News Hour. People aren’t watching that! I mean, old people are. But they don’t spend money and aren’t a coveted demographic except for Viagra and heart meds. People are watching cable, watching TV online, recording their shows and skipping over ads anyway.
2. New Agencies Inculcate a Culture of Experimentation
The primary reason that traditional agencies are going to win this race though is because they prize the philosophies of the social world: experimentation, creativity, engagement, listening, dialog. New agencies aren’t afraid to make mistakes. PR companies fear nothing more than bad PR. They sit around and wait for it.
New agencies take these things in stride. Embedded within their thinking is the knowledge that in business, bad things WILL happen, even OUGHT to happen. And they are not to be feared but to be learned from. Once you accept that there are some things not in your control, the idea of waiting around for the shit to hit the fan becomes obsolete. Rather, its better to just accept it is going to happen sooner or later and be prepared for when it does.
3. Traditional PR Firms Can’t Catch Up
This might be the real kicker here. By the time that traditional PR firms catch up to what is going on in social media, which even now they still seem to be having trouble with, the mobile and social firms will be WAY ahead of them. Can a traditional PR firm do a 3 month crash course in social media marketing, learn the tactics, observe what not to do, catch up on the foundational documents of social media?
Yes, they can. And I’ll applaud them loudly when they do. But by the time they do, new agencies will have been pushing the conversation forward. They’ll have learned 20 new tricks, made a bevy of mistakes and already be incorporating that new knowledge into their work. . They’ll be that much more ahead of them. And that early lead will increasingly turn into a blow out.
Am I way off the reservation here? Let me know…totally expecting to get my head ripped off on some of my claims…so have at it!
Image Source: Kevin Dooley on Flickr
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
I’ll start by saying I’m not going to rip your head off, haha. However, I think your logic only works for start-ups or privately held companies. Not to single out Brooklyn, but what do a bunch of hipster operating out of a loft know about compiling with SEC guidelines for public companies and working under Reg FD? Or how to deal with the FDA during clinical trials? As I said to you on Twitter, there is a lot more that goes on in PR than just dealing with the media. I would love to see an agency that specializes in social media or the digital world deal with insider trading, M&As, protesters, etc.
I think traditional agencies will have a much easier time learning the online world than a digital agency will have learning SEC legal mumbo jumbo.
.-= Steven Melfi´s last blog ..“AT&T: Tighter control of cell data usage ahead” via AP =-.
I think you are right in that for start ups or privately held companies, or at least certain brands or businesses where regulations don’t come into play, Traditional Firms have a huge leg up. But just as traditional firms can learn digital, social or digital firms can go back and learn how to do everything that you talked about.
I think the difference is that the younger players will have that mistake engine built in so once they make a mistake, it’s not made again.
And for the time being, i think the reality is that big brands or products where the kind of regulations you are talking about come into play, won’t have a solely social marketing effort, and that there will be collaboration…
thanks for the comment!
Z
And I meant complying with SEC, not compiling. Maybe digital agencies have me on typing.
.-= Steven Melfi´s last blog ..“AT&T: Tighter control of cell data usage ahead” via AP =-.
I think you need to find the right blend of both based on your clientele. Your presentation on why its important that Twitter turned off its retweet function, or what makes digg so special might go over there heads and come across as a bit condescending. And as long as the NY Times and Wall Street Journal are around, traditional PR from the standpoint of crisis management and messaging will always be vital. Don’t forget about the audience too. Only 1 or 2% of the country is out there using Twitter. The rest still read the dead tree version of the news.
Right now I think a good campaign links both the traditional and the digital world with the traditional media coverage supplying your digital content, and your digital content calling attention to traditional media you might have missed while spending all day on TweetDeck.
Karl
Think you are right in that for now, a combination is best. The eConsultancy article definitely touched on the fact that only about 20% of brands thought that their non trad marketing firms could handle their entire brand.
Of course, that 20 % matters a whole heck of a lot. I expect that number to rise to parity within a year or two at the most.
But yes, a combo is best…especially considering that digital marketing firms are usually smaller, have lower overhead, and don’t cost as much.
Personally? I am raising rates!
Z
I have been dealing with this very issue in the last few days. A customer just signed on a PR firm and has been dragging his feet for months on engaging his twitter account. Telling a client that he is wasting money/time/efforts and has made a regrettable decision when hiring the wrong way can backfire and can easily appear as a rapacious move on my part. The other side of the issue is that when you do find a customer with budding interest in social marketing, it gets to be really fun. I agree with your strong and unequivocal language; how else does one set a direction?
Very interesting take on traditional PR agencies. As a traditional legacy PR guy myself, I have a different perspective. I tried not to read too much into you saying that PR agencies are big slow and stupid.
Honestly PR and upstart social media agencies could probably learn from each other and could temp co-exist, but for most industries I expect that traditional PR will win out. Swing by and let me know what you think about my take on your blog: http://tonymackeypr.blogspot.com/
By the way, thanks I didn’t have a good blog idea for today until I read your piece.
.-= Tony Mackey´s last blog ..Social Media and PR – Can’t We All Get Along? =-.
Tony
Thanks for the comment and I agree that there is some strong middle ground. And yes, I am sure that many traditional PR companies will retool and succeed in this new world of social media. I will applaud that when they do.
But it will be the fight of their lives.
That is not in doubt
Z
No comment of substance but like the thought leader post and say that picture about sums it up.
{ 13 trackbacks }