Big vs. Small
This is the simplistic theory of an industry that lives and thrives on simplification (of products, of brands): if your agency is small you are creative, your ideas sparkle like diamonds, you are so hot it hurts.
If your agency is gargantuan, you are a slovenly dinosaur, Godzilla Incorporated, a coldbed of creativity, so entangled in red tape that it would make any bondage fan faint with arousal.
Small agencies (creative consultants, boutiques, farms factories, brand doctors, idea-circuses, thought-spunkers, whatever they're called) have progressive philosophies. Large agencies have a financial plan. Small agencies pay respect to their staff (i.e. team members). Large agencies pay huge wages to keep their staff (i.e. employees).
Small agencies work with the client - only together can they make the brand strong. Large agencies have account people to keep the client at arms length - don't let them interfere in the advertising process.
So on, so forth.
But there are enough exceptions to disprove this child-theory.
TBWA GGT etc (I think there are more initials in their alphabetic soup of a name) have hundreds of people crammed into their London offices. Yet, they produce some highly creative and imaginative work (Playstation, fcuk) against the odds of a supposedly unmanageable size. The same can be said for Abbot Mead Vickers - take Guinness for example or the monster BMP DDB Needham - they produce the freshest work in the guise of Volkswagen.
Then, the flip side. The relatively small in comparison creative shit-hot-shop agency called St. Lukes in London has an envious philosophy that would make any creative worth her salt pay money to work there. Yet, their work is often embarrassingly bad (I would give examples but am unable to remember any - only their excellent Ikea campaigns manage to deliver). Somehow the self-proclaimed beautiful strategies get drowned; perhaps the result of too many planning meetings or team-building get togethers or too much reverence to 'our friend the client.' The outcome is bland, the antithesis of all that was promised.
Even Mother, London's baby-genius, can, perversely, be said to suffer because of its size. Highly fashionable, it doesn't manage to permeate the mainstream with creative work, and gathers a reputation by working for relatively small clients within the safe confines of a Face-reading target market. Mother works on a planet where over-design masks under-ideas.
Large agencies tend to surprise more by breaking beyond their heavy bulk to produce good ideas, even when they're burdened with briefs that seek global campaigns. When they pull it off, they are producing far more creative work than a small agency which has its sticky paws on a small dotcom client or micro-brewery. Small agencies get the juicy sub-brands where mistakes can be afforded. Larger agencies have to sweat with the main important brands. Real creativity is pulling off a fresh idea for a generic household product, not wacky ideas for a local bagel shop chain.
However, despite this inescapably obvious fact, big agencies believe the hype.
We can see large agencies panic in the face of all these youthful start-ups and desperately grow their own volcanic acne by opening up things called Creative Pods within their own networks. These are small cells protected against the big bad bureaucracy of the actual agency. The cells contain comfier sofas, funkier lighting and idea-rooms for clients. Cross through the door to the other side into the real agency, and you'll be back in the drab uniformity of greying filing cabinets and dusty vertical blinds.
What does this say, this invention of supposedly zesty mini-structures within the rusty infrastructure of the whole agency? Is it an admittance that their working methods are a mess? Would it not be better to invest the money in finding new ways to make their size more fluid, rather than avoiding the problem by dripping the essence of their creativity into a shielded shop?
Isn't it more valuable to think about restructuring the whole rather than disintegrating the parts? It's compartmentalising rather than bringing together. The future surely = disenfranchised disillusioned employees.
(And don't they know? The pod will doubtless break away once the fruits of their labour start to sprout. Soon they will become their own start up without the huge shadow of the big agency interfering all the time. This, of course, has its own problems as the new creative pod will get to fully develop its own highly original philosophy and meet agencies like St.Lukes on Up Your Own Arse Avenue.)
And what about seeking work? Big v. small, what should you choose? Smaller agencies promise freedom, but as often as not, weigh you down with their good intentions. Your way of thinking could become diluted by joining their cult.
Larger agencies, through the anonymity of the size, can offer more opportunities to mess about and make mistakes. If the larger agency has an editing suite tucked away in their basement, or access to all the computer programmes you dreamed of, or a couple of dv cameras knocking about, you can experiment without making so much as a dent in their revenue. A smaller agency may not have the resources to give you a chance to play.
The good larger agencies, if you fight for it, will see no harm in throwing you the moist rump steak of a top tv brief, whereas the smaller agency, despite their reputation for risks, might find that a radio commercial 6 months down the line is a difficult thing to hand to you. The best choice is to try both and see where it clicks. Many hate the Mafia like intimacy of small agencies, preferring the social web of larger outfits.
This rant doesn't really have an end. Only to say, I know where I would rather work. Please end the rant for me, by posting your agreements or otherwise:-
- Login or register to post comments
-
- Send to friend
Well, where do I begin…? I’ll break it down into three concepts: Creativity, Large vs. Small, and Restructuring
Most importantly creativity – It’s no secret in big agencies, that in-the-trenches staff creativity is squeezed out during group brainstorms, and the upper-level account staff (those with client contact) seem to get all the praise and client recognition. However I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen great concepts trashed by a stupid client. Clients are the deathblow to creativity, not whether it’s a big or small agency.
Award winning work is the result of a good agency allowed to do its job (namely be creative), by the client. Agencies dealing with clients who already ‘know‘ what is creative, will suffer. It’s a rule!
Next up… “We can see large agencies panic in the face of all these youthful start-ups…”
I think the statement is shortsighted. Big agencies have amazing mobility when it comes to responding to million-dollar RFP’s and exceedingly detailed client changes on tight deadlines. The smaller shops just can’t compete. Big agencies know the smaller agencies offer more personalize contact, however the panic is pure media myth. Big agencies deal in calculated risk, and small shops don’t scare them. Large agencies thrive on competition.
Lastly: “Isn't it more valuable to think about restructuring the whole rather than disintegrating the parts?”
This is a complicated, trick question. Can you really imagine an accounting department, on deadline, surrounded by couches and mood lighting? Not everybody can focus in a casual friendly environment. Restructuring a big ad agency is a needless exercise. Big agencies know that people who need more ‘decorative’ surroundings will find it in five-person loft space. They also know that the next round of college grads will fill the cubes of the recently departed.
My two-cent conclusion will agree with your conclusion: Shop around and find an agency that is right for you. If the large agency experience makes you miserable then go for a start-up… same goes for the reverse.
Thanks for the reply. I would counter that if indeed some of my statements were shortsighted, soem of yours have been blinded by their own myopia. Saying that clients are the deathblow to creativity is the first and worst mistake that can be made. When clients get treated as the thorn in your side or the barrier to awesome creative ideas, then that will undoubtedly be the outcome. If the concept is great and the client is stupid then maybe the creatives/strategy people responsible didn''t introduce the client into the idea early enough. This is where smaller agencies get it right. It''s become a bit of a cliche but it still rings true - that if you involve the client at an early enough stage he/she/they are automatically part of the process and further down the line will find it more difficult to trash a concept they were involved in.
Furthermore, I agree that in the context you put it, proclaiming that large agencies are in a panic is a bit shortsighted. However it''s not panic in terms of competition, rather, panic in the thought that they''re missing out on a recent trend or new idea. Inserting creative pods is designed more to keep a disillusiomned staff happy rather than to affect any great change. It''s very calculated but certainly not a risk.
Also, I believe larger agencies offer a great deal more personal contact than smaller ones. A car client for example will get the luxury of round the clock massage by a whole team of account people, whereas a small agency can maybe assign one person at infrequent intervals. Larger clients often want this pampering - I know of some pitches that have been won (and so does everyone) by the sumptuous lunches provided and the proximity of the agency to the client head office.
Lastly, my trick question. I''m afraid that you misunderstand - restructuring isn''t just putting in couches and mood lighting. I wouldn''t say that simply redecorating is the answer. I don''t think the right answer has yet been found to make large agencies more fluid without the need to box off departments in cushy surroundings. For example, letting strategy and creatives work as constant team on project basis rather than on separate floors where the only contact is by e-mail. Also, in larger agencies, it''s a huge surprise if creatives can present their own work to clients and when it does happen everyone feels as if they''ve achieved so much more as a result. I''m sure there are other better solutions but maybe that''s something that someone who works in a large agency can help answer.
Avid.
On friday, I'll start to work in an Italian boutique, I worked in a large french agency in Italy for 2 years but was a bad experience. It locks of creativity freedom. I'm a young art director and I hope to find a more creative group, otherwise I'll change job. Bye
Italy...what do you pretend?
hhhi876hzt543er4@hotmail.com
I''m just a small one man shop that services a rural area between some larger cites. My clients want ideas they can relate to, not obscure ideas smothered by what they consider over-design.
I look at my work and think...I''d love to be able to have an element dominate a page...with the sell line in small print...or lots of space to show off a product and create an atmosphere around it. But alas, I''m in a homegrown USA southern market. Doing POS to sell a deli line in a grocery store, or a menu that older patrons can read in dim light is my bread and butter.
I''ve worked for 5 years now by myself and have grown with only referrals. Now the major deli line/meat producer I created materials for to get them into grocery stores has gotten into chains. This year the meat producer pays the grocery chain thousands of dollars a month to include the meat producer''s deli line in the chain''s newspaper ads and to produce the POS signs I once did for the deli line.
The advantage to the grocery chain is now they don''t have different materials from vendors cluttering the look they want for their grocery store. The advantage to the manufacturer is that now they are in the chain''s grocery ads. There is no advantage to me in this scenario.
As a result, it is now necessary for me to have to actually market myself...which is not really a bad thing. I just have to get out some of my old skills for my own purposes now. My client prospecting sales muscles are a little weak from lack of use.
I seek to grow beyond averagelooking advertising in a profitable way for my customers and me...but again...to keep my clients, I need to meet their initial expectations to feel like their customers will quickly understand what they are selling with the advertising I do for them.
A small person having some growing pains here, but still enjoying the business! One good thing, as I start to develop the materials to promote myself, I get to practice some of the ideas I felt limited to do for my clients. I guess I will find out soon what works with my own future on the line. There is probably no better way to grow than to live through the risk of going for it!
I''m thinking now of turning my old Epson 3000 into a dye sub unit. Design some good old T-shirts for the tourist town nearby....I wonder how many I need to sell to make....????etc....lets see,,,three shops here, one old church shop there.....??? Time will tell the story.
Any other small shops in my position?
Sir, you are correct in one thing it is certain: this BIG v small agency argument is going no where. Good work comes out of very big agencies and crap works also comes out of very small ones. Maybe the question is BIG vs small client. No i correct myself . The only question is big verses small minded people.
goodnight
This "UNK" guy clearly needs an "F".
Am wey yoo on this one avid. the smaller ye ur, the biggur the space ye huv tae think in, no?
etc etc, well , yoo sais it ma boy.
later wull be greatur
good mornin'
love street x