Future of Strategists' Puzzle, aka A Worth-a-Try Opinion on How to Win

What do you do when pieces don’t fit in a jigsaw? You rotate them, exploring alternative placements. The recent release of WARC's Future of Strategy (link), just two weeks after the Effies Festival in Singapore (link) —and a week after an engaging debate sparked by Mike May 's post (link) —has created an intriguing puzzle about the future of strategists in adland. But the pieces don’t seem to fit anymore. Maybe it’s time for a vigorous shake.

Piece A: Appreciation

Agency leaders often blame clients' lack of appreciation for strategy as the reason for letting strategists go or stretching resources thin.

Clients claim they expect more strategic thinking at every step, yet strategists’ time is often seen as expendable during scoping.

Consequently, strategists face job insecurity—likely peaking now in Singapore—and complain about the subpar quality of their output due to resource constraints.

It seems everyone is unhappy with the current state of strategy. Just months ago, a widely discussed post by Stephanie McCarthy (link) made this clear. And most recently Mark Pollard, Strategy Friend 's insights echo it (link). Is strategy truly undervalued?

What if the issue isn’t appreciation but placement? Like a quality product in unattractive packaging that succeeds in blind tests but struggles in the market, what if we 'repackage' strategists on the agency shelf and envision them taking a more prominent role in driving profit?

Piece B: Monetization

"It's hard to sell strategy," or its variant, "We can’t afford a permanent strategist." Almost everyone in adland has heard these claims.

Those who transition from agencies to consultancies often cite the opportunity for a more strategic contribution as the reason for their move (compelling testimony from Dorothy Peng , link), and recent performance reports indicate healthy business for consultancy firms. Is strategy really hard to sell then?

What if the barrier to monetization lies not in the proposition (the "why") but in the product itself (the "what for") of agency-style strategy? Like an advanced navigator suggesting a destination based on your needs before charting the best course, what if strategists who currently advise agency teams on effective campaigns could apply their skills to facilitate early client discussions about marketing levers?

Piece C: Skillset

I appreciated Siddhant Lahiri ’s viewpoint (link) on the need to restore the multifaceted marketing expertise of strategists and to train younger cohorts on strategy fundamentals to capture the broader spectrum of marketing briefs beyond creative assignments. In my opinion, this resonates with Ritson’s provocative keynote at Cannes (link), which challenged the assumption that creativity alone determines marketing effectiveness. Lahiri’s and Ritson’s perspectives converge on the idea that strategists should promote effectiveness-oriented choices across the marketing mix, not just foster effective creativity. Yet, most discussions in strategists' forums and available training tend to focus narrowly on creative guidance or insight generation. As a result, in today’s fragmented strategy practice—and siloed hiring practices—the misconception of different breeds of strategists is reinforced.

What if creative appreciation and data-savviness were not distinct breeds of strategists but part of a syncretic, kaleidoscopic skillset for effective strategy?

The Fit Problem

The pieces don’t add up, yet they provoke a larger debate on the role and value of strategy in agencies. Despite the engaging nature of this jigsaw, strategists facing an erosion of talent can’t afford the time needed to untangle this complexity. Pragmatism suggests a spin on these puzzle pieces, and I’d love to pitch KPI redefinition as the fastest way to shake things up and get closer to a solution.

KPIs: A Pragmatic Approach

What if agency strategists were assigned revenue KPIs, measuring their performance by their contribution to account growth and retention? I’m not suggesting we turn strategists into suits but rather experiment with creative organizational arrangements that harness strategists' natural inclinations to deepen relationships by examining shared problems. KPIs have proven effective in promoting cross-functional collaboration when assigned on a shared basis or orchestrated to compel collaboration, and everyone from both agency and client sides is calling for more collaborative approaches to marketers' business problems. Do you think strategists would roll their eyes or feel awkward tension in their jaws? Most strategists I pitched this idea to didn’t fret; some even nodded, saying, "Isn’t that already what we do with account directors?" I agree, and I wish there were more numeric evidence of such fruitful collaboration.

Recently, during an interesting conversation on leadership in strategy departments with my Planner Pints peers, I shared that earlier in my career at a visionary indie shop, I enjoyed a unique arrangement where I shared revenue and retention KPIs with account directors and new business KPIs with growth directors. This arrangement accelerated profits for the agency and, honestly, those numbers provided me with an unparalleled opportunity for career progression. I’ve never felt a more timely chance to revamp that experience, especially as agencies of all sizes transition from a retainer model to a project-based one, competing with adjacent businesses like research firms and tech platforms on marketing and brand consultancy.

Puzzle Solved?

Not quite yet, but it’s worth a try, isn't it? The jigsaw puzzle of strategists' future is there for us to solve. What-ifing is a necessary exercise for agency leaders who care to attempt a solution—or at least a heuristic for strategists who want to future-proof their profession.

?

?