Why the full-service agency model may not be all that it’s cracked up to be

I started my career in the advertising agency world in 2002, sometime after the major advertising holding companies had spun out their media departments into separate companies, cementing the separation of media and creative. For the avoidance of doubt, I've been media-side from the outset.

The debate as to whether the full service model was better has continued to bubble away since I started in the industry, but in recent years, the proponents of the full service model have become ever more vocal.

In 2013, senior advertising industry figure, Tom Moult, speaking at an Australian industry event said: “The split between creative and media agencies was the worst thing that happened to our business”. 

Earlier this year, Craig Flanders, the CEO of Spinach, a full service agency, writing in Mumbrella remarked: “The divide has been holding the industry back from solving our clients’ important business challenges for far too long. We need a better model”

What strikes me as interesting is that I can recall very little defence of the separated model by pretty much anyone: Why is that?

It seems odd, especially when you consider the default model for most large advertisers’ remains having separate creative and media agencies of record. 

The only defence I can readily recall is not really a defence at all, it’s more a statement of defiance: “You can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube”.

It’s got me thinking: why is having a separate media and creative agency a better model?

Here are 2 of the most compelling reasons in defence of the specialist agency model:

One: The Avoidance of Groupthink

Groupthink occurs when a group of people start thinking the same way without critically evaluating or listening to alternative viewpoints. It might feel harmonious and seamless, but the decisions made and the directions that are taken may not result in the best outcomes. 

When Groupthink occurs, groups are effectively isolating themselves from the dissenting viewpoints they need to maintain the correct course. 

Two classic examples of Groupthink are:

·        The Bay of Pigs invasion in the 1960s

The Kennedy administration took the world to the brink of nuclear war without questioning whether the intelligence supplied by the CIA was accurate. 

·        The collapse of Swissair

The management of this once successful airline was so confident in their ability that their over-confidence resulted in the poor decisions and gross mismanagement that ultimately led to bankruptcy in the early 2000s.

In both instances, the presence of a variety of experts providing alternative viewpoints may have resulted in better outcomes. 

In the context of the full-service versus specialist agency model, it’s the specialist agency model that most effectively protects against potentially devastating outbreaks of Groupthink. 

Two: Special tasks require specialist knowledge

The classic joke about the good old days is that things were better when media took up the last 5 minutes of the presentation, if we got to them at all.

The reality is that the marketing and communications world requires a lot more than just creative and media these days. Experts are needed in many more areas including SEO, SEM, programmatic, social, data, PR, web development and customer experience.

All of these fields require specialist expertise and are deserving not only of a seat at the table, but a viewpoint uncompromised by the potential of a full-service agency party line, if optimum business results are to be delivered. 

From my own perspective, as a leader in the media agency world, if I was a client looking to maximise and optimise my media plans and investments, I’d be looking to the experts in that field with a proven track record behind them. 

It’s undoubtedly difficult to organise all of these different experts and it does takes significant and ongoing pro-active efforts, but the reward in getting it right is the results they can achieve together.

There’s no doubt the idea of full-service is highly appealing to many. Like many who work for specialist agencies, I too can see the appeal of seamless collaboration of a team under the one roof. 

But the reality is, it may not be all that it’s cracked up to be and the risk of Groupthink is real and dangerous.

Synergy is the idea that the creation of a whole can be more than the sum of its parts. High performing specialist agencies working together can create valuable synergies for our clients 

The way this synergy is delivered continues to change, particularly with the welcome emergence of specialists co-locating inside client offices for at least a part of the week. This hybrid model is one that PHD Melbourne is currently executing with a number of our clients to great effect.

For my money, working with specialist agencies continues to be the best agency model for most advertisers.

What do you think?