Small Fish, Big Pond: The Truth About Agency Priority

[00:00:00] Kelly: the bigger you get, the harder it is to get lucky with the personalities and the commitment in there. And that's where, again, level of priority where. If you're not a high priority client, one's breathing down anyone's next, no one's double checking on these types of things. It's literally squeaky wheel type situations, and it shouldn't be that way, but it becomes that.

[00:00:45] Kelly: Hey everyone. Kelly McGuire with V Day Digital. Excited to talk about today's topic.

[00:00:50] Todd: A podcast land. Todd Juno, Kelly's partner, at JE Digital. And here today we probably do have some contrary to popular opinion opinions about our topic. , So ad age, love reading, ad age, in all those trade magazines. Published an article that very much strikes a chord with you and me. , it was titled The Rise of Indie Media Agencies and the Strategies Helping Them Win New Business.

[00:01:16] Todd: And there's been a lot of big wins by non hold co indie agencies this year. lot of the adage agency awards went to indie agencies, , recently in Toronto. So there's continuing to be power in the indie agency business model. , We are proud members of the No Dose Indie Agency Network. , And so this is a big, big topic for us.

[00:01:40] Todd: So today I'm gonna suggest about a half a dozen different topics or themes that I pulled out of this article that I think are relevant to debate. I'll step the debate, , with my own sort of 2 cents around it. And then I know you're gonna have. Some things to say, opinions to share, which may be contrary to someone's opinion, but that's okay.

[00:02:01] Todd: 'cause that's what we're here for. , So the first big thing that always comes up that indie agencies, including us, will promote, as something that we're better at is speed and agility. we always say that we are faster, , you know, we have better responsiveness. And so the debate topic is, is speed and agility really a competitive advantage?

[00:02:25] Todd: Like does that actually give us the ability to do better work? And I guess the idea here is, let's define better, is better, quicker, or is better. Better quality is better, more attentive what in the speed, agility category. For the spirit or sake of assuming or implying that that means the work is better, some way of the work is better.

[00:02:48] Todd: In fact, one of the comments in this was that a marketer had suggested it took more than a week for one of their HoldCo agencies to post a social update that they were supposed to post. And that sounds like a really one-off thing. But we've heard similar things like that. what is better about speed and agility or different in your mind about how we do what we do versus what we've sort of seen and heard?

[00:03:09] Todd: Clients that we've picked up from HoldCo agencies typically talk about when it comes to speed and agility.

[00:03:16] Kelly: I will answer that directly. I think it's really, really important in order to get into this topic that I level set one. Key point of view on how I will be answering a lot of these questions when we talk about indie versus and that is on the surface, those two things are not inherently equal.

[00:03:34] Kelly: There is a incredible variable that changes a lot of what these answers would be, and that is either the size of client or the priority of a client within a client list within. An independent agency or a HoldCo, right? Because of the things I'm gonna say wouldn't apply to the top one, two, or three clients at a HoldCo, because those are gonna get all the attention and all the care and everything.

[00:04:00] Kelly: So what I'm gonna say is where the difference is, is where this perspective comes in is when you are. Small fish in a big pond type situation, right? when you're not the top priority, you're not the number one, right? If you're Coca-Cola or Starbucks or you know, some huge, you're gonna get everything.

[00:04:15] Kelly: Like everything's gonna move none of these in here. It's really the balance of, when we're talking about a client's experience where they fall on the spectrum of priority within an organization, and I think is where this is important. I think that's it to level set, 'cause so many answers would change based on those two perspectives.

[00:04:31] Todd: So you're coloring most of what you're saying based on the situation of, it depends on the, the size of the client relative to the agency that they're. With and how many of these things will actually play out.

[00:04:45] Kelly: Yeah, the size of the client relative to the size of the agency, and

[00:04:49] Kelly: again, the priority it, are you their biggest client or are you their 30th biggest client in terms of where you get and where that priority matters? That is a huge difference, in my opinion, on how things get serviced and attended to.

[00:05:00] Todd: I've heard you say this before and I agree with it. Do you think you can sort of try and normalize your answers to sort of. Not be on one extreme or the other of that. And just sort of, do you think you can frame this up in a general sense, on an average case of an average size client within the agency roster,

[00:05:20] Kelly: I can try and layer in some of the alternative perspectives if you were in a different scenario. Absolutely.

[00:05:25] Todd: so speed and agility, is it shortcuts and speed or is it better work? What do you think?

[00:05:30] Kelly: yeah, the reason I get that caveat is 'cause even with this question, it. So many of these answers come down to, again, the people that are doing the work and the way that they're approaching it and the way that they're being managed and coached and prioritized to do it. So when it comes to those agility, a lot of it comes down to SLAs and hours management and profitability and skill level, the people that are doing it and order of, again, if you have multiple clients that you manage, who gets first priority, second priority, third priority.

[00:05:59] Kelly: That's why it's really important to say, because agility. I don't necessarily think that it has to do with people's ability to do it. It's just there's only so many hours in a day. There's only so many people working an account. There's only so much positioning and priority of who gets what and where and when things get done.

[00:06:16] Kelly: And then there's a lot of, especially at the whole code, and this is so important to this argument at the whole code, there's so much limitation in the processes and the ways in work in which work gets done. Then it becomes really difficult, and then you throw in some really interesting other variables.

[00:06:32] Kelly: Like more and more we are seeing outsourced work and overseas, and now there's time management. Maybe someone's not getting something middle of the night versus work hours and shifts and things like that. So. say that because all of this goes into play of who's being assigned this work and where's this priority goes into that. And the point of view that I have is an independent agency, opinion, each client, and this is where it might be controversial. Is simply more important to that agency as a whole, and therefore the willingness to go outside of norms or to break structures or to break SLAs, to accommodate and to be client servicing in that sense, I believe is a lot stronger than in a, far more structured big cog engine situation where it's a lot more task managed and there's hours, implementations, and all of those types of things.

[00:07:21] Todd: Okay, but there are indie agencies that are humongous

[00:07:25] Kelly: and honestly at that point I would, consider them at the same level as a HoldCo. It being independent or HoldCo in that situation doesn't matter to me. The argument for agility comes with is not structure of the agency. It is size of agency.

[00:07:39] Todd: Okay, so you're literally equating to, if an indie agency says, we just have faster turnaround, better customer service, better all just simply because we're just a smaller, more agile team,

[00:07:50] Kelly: there's a bit of luck of the draw in it that at a major organization. You can't have a singular culture that's driven from the top down. That creates the ways that people work and motivate and go into it. Like some groups, you might get really talented, really passionate people that, you know, take it personally, again, at a thousand person shop. 10, 20, 30% fit that the other 70, 80, 90% are gonna be time clocks and, in and outs. Or I'm just doing what's asked of me or no one told me to do it, or things like that. Like it's just, the bigger you get, the harder it is to get lucky with the personalities and the commitment in there. And that's where, again, level of priority where. If you're not a high priority client, one's breathing down anyone's next, no one's double checking on these types of things. It's literally squeaky wheel type situations, and it shouldn't be that way, but it becomes that. And again, this is where the agility, the reactiveness, the importance level, the, attitude of it's on my list.

[00:08:50] Kelly: I'll get to it in a day or two when I do these other things versus. No, this is really important. I have to make sure this gets done and I have to stay late and go. That's like, it's just natural human behavior of what you get. Sure. Some clients, even if you're not lower priority, maybe you get a superstar and a rockstar. I would argue if you're middle or low pack on priority, if you're lucky enough to get that talent, who acts it that way? That person's probably eventually gonna get sucked up into a more important client somewhere once they're recognized as a superstar, and you're gonna lose them anyway, which is, again, problematic.

[00:09:19] Kelly: So all this comes back around to agility, is just the ability for people to react and care and, prioritize. This needs to get done. It's important and it matters. and someone's gonna notice if I do or don't do this in a really important way.

[00:09:34] Todd: Okay. , So. The next topic is, , scale. And this is one that I think you and I have had our own debates about with, , especially when we just simply get jealous of all of the tech and the cap capabilities that the bigger agencies, , tend to promote. And we know for sure we've lost pitches because there have been IP like.

[00:09:57] Todd: , Smoke and mirrors or tech that's been put in pitch decks, , that look and sound really good. But ultimately holding companies do because of their size, they do create scalability. They do have the power and the buying power to, have more. , And so there's probably some value in that. In the old, well, I shouldn't even say in the old days, maybe even currently still.

[00:10:19] Todd: the principle based buying, right? They buy, they have such scale and buying power for say, on the media side that they can buy and then arbitrage and resell that maybe cheaper than what, you know, our buyers could buy it for. So maybe there's an advantage there. , You know, they certainly have the ability to acquire companies, tech companies and create scale from data and data partners and things like that.

[00:10:42] Todd: We obviously can't do that. . And so what do indie agencies like us have as an alternative? We have to use off the shelf sort of products, partners and products, of which we have many, and we've had tremendously long successful relationships with tech partners that allow us to do great work and compete with, , bigger agencies.

[00:11:02] Todd: But we certainly can't compete on scale. We can't go out and buy Epsilon or any of those kinds of data companies.

[00:11:09] Todd: is there a point where if you're a brand, and again, this might just go to the size thing, it might be like, yeah, if you're Coke, you should probably go with a big agency that's got the scale and capacity, tech, investments, all those kinds of things to actually support a multi-hundred million dollar, , client budget.

[00:11:26] Todd: , Or. We've seen some of the smaller mid-size holdcos win some of these bigger accounts. And so maybe that scale didn't matter in that case. So how would you look at, if you were, the CMO of a huge brand, like, you know, maybe a Coca-Cola size brand I guess is pretty big or, or something smaller, midsize.

[00:11:46] Todd: Do you ever consider that being. A thing to consider where you go, you know, I probably should go with the HoldCo because I know that they're gonna invest in and have resources and tech and capabilities. Or do I go with a mid-size company that might use existing tech off the shelf stuff, but use it better, smarter?

[00:12:04] Todd: you know, for whatever reason.

[00:12:06] Kelly: The reality is, is that the marketplace exists. Again, it's back around to the team that's gonna do the work and put, put it in.

[00:12:14] Kelly: And, and it's funny 'cause it's very analog, what I'm about to say to the whole AI argument, which is AI can do these things and it's not, it's comes down to garbage in, garbage out, quality and quality out. It's what goes into the work and the leverage of whether or not you get into it.

[00:12:30] Kelly: the reality is, there is something that is worthwhile to any meaningful campaign. Geo-fencing, data targeting, any element of audience composition, research targeting, all of these things. If it's worth doing, if it makes a difference, if it's fundamentally going to create value in the grand scheme of things, someone is going to license it and make available, there's platforms to access it through and so it comes down to the number of times I've seen campaigns and structures, whether it's search or social or other things that have come from significantly named agencies. Ones that I'm quite certain have sold on these capabilities and these proprietary texts and all these wonderful, amazing things that I'm sure got people excited and said, I wanna buy in on that. then we actually look at the data, we look at the structure, we look at the campaigns, and it's, for lack of a better term, not good work at all. It just highlights the idea of it doesn't matter what the capability is, it matters what's actually going to be done and what the work is gonna be done. And if you have a team or or quality people that are thinking about the business the way it needs to be, if you are prioritized the way it needs to be, someone will solve that problem, even if it's not something that we. built ourselves and, own. There is a way to go and say, this partner, this tech, this platform, I can access it, I can deploy it, and I can get that value on it. So the idea that there is this proprietary tech or this tech stack, or this access that becomes unique that no one else can do, I just don't buy into it at all.

[00:13:58] Kelly: If something's worth doing and you have someone who's smart enough to be aware of that and takes the time to go and solve a problem, and if there's a solution to it to find it. It's a level playing field in that sense. Now again, there are small examples in my mind where that there may be small advantages, right?

[00:14:13] Kelly: Again, if you are spending hundreds of millions of dollars and you do go and buy in the upfronts or you secure some exclusive access to data or something like that, but I would find that so few and far between. And honestly, at that point, it's not an I wouldn't say that that's a byproduct of. or access that is a byproduct of dollars and you, they just simply have enough money to make it worth deploying in that way. if it is valuable and useful and going to make a difference in outcomes, you can just about go find any partner in any access to the things that will really make a difference.

[00:14:45] Kelly: There is no silver secret, magic bullet that someone came up with and said, we're just gonna hold this on ours and no one else will ever be able to perform like we will. 'cause we had this thing. If that existed, someone found it and someone's monetizing it.

[00:14:57] Todd: Pretty sure every BD rep for every major agency, that child set stuff is gonna disagree with you. But that's why we're here.

[00:15:03] Kelly: but That's their bread and butter. They go in and they promise the world. And here's the problem. This is actually a big problem in the hold coast, is you get a new business team who can say whatever they need to say to win the business. They can make whatever promise they can build up whatever it is, because guess what? people are not responsible for what happens after someone signs on the bottom line that becomes someone else's problem. And more often than not, that becomes someone who doesn't even work at the agency yet problem. 'cause they're gonna hire up and they're gonna bring it in and just assume that some process is gonna match it. And then you get this balance of what was sold and promise versus what actually happens. And this is why there's so much turnover when people are like. Man. All of those things I heard and felt and wanted, not really feeling that, not really seeing it, and it's getting frustrated and then it, it gets lost in it.

[00:15:51] Kelly: So yeah, your commentary around business development, that is another major problem that I have at that whole company because there's no one responsible for the outcomes that are the ones making the promises, and it creates so many problems.

[00:16:03] Todd: I'm just saying. And those are the people that wanna wring your neck right now. Let me give you a specific example of something I'm just making up in my mind. 'cause I'm curious how you would address this if you were on the marketing side. So we know one of the big Holdcos bought, for example, Epsilon and they bought 'em to buy all their data.

[00:16:20] Todd: And I think I've seen some positioning around now that they own all this data and they, compare it with client data and they've built, I use the word built, use a different word. Their engineers have created. What they call proprietary mechanisms or ways of synthesizing all of this data that they've bought and they now own and client data and all this stuff.

[00:16:40] Todd: And effectively it will help, you know, maybe inform creative or strategy or communications or , media buying or whatever. So you got a big agency that's put all this engineering investment into acquiring all this tech and then they've. Created or built their own process for how they use it. And they will say, we can determine all these things about your product or service and your audience, and therefore, as a result, we know how to market it better and you will get better results if you go with us.

[00:17:11] Todd: So and then the next agency comes in the door and says, well, yeah, we don't own Epsilon. we have a vendor relationship with Epsilon, and we use Epsilon all the time, and we can use any of their audience data that they have, and we can pair that with, you know, our creative teams and our media buying platforms, and we can go target those same people.

[00:17:29] Todd: is that a real world scenario that you've seen happen? And in that case. do you not believe that one has an a leg up on the other? Do you think the agency that says We have a vendor relationship with Epson, we can go use all their, power and tools and data just like anyone else can.

[00:17:46] Kelly: the reality is, the number of providers, platforms, call it whatever you want that exist, that do cool stuff and offer cool features and can be deployed in unique and cool ways. it's more than I could count in a lifetime. At this point, you'd never get through them all.

[00:18:02] Kelly: So what one offers the next has another value proposition and a cool way to go. all produce the same digital signals and profile signals at the end of the day. From advertising, we're trying to identify a personality type at a certain point in a journey with a certain proclivity towards purchasing behaviors, certain demographics certain characteristics. there's a lot of companies that are tapping into these data streams and these activities and building these profiles and claiming those, you can target and slice and dice and find these things in so many different ways. The platforms where you're actually doing the buying, have all their capabilities.

[00:18:37] Kelly: Meta says we do it better and Google says we do it better and trade desks says we do it better. And so on and so forth, and all these different ways. So again, the capability itself is not as important 'cause there are so many capabilities. No team, no matter how great and wonderful you are, is ever gonna be able to tap in and access only a fraction of what.

[00:18:56] Kelly: Can be trialed and tested. All of it comes down to having a smart set of people who care enough to actually bother doing what can be done. it doesn't help you if there's a capability that no one ever actually bothers to deploy or actually access and use. Right? So it, again, it waterfalls down into. I would be hard pressed to be convinced that someone can say we have a data set and access to things that is absolutely walled garden unique to us. That is a silver bullet that will perform exponentially better than any other thing that someone could piece together to similarly find targeting behaviors and delivery. Skinning the cat in different ways, right? It's what this really unique proprietary thing can do is slightly different, but gonna end up in something similar to what this one can do or what that one can do. In methodology, what is different is these things very rarely work right out of the box without any intervention. Capability generally requires really sophisticated planning and thinking and moving multiple parts to work in conjunction with each other to get to any new outcome. if someone thinks that you can just go in and there's some, switch you can flip and says, I'm just gonna put in these details, I'm gonna hit go, and it's gonna perform three times better than what anything else could ever do. It doesn't work like that. Like you have to piece this together. You have to be strategic and say, okay, if I target this way, what creative needs to go in and what user journey do I drop them in, and how do I segment that out? when someone reacts this way or shows this signal, how do I segment this out by geography or language or demographics?

[00:20:29] Kelly: Like the branching that happens in influencing human behavior online becomes so big that again. You just need someone that is thinking about it in the right way and then finding solutions to each thing There's no such thing as this thing is just a black box that just does it all. Although again, meta Google Trade does all these claim to be the, just give us the reins and we'll do it all.

[00:20:51] Kelly: But think about that. If something like meta is saying, we'll do it all, what is someone else's proprietary thing gonna do that's better or different or competing with that? So just it doesn't pass the logic test that someone has something in there. All of it comes down to. So much capability talked about, and I would argue that not, maybe I'll be generous, 80% of what's talked about and touted in a pitch never gets touched or deployed.

[00:21:16] Kelly: It was just to create excitement and the real work will be the 20% core that that ultimately, hopefully gets done well.

[00:21:23] Todd: Now there's hundreds or thousands of engineers at these big companies that are like mad at you because you're telling them that what they're building doesn't, ultimately do anything different than what we could build cobble together.

[00:21:34] Kelly: don't want that, misconception. There are really cool things that are fun and worth trying. I don't believe that there's one that's just gonna blow everything else out of the water. And there's nothing else we're trying. It's just one of the. 2000 things that you could say. This is the one I want to put my, time and effort into trying. 'cause it will incrementally improve it a little bit. It's not like if I didn't find that one, there's not 50 others that could also give me incremental improvements.

[00:21:57] Todd: I agree. So speaking of time, I wanna talk about. Time or, cost savings and time and things like that. So the big hold cos or the bigger agencies, maybe they genuinely can say, look, there's cost savings by working with us. Let's assume that's, true. There's cost savings.

[00:22:14] Todd: and this article quotes that there's commentary around, yeah. But those cost savings sometimes result in a lack of testing or modeling or. Improvements in this way or that way. , Iterations, you know, things like that. There's cost savings, but maybe you're giving up things or there's boutique indie agencies that you don't get that cost savings, but they're gonna put a lot more heart and soul and time and attention into measurement and optimization and, and things like that that, you know, could play out however they play out.

[00:22:46] Todd: So if you're, you're shopping for an agency. and this might ladder up to a bigger conversation of which it doesn't really matter what we think because it might only matter what procurement or CFOs are being told to do by the CEO who has to either, you know, report to the shareholders quarterly or just is trying to make the most money in their company possible.

[00:23:10] Todd: So it may just be, it's a money decision and it doesn't matter, but let's assume it matters. do you decide to go with a bigger agency for cost savings, knowing you might lose some of those corner cutting sort of measurement things or whatever? Or do you pay more knowing that a team's promised you they're gonna do all of that?

[00:23:28] Kelly: Is where you're gonna get me in the most trouble in this conversation. I think overall there might, be cost savings. for the sake of what I'm about to say, let's just say there is, 'cause I'd argue whether or not there are really or not my argument in the vast majority of cases. This is definitely, in my opinion, HoldCo, certainly the big independence. And honestly, I would say even most of the ones that are smaller, where most of those savings generally is gonna go. to the client, it's gonna go to profitability and it's gonna go to making more money. And there's a reason why you have these huge organizations that spend unbelievable amounts of money on crazy things like going to con and these events and doing these things.

[00:24:10] Kelly: I've, I've never understand sort how anyone looks at the money that is spent not on operations or profit. And then doesn't understand like where does that come from? Where do, where do these incredible New York offices come from and all these things, and these executives that are driving McLaren's and all these things and, and going through and all this stuff, like mean, it's really the genesis of when we started our agency and the, one of the biggest light bulb moments that I had was I, when I was doing all of these DSP roadshows and every single starting conversation I had at everywhere I went, the selling point, the way I was trying to be convinced to use something was all about. Cost savings, faster, easier, cheaper, less labor. nobody started out with This lets you do better work for your clients. It was all about savings on those things. And all that told me was the perspective becomes this business first. How do I make more money in line in my pockets? And so that idea of cost savings, that I think it actually becomes detrimental to the outcomes that clients experience because everything comes down to how do we pay people less? let's just stop there. the idea that someone pays someone less, whether it's outsourcing, overseeing, just doesn't do these things. If you were successful in doing that, people at the end of the day, and this is a big topic conversation, are motivated by money and going through you. Were expecting these people to spend their time and energy and passion on producing results for you.

[00:25:36] Kelly: So if you aren't giving raises, if you're cutting corners, if you're laying off talent when it goes through because you want to protect your bottom line on these things, that is inherently gonna trickle down to a client's experience on what they're getting. Because even if you have a talented person who's underpaid or underappreciated, or. Has whatever doesn't fulfill them in their work environment, which is, I believe what happens particularly with the hold kobes and those big things because it becomes this cog machine, you're not getting their absolute 150% best. Some people are personally motivated enough to do it. Again, you could get lucky, but by and large you're getting. 80, 70, 50, 40, 30% of someone's real talent and energy in there because again, everything comes down to cutting corners and savings. When there's beta opportunities, when there's rebates, when there's cost savings, when there's ways to cut corners, most of the time that is going into the company's benefit.

[00:26:29] Kelly: Not saying, okay, well let's share this. Let's go through, let's look. Long term companies are generally responsible to shareholders, and they're showing those outcomes, and so it's all about the short term, bottom line profitability. And especially hold codes when they're being managed to that and having to report that way are not able to take, well, we can take a haircut today and maybe this benefits and I keep this client for two years longer, or it's down the road.

[00:26:54] Kelly: They can't make these long-term decisions for the most part, the way that an impendent can say. I can sacrifice now and look at the bigger picture and deliver on a promise because again, there's just too many hands in the cookie jars. There's too much responsibility and there's too much oversight and minutiae. if you did have someone who had the right motivations and wanted to. In a big organization like that, if you're like, okay, well, you know, I gave back to my client certain amount of money. Like I, you know, I could have up charged them on this, but it was to their benefit. So I, I went ahead and didn't, and I, you know, I waived that and went through it wouldn't even be noticed.

[00:27:28] Kelly: So there'd be no reason to do it. There's just, it's a lack of the right alignment of motivations when it's just such a small piece of, such a big thing overall. So circling that back around. My argument to that is the cost savings. I, would be hard pressed to believe that that almost ever makes it down into the client's benefit for the most part.

[00:27:48] Todd: Yeah, I, I don't really know other than if you're the brand and you've been given a budget. That budget's predicated on how the rest of that company has to perform financially. like any human, you only have what you have to work with. they don't have unlimited budgets, right?

[00:28:04] Todd: So they can't cost savings sometimes, you know, we've been in a pitch where , maybe we're gonna pitch media at 15%, but we know the other agency's pitching it at 11. Well. If both presentations look amazing, both teams sound wonderful. You like both teams and, and you're simply making a decision.

[00:28:22] Todd: Now based on economics, of course you're gonna choose the cheaper one. You have no reason to not believe. Well, if I save four points on this. You know, that's great. I am gonna look good that our company's gonna have better financial sort of outcome of this. And that's a debate economically that we all face even in our personal lives.

[00:28:40] Todd: Do I buy, you know, this thing on the shelf or that thing? They're both serve the same purpose and solve the same problem once, $2 cheaper than the other one. You know, like we're, as consumers, we have to make that choice.

[00:28:50] Kelly: Yeah, I think it, creates the answer to a question. And that you and I have debated and, you know, argued against in, in there, in the absence of just gross incompetence, which, you know, I will say is let's say that's rarity, right? That's not usually we look at things and cannot figure out why would a campaign be set up that way?

[00:29:07] Kelly: Why would someone have not taken the time to explore this thing or done these things that. Seem obvious to us when we do an audit or we look at something and we cannot figure out, 'cause we know where it's coming from. We know we generally agree that let's say for the most part, people are at least competent, if not skilled on that. And so you try and figure out how could this have possibly happen? Why would someone make this mistake or be this lazy or do something that is just obviously not the best way something could be done or just overlooked figuring out you know, why is that in there? The, the only real reason outside of the rare instances of incompetence lack of motivation and care.

[00:29:47] Kelly: or just the ability of the bandwidth to do it. The only reason the things that we see very often concerningly often can be happening is because there's some mechanism in place that creates what could otherwise be talented, skilled people just simply not having the care, the bandwidth or the motivation to do. Even the fundamental things that need to be done, let alone the above and beyond things that could really unlock greatness on that. And the only answer to how that happens is an organizational problem. And in my argument, those organizational problems get worse and worse and worse. The bigger the organization is, the more public it is, the more greedy they become.

[00:30:25] Kelly: It just creates this grind of problems that trickle down into the people doing the work and the outcomes being produced. And all roads lead back to that in my mind at all times.

[00:30:34] Todd: Alright, , last topic and then, , we can be done. So. you're on the client side again. , You have a choice. One a OR that says they do everything, , multiple specialty agencies or you build it in-house inside your, company. You build your own agency, if you will, marketing services team inside your company.

[00:30:56] Todd: Or maybe the fourth is there some hybrid where you have marketing services and you have agency support, which is where we find ourselves most of the time with many of our clients. is sort of in that hybrid mode. So one ar that does it all. A roster of specialty agencies all in-house or hybrid in-house, specialty partner.

[00:31:15] Todd: What? What do you go with?

[00:31:17] Kelly: So many nuances to this answer. I'm gonna try and find the middle ground answer. My first answer is gonna be the biased one. Because of the structure and the reason that we do things. I think the best possible scenario is to find what I would call. A champion or lead a OR agency, even if they don't actually do all of the services that they need to the runner of.

[00:31:36] Kelly: Right. So I would want someone who leads up my strategy, my charge, my sort of digital exposure, what they do really well and can problem solve for me. Anything else that If they don't do PR but they know I need it, they can go find me the right PR or they can solve that problem if they don't do SEO.

[00:31:54] Kelly: And even though that's not their specialty, 'cause they haven't tried to build that out, they focus on what they focus, they know enough on how it mixes in and they can be the leading charge. So my first answer would be to have a champion agency that. for the most important things that they do really, really well.

[00:32:09] Kelly: And then they are the driver that kind of spokes out and does anything else that, I think that's the best possible way because that becomes someone who's bought in, shares my vision, but has the focus on marketing and the motivation to solve problems because they win from all of those outcomes.

[00:32:23] Kelly: That is what I would always look for. I think that that's probably the hardest thing to find. , It's why we built things the way that we're, 'cause I think that's the right vision to do it. From there, I would probably, unless I was a massive organization, so I'll set that aside again. I would probably go with a group of specialized agencies. I do think that it is hard for a single agency to do absolutely everything at the upper top tier of things. The problem with that is you have to really be selective in those agencies and truly believe that they are going to work friendly because there's so much conflict and. Ease to blame and focusing on your own paper when people need to work very collaboratively together.

[00:33:00] Kelly: 'cause these things are very, very important that they go together. You don't want your creative agency being very disconnected from your media agency 'cause that's gonna create a lot of problems and a lot of missed opportunities. But that is normally what happens. Even the most intention of. Agencies ultimately end up thinking in their own box because everyone's busy, everyone's moving quickly.

[00:33:20] Kelly: It's hard to stop and be like, what does this other agency need and how can I anticipate for them and think through that. It's hard to do that. It's not impossible, but it more than often than not, I would say it wouldn't happen. 'cause everyone's focused on their own responsibilities, maintaining their own things. would still go with that. 'cause I think experts in what they do best is the right way to do it. I don't think wearing all the hats and expecting to be great, everything is all that easy. Especially when you go broad in things like. Media buying is not pr, is not creative, is not. SEO is like, these are all very, very, very different expertises that you would have to get onto.

[00:33:51] Kelly: And then when you're paying one agency, are you really gonna pay enough for expertise? Your team would be 50 people, a hundred people large that. On a very large one if I could afford it. And if I, again, if I thought I could build an internal champion of executives that really felt well and could stay motivated on my type of business and wouldn't get bored with it, I would internalize a team. , But what's part about internalizing a team is the most talented people, the ones that really will be passionate and do the work. It's so easy for them to get bored just working on the same client, the same thing all the time, and it caps upward mobility and the ability to spread wings. So you tend to have a quality talent turnover problem on internal teams where it's like, I'm a superstar and I can only go so far 'cause my boss isn't going anywhere.

[00:34:39] Kelly: Or I'm been doing the same thing for three, four years now. I'm not stretching out, I'm not learning anything. It becomes really, really hard to foster talent internally. Which is why that would be a bit problematic. But if I had a really exciting company that I thought people would be personally passionate about a lifestyle brand, something like that, I would go that way. massive. A ORI. I'd be hard pressed to ever find a reason why that would singularly be where I would go. it would be pretty hard to convince me that I'm gonna get the best stuff there. 'cause again. it's too many people wearing too many hats. It's too misaligned on motivators on.

[00:35:09] Kelly: I'm always gonna believe that they're looking out for their best interest, not mine. Again, unless I'm gonna be their top, one of their top three clients. I think all of my talent's gonna be away. Like there's all kinds of problems with it that I would struggle with.

[00:35:22] Todd: Well, it sounds like you just made a glowing endorsement for the indie agency networks like No Dose that we're in, because basically we become that Swiss Army knife sort of MacGyver partner where. We do what we do really well, and we've got a partner and, you know, a solution for anything and everything else under the sun from PR to manufacturing.

[00:35:43] Todd: if our clients need it, we've got the network to go to. So I would agree with that. , Yeah, this is an interesting, interesting world we live in, in this, business. I will be excited to see where this continues to go. There's lots of m and a. Acquisition taking place. , Out there. I just read the Palazzo report, which, , investment bankers would show all the, a lot of the agency m and a action.

[00:36:04] Todd: And boy, active. , So there's a lot of consolidation. , There's a lot of these networks like STOs that we're a part of popping up where indie agencies are bunching together, I think, to do what you're talking about doing. So that one agency has access to multiple solutions.

[00:36:21] Kelly: that's an amazing model too, because not only. In that model, not only do you have everyone being their own experts and focused on it, but the inherent motivation that I said becomes problematic when you have different, agencies that are just focused in their own world. If you have an agency that inherently gets used to working together and does it across multiple projects, there's an extra motivation to be more mindful and thoughtful about your partners and being able to say, okay, let me look up for my paper and let me look out for their wellbeing, because I don't just work with them in this one project.

[00:36:51] Kelly: We're part of this sort of family unit and I really, if I upset them or if I'm not, kind to them, it's gonna have these ripple effects. And so it almost fixes a little bit of that problem to a degree, or at least hopefully in theory, it would.

[00:37:02] Todd: Well, I'm gonna throw this out there, but we don't have time to debate it, , because we gotta wrap up. , In theory you could view things like this, I'm a brand, I'm gonna hire a S four Omnicom. Or, or whatever. WPP. Agency who is in that HoldCo and in that HoldCo, they have 10 other agencies that do 10 other different things.

[00:37:23] Todd: So combination of all those agencies. Technically, for this example, they could do everything I need to do, but I'm gonna hire the one and I'm gonna. I think part of their model that they've pitched in the past, or maybe they pitched now is, Hey, we're part of HoldCo, X, Y, Z. We have all these great agencies in our HoldCo that we can leverage anytime on your behalf for things that we don't do.

[00:37:43] Todd: I know that that's a HoldCo sort of promise and positioning. Well, now think about the indie networks like the one that we're in. If you're a brand and you hire, I wonder, and this is a question, we'll have to debate it in another time. Would they look at, say, one of these networks and go, well, if I hire an agency in that network who says they have all these other agencies that can do all this work?

[00:38:08] Todd: Is that any different than hiring the HoldCo agency that says they have all these sister agencies that can do all that work?

[00:38:13] Kelly: Yes, because those networks, you're not required to go within the network. It is optional and it is best thing versus a hold code. You are required to stay in

[00:38:21] Kelly: house. You're not sending money out the door. That's not true. We've worked with HoldCo agencies where they worked outside of their hold co to work with them.

[00:38:28] Kelly: Very rarely.

[00:38:29] Kelly: You have to make a big justification to go outside of the family there.

[00:38:33] Todd: Yeah. Yeah. It, it happens. , Rarely, but that's an interesting thing to think about. I'd never really thought about it that way. do these indie networks almost become many holdcos in a way, even though they're not a HoldCo.

[00:38:44] Todd: But the structure of that is sort of similar. So we'll talk about that another time. Thanks for all your, , energy around this topic. , It's always a good one to debate. I'm glad Adage, , decided to pin this article about it and sort of keep it as a fresh conversation because I think there are reasons to hire the big HoldCo agencies that make sense.

[00:39:03] Todd: , And I think unless you're one of those giant companies that can justify it, the indies should be the ones that you go to. , For everything else, thanks.

[00:39:12] Kelly: Thank you.