The structure of the advertising industry has certainly changed over the last few decades, and is continuing to do so. The change is primarily (and should be) client driven. More specialisation seems to be the flavour – marketing consultants, media, creative, design, promotional, PR, strategy, positioning and even remuneration consultants are burgeoning. But there is one trend that seems to be gaining an added momentum, and bucking all the above: the move to in-house media services.
Now we know that over the years many clients have tried in-house agencies. More often than not these clients were retailers, and most of their agencies were launched with a lot of noise, lasted a year or three, and then disbanded, usually based on the desire to once again get the input of objective third party expertise.
So is there any sense in bringing media in-house? Those clients who have done it, or are considering doing it, have rationalised the decision by expressing the desire to bring the marketing strategy and the media strategy closer together. There are also other benefits one can put forward.
Perhaps one of the biggest advantages can be seen as focus and dedication. The employee responsible for the media strategy will have no other distractions, and will be measured solely by his/her ability to maximise the effectiveness and efficiency of the employer’s budget. After all, advertising takes a whack of the marketing budget and we’re often dealing with tens of millions of rands.
So I can understand why the idea looks attractive to certain marketers. I can also see it working with varying degrees of success, depending on the people employed. It is certainly possible for a great strategist or planner to function within the client environment at a highly effective level.
But what is the flip side of the coin?
Well, nobody functions in isolation. Very often, the strategy from a media perspective is a collaborative effort. Generated by a multiplicity of brains, fine-tuned, tortured and conceptualised. One needs bouncing boards, other’s headspaces, and opinions from people steeped in the same discipline. And it’s unlikely this is going to be available in a client environment.
What about focus? Big clients get all the attention they need from media specialist companies. The move away from commissions has allowed clients to pay a fee on a cost-plus basis. So if you pay for 100 percent of a person, you get 100 percent. If you find they don’t meet your expectations, you ask for change and get it. If you find there aren’t enough resources, more are available to you immediately.
Cost? There cannot be a huge cost differential going in-house. Good people cost what they do because they’re expert. Media specialist agencies work on tiny margins, so if there’s an upside of 0,5 percent of budget I’d be very surprised. And the half of a percent is easily justified by the involvement and brainpower that gets involved when called upon, and that clients never have to pay for. Another point: clients are certainly wooing agency staff away at a big premium – so perhaps there’s no saving at all?
Ultimately, no man is an island. The rare (very rare, given the skill levels available) individual may well be able to make a difference. But the odds are stacked against it. With little to gain financially, the option of an in-house media specialist appears pointless. A co-ordinator, a ‘manager’ of media workflow, requirements, and flighting? Yes, if necessary. A strategist/planner? I just don’t get the upside.
Harry Herber is group managing director of The MediaShop.