Invisible Brand

cchm:ping Joint MD Paul Gordon finds a historical slant in making a case for the integrated communications agency.

In France, before 1789, society was broadly composed of two groups: the aristocracy, who considered they were pretty good at leading, and insisted on their unopposed right to do so; and the rest, who had to be led, notwithstanding a consummate range of skills that included leadership as well as a good deal of trade, technical and professional competence.

All that changed with the Revolution of course, but here in the UK we have a rather more confused relationship with the aristocracy. We seem to agree with the French, on the one hand, that a meritocratic society is the way to do things these days; but we diverge from them in that, not only have we failed to guillotine any aristocracy so far, but we can’t shake off a slight sense of awe about our aristocrats, a niggling concern that they might really have ‘better breeding’ than the rest of us.

This analogy seems more than a little appropriate as a backdrop to any discussion about the role of ‘pure’ ad agencies (many of whom appear to see themselves as the ‘aristocracy’ of the communications business with an automatic right to lead communications campaigns) as against that of integrated agencies whose very ‘proletarian’ nature may well equip them better, but who can’t easily shake off the slur that they weren’t really born to lead.

All this is nonsense, of course. The fact that ‘ad agencies’ (as opposed to ‘communications agencies’) were initially established, and then achieved some hierarchical predominance, was an anomaly. It was brought about mainly by the media commission system (which only rewarded advertising and so avoided distasteful conversations about ‘fees’ for other work); but it was also a by-product of the ethos of the early days of the advertising boom in the 50s and 60s when JWT and other major agencies saw fit to recruit ‘jolly good chaps’ from the right independent schools as account men (women were only good for secretarial work) and writers and poets from Oxbridge as creatives. People who did printing, ‘layouts’, mailings and other ghastly stuff like that were so far on the other side of the divide as not seriously to feature.

The emergence of commonsense

We have travelled a long way since and commonsense has begun to prevail, yet the ethos of advertising aristocracy remains surprisingly persistent. All the more surprising given that most clients, given free choice and quality delivery, would opt for a good integrated service every time. And why wouldn’t they? Integration means less administration, less time briefing different agencies in an attempt to achieve cohesion, less expense, no ‘Not Invented Here’ sulks, no turf wars over budget allocations, a greater interest in measurable performance, and more focus on creative solutions that really can work across all applications. This last point is no small one. Brand and creative strategies generated in ad agencies that have no involvement in implementation beyond advertising often fail spectacularly. This is because there is so little interest in (or direct accountability for) the suitability or translatability of the campaign into other communications environments.

Not enough of a good thing?

So, if ‘integrated communications’ is a Good Thing, why don’t we have more of it? One response is that the integrated agencies sector is, indeed, growing apace and taking an increasingly large slice of the communications cake, so we are getting more of it. But another perspective comes in the well-tried form of: “Well it all depends what you mean by integrated…”

Any number of large agency groups will claim to offer an integrated service, drawing on the undoubted skills and experience of their sister companies to put together an ‘integrated capability’, usually led by the ad agency. The shortcomings in this model are all too evident in the feuding over leadership, creative supremacy and division of the spoils (not to mention the sheer embarrassment of witnessing the ‘integrated team’ shaking hands with one another with elaborate politeness, unsure as to who is a ‘colleague’ and who’s the client).

Another model is the ‘ideas factory’ where ‘media neutrality’ is a given, and where bright ideas are given free rein to blossom in an antiseptic vacuum uncorrupted by the intricacies of implementation. In theory this sounds pretty good, yet many of these agencies have folded and, thus far at least, none has grown into a significant player. The reasons? Well, most clients like to feel there is a capability for implementation if they need it (and most do at some stage); but, more significantly, I think, it is because raw ideas need exposure to the harsh realities imposed by real executions in real media environments to test them and reveal their strengths and weaknesses. And, for that, you need a fully fledged integrated agency service. One last model that may not help the integrated cause is the small, integrated agency – often comprised of incredibly bright, hard-working people who can turn their hands to most things – but who simply cannot offer the breadth of resource or the depth of experience across all disciplines to deliver reliably and consistently across the integrated spectrum.

The future writ large(r)

But an integrated agency that is brand-led, results orientated and engineered to purpose – with proven skills and substantial, quality resources across all the communications disciplines – is surely the model of the future and arguably (had it not been for the ancien regime) the one we ought to have had in the past.

At any event, that’s our model for cchm:ping. History, as they say, will show who was right.