Marketing Strategy & Org Design | Ad Age 40 under 40 | Consultant to remarkable CMOs on their journey
ACCOUNTS IN REVIEW: Numerous publications have recently asked me to share 'tips' on what accounts are in review. Why does our industry continue to want to expose reviews? How is this productive? The headline often punches at the firm on the way out - i.e. they "lost" the account On the marketer's side, we handle these processes with the utmost care for the partners, our teams, and, most importantly, our employees. Sometimes over months with massive coordination. Discussing that something is in review may garner interest in the headline, but it can also signal a change ( i.e. $700m account up for review), negatively impacting the stock prices and stability of that company before they've been able to properly lay out the strategy to stakeholders. On the flip side, we have new agencies we hire that want to announce this to attract talent and more business. And we get it. However, one of the reasons that this doesn't happen is because of the theme of "leaking" reviews, which are most likely already deeply in process or complete. This makes our corporate comms team a bit gunshy about working with these publications and overprotective of award stories until there is work to show. So, an article about "Why don't brands let us(i.e agencies) take credit and announce," and then an article about "rumors of reviews" are pushing up against each other in a way that could be resolved ..perhaps. I would love to see this be something that publications supporting the advertising industry drop. We need to allow for positive award narratives. Also, do we even "review" anymore? A review happens far before we go into an RFP process, and the current model is so roster-focused that brands are almost always acquiring/hiring various partners ( outside of media). If you are asked about something and are involved in reviews or supporting the hiring and onboarding process, I would urge you to consider how damaging leaking these things can be for both sides. (end rant 😙 )
Jason Spies
1mo
Instead of trying to monetize stuff like agency review info, AdAge should double down on journalism, there are so many interesting people and things in our industry that they don't cover and or go deep enough on. I can't even access the new agency review feature with my current subscription. Maybe AdAge should take a page from publications like Harvard Business Review (pun intended), I find HBR always has pieces that are relevant to my work in advertising but also have wider appeal.
Vincent Tam
1mo
Love this Lindsey Slaby - agree also while clients increasingly prefer a roster model - "reviews" in order for agencies to get on that 'roster' should ideally be much more simplified as well. Ie. having agencies invest heavily into a pitch process only to get on a roster (which often then become jumpballs requiring agencies to pitch again for the actual project) doesn't make sense?
Vinny Panchal
1mo
I couldn't agree more, Lindsey Slaby. The industry's obsession with 'leaking' account reviews is a self-destructive habit that benefits no one. It's time we recognise the real damage this causes...destabilising companies, hampering positive narratives and fostering a culture of mistrust. Our fixation on 'who lost what' overshadows the collaborative spirit that should define our work. We should celebrate successes, fearless thinking, and the amazing collaborations created between like-minded talent. The category's future lies in discretion, mutual respect, and shared growth – not in airing our dirty laundry for fleeting headlines.
Mark Toner
1mo
Well said, LS! But not to worry, an ad agency review rarely has a material impact on a stock price. The industry is barely covered in any major newspaper, financial publication etc There was a time when the ad business was a business covered daily in columns in the NYTimes, WSJ, Chicago Tribune, and LATimes. All those journalists - unfortunately are long gone.
Evan Zeller
1mo
I love this positive energy. IMHO, its two fold 1) the industry loves a good “tea spilling moment” 2) it’s also because lots of the big brands still have a deeply engrained culture that thrives on the PR of being associated publicly with “making changes” to fuel growth, but then revert to their comfort zone. Just like agencies pitch crazy work and support teams to win business, but that often gets watered down to bland work, done by much more junior teams. In the end, “ do what you’ve always done, get what you always have”
Mike Palma
1mo
Journalists aren’t part of our industry, they’re part of the news industry.
Peter Isaia
2w
Perfectly stated. It was always my practice to insure no leaks by cutting any agency from a review that leaked the info. Further the participants invited were invited because there was a specific need which each had demonstrated history in the area so others trying to get involved are wasting their time and the marketing teams time.
Melissa Fry
1mo
An interesting flip would be if the trades published a statistical data dump re: brands' rates of restlessness and agency partnership stratification, i.e. the Goldilocks enigmas or polyamorous spree shoppers (not that there's anything wrong with either ✨).
Dave Burg
1mo
Again - THE MOST USEFUL THINKING ON THE AD-GAME LINKEDINS. thank you
Because Reviews get the views. Agency presidents forward them to the new business director asking "Why aren't we in this?" or "Get us in this!" Holding companies use them for internal/external chest-beating points on how one of its companies beat rivals. In a world where The NY Post has a much higher audience that NPR, the marketing/Agency world loves rubbernecking to click on the review story. We just can't help ourselves!