Related Posts
Accenture hiring for following CYBERSECURITY skills experience range 2.years to 12 years. Folks who are genuinely interested in working with Accenture and looking for referral, please share your resume at helpacenreferral@gmail.com along with DOB and location preferences and I shall refer.
Job location: All Accenture delivery centers , India.
Thanks.
Conversation Starter
More Posts
Bowl Leader
Hey, Fishies! We’re launching our first Interview/Q+A series "Portfolio Rewind: Would You Hire You?"
Like a portfolio review in reverse, creative leaders will share work they created when they first started out and critique it as if were a book that had just landed in their inbox. Then, tell us if they’d hire their younger selves knowing, and expecting, what they do now.
Drop in for get the chance to ask questions, and get your book reviewed by our guest. Hope you can make it!
zoom.us/j/92635977143
bonus letter received?
Ouch... this Kennedy speech.
Bowl Leader
Jummah Mubarak & Happy New Year Fam! 💚
Additional Posts in Advertising
Pro
Besides salary, how to pick between job offers?
God damn Carrie Fisher you guys
Chief
New to Fishbowl?
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
They can't. Was in house leading content at the second most desirable automotive. They just can't.
Yep. I've been in house for ten years at many to brands. They can't even when they really want to. For anyone that's been client side, this whole premise is outrageously laughable.
Yeah I’ll never forget Brad Jakeman as CMO of Pepsi making a speech that agencies were out of touch and he was taking creative in house. Then his brilliant in house team immediately made the Kendall Jenner spot 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
Chief
Funniest flop of the century
Pro
in house SOMETIMES yields better creative. but agencies yield better creative the MAJORITY of the time.
that’s because agencies speak for the audience, and in-house speaks for the brand.
can in-house yield better creative? yes, but only if they find a balance between what they want and what they need.
Just wait. In-house is in its early stages. To assume their work and expertise will remain the same is naive. The cost and timing are extremely more efficient when kept in-house so brands only need to invest in the right talent. A few things to think about:
1. Good work is subjective and many brands are not looking for what super creative have to offer
2. At an agency there’s close to zero investment in personal growth. In-house though? There’s a focus in developing and training people and it’s seen as an investment, not unnecessary cost like in agencies.
3. In-house has less rotation of talent. That brings efficiencies too and stability. Having to jump shop to get a promotion or a raise is getting old.
4. Communication with in-house is faster and gives marketing managers more control.
These all vary depending on the brand. But I don’t see the in-house train stopping. Get a job in-house and watch the agency business model sink from a distance. It hasn’t gotten any better for agencies since 2008. Rates are still down and will never go back to what they used to be. It’s been 13 years of decline.
Having worked half of my 20-year career in house (for very large, global brands) the idea that in house could ever be more efficient or produce work even close to being on par is completely laughable. I don't know where you got such ideas or what makes you you so strident about them, but from someone WELL acquainted with being on the other side, you couldn't be more wrong. In house can make decent production houses at best. Remember that whole Kylie Jenner Pepsi debacle? Yeah, that was their in house team. In house can't speak truth to power or maneuver the politics necessary to tell suits their ideas won't work.
They’ll do what places like McDs did. Close up shop and take it to a reputable creative agency.
Agencies will always exist in some form, external insight and views will always have a place in business.
What is happening is that a majority agencies are moving into a more consultative like model where strategy trumps the creative when it comes to importance. See: most holding company agencies.
There’s also agencies that are smaller, nimbler, that end up just being a content factory for a few big brands and don’t do much TV / above the line. There are loads of these agencies popping up everywhere.
& finally there is what we traditionally view an ad agency should be - a creator of work - TV, OOH, print, activations etc. These are becoming rarer. See: W+K, Droga5, Mother, Uncommon etc
& then there’s the digital first agencies like MediaMonks and platforms like Google/FB that are also hoovering up marketing spend
In-house isn’t for every brand. I have yet to see it work for a large, global, multi-national brands and these are usually the clients with the biggest ad spends.
CD1 & SC1 :
MAL is a hybrid of I’ve ever seen one. They’re not really in-house. That’s the only reason it works trust me. And the amount of times mal does something only for it to go out to \TBWA start all over again...
Chief
When has an in house dept produced better creative after leaving an agency? The two big examples of the work getting worse (to way worse) are Apple and Pepsi. But Id like to hear what examples youre thinking of
How is Apple an example of it getting worse? I think you’d all be surprised by what MARCOM produces.
Inhouse teams like the smell of their own farts too much which is why we get stuff like Pepsi ending civil unrest with Kendall Jenner.
Agencies will always exist because there's real value in an objective force in your best interest.
I remember a headline almost verbatim to your post in the early 2000s. The shift back and forth between agency and in-house has been happening for 20 years or more, so pretty sure everyone has already caught on. It will always go in cycles IMO.
If the in-house is like the one at Oatly’s, it’s great. But there you don’t have a CMO and the CCO is running the show.
And it's very rare to have a CCO at all in house!
Chief
Certain companies will figure out the in-house model and cut agencies out.
Many will struggle to build the in-house team and it will wind up becoming a massive money drain on the brand that produces an inferior product.
Rising Star
Agencies started building in-house production facilities over 30 years ago and recording studios have not gone out of business as a result. Likewise, there will always be reasons for in-house and agency to both exist. As SC1 said, in-house isn’t right for everyone.
The rancher and the cowhand should be friends...
Unless you're an agency owner, should we even care? The jobs would still be there. What do agencies offer talent that inhouse can't?
Chief
Agencies offer the chance to work on more than one client.
It’s so rare that I’m house creative is better. It’s a myth.