America's next top (agency) model

My oh my, this sunshine is glorious. Sunshine, the happy sight of Mn/DOT finally fixing all the potholes ... perhaps the impassioned spring fever pleas from my previous post have been heard by the Powers That Be. Hm ... having the weather gods on speed-dial would be a pleasant thing indeed. But enough frivolity! Today I'm going to ramble a bit about a trend I see in the agency world these days: the changing composition of what an agency looks like and how it operates.

Traditionally — certainly since the 19th century, when the ad biz began coalescing into the structure it still resembles today — the full-service, in-house model was usually considered the way to go. If you had the revenue, hire away, and bring the best and brightest on staff. Sure, the names of the departments may have changed quite a bit; a century ago, social media looked more like some dude in muttonchops and a top hat chatting over cigars and brandy about the wares of his client than Twitter or one of the thousands of other social media apps that now dot our technological landscape. But the principle, I think, remains largely the same. We want the best, and we want them on our team.

I'm not going to argue against that, for sure. To create the best, you've got to have the best talent (and guts, and an understanding client, and often a bit o' luck). But it seems to me that these days, many agencies are moving away from the bigger-is-better approach into something a bit more ad hoc, streamlined, freelance-friendly in terms of relationships with creatives.

I know when we were writing our business plan and figuring out how we wanted Crazy Savvy to function (can't believe that was more than a year ago already — how time flies when you're having fun), we thought a lot about this very question. Did we want to perhaps bring a designer or developer on board with us from day one? It had its appeals .... getting your working styles in sync, knowing you have someone to do the job no matter what. But we found ourselves thinking, what if it wasn't always the right person for the job? Did we really want to be so locked in?

We found the answer was a hearty no. We liked the option to bring in the right creative for whatever project we were tackling. Doing a print-heavy ad campaign for an environmentally-conscious fashion retailer? I know just the lad. Working on a Flash-intense website redesign for a sports team? I've got the right lady for the job. And so forth. We liked that, by keeping things small, we could keep them nimble, and ensure that we were able to bring precisely the right talent on the job to fit our clients' needs and visions. There are plenty of people who are good at a lot of things, but everyone — even the very best — seems to specialize in one or two things, and (just as crucially, in my opinion) have a genuine passion for them. That's the way we decided to set up shop, and for us, it's worked out brilliantly.

Of course, it's silly to think it works this way for everyone. The agency behemoths of the world aren't going to magically become a five-person shop overnight — nor should they. Some projects require a huge team, moving in synchronicity, to tackle all the requirements in a cohesive fashion. But it seems many small-to-midsize agencies are rethinking their approach to talent acquisition. It'll be interesting to see how this trend continues to play out as our economy in the States begins its bounceback from the recession (one hopes). It'll be interesting to see how clients' expectations and the bid and pitch processes evolve. It'll be interesting to see how creatives begin to talk about themselves, market themselves, see themselves. It'll be interesting all around .... and you can be sure to read about it here!