Among the synonyms for fake you’ll find: artificial, cheat, fraudulent, false, charlatan, feign, counterfeit, phony, pretend and deception. If you take the time to pull back the covers off brand activism, you’ll find what is essentially the definition of fake. Oh yes, I’ll be the first to admit that there are “purpose built” brands that are activist / causal and that they live up to their promise. Among these brands you’ll find REI, The North Face, Bombas, Tom’s, Ben and Jerry’s, etc. …

Agencies and management consultancies were the “force” of change in the late 90’s through the early ‘00’s, representing the “source” of innovation and the next generation of knowledge. Companies sought out organizations that could help reimagine business models, build new channels, specifically digital, implement complex technologies and drive organizational change. From start-up’s to the largest corporations, engaging the capabilities and experience of companies such as MarchFIRST, iXL, Scient, Lante, Organic, Agency.com, Razorfish, Sapient, etc., where a new breed of talent and capability resided, was viewed as being tantamount to success. …

Let’s be honest— the world of digital and advertising “agencies” is replete with inconsistency.

The adage, “If you try to be all things to all people…,” is appropriately applicable to the world of advertising and digital agencies.

Having spent my entire career solving complex client challenges, the one I’ve been most frustrated with and unable to solve for exists within the industry that I’ve worked within for the past 2+ decades. The challenge itself is simple; yet, the desire / willingness to solve for it is an enormous impediment.

Let’s dig in a bit. There’s a historical context that frames this challenge. First, there are no “standards” for what defines an advertising or digital agency. Unlike other industries where there are certifications, standards, guidelines, etc., neither of these industries are governed. With this in mind, the barrier to entry is a laptop, software, Internet connection and a human being. Those are literally the only barriers. Items such as errors and omission (E&O) insurance aren’t necessary, at least unless a client requires it. Individuals leave agencies valued at $B’s and start their own competing directly within days. It’s that simple. So, the first issue regarding “standards” or lack thereof is driven by the mere fact that there are such limited barriers to entry. The concept of “to each his own” applies in this situation. Each “agency” has its own approach, capabilities, experience and philosophy. The term “full service,” which will get discussed later, is the clarion call of the issue of lack of consistency. …

It’s time for change. Breaking what’s broken.

The agency and management consulting industries spend enormous amounts of energy responding to RFPs. So, how did we get here? It’s actually quite simple. It’s a flawed approach based on the premise that “free” thinking will be provided by companies with the “hope” that they will be selected and ultimately, awarded a contract. Let’s openly discuss the dirty little secrets of the RFP process. This will get interesting.

The RFP — Behind the Scenes

With 2 decades of experience, I can speak with authority on the challenges with RFPs. First, most RFPs are based on an internal perspective of a problem or opportunity that can’t be solved internally. Here’s the first issue. If the team that’s writing the scope of the RFP has already defined the problem or the opportunity space, what room is there for an agency or management consultancy to address a root cause analysis and provide recommendations for a solution? Over the years, I’ve worked on RFP responses where we had to essentially “guess” at the issue based on such limited insight or, in fact, rewrite the RFP based on prior category experience and understanding of the competitive landscape and customer needs through research and outcomes. …

We really don’t care about you.

The term “broken” is a kind way of saying the relationship between brands and customers is fundamentally screwed up. Marketing spend as a percentage of total investment is heavily skewed to acquisition, not retention. Many companies version of the lifetime value model (LTV) is measured through attrition and net conversion vs. retention. Solving for this issue should be paramount for companies; but unfortunately, marketing has an addiction. New customers have a tendency to be more attractive or “interesting” than existing customers. Let’s look at the data before delving deeper. Typically, acquiring a new customer costs approximately 5–25X more than retaining a customer. Adobe conducted a study that looked at conversion rates of repeat customers. They found that a customer who’s purchased from a brand two times before is nine times more likely to convert than a first-time shopper. There are so many studies related to this issue — so do your additional research if you’d prefer. What’s been studied using significant variants (methods and models) is essentially a reflection of common sense and logic. So, if this is the case, why do companies spend so much on acquisition vs. retention? …

Insights from the front line.

Here’s a glimpse into this article — for those that want the SparkNotes™ version.

• A Partnership vs. Other Structures — The benefits and the challenges.
• Financing the Business — Early stage capital, burn rates and expectations.
• The Market Opportunity — “Narrow is the path.”
• Surviving Due Diligence — The process is expensive and daunting, but…
• Post Acquisition — What’s next?
• The End Result — Positive or Negative?

A Partnership vs. Other Structures

When we began the journey of building a management advisory for CMO’s focused on the complexity of business transformation in the digital age, each of the four co-founders brought a unique set of skills and experience to the equation. The company, Trade or more formally (Trade NTE — Narrative, Technology and Economics), was born out of decades of leadership experience at the likes of The Coca-Cola Company, Publicis, Ogilvy, Critical Mass and iXL / Scient (Razorfish) among others. Senior leaders who had all “done their time” within large corporate America or within the global agency holding co’s. …

The mall, the venerable and vaunted retail pinnacle of the ’80s, now resembles what remains of the once global leading U.S. manufacturing heartland. Malls owned by SPG, Westfield, GGP, etc. are replete with empty storefronts, pop-up retailers that reflect the bazaar, peculiar and short-lived and end-capped by struggling big box (e.g. J. C. Penney, Belk, Sears, Macy’s, etc.). They’re a reflection of the evolution of our behavior as consumers. We’ve seen this coming for 20+ years, so why did so many retailers fail to evolve, and what can be done to prevent the hastening of the demise of consumer choice?

The Retail Wasteland

The “wasteland” is a reflection of shifting behavior driven by convenience, while also by a legacy retail mentality that includes an arrogance of nearly 15 years of lack of recognition of the changing landscape. When companies fail to adapt, reinvent or completely reimagine their business model over decades as new channels emerge with new market entrants and differing financial models, the outcome is, effectively, pre-destined. If IBM was still focused on selling legacy mainframes vs. cloud computing or Marriott only sold inventory through travel agents or its own websites, how would they compete in today’s environment? Yes, these may seem basic examples, but they’re real, just as automotive companies have evolved from a labor intensive manufacturing process to highly automated, retail has been forced to change. …

The reality is quite simple. Your behavior is your personal currency — that is, unless you’re willing to pay.

Our own mental models of experience and perception of value exchange are complex. The Social Dilemma served as an example of the “voice” of the concerned as it relates to privacy and manipulation of perspectives, including the reinforcement of biases. For those of us with decades of experience in the industry, we’ve known, and in many instances used the algorithms and data for the benefit of our clients, while recognizing the issues with data privacy.

Here’s the reality. Nothing is free. We’re the product. Our stories, the narrative of our lives, is effectively the monetization engine for platforms such as @Google, @Facebook, @Instagram, @Snap, @TikTok, @Pinterest, etc. It’s this “free” service that requires our content in order to align our behaviors, our desires and our own “idiosyncracies” to the advertising model that underpins the revenue model of these companies. The chorus of concerns over privacy and manipulation by “Big Tech” are, in essence, a hollow argument when we take into consideration the perspectives of the users of the platforms. The reality is straight forward, yet the clarion call to action versus the willingness to change behavior are juxtaposed. …