whats wrong with ADVERTISING???
Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2011 12:40 pm
I begin by asking some provocative questions:
why is today's advertising industry unable to acquire the best talent? Why is the industry fragmenting communication options into different businesses and not providing complete solutions to clients? Why are communication value-additions dwindling, as the industry's shrinking margins seem to indicate? And finally, why is the profession producing no strong leadership?
Advertising was once a career of choice for graduates of management institutes. It was definitely a premier 'creative' option in the 1970s and 1980s. Today, I don't think advertising companies even feature on the top B-schools' placement lists. They can't recruit a single person from these institutes. One wonders why.
I am concerned that in order to survive the onslaught of lower margins, the advertising industry is fragmenting itself relentlessly. This seems unnecessary to me. Lifebuoy is a brand that has been around for a hundred years. It is as 'current' today as it was a century ago. It has managed this simply by reinventing itself. Lifebuoy has launched new products such as hand sanitisers that have done well for the brand and for the business as a whole.
The fragmentation of the advertising industry is unusual: the emergent parts of the business - such as digital communications and PR - are being set up as separate enterprises. What advertising really needs to offer clients is a comprehensive communications solution. The creation of silos will never be able to produce the necessary value addition or secure additive margins.
Leadership: I see a complete lack of it. I don't want to comment on the erosion of leadership over the years. But indeed, where are today's young leaders and 'thought provokers', who could change the very nature of advertising? Post-1992, strands of liberalisation began to emerge in India. Businesses consolidated themselves through buyouts - consider Hindustan Lever, for instance. The advertising industry responded through 'specialisation': advertisers began to earn their surplus income from 30-second spots on TV. The future is India.
In the next 5-10 years, business growth will be massive. Growing business will create a growing need for advertising. Opportunities for growth will present the advertising industry with two options: consolidation or fragmentation. I disagree with the argument that fragmentation is wise because it allows investments to be channelled into other businesses and creates a backup for future.
Fragmentation severely inconveniences clients. Clients want to deal with agencies that can address a communication problem in its entirety - they cannot engage multiple silos separately. No doubt a few agencies have done extremely well, and global realignments have helped certain others. But for the most part, margins have reduced and agencies have been unable to support the needs created by fragmentation. All-embracing communication solutions have not been created.
why is today's advertising industry unable to acquire the best talent? Why is the industry fragmenting communication options into different businesses and not providing complete solutions to clients? Why are communication value-additions dwindling, as the industry's shrinking margins seem to indicate? And finally, why is the profession producing no strong leadership?
Advertising was once a career of choice for graduates of management institutes. It was definitely a premier 'creative' option in the 1970s and 1980s. Today, I don't think advertising companies even feature on the top B-schools' placement lists. They can't recruit a single person from these institutes. One wonders why.
I am concerned that in order to survive the onslaught of lower margins, the advertising industry is fragmenting itself relentlessly. This seems unnecessary to me. Lifebuoy is a brand that has been around for a hundred years. It is as 'current' today as it was a century ago. It has managed this simply by reinventing itself. Lifebuoy has launched new products such as hand sanitisers that have done well for the brand and for the business as a whole.
The fragmentation of the advertising industry is unusual: the emergent parts of the business - such as digital communications and PR - are being set up as separate enterprises. What advertising really needs to offer clients is a comprehensive communications solution. The creation of silos will never be able to produce the necessary value addition or secure additive margins.
Leadership: I see a complete lack of it. I don't want to comment on the erosion of leadership over the years. But indeed, where are today's young leaders and 'thought provokers', who could change the very nature of advertising? Post-1992, strands of liberalisation began to emerge in India. Businesses consolidated themselves through buyouts - consider Hindustan Lever, for instance. The advertising industry responded through 'specialisation': advertisers began to earn their surplus income from 30-second spots on TV. The future is India.
In the next 5-10 years, business growth will be massive. Growing business will create a growing need for advertising. Opportunities for growth will present the advertising industry with two options: consolidation or fragmentation. I disagree with the argument that fragmentation is wise because it allows investments to be channelled into other businesses and creates a backup for future.
Fragmentation severely inconveniences clients. Clients want to deal with agencies that can address a communication problem in its entirety - they cannot engage multiple silos separately. No doubt a few agencies have done extremely well, and global realignments have helped certain others. But for the most part, margins have reduced and agencies have been unable to support the needs created by fragmentation. All-embracing communication solutions have not been created.