I agree 100 percent. Collaboration is much better for the client and that's who all the agencies on a given project should be serving.
Thanks for this blog. Its a very interesting topic and yes we are seeing this trend throughout the business world. Competitors are combining forces for the benefit of the client and also to open new revenue streams not yet realized.
For example look at GE and Pentair. These are two competitors, but recently came together to develop a global water softener and residential water filtration businesses to increase sales and achieve synergies. These companies still "compete" in other areas, but came together for both the benefit of the customer and the sales opportunity for each organization.
Our company is exploring similar partnerships with both previous competitors and other non-related industries. For example a PR or advertising agency may have a client that needs a targeted campaign. By combining our market research capabilities with the PR plan the client realizes a must more targeted and successful PR campaign.
Its a win/win for all!
As more PR agencies are claiming to be "integrated marketing agencies," there is much greater potential for territorial pissing matches between agencies on a single piece of business. Most notably, I saw this happen quite a bit when I was a big-agency guy. There tended to be resentment within the big-agency walls whenever a client signed on with a Web development firm or a direct mail firm or even hired a freelancer to produce a one-off print ad. The truth is that most of the so-called "integrated" agencies have few core competency areas and many half-hearted integrated marketing disciplines.
For instance, while I was at big agency, we were instructed to up-sell our company's interactive marketing function when pitching clients on interactive tactics as part of a comprehensive marketing plan. The trouble was, the interactive team was a hastily assembled bunch of novices, with a leadership vacuum at the top, that hopelessly bungled every project I delegated to them. Every single interactive tactic I proposed for my clients ended up being delivered late, over-budget and (honestly) not up to the quality standards my clients deserved. After these experiences, I had no problem recommending that clients source their own interactive agencies.
I'll admit, sometimes it's tough to "play nice" with third-party agencies you feel are strategically inferior to yours. I remember working with a direct marketing agency for several years on behalf of one very large client that couldn't think its way out of a paper bag, but rather than bitching about their shortcomings, I simply added "agency wrangling" to my many account management duties and billed my client for the time it took to spoon-feed strategic insight to these yokels.
So, in the final analysis, even if it's frustrating working with other agencies, there's often opportunity to add value for your clients by taking the high road and helping them manage their less-than-perfect agency charges.
At the end of the day its about helping the client achieve their objectives and partnering can be a great way to do that. "Partnering" can come in different forms and can be as simple as a refferal or as complex as a legal contract with some exclusivity. Finding a consitent, collaborative and trusted partnership is key to making these type of relationships a success for all.
Thanks for all the comments!
I feel there are some very valid points here. I know that ego is something I have often encountered when dealing with other agencies. But the biggest realization I have come to is you get better outcomes when everyone is on the same page and speaking the same language. I have the utmost respect for organizations that can put the BS aside and serve their clients to the best of their abilities. In my mind, these are the organizations I want to partner with and that I will refer business to. I know that I have worked to develop trusting relationships with other agencies so when the need to bring someone else to the table arises I have partners in place that are accountable and very savvy.
All of your navel gazing is all well and good, but this blog would be much more helpful to most of us out there if it gave us an inside-glimpse of what is happening at companies and PR agencies in the Twin Cities. I hear of lay offs, but not a mention of it here... hmmm.
Navel gazing....humm....have to add that to my repertoire of responses. 
What specifically would you like to “glimpse” about twin cities businesses? Yes there are lay off’s, but mostly in retail, food and the manufacturing industries. Medical continues to thrive. I try to explain to prospects that hunkering down and waiting for the economy to turn around may put them in a worse situation. Prudent spending and “cutting the fat” are the right things to do in any economy, but holding on tight to budgets may end in additional or new competitors. Companies can thrive in a softening economy if they are strategic, creative and have somewhat flexible business models. Most of the companies having a difficult time in the twin cities fall into two categories:
1 – Large corporations who cannot move quickly in a shifting economy
2 – Smaller companies who have poor/ unfocused business plans
This is why “partnerships” is so appealing. Rather then shift your business model you stay true to your core competencies and leverage capabilities others have as “value add” or to create a new business model. Typically what happens in these partnerships is you learn from each other and further expand your thinking and offerings.
While I understand you may view posts on here as naval gazing, I believe Ryan May (who usually authors this blog) does a fantatic job capturing the current rhythm of the Twin Cities PR community.
As a guest author, I was invited to share my insights on current trends, topics and other relevant issues pertaining to the PR industry.
Blogging, in my opinion, is meant to be an interactive forum to share ideas and opinions on any subject matter. This is why I follow blogs authored by Seth Godin, Malcolm Gladwell and Ken Wheaton -- not to get news related information but to hear opinions and learn what other industry experts are trying.
Great insight, Heather. It seems collaboration is proving to be a more efficient alternative than even freelance. The adage "great minds think alike" only reaches its full potential when brought to a think tank of right-brained professionals.
Then again-- we also need those left-brainers to keep us on budget
Thomas, you're right - this is a shrinking market for PR folks looking for work. Client budgets are tight and it's slim pickings for new business.
But I think something important has happened in the past few years. More clients are eschewing the bland big-agency hoopla for small, creative agencies that truly understand trends in new media, have a reliable stable of freelance producers, Web developers, etc., and (most importantly) have passion for the business. There is a lot of incestuous sameness plaguing the big agencies - Shandwick hires former account people from Padilla, Padilla hires former Shandwickians, Spong hires away the entire Fleishman Minneapolis office and Fleishman just imports more drones from its vast, international drone network to keep the lights burning bright.
Clients are not blind to this "one-size-fits-all" approach to PR. They are looking for new ideas, creativity and a departure from the PR program developed by the TommyTech(TM) MBA candidate, executed by the job-hopping account sup. who has worked at six different agencies in ten years and supported by the fresh-faced PRSSA co-treasurer from St. Olaf.
I think we'll see continued growth of the small-to-mid-sized, highly creative PR agency (or PR function of a larger ad agency) in the future. We've got an inspired bunch of shops like this in town already - Morsekode, Olson, Karwoski, Maccabee, etc. - and my guess is they will continue stealing share away from the biggies as clients get smarter about their PR investments.
The old "crank out the work" model is dead. The old "let's get on the Today show" model is dying. Clients need to break through the clutter and employ creative tactics. The tried-and-true tools of our trade are rapidly becoming as obsolete as the six-inch-thick Bacon's media directories. The sooner the big agencies realize this, the sooner their fortunes will change.
And that's my assessment of the Twin Cities PR agency climate.
David is so spot-on when discussing the current trends and the shift in perception of what PR can actually do for an organization (something I plan on blogging about this week). In my opinion, clip books are dead and should no longer be the measurement tool utilized to gauge public relations success.
I cant convey enough how exhausted I am of organizations saying -- we have a new product and need to be on Oprah. I continue to push back and have to ask -- what do you hope being on Oprah will do for your business? How does this tie to your business objectives? Where is the strategy in this approach?
Organizations really need to be retrained on the value of PR. For so long, our profession said that success really did equal clip tonnage. But the media landscape has shifted and what worked in terms of PR in the past doesn't anymore. I think it is time our profession rewrite the definition of what PR is and how success needs to be determined. Watch for a blog post on this topic later this week.
I think we may be making some broad generalizations as it relates to PR. I am by no means a PR expert, but there are lots of other variables at play here. For example PR approaches can be quite different for B2B vs. a B2C organization. And further different from a "product" PR campaign vs. a "brand awareness" campaign.
The answer is not always Oprah...unless of course you are in need of a new car, but there is isn't a brand that would turn down the brand awareness reach that Oprah show could bring.
The million dollar question is really "What is the short-term and long-term business objective?" Once this is understood a case can be made for why a PR firm would propose "A " solution vs. "B" solution. The time stretched client today relies heavily on their service provider to help steer them in the right direction and make prudent decisions as it relates to the use of their budgeted monies to achieve their objectives.
different yets its not that the techniques are flawed
Commenting by HaloScan
