Post-Agency III: Naming Names

This is the third in a three-part series on the “post-agency” environment.  For related background pieces, see "Post-Agency I: In Defense of Katharine Weymouth’s WaPo Strategy," "Post-Agency II: Mad Man Market Thyself," "Welcome to the Post-Agency Era," "New Priorities for the Post-Agency Market," "Post-Agency Era, Now Powered by Google" and "TIme to Convene the Ethics Committee."

It seems a fait accompli, the death of agencies.  I’ve made the case for the collapse of this industry business model several times over, and the Financial Times has recently detailed the challenges and the various players’ attempts to address them.  It was, though, Nicholas Negroponte from MIT’s Media Lab who stated the issue plainly and first, a decade ago, saying that any organization that describes itself as an ‘agency’ is "doomed."  He was right, and the industry still has not taken on the fundamental question of the day: if not an “agency,” then what?

Fernando Rodés Vilà, chief executive of Havas, the French holding company, comes closest to taking on the question.  In the Financial Times, he says: “the old wartime metaphors of ‘campaign, target and launch’ no longer apply. The model that started with world war two was based on control in a few hands: very few media, two or three relevant brands in each sector and a few agencies.  We are [now] facing a very different panorama, which is much more democratic, much more social, much more interesting but much more difficult for marketers.”  Indeed, there is a problem with the industry’s central war metaphors, and I have previously argued that marketers must engage in a more holistic, humanist — call it Renaissance — approach and language.

But the word “agency” itself must be taken on as well: its old middleman meddling won’t do; transparency with consumers demands that brands do not have others do their bidding.  In an age filled with marketers desperate for big ideas from deeper thinkers, “agents” are once-removed do-ers.  And, on the metaphoric front, we must recognize the draconian nature of “The Agency” (whether CIA or CAA) as a term.  It’s not to be trusted, semantically or practically.  The meaning of the word is broken.  While not really even recognized as a metaphor, the word has become, in fact, a dead metaphor through idomatic overuse.  Interactive agencies, with their new, direct and malleable models, are often cited as hurrying on the death of advertising agencies.  Impossible.

This lexical conundrum suggests the need for either a massive industry effort to establish new meaning for “agency” — to resurrect its metaphorical center in ways worthy of Lazarus himself -- or the courage to reject the word as damaging outright.  Not part of the problem, but the problem itself.

The ability to re-imagine, rename and re-invigorate a category is not beyond the industry — it is its lifeblood, and its life depends upon it now.  If both the realities and perceptions are going to shift, changing this one word is the most important task possible.  To describe one’s own business in terms of a broken model, an irrelevant position and a dead metaphor indeed supports Negroponte’s doomsday predictions.  These are basics and as such, very difficult: Who are you? What are you? What do you do?  Industry leaders must recognize the fundamental power of answering these questions anew.  Weak players filled with weaker minds will wilt under the task: this is pure steak. Forget the sizzle, all out.  Strategy, not “creative,” has to solve this one.  Which is the area of “agency” strength?  We’ll find out definitively now.

What is the right word for something “much more democratic, much more social, much more interesting”?  Something post-agency and future focused?  The first step to an answer: trust nothing still describing itself as an agency.