Biz dev guy loses the thread in Ad Age

by Peter
2010 January 22
Posted in: Professional |

An abbreviated version of this post appeared as a comment to a column in Ad Age…

I’ve been paying a lot of attention to the trades these days, looking for forums to talk about what we believe in, and staying abreast of trends. Do I think/hope the former will lead to new business opportunities? Oh faher sher.

I’d posit the same is true for just about every contributor to a trade publication who’s got a related business.

And then there’s Barry Wacksman, EVP-chief growth officer, R/GA.

The January 11 issue of Advertising Age features a column penned by Mr. Wacksman in which he urges agencies to strive not for ‘lead’ status among a roster of agency partners, but instead for the vaunted title of ‘dream’ agency.

In defining this entity, Mr. Wacksman says ‘it would have a thorough understanding of how consumers think and feel, but also how they seek and make and share and transact.’ I know, groundbreaking. But stay with me, as I did with him…

He goes on to say that the dream agency wouldn’t be wedded to a specific type media; it would be nimble and capable and, most important, innovative, whether working online or off.

‘Right on, brotha,’ I said. (Well, it was really more of a thought. That’s when I tend to channel my inner blaxploitation persona.) ‘Go on witcha bad self.’

That's what I'm talkin' about

Is that coat reversible?

Wacksman continues by pointing out that the ability to execute brilliant ideas—not just conceive of them—would be the dream agency’s key attribute. And, moreover, that said agency would, by dint of its skill, media acumen and strategic insight, become the client’s most valuable partner, regardless of whether or not they’re called the ‘lead.’

‘Testify!’ I cried. (When the moment strikes, my inner dialog can get really spiritual.)

Then Wacksman winds up for the big finish, when he reveals what type of agency is best positioned to grab for this brass ring.

And the winner, he says, is ‘…the current crop of large, independent digital-age agencies.’

Which is funny, because that rules out Wacksman’s agency, an Interpublic joint.

So the question is “Do you think good ol’ Barry is just the gosh-darned nicest, real-est and most secure guy on the planet, to go ahead and endorse a type of agency that his is not…or did he just black out for a minute and forget that he and his whole operation are actually part of the borg?” I’m betting the latter.

I’m also betting that Barry got an extra-special invitation to lunch with Bob Greenberg after the piece ran.

Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to believe that somebody in this super-competitive industry had the guts to tell it like it is, even if that meant a gentle bitch slap to the folks who sign his paycheck.

But I think the truth is more likely that Barry just got tired after writing all those words and became delusional to the point of believing that R/GA really is an independent entity, rather than part of one of the largest agency holding companies in the world, with over 40,000 employees and more than $7 billion in annual revenue.

Independent? Um, not so much.

  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • FriendFeed
  • Twitter
  • Share/Bookmark
2 Comments leave one →
2010 January 22
Peter permalink

So, a friend and business partner (I’ll call him Bob) wrote to say that, while I had the R/GA-IPG relationship technically right, there’s actually more to it. Specifically, he said, “R/GA has always been a little bit independently run. It’s a bit of a legacy issue, as no one ever really knew what to do with them…their business was so different from the traditional agency businesses–besides interactive, they had a huge special effects/digital production component to their company.”

Well ‘Bob,’ it’s funny you should say that, because before I checked into the independence issue, I was all keyed up to take the post in an entirely different direction.

That is, calling out Mr. Wacksman AND AD Age for such a thinly veiled piece of self-promotional schlock.

As I point out at the top of the piece, everyone who writes a column and also has a related business is working some sort of angle. But if Wacksman really fancies R/GA a “large, independent digital-age” agency, and was using the column primarily as a propaganda piece, well shame on him and on Ad Age, as well, for running such tripe.

2010 January 22

Shame on him or great job getting Ad Age to allow him to promote his company? I think the latter, eh?

Leave A Comment

Note: You can use basic XHTML in your comments. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS