You’re a smarty pants. This is a super well-articulated summary of the issue at hand. The answer, of course, is that the clients’ marketing departments and budgets are organized this way, so agencies are forced to squeeze into the unflattering, tight-fitting short-sleeved button down that is that process. Boo.

The existing model is predicated on the fact that a client doesn’t want to put all their eggs in one basket (justifiably) to come up with a single campaign approach. And, unless it’s controlled with an iron fist - or alternately, complete negligence - the larger the organization, the larger the disarray of marketing efforts.

One edit I would make to your first diagram is that Trad and PR usually get a leap over Media Planning & Digital, so The Idea is (sadly) already there in most cases when the Media and Digital teams start work.

In any case, it’s bad for “integrated” campaigns.

Well written, but I beg to disagree. Having cut my marketing teeth in traditional advertising, and migrated to digital in the mid-90s, I can say that the things that make traditional advertising fantastic are exactly the things that screw up digital.

The metaphorical play between headline and visual that forms a creative concept generally doesn’t work online. And straightforward page titles that keep the promise of the link you clicked on in the online universe, seem dull in print.

What has happened is that the traditional AIDA model - Awareness, Interest, Desire, Action has been cut in two parts. Offline is fabulous at gaining awareness and generating interest when you want to attract attention on a crowded street, during a commercial break, or as folks flip through a magazine. But online, people are at your site voluntarily. Marketing gives way to much more strightforward communication and dialog to generate desire and give people a course of action.

For years, I did creative work in both camps - as an ad copywriter, and as an information architect/content provider. This is incredibly skizophrenic. And I know only a handful of folks who can do both equally well.

Offline, the concept is very much a matter of look and feel. Online, it’s a matter of function.

This is also why so few ad agencies also do their own TV production - they outsource to experts. Again, it’s a question of skillset.

Although I can see both functions existing under the same roof, simply because when the business analysts at ad agencies finally figure out how digital media works, a lot of interactive consultants are going to be out of a gig. But apart from the research and some analysis, the actual creative bits just don’t necessarily overlap, except for campaign sites for high-profile customers like Coke and Nike.

Hi Eric, Thanks for your comment.

I absolutely agree with you that a traditional offline advertising agency should not be responsible for a brand’s corporate website. Corporate websites should go to specialists who do have an army of talented business analysts, technologists, UX people and content strategists.

However, I think that all the marketing, the One Agency can do, and it shouldn’t be split up. We absolutely come up with big ideas for digital advertising. And sometimes we only focus at the top of the funnel for that advertising, or sometimes the bottom or even then whole thing. It really depends on the tactic and the campaign as a whole.