Both satisfy client needs for campaigns and products that are aligned with internal company mission and brand requirements. Both get things built. Both work for maintenance contracts and new development. But each has its nuances. My comments below are based on experience with both. So though some strengths or weaknesses may not implicitly make sense, this is how I've seen them function. Each has its surprising biases.
Option A: Interactive Studio Model
Overview
- Optimal for producing highly interactive and functional online collateral; collateral such as online community spaces, retail transactions, analysis of such things as stock performance etc.
- Often works hand in hand with the highly collaborative methodologies such as Rapid Development
- Continuing client contact resides with business development team
- Efficiency in management by combining account management and project management into one role: the Producer
- Supports a UX perspective by allowing the Information Architect to work alongside the Producer
- Solutions and overall requirements are shaped by the Information Architect and the collaborative effort of all members of the team
- Rapid Development is easy in this model since the team is able to collaborate directly with the client and then amongst itself at a strategic level
- Esprit de corps is often high because client contact is greater. The work feels more important when you are recognized.
- Producer role is over taxed when services are extended across other media such as Print and Broadcast
- Proximity of Interactive Architect to client can conflict with delivering the specific brand services of a Planner/Strategist
- Finding people to be Producers can be daunting in many markets; people who function highly as account managers, strategists and project managers
- Rapid Development is often part of this structure but, because it requires participation of all disciplines in initial phases, it is over kill for most simple marcom campaigns
Overview
- Optimal for an agency that sells a focus on the brand and then follows that with Marketing Communication campaigns that cross across a variety of channels
- Best for copy and image centric content (rather than interactive/experience centric engagements) distributed into multiple channels such as Print, Interactive and Broadcast
- Methodology often trends towards waterfall
- Account Manager is separate from production processes and specific media so is free to position work and services in terms of brand and can ensure continuity of campaign across media
- Works well for campaigns across a variety of media
- Because services are clearly componentialized, additional services can more easily be sold in separately and in advance of development
- Greater creative control since this positions company to own brand and tactics rather than respond to brand with tactics as the Interactive Model does
- As a result of owning wider services, this model allows for greater revenue generation
Weaknesses
- Does not respond as well to challenge to create interactive solutions as well as the Interactive Model because the intelligence that is inherent in the development team is separated from client by the Account Manager
- When Account Manager is not working across multiple mediums, there is a costly redundancy in communications and skills between the Account Manager and the Project Manager
- Account managers often lack interactive development experience and so lack insight into the possibilities of the medium. This often reduces the client to receiving tactics that are close to being flat print and image projects rather than tactics that are innovative and take advantage of the possibilities within interactive media
- Esprit de Corps often suffers. Client contact by the team is often minimized so anonymity breeds burn-out
Well, there is still more to discuss and even more to conclude. But my conclusion so far is that agencies hoping to be AORs (Agencies of Record) rather than simply iAORs (INTERACTIVE Agencies of Record) need to resolve these two organizational structures so that the unique possibilities of the interactive space can be brought to the client. Otherwise I think we risk either delivering uneven quality across channels, or treating the interactive space as print but diff'rent.
I think we also need to look at methodology as much as we look at the organizational structure and job titles. A flexible attitude towards methodology, organizational structure, AND the actual and varied skills that each person holds under their job description is necessary ( I recommend starting this investigation with IDEO's 'T' person).
Whoever ultimately solves this will deliver strategy and brand support that is unequaled.
0 comments:
Post a Comment