The main threat to agencies is not a competition, its their client. The lack of transparency, which translates to “we can do this cheaper in-house,” is the reason why companies start building in-house media teams.

As soon a company engages with an advertising agency, there is a natural, intrinsic competition, where the company thinks can perform better, and the agencies need to outperform them.

The advertising channels aren’t helping either: they are making it easier and easier for companies to run media, leaving agencies more vulnerable than ever.

The solution agencies have found so far are:

1) Creativity: by providing better/more compelling creatives, they can provide something companies can’t easily replicate.

2) Taking all the risk: spending their own money to get results, and charge companies based on those results.

Both models have a core flaw: if companies can get better/cheaper creative people, or can get better/cheaper results, there is no reason to keep the agency.

There is a third, semi-explored option: technology. But technology alone is a sunk-cost: if the technology can’t outperform in-house teams or save enough time to allow the agencies to price lower (which won’t do), it is useless.

It is a combination of technology and expertise: agencies who can build technology around vertical expertise will have and unfair advantage.

(Inspiration: https://danielpearson.substack.com/p/in-house-indigestion-a89)

Did you like this post? Subscribe for FREE

Powered by MailChimp

leocelis

Hi! My name is Leo Celis. I’m an entrepreneur and Python developer specialized in Ad Tech and MarTech.

read more