Just enough isn't enough
Over the years, I’ve worked at and with a variety of agencies and consulting firms. Creative boutiques to strategic consultancies. Big agencies and small specialists. Local independents and global networks. I’ve been onsite, in-house and in the outhouse, but regardless of where I was, there has been a trend making the work that we – brand-centered strategists, for lack of a better name – do less and useful. And, as each one has faced pressure from clients to move more quickly, to be more nimble and to rethink how their processes can fit those of a client organization, we’ve seen a clear trend away from the hard work of developing real insight-based strategic work. Couched with terms like Rapid Strategy, Agile Strategy or even Brand-in-a-Box Workshops, agencies’ responses have led too many to what I think is best described as “Desktop-based Strategy”.
The need to move fast has led too many agencies to “Desktop-based Strategy”.
Desktop-based Strategy is just what it sounds like: rather than go out into the world, observing and speaking with customers, developing a perspective on the category, and working to understand what really makes the company tick, one needs only to pull up a search box, enter a few queries, and the answer appears...sort of. Sure a point of view can be developed, but it’s really just a reflection of what outside “experts” say. Like the book report you wrote in fourth grade, it’s a summary of what others said. It’s devoid of unique thinking that captures identifies an untapped way forward, one which sets apart good looking brands from good brands...you know, the ones that earn their keep.
Desktop-based Strategy is like the book report you wrote in fourth grade: it’s a summary of what others said.
Now, I get why this happens. I’ve been in the hot seat when the agency CFO is demanding better margins and the client is demanding better pricing. The benefits of Desktop-based Strategy are great when placed in this type of context. First, there’s the lower cost and time required to get from point A to point B. Second, there’s the relative ease of not having to head out and interview and observe consumers. And, third, there’s less opportunity for clients to call into question the validity of a point of view if you’re co-opting one that you’ve come across. It’s an odd twist, but in this case, the less defendable point of view happens to be the one that gets questioned less. It’s easy to sit back and blame the rise of Desktop-based Strategy work on the inherent laziness of young strategists. That, however, is nonsense.
It’s easy to sit back and blame the rise of Desktop-based Strategy work on the inherent laziness of young strategists. That, however, is nonsense.
The young strategists aren’t the ones developing the project scope, the approach, or the timeline. No, the ones to blame are those of us who have been doing this for a while and get charged with structuring the project from the get-go. When we agree to quick turn arounds but don’t force our clients to agree to the trade-offs, we’re leaving our teams exposed. It doesn’t do our people any favors, nor does it do our clients any favors.
Nowhere in the How to Build a Brand handbook does it say it should be easy.
Yes, we may get from start to finish faster, the whole project may flow without friction, and the ideas may be easier to sell. But, nowhere in the How to Build a Brand handbook does it say it should be easy. In fact, if you’re needing to make a brand change for any legit reason – change in your offerings, change in your customers’ needs, change in the competitive landscape – then the work of redefining, redrawing, and relaunching your brand should be hard. It should force you to ask hard questions. It should drive you to question whether you really need a hard reset or merely to evolve. It should require you to explore multiple scenarios. It should guide you to a place where there is no perfect answer, but one that requires compromise and trade-offs.
There is a time and a place for moving quickly, but only if everyone involved is transparent and honest about what’s being given up.
There is a time and a place for moving quickly, but only if everyone involved is transparent and honest about what’s being given up. The faster we move, the less confidence we’ll have in our decisions. Ideally, we’re moving quickly because there’s an opportunity that won’t last. Maybe it’s because we were called in late in the process, a bit of an afterthought. It’s not ideal, but it’s better to do some thinking rather than no thinking at all. In the end, it’s balancing the risk of making a mistake with the risk of missing out. Both are legitimate and the right balance for one situation may not be the same for a different one. But, pretending that moving fast can be achieved without cutting corners isn’t being honest. The reality is fast and robust are at opposite ends of the spectrum.
The reality is fast and robust are at opposite ends of the spectrum.
Finding the right approach is about being transparent about tradeoffs
The danger is that in the quest for better project margins, less contentious client meetings, and less time from scope approval to final deliverable, agencies and consultants focus on figuring out what clients want to hear. The value of what we say becomes too easy to swallow, and the value of our own expertise diminishes. How can you offer a different point of view if you haven’t had the time and opportunity to develop one? And, bad strategy doesn’t end with the PowerPoint presentation. Bad strategy leads to bad identity to bad marketing campaigns to bad business performance. It is but the first step in a slippery slope that ends with the brand worse off than if it had never changed course at all.
The next time a client or a colleague pushes you to cut corners, to adopt a Desktop-based Strategy approach, push back.
So, rather than putting ourselves, our teams and our clients in the easier but lesser position of investing less and expecting more, how about this: next time a client or a colleague pushes you to cut corners, to adopt a Desktop-based Strategy approach, push back. Get a piece of scrap paper and draw the Venn diagrams. Show them exactly what’s getting traded off. And, if they brush your concerns aside, perhaps it’s time to ask yourself if you’re someplace you really want to ply your trade. And if you stay, I won’t judge you. Heck, if you can make a living surfing the internet all day, maybe I’m the one who has it all wrong.
For every corner-cutting question, there’s a reasonable answer.