Why do we need strategists*, anyway?
By Rob Meyerson, RiechesBaird
* While differences surely exist from agency to agency, “strategist” and “planner” will be used interchangeably throughout this post. The author’s opinion is that the responsibilities implied by these titles involve considerable overlap, but this too is open for debate.
Has anyone else noticed that strategists and account planners are getting a bad rap lately? To see what I mean, check out the show Trust Me, and you’ll see that planners are consistently portrayed as vacuous time-wasters who do little more than provide eye-roll-inducing creative briefs. For a little insight into the source of the show’s point of view, look no further than a recent blog post by Bob Hoffman, The Ad Contrarian, entitled “I’m Tired Of Strategists,” and a second by Simon Veksner, on his blog Scamp, about “Nightmare Propositions.” These two posts popped up almost simultaneously, and underscore doubts—at least among the industry’s “creatives”—as to the importance of strategists and planners.
The confusion is not a new phenomenon, however. Jeremy Bullmore, in 1978, entitled his address to the newly formed Account Planning Group “What are account planners for, Daddy?” In the speech, which is available in his book Behind the Scenes in Advertising, Bullmore points out that “account planners have themselves failed to define what they are for and what they do. Which, when you consider what account planners are supposed to do, must rank as one of life’s richer ironies.” The implication in Bullmore’s title and in the aforementioned blog posts (and comments) is that people with “strategist” or “planner” in their titles seem to get paid to sit around and think a lot, talk about things, and occasionally string some words together. Furthermore, the complaint goes, what little they do produce is often ignored and rarely plays a role in the creative output—whether it’s an advertisement, a logo, or a website.
So, why do we need strategists, anyway?
Of course, to prevent bias, the answer to this question should really come from people without “strategist” or “planner” in their titles. God knows we’re good at talking our way out of a tight spot. So while I’m disqualifying myself from laying out an entire defense in this post, I would like to offer a few suggested areas for discussion, and let you be the judge. After all, this is The B2B Brand *Debate*.
The increased complexity of client businesses
While most of us have a general understanding of beer or running shoes—what the product does, what matters to the customer, and even what the competitive landscape looks like—the same cannot be said of, say, wireless routers or mass spectrometers. Note that this is especially true in B2B markets. As increasingly complex products, companies, and industries adopt sophisticated identity and communications practices, do strategists have a role to play in understanding, explaining, and simplifying?
A desire to more deeply understand the customer
Account planning was invented in the 1960s to deal with the fact that the members of traditional advertising account teams seemed to be increasingly focused on their discrete roles, possibly failing to pay due attention the consumer’s point of view. Again, this may be even more important in B2B markets, as few of us can claim to understand the precise mentality of a regional power utility hoping to procure goods and services from a solar startup. Is this what strategists do?
The need for a translator between researchers and practitioners
Market research techniques continue to evolve in their complexity. One valid response to seeing a multidimensional scatter plot is “Yes, but what does it mean?” Is the role of the strategist to translate histograms and factor analyses into plain speak?
Preventing a natural tendency for work to become self-referential
As Bullmore puts it in his article, an account planner should “represent and illuminate [the] world outside to the myopic specialists with whom he works.” As logo designers and ad copywriters look to their peers for ideas, there is a risk that creative work will cease to do what it’s intended to do: resonate with people who don’t necessarily work in our industry. Do strategists help here, or have they too become overly concerned with their “craft,” in and of itself? Bullmore again: “Your entire value resides in continuing to be members of working account groups—uncontaminated by too much knowledge of each other.”
A need for creative work to become more integrated with overarching business strategy
“Strategist” suggests one who sees the forest for the trees. Who can connect the dots between a company’s long-view business goals and more immediate creative needs. Is the role of the strategist to gain a deep understanding of the client leadership’s business plans and ensure that the agency’s work will support these goals?
Facilitating or coming up with the “big ideas”
While it may displease those with “creative” in their title, planners are in a prime position—either unearthing or collecting marketplace, competitive, and client knowledge—to generate the kinds of “big ideas” upon which creative work can be based. Do planners have a real role to play in coming up with these ideas, or at least inspiring others to do so? To quote Bullmore one last time, planners should “illuminate and inspire…simplify the complicated…provide insights and intuitive hypotheses…clarify and crystallize.”
So, based on your experience, how do you respond to the questions and points above? In short, why do you (or don’t you) need strategists?
Related posts:
- B2B Brand Debate Topic — Brand Council
- B2B Brand Debate Topic — Category Definition
- Walk Softly And Carry A Big Brand: Part 2
simon billing on 14 Apr 2009 at 4:13 am #
Nice post. This is perhaps a more emotional response to TAC and the general antipathy towards strategy and strategists. http://freedompictures.ca/blog/2009/04/08/strategists-what-are-they-good-for/.
At least in Canada, the orginal Stanley Pollitt/Jeremy Bulmore Planning function is a) not understood; and b) generally not something clients will fund (due in part to a) above, but also to much smaller budgets than either US or UK).
Andy La Fond on 14 Apr 2009 at 8:02 am #
Thanks for the post, Bob. And thanks for the link, Simon.
I’ll add one thing: I read an article by Michael Porter a long time ago. I think it was about digital strategy. He wrote that strategy is about making decisions - what to do and, more importantly, what not to do.
I’d say the basic function of a strategist is to make decisions. Ideally the decisions are well-informed by research, analysis, and experience, so the action dictated by the strategy is successful and avoids foreseeable mistakes.
That’s my two cents, at least.
Andy
Ewan Pidgeon on 14 Apr 2009 at 8:00 pm #
Andy - I don’t believe it’s up to strategists or planners to make decisions. Ultimately it’s the customer that makes the decision- whether or not to notice you- and that’s down to the messaging.
As a creative, all I want from a planner is a fresh insight, a new way of looking at an old problem or for them to find a way of differentiating the client when they really don’t have anything. Then it’s up to me to present it in a way that’s memorable and relevant.
I’d also say the best planners work well with creatives (possibly because they really want to be one), though it may not always get acknowledged.
Ewan Pidgeon on 14 Apr 2009 at 8:04 pm #
Oh, and to respond to the original post, I think you should leave Jeremy Bulmore where he belongs- back in advertising history with the likes of David Ogilvy.
Skip Winitsky on 17 Apr 2009 at 7:59 am #
Having worked at very small and very large agencies I was most impressed and amazed that large agencies have managed to build a nice revenue stream around the planning/strategy discipline.
At small agencies that work is very often (almost always) a give-away. Either to get the business or to develop or sell the idea. In those smaller agencies the creatives and often the account person share the strategy role and are often better at their jobs for it.
In a B2B world (where I am most familiar) I’ve found that if the “creative” team doesn’t understand the product and market then they have little chance of delivering a good solution — and therefore rather limiting the ability of their agency to win business.
That said it is also clear that the larger clients that work with the larger agencies almost always need the output of the planner/strategist if for no other reason than they need the affirmation and imprimatur of the agency to sell their work upstream. That’s as much as a comment on the machinations of the client as the agency.
And if a large agency is to justify their larger compensation then those planners/strategists had better be delivering value that both the creative teams and clients can see in the finished product.
brianwaka on 17 Apr 2009 at 10:48 am #
I’m going to break the “no planners can comment” rule here, but not to defend my discipline. It has always been my belief that the very existence of account planning comes from a failure of our industry as a whole. Digging into and understanding research, consumer insights and strategy should be part of everyone’s job, not a role for a person or a department. The best creatives and account folk do this naturally, as they feel that strategy is their responsibility, regardless of what the org chart says. Given all that, in situations where you have that level of well-rounded talent, you don’t need a planner per se, just someone to manage the thornier aspects of research interpretation (which is the role many planners are in today).
There are two situations where the planning role can add value beyond just the research. One: no one else on the team is willing or able (due to workload) to do the work of uncovering insights and developing strategy. Two: the planner is actually worth a damn and develops strategic ideas (not creative) that make the work better. The second one is much more subjective and doesn’t really justify the role in general. So my thought here is that it’s mainly the first reason why the discipline exists at all.
AndyM on 17 Apr 2009 at 2:58 pm #
Startegy requires structure to be strategically managed or driven to meet the mission’s requirements and satisfy the vision. It is so proven through feedback controls!
Tim Price on 04 May 2009 at 12:04 pm #
Could this industry-wide debate be fueled by a lack of really good strategists? It’s only been in the last two years that we’ve hired good, dedicated strategists…before that it was either a) the creatives’ job to figure it out along the way, b) default to the agency principal’s directive, or c) struggle with “strategists” who really weren’t. Point being, a mediocre strategist is worse than none at all—from a creative perspective and that of agency overhead.