In house agencies a blessing turned curse for 43% of brands

In-house agencies were born to provide relief to the creative needs of brands. Ensure that creativity flowed more freely in their domains. However, the truth is that this model is far from being the panacea Carried on the shoulders with many drawbacks. According to a recent study by Collective. 43% of CMOs view agencies as a real operational nightmare . And that nightmare becomes more gruesome the bigger the brands in question are. While only 33% of marketing directors with companies with less than 500 employees call ih-house agencies an operational torment.

Brands simultaneously consider advantages and disadvantages of in-house agencies

Even so, there is not a total absence of industry email list hubbub around this concept (although its execution is clearly susceptible to improvement) . 80% of the CMOs consulted consider that the agency model can be clearly improved. While 77% contemplate the use of a variation of this concept. Generally speaking, 41% of CMOs who took part in Collective’s report are open to throwing themselves into the arms of agencies if this model translates into an increase in the quality of their work.

39% of CMOs also regret that in-house agencies steal creative inspiration from work teams

34% of brands would also hang on the BH Lists arm of  agencies if this model helped them add more creativity to their business. And 33% would also opt for  agencies if they were revealed. As a solution to their personnel recruitment problems. There is a danger that agencies become a rigid one-size-fits-all model for companies . And this lack of flexibility is definitely not the best fit for brands. For me, the right answer is a hybrid combination of the way agencies operate. The way advertisers work to find the best solution explains Pete Markey. Who has led  efforts at brands such as TSB and Boots.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *