Dave ‘n Dave – an agency/media dialogue

January 31, 2011

Dave, the UKTV digital channel, has just lost the first – and quite possibly only – round of a name-change battle with the eponymous Engine subsidiary which first bagged it in 2003 and has since mounted a legal challenge, claiming conflict of interest. Here we imagine some witty banter between the two Great Portland Street neighbours…

Agency Dave: So – er –Dave, looks like you’re going to have to change that moniker now, doesn’t it (sarcastic titter)? What a silly boy – didn’t do our homework did we? Of course, if you’d come to a proper brand specialist – such as ourselves – before taking the plunge, you wouldn’t have got into hot water with all this EU Office of Harmonisation in the Internal Market bollocks. ‘Stead of which, you’ve taken a right old pasting. Time for another radical repositioning exercise, my son. Ooh, expensive!!

Media Dave: Don’t be so sure, Dave. We’ve lost the first round but not the battle. We’ve got two months to appeal. And even if we don’t, you can whistle for the money – and the name-change. It will take you and your legal chums Lewis Silkin over a year to get anywhere. Which is long enough to show the industry how bloody-, or is that petty-? minded, you’re being about a matter of zero interest to any client. In the court of public opinion, there’s no contest. We chose a name – un-trademarked as it happens (how unprofessional is that, Dave; call yourself a brand consultancy?) – which perfectly encapsulated our programme content and audience. You know, Top Gear, Red Dwarf, Mock the Week… Doh! It’s about blokes, innit?

Whereas you picked any old name off a heap to “distinguish” your agency from all the others. “Distinguish” (snort): don’t make me laugh. “Dave”? Distinction, from what? It’s the commonest name out there. Oh yes, we remember now: from all those other agency monikers that come in triplicate, or quadruplicate – like Wight Collins Rutherford Scott, for example. Must have taken all of five minutes in the head-banger to come up with that one. And what a corker when it popped out! Dave, as distinct from Woo, or perhaps Personal, or even Engine. Pure stream of consciousness, with branding seared right the way down the rock – not.

Agency Dave: You may laugh, but we’ll have the last one. We’re  talking about the EU here, not your court of public bloody opinion. We warned you back in 2007, when you came up with this hare-brained rebranding idea – there would be consequences. But you chose to ignore us, you arrogant git. And now you’re going to pay.

Or maybe you haven’t got the money? Tell you what. We’ll settle for nothing. You come on air with a blank screen and we’ll let you keep the Dave name (which obviously means so much to you) on your decorative magnets and stationery. Now, how tender-hearted is that?

About these ads

Would you Adam+Eve what agencies call themselves these days?

October 5, 2010

The Assembly has just won the global account of big-four auditor Ernst & Young. Apparently, it produced a better ‘toolkit for accountants’ than anyone else. Ah well, you nod sagely, it’s obviously a B2B account – dull as ditchwater; no wonder it’s been won by an agency no one’s ever heard of before.

But you’d be profoundly wrong. In fact the pitch was highly competitive, handled by the AAR and featured about a dozen of adland’s finest – including BBH, Engine and Miles Calcraft Briginshaw Duffy (MCBD). Perversely, The Assembly is probably the one name that wouldn’t trip off your tongue if you roll-called the whole longlist.

Sterling Cooper: When names were just names

Which brings me to my point. The Assembly is one of a crop of new agency names that vie with each other for esoteric distinction – but jeopardise their USP by being obscure and unmemorable. If the current name-game puzzles me, it must surely puzzle clients too.

How has this rash of self-indulgent agency nomenclature come about? Once upon a time it was oh-so-simple. Agencies were people businesses that recommended their brand through the charisma and usefulness of their founders. So, in the mists of time, we have J. Walter Thompson, Lord & Thomas, Ted Bates, Young & Rubicam, Ogilvy & Mather.

By the sixties, creativity has become the extra magic ingredient in the shingle. It put the Bill Bernbach into Doyle Dane, or for that matter the Draper into Sterling Cooper. Then in the seventies and eighties (a very British thing, this) comes the apotheosis of the planner: Boase Massimi Pollitt, Bartle Bogle Hegarty and Simons Palmer Clemmow & Johnson. It was rare that anyone tore up the rulebook. True, there was the odd alien intervention such as Mojo from Australia; and of course the inimitable Andy Law, who founded St Luke’s. But wackiness came at a steep price. Mojo quickly lost its, and Law was a lot less successful in his next incarnation, which by its very name set itself up for a fall. Boymeetsgirl became Boyleavesgirl after Law quarrelled with his creative director Kate Stanners, and she quit.

You’d think this might be lesson enough for eager young entrepreneurs, but no. Today weird names have become the orthodoxy, and I’ve no doubt it has something to do with digital fragmentation and the increasing difficulty of framing the creative challenge.

Now, I’m all for imagination as long as it means something. Mother, Adam & Eve, yes (doh, it’s all about creativity). Glue: clever idea, sticking it all together. Saint@rkcr/y&r, sort of: bit of a mouthful though. Th_nk? No th*nk you: however pithy, it’s a sub’s nightmare; don’t ever expect a write-up in the FT. Lean Mean Fighting Machine? Looks a bit tame and flabby now it has been fired by Coke (see Andy Law above). 18 Feet and Rising? P-lease. How are we to know this is an obscure allusion to the excessive height of the agency’s three founders – and, even if we do, who cares?

And so on. Which brings me back to The Assembly. Actually, for all its superficial resemblance to a political convention or a Pentecostal sect, the name is not without relevance to the agency world. It reflects a pooling of creative talent. I quote from the CV of one of the founders: “The Assembly’s membership includes 12 Executive Creative Directors and 10 Creative Directors of some of the world’s most creative agencies, London’s foremost women’s artistic collective, a Harvard and MIT professor of culture and consumption, the creative duo behind cult Italian and Swedish fashion brands, the ex-manager of The Rolling Stones, the PR person for rock stars and presidents, a couple of renowned urban artists, one of the world’s most acclaimed architects and the man behind one of the most influential style websites, to name a few.” Phew, manage that if you can.

Such, though, are the complex, chaotic demands of creativity these days. No wonder agencies are suffering from an identity crisis.


Peter Scott gambles on Engine flotation sooner rather than later

September 13, 2010

A splash in the Financial Times today is all the confirmation needed that the publicity skills of Peter Scott, chairman and joint-chief executive of marketing services group Engine Group, remain as undimmed by time as his financial engineering expertise.

Taken at face value, it’s a non-story cleverly placed at the nether-end of the silly season. But what an interesting non-story. So, Engine won’t be launching itself onto the market this autumn? Struth, knock me sideways with a feather! Scott and his City audience will have known that an IPO wasn’t a goer this year by May at the latest; and the unfortunate Ocado experience should have sobered up the precious few bulls who remained.

The subtext of what Scott is saying is very different.  He still very much intends to go to market – at the first moment conditions will allow. City commentators take that to mean next spring: for the moment, fears of a double-dip recession have been banished and some pundits are predicting the FTSE 100 will coast to 6000 by the year end. Here, in the FT, we can read Scott’s warm-up report for a spring launch, favourably comparing Engine’s performance with similarly sized Chime (already quoted), and delivering some knockabout stuff at WPP’s and Aegis’s expense (easy to do, because they are bigger, and their growth rates correspondingly more sluggish).

Scott, however, is treading a tightrope. Engine’s momentum is fueled by debt, which it must begin to repay by 2013. At one time he was clearly hoping to acquire a media buyer (Booth Lockett Makin, as it happened), which would offer better cash generation and richer margins. Walker Media, for example, is a major part of the M&C Saatchi success story. But Engine has been less lucky: decent media independents these days are few and far between. So the sooner Engine can tap into public market funds the better.

Not only that, nearly 80% of Engine is owned by its employees, who will be keenly following Scott’s every market utterance: their fortune depends upon his hunch being right. They will not wish to believe they have delivered themselves into the hands of a latter-day Pied Piper of Hamlin. A trade sale, with a lowly valuation attached, does not even bear thinking about.

No pressure, then, Peter.

UPDATE 16/12/10: It’s now clear I was too cynical in dismissing Peter Scott’s gloom over the prospects of an Engine IPO as verbal legerdemain. The group has gone on to plug its medium-term debt gap by raising £32.5m from private equity fund HIG Capital. Quite a lot of the initial proceeds (£22.5m in fact) is being used to buy back shares from existing holders. Not entirely coincidentally, a number of them – including Engine chairman Robin Wight, Adele Biss, Leon Jaume, Ed Escandarian and Julian Hough – have stepped down from the main board. That will relieve some of the pressure on Scott – for now. More on Scott’s Plan B can be found at Bob Willott’s Marketing Services Financial Intelligence.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 415 other followers

%d bloggers like this: