With over 50 years of
experience between them, Laura Gregory, CEO and founder of Great Guns, and Pat
Murphy, founder of production consultancy firm MCA, sit down to discuss their
thoughts on the state of commercial production.
With clients beginning to take more and more creative in-house, and agencies struggling to maintain traditional models while budgets diminish, LBB’s Phoebe Siggins asks the pair what they predict the industry will look like over the coming years and what needs to happen to ensure the quality of work isn’t affected.
LBB> More
production companies, animation studios and post houses are beginning to take
creative in house and work directly with brands. Do you think we’ll see more of
this in the coming years?
Patrick Murphy>
For some jobs, why wouldn’t you go direct? Production companies can, when the
project is right, deliver this stuff better, quicker and smarter. Why do you
hire an agency? To come up with great ideas. I’ve often seen the ideation side
of films devised by directors quite often passed off as the agency’s own work. Of
course, large projects and campaigns might need an intermediary who can project
manage it brilliantly, but in certain cases going direct to the vendors - post
houses, production companies, sound studios - will provide a client with much more
bang for their buck. If I were a marketing director it’s a route I wouldn’t
hesitate to take. What you might need though is a helping hand to put the
pieces of the jigsaw together.
There was a time when agencies had great, experienced
producers, who were highly respected unsung heroes who delivered stunning
results. Now they want to put their arms around all this extra revenue. I can
live with that to a point if the creative output is as good as, or better, than
before in a transparent and honest budgeting environment.
Laura Gregory>
I think it’s fool’s gold. There isn’t actually that much extra revenue in
production because people like you [Pat] have policed and controlled it to the
point where companies have to operate so efficiently with very small margins.
PM> Most
production companies are hungry and want to do a great job both creatively and
financially for the client, however there is still money in agency production
fees. Agencies like to extend a schedule, or add as many of their staff to the
process, all to help pay for large overheads. Often its not needed.
LG> Realistically
there is now a huge amount of content, which needs to be knocked out quickly
and efficiently, that’s absolutely worth
doing in-house. The difficult thing is knowing that balance between in-house
content and the really creative stuff that must come into the public domain and
be pitched on by production houses. It’s just about deciding, ‘What are we
going to keep in house’? It’s that middle line.
PM> Is it a
budgetary line?
LG> Some
people view it as such.
PM> I think that’s one way of doing it but it’s a difficult thing to work out. Every agency and client will have a different line.
LBB> With more
production work going in house (typically smaller content jobs), what does the
future look like for young directing talent?
PM> If
you go through traditional agencies, there is no real culture of innovation or
trying something different, so often the client won’t get exposed to the
challenge and excitement of using new young talent unless there’s a tight
budget. But now that we’re seeing more clients trying to change that model, I
think it could be an exciting time for new talent.
LG>
When clients work directly with us, they really seem to embrace new talent. The
thing with more traditional agencies globally is that they want a name and,
when times get tight, you often see the ‘Triple-A guys’ doing work they
shouldn’t really be doing. That trickles down so it becomes harder for the younger
guys when there’s nothing left. I’d rather go through the pain of a £3000
budget on a music video than £40,000 on a low budget TVC.
PM> Big
question. Can agency in-house production units genuinely manage (or maybe they
don’t) to secure great talented directors to work in house?
LG> Generally
there’s a reluctance. Production companies don’t want to loan out great talent
to in-house agencies because then what do we become? Just agents.
PM> From a
production company perspective, why do you (or maybe you don’t) like working
with us at MCA?
LG> You’re
constructive, knowledgeable, informative, and helpful, and you’ll always listen
to a good argument.
PM> I’d like to think that most of the production companies here would see us as a supportive part of the process. I’m a huge champion of the UK production industry, incredibly so. I want production companies to succeed. And I want to be able to generate new talent and for the independent system to work.
LBB> Typically,
how well does the information flow between client, agency and production
company?
LG>
We rarely know anything about the client unless the agency proactively briefs
us.
PM> Yes,
why wouldn’t the agency sit down with the director and say; ‘this is the client
strategy, these are the key equities of the brand, and let’s discuss how we are
going to build this into the treatment’?
LG> Good
agencies do brief them like that. They’ll give 15 minutes on the history of the
brand. I tend to ask for a full brief. When we get on a conference call, I ask
about that and the history of the brand - especially if it’s a long-standing
account. Really great creatives love to do this but everyone is so time starved
it isn’t always the immediate topic of conversation.
PM> Sometimes
I don’t even think the account managers have enough time to brief the agency
producers.
LG> Clients that work direct with production companies are often are fashion brands. They always work direct. They’ve worked that way for years. The thing about fashion brands is that they love to come in and tell you about the brand and show you the current and the last season- sometimes even the very first season! They want everyone to love and understand the lines they are trying to promote. As a production company that helps us feel part of the brand and we can help with the idea.
LBB> It’s so interesting because so many
agencies are talking about how important it is to understand your client on
every level. It’s seems strange that information isn’t shared with production.
Why do you think that is?
LG> Most are under so much stress that they quite honestly don’t have time to do this.
LBB> Does it make a difference if everyone in
the process works together on a job from the outset?
PM> From my point of view, if we come in at bidding stage, rather than the beginning of the process, we’ll get in a scrap with the agency and production house nit-picking around the line items. If we’re involved early, we can help clients actually understand what their production investment can get and set some expectations really early. When we get to bidding stage, there shouldn’t be any money taken off the table because everyone has built that value in up front. Now it’s about how are we going to do this for the money, spend it all, and get the biggest bang for the buck.
LBB> Do you think
traditional agency models can continue without change?
PM> They have two choices to make; change and restructure, becoming more flexible, nimble and honest with clients, or die. The absolute key is that agencies have to stop trying to find a quick way to make a fast buck. If you lose trust, you can’t get it back. Total transparency, a good set of values and honesty goes a long way.
LBB> Agencies in smaller, newer markets continue
to do well because they aren’t tethered to an antiquated system. The question
is, is it easier to start from scratch than change old processes and habits?
PM> Agencies
working with smaller budgets tend to make the money work harder. Markets like
the Netherlands and Scandinavia have been successful because they devise simple
but great ideas that don’t cost a lot to execute. I think we’re seeing that
with other markets now like New Zealand and Ireland.
If the client wants the best budget, they should get their
agency to come up with the best work because everyone will want to work on it.
If everyone does want to work on it, you can guarantee they’re going to get the
best budget in a competitive pitch. It’s that simple.
LG> Everyone’s happy to work on a great creative
idea for a smaller budget.
PM> When I was at P&G, my boss at the time said, “if you can help the agency deliver just 1% more effectiveness, that will pay for the entire production cost”. That’s an amazing stat. The reason we behave like we do at MCA, is because if the advertising work is good it drives better business results. Finding that balance of cost versus creative is really bloody hard. I hope we manage to do a good job most of the time.
LBB> Laura, how
many jobs do you work on where there is a cost representative?
LG>
These days, every single one. We often
deal with procurement directly and they don’t understand the budget.
PM>
The quality of marketing procurement managers is often so poor. The best ones
aren’t afraid to admit they need advice on production instead of trying to
bullshit their way through. There are some good ones, and I am glad to say I
work with some of them.
LG> There’s no
balance. They tend to have brilliant accounting skills but a lack of production
and creative knowledge
PM> When the
marketing director and the procurement team are measured on the same KPIs, it
can work really well. If not, watch the train wreck. They need to start
bringing in more people from our industry into that environment.
When I was an agency head of TV, I used to make sure there
was enough still in the budget for the cost controller to take down. Who’s the
one that loses out? The client. There’s no value in that way of working
anymore. Traditional Cost Control is a dead model.
LG> Production companies are so different now, there’s nothing in those budgets to take out. The only thing you take out is a creative solution. You strip a budget down and you strip a director of any creative bone left in their body.
LBB> Do you think budget
setting should be a more transparent process across everyone involved in a
production?
PM> As I have
said before, I think transparency’s the best thing you could possibly offer.
Clients prefer to be talked straight to. Production companies give a fixed bid
so they’re taking a huge risk. There ARE contingencies in a production company
bid, but if something goes wrong on a shoot, they have to take responsibility
and make sure that it still comes in on budget. It’s a difficult balance – keeping
within a fixed budget and being competitive in a bidding process.
LG> That’s why
it’s so important to know your directors. When you’re cash flowing it that way,
it needs a safe pair of hands.
PM>The future
of production is in the hands of the clients. Do you want to leave all your
production with the agency and pay the fees associated with that or try
something new? The tide is already turning, and I believe we will see a Tsunami
of clients in 2017 trying new ways of getting more and different stuff. And
there are plenty of great talented people, and creative suppliers all around
the world waiting to show you what they can do. The one thing that is always
true though, you need great creative ideas, so the role of the agency is safe
if only they could JUST focus on that. Nothing more nothing less.