Troubled Times in AdLand: Do Agency Layoffs Signal Industry Turbulence or Opportunity?

Less than a month after FleishmanHillard’s well-publicized (and pricey) rebranding –

an effort to preempt massive changes in the communications industry by demonstrating transparency, nimbleness and multichannel marketing – it looks as if at least one canary in the proverbial coal mine has become woozy.

Actually, make that two or three, depending on your math.

In what seems to be a very prominent and permanent trend (just read this Harvard Business Review article about the demise of the traditional ad agency if you don’t believe me), Omnicom Group, the world’s top media holding company, has faced a challenging few weeks as two of its subsidiary agencies announced widespread layoffs following the loss of major client accounts. P&G’s Gillette products division ended its 80-year relationship with BBDO and General Motors Chevy business severed ties with Goodby Silverstein & Partners. GSP also lost its Nintendo account amid additional client spending cuts. According to at least one person, BBDO could ax up to 10% of its US workforce.

Not good news for ad land.

While details of the brands’ cutbacks are not entirely clear, what little has been said speaks volumes about where the communications industry is heading. Think about it: P&G didn’t come to this decision lightly – severing an 80-year partnership doesn’t happen overnight. And it took 7 months for the brand to switch over to arch-enemy agency Grey, part of the Grey Group division of WPP.  An ambiguous statement from P&G released in April summarized their reasoning for the review was: “to generate fresh thinking and uncover new approaches to connecting with men.” Of course it was.

Fresh thinking and uncovering new approaches is what agencies get paid for. If your agency of record can’t deliver on those two points then any partnership will falter. Although it lacks details, the P&G statement is a damning indictment of a $1.47 billion communications agency that was once the creative engine behind Gillette’s 1989 slogan: “the best a man can get.”

GSP’s situation isn’t any better except to say that the company’s founder, Jeff Goodby, sympathetically addressed the human side of layoffs in an internal memo obtained by AdAge.

“Please be assured: No one takes this process lightly… We will do everything to find [those who have been let go] new situations. And if history is any indication, we will find ourselves welcoming some of them back in the future,” Goodby wrote.

Thanks for the encouraging words but none of that will come to pass if agencies of all sizes (ours included) don’t take a very long, hard look at their client relationships and determine whether they are healthy and spry or if they’re functioning on inertia and complacency – not a winning combination.

The lines between earned media, paid media and the marketing channels they’re promoted on continue to blur. In 5 years time I predict that there’ll be no delineation between digital, social or PR agency – if we aren’t able to provide these services to our clients, we’ll be toast.

So it’s incumbent on all of us as public relations and marcomm professionals to keep the client-agency dialogue fresh, insightful and current. That means staying up on the latest social media trends, voraciously consuming industry and client-specific news, spotting new movements and being ready to adjust marketing tactics once old leanings shift course. It means helping guide our clients through new territories and murky waters. And it means taking bold risks and telling them how it is, not how they want to hear it. It means being honest and offering solutions to problems they may not see coming – but we do.

Omnicom’s brand wounds aren’t fatal. As of this writing, OMC’s stock is up 24.1% for the year and US advertising agency revenue was up 5.6% in 2012. But all it takes is the slightest drop in fresh air before a real coal-mine canary becomes ill.

Will BBDO, GSP and other agencies appreciate these layoff warning signs for what they are and take corrective steps? In this business an 80-year relationship is unheard of – a guarantor of rock-solid success. If those professional bonds can be broken, then really, anything is up for grabs. 

Fixing The PR Industry: Does PR Need A Do Over, Starting With A New Name?

Should we be called PR professionals anymore, or is it time for a name change? A recent Ogilvy PR Peripheral Visions Study showed that 76% of respondents (PR professionals that is) believe that PR should be rebranded. Ouch!!!! But that’s not all: in the same survey, 60% revealed that they think public relations and advertising could be joined or blended into a hybrid, which is something I have been thinking about for a while. There are definitely some discussions brewing….

So the 76% previously mentioned? That sizable group hinted that public relations professionals could be called communications professionals instead. But isn't that a tiny part of the battle, renaming what we do? Wouldn't it be more advantageous and make better sense to actually revamp how we do things, rather than simply putting the proverbial lipstick on a pig. How about redefining public relations from the inside out instead of just a name polish?

And if we were to change the name of public relations, what would it be? “Communications professional” sounds somewhat boring (and we have a policy of no boring in our agency). Besides, PR is so much more than a single layer of duties - where do we start or end? While we should probably stay away from anything that puts “media relations” in our name, given that we've been pigeonholed as it is, besides that, shouldn’t we concentrate more on what we do and how we do it – than what we are called? As any PR rep will tell you, your actions are going to seal the deal, not the fancy wrapping.

In my mind, the first call of order is to show our value. Show that we are so much more than what many people think we are, i.e., press release pushers, a pain in the arse, superfluous and so on, and conversely show what we are not, i.e., press release pushers, a pain in the arse, superfluous.

We also need to communicate that we are not miracle workers, and we can't guarantee results in every crisis situation (News Corp., anyone?). PR done best is done strategically, creatively and thoughtfully —not a bandage to be slapped on after the fact. So if we are to rename public relations, we may have to start by clarifying both what we can and cannot do.

To be sure, PR is more personal than ever and it could be argues that our name is going be way of the press release. RIP press release. Moving beyond mass marketing, we are pressed to make new connections between our clients and theirs, telling a deeper and more compelling story to select groups. Looking at how much public relations has changed over the years, and so dramatically in just a few years, then perhaps a name change does make sense.

So what should we call it, ourselves, the industry?

If we don't change the name of PR, we can still go about making changes behind the scenes. The name's been debated before—and it will be debated again—but we can still help the public understand what it is that we do and the immense value we can bring to our clients... and that we're not just singularly focusing on crisis management or media relations all the time.

Questions time!

1. Should PR have a name change?

2. Do you like the name “Communications Professional”?

3. Do we have a perception issue?

4. Do you have a better name for PR that's NOT “Communications Professional”?

5. Is a name change essential, or should we work harder to clarify what PR professionals do?

6. Do you think that renaming PR has more to do with distinguishing itself in-company?

7. What would you do to “fix” the PR industry?

I would love to hear your views on what, if anything, PR should be renamed to.