Advertising agency websites: Digital masturbation

One of the fundamental aspects of web marketing is that you need to understand your buyers before you create any content. Who are you trying to reach? What are the market problems of the buyer persona that you are targeting? What resonates with your buyer?

David Koopmans asks: "How good are agency websites?"

Well, I'm a representative of an ad agency buyer. When I was VP marketing at several NASDAQ traded companies I controlled a multi-million dollar budget and purchased services from agencies. Now, on the speaking circuit, I am often asked for agency recommendations by potential clients looking for someone to work with.

My answer to David is that most agency sites suck. As David suggests, part of the reason is the heavy use of flash and a focus on "cutting edge creative."

I would add that agency sites are very light on compelling content. Another observation is that many agency sites use the same tired and worn ways to show that they are "hip" – you know, cool introductions featuring a stylized version of their logo; fun, often black-and-white photos of the principles with funky stuff in the shots (fishing poles and Labrador retrievers are good for this purpose). When everyone does flash and everyone does logo gyrations and when everyone does funky photos it ceases to be hip.

I am drawing no conclusions on the ten sites below. However as a way to show a few examples, and to be as fair as possible, below are the top ten advertising agency brands in the United States as ranked by Advertising Age together with a link to each site.

You be the judge…
1. JWT
2. BBDO
2. McCann Erickson
4. Leo Burnett
5. Ogilvy & Mather
6. DDB
7. Y&R Advertising
8. Grey
9. Saatchi & Saatchi
10. DraftFCB

Based on what I see on the majority of advertising agency sites (I've checked out hundreds), which in my opinion is nothing more than digital masturbation, I advise people not to trust an advertising agency to build their site. While some advertising agencies may build great sites, the majority fail big time and their clients suffer as a result. To be fair, one exception is that an agency may be the best bet for certain purpose-built micro-sites focused on a particular campaign.

Here are two reasons why I tell people to avoid the agencies, together with details on why I feel companies should avoid these approaches.

Flaw # 1 > Ad agencies focus on aesthetics over information.

Advertising agencies try to convince clients to focus on the sizzle instead of the steak. Their advice is to pay more attention to colors and graphics than to the substance of the Web site: content. Often Ad agencies push distracting images or generic stock photos throughout a site and clunky Flash Video introductions or pop-ups on the homepage.

= Why marketers should avoid this:

Visitors who actually want to learn something aren't satisfied and sales are lost. The best Web sites are designed by marketers who have learned to think more like successful publishers: It is important to make a book or magazine readable, but not at the expense of providing something good to read. The Ad agency focus on style over substance is flawed. Imagine if Pulitzer Prizes were only given for design, usability, and functionality but not the actual content?

Flaw # 2 > Ad agencies focus on the wrong part of the sales cycle.

Ad agencies often design sites that feature slick, TV-influenced, one-way broadcast messages that feel like advertising. Ad agencies create sites as if they need to grab the attention of visitors for the first time. Many sites designed by Ad agencies sport all kinds of in-your-face images and messages designed to get you to pay attention.

= Why marketers should avoid this:

When a visitor gets to a Web site, you don't need to grab their attention; you already have it! Advertising agencies' strong focus on grabbing attention is rooted in print and TV advertising models, not a Web content-marketing and publishing model. The ad model is flawed, because on the Web, the challenge has shifted from grabbing attention to informing and educating your visitors through content. People who visit Web sites are often further along in the sales process. But most advertising people don't understand this and create ineffective sites as a result. People aren't looking for TV commercials on the Web, they are looking for content that helps them in some way.

Comments

[Dianna Huff]

Amen, brother. This is a GREAT post. All companies should print it out and post it on the marketing bulletin board.

[David Koopmans]

David, thanks for the follow up post. You answer the question very well indeed. There is another group of professionals who insist on having pure flash, hard to navigate, information poor website: Architects and Designers...but at least they are not advising other people on the use of the medium.

[Graham Jones - Internet Psychologist]

You say that people don't want TV commercials on the Web. What Ad Agencies still haven't realised is that people don't want TV commercials on the TV either. Just ask the power supply companies when consumption rises - it's in the ad breaks because that's when everyone goes off to make coffee or visit the toilet. Ad Agencies may produce beautiful stuff they can boast about on their web sites and it may impress a few people. But ego massaging doesn't work online; content does. People "read" web sites, not "look" at them. Ad Agencies who create beautiful sites appear not have realised this.

[saul colt]

Great Post David!

One small point that you didn't touch on is that heavy flash sites ,while look nice, don't show up so well in search engines. If your goal is to be found you either avoid the flash or go real light on it.

Powerhouse agencies should know this :)

saul
www.saulcolt.com

p.s. Loved your book!

[Chad Ludeman]

Excellent post! I know someone who recently asked an agency to put content and SEO as their top priority and ended up with a full flash site!

As a RE developer I also agree with Dianna regarding architects. All flash, no substance...

[Chris S.]

I could only make it to the JWT site and I think it gave me a headache!

[Guillermo Zambrano]

David is so right again.

The new rules of marketing are very hard to get for the old establishment. The reason, I think, is the fact that substance is overcoming form as the way to communicate commercial messages. In slots of 30 and 60 seconds is very difficult to communicate any message, so advertising, in broad terms is the science to impress people in the shortest amount of time possible. The ad industry doesn't seem to realize that times are A - changin.

Flash is so 2003 ... sounds like Quarterflash; old and wimpy.

[Bert Mahoney]

David's comments are spot on. Digital Ego Stroking is rampant among Ad Agencies, Architects, and Designers web sites. I own a design firm that specializes in website design and development. I can attest that a massive majority of these organizations have the logic of their own websites in reverse.

The focus of their websites should be on answering potential clients questions about their firm and what it can do for the client--giving the client substance. Not stroking their firms ego and trying to make their website look "cooler" than others.

People want content, substance, and answers from websites. They do not want animations, music, and other distractions standing in the way of what they want and need--information.

Don't get me wrong, art and design have their place but it needs to be tempered with client objectives and goals. It is possible to design great looking websites that are information focused.

[David Meerman Scott]

It would be great if someone who works at one of the larger advertising agencies could jump into this thread.

[Brad Shorr]

Bravo! You and the commenters are spot on. Ad agency sites drive me crazy - I'm always thinking, "where's the beef?" If an agency wants to showcase its creative brilliance, why not just have a section of the site with work samples and commentary about the results? That would sure make it easy to evaluate the agency's capabilities.

[Rachek Clarke]

I always have an issue with flash sites. Promotional campaign sites, or a section in a site for specific reasons are great in flash - can provide a great interactive experience. But for the strategic baseline, for information driven sites, you need it to be manageable, have great SEO, be accessible (ie information can be accessed through a screen reader) and be quick and easy to load and navigate. With flash, it is very, very difficult to achieve this and often even the things that can be done are not. It's been a perpetual argument of mine ever since I've been involved in websites -sometimes I win, sometimes I don't

[RaviKarandeekar]

Great post David, thanks! Not only the creative designers, but even copywriters too don't understand the web. Writers do not have the 'flash' but they have the same attitude. Most of them are allergic to the 'information' and basic salesmanship so fail to convince the visitor.

[Greg Ramler]

David, excellent post. The other thing that strikes me about agency websites is this. They call themselves marketing professionals, but there's not one lick of public relations content on their site. No press releases or general PR content. They fail miserably with key words and effective SEO content. I hate Flash. It has its time and place, but it doesn't impress me. I think the only thing that agencies are concerned about is...how creative can we make websites so we win awards - failing to take into consideration the target audience and the needs and objectives of the client.

[John McGrath]

I went to the JWT site. It took me to London, not NY, so I asume that London is now the world headquarters but that may or may not be so. When I got to the miserably dark NY web section it emntioned careers but tehre was no way to scroll down to the application instructions.

Yikes! These agencies are lost.

CErtain web pages are great - some NY publishers have great, beutiful, graphic sites with LIGHT backgrounds.

What is it with black? Those of us in the adult phase and not into the hard metal look. Being a disturbed kid from the 60's is cool? Ugh!

John M

[Trevor Young]

Great post David. I've had a running battle with a number of my peers over this very issue i.e. what 'looks good' versus 'what works' - and while I love a cool looking website as much as the next guy, you've really got to understand why you're developing a website in the first place.

I checked out the 10 agency websites you listed and basically lost interest as I waited (and waited) for the Flash to download. What used to be cool is now just old hat.

Mind you, for all its wank, I did like the Leo Burnett website (maybe I'm still a sucker for cool websites after all?) -- and at least DDB contained several white papers (although being an ad agency, they had to call them 'yellow' papers!).

All the above said, it would be a pity if really cool and flamboyant websites disappeared from cyberspace altogether. I agree wholeheartedly with your assertion that ad agencies should be brought in not to develop major websites but rather campaign-specific microsites.

Great stuff!

[David Meerman Scott]

Hey Trevor,

Imagine you are a VP marketing at a company and want to hire an agency. (I've been in this position many times).

Would any of those sites help you to learn enough about the agency that you would want to hire them?

David

[Victor Cheng]

The premise of the entire advertising agency industry is severely flawed.

The biggest award you can win in advertising is the CLIO for the most creative television ads run in any given year.

As a CEO, entrepreneur and business person that violates every single bone in my body.

Who cares if an ad is creative? All I really want to know is did it increase SALES period.

Also look at the compensation model of most agencies. They charge the client a commission based on what they SPEND on behalf of a client.

Wait a minute... who are they working for? Are they working for the ad sales reps or for the advertiser?

It's the equivalent of giving your teenager an allowance equal to 15% of whatever he or she charges on your credit card.

The more money the kid wastes, the more the kid gets paid.

There is no incentive.

I'm a big believer in only two kinds of marketing. 1) Direct response marketing and 2) Publicity

The benefit of direct response is a rigorous tracking and split testing of what works and what does not. You run two versions of an ad, a telemarketing script, or an email and you figure out which one worked better.

Stop doing what doesn't work. Start doing what does work.

So in response to Scott's question of which site is better... my initial reaction is what's on the site is largely irrelevant.

Rather than look at the sites, I'd rather see the prospect to client conversion metrics.

If that happens to be a flash site, so be it. If it happens to be a long copy text site, so be it. If it happens to be a blank page, that's fine too.

I vote for whichever one works. The answer is not in the browser it's in the numbers.

Traditional advertisers don't track their results -- which is probably because they fear their advertising doesn't work (or is exceptionally cost inefficient) and their client would find out.

I like publicity (and I'd include various social media efforts in this category) for it's ability to help a company to borrow the credibility of the publications and people providing your company with exposure.

The clearest traditional example of this is Oraph. She says she loves your company, the next day you got 750,000 people hitting your website and calling your office. You can't buy that kind of response via direct response.

A new media equivalent would be getting your company picked up by bloggers or appearing on the digg home page.

So I like a mix of the two and it's something I advise my Silicon Valley CEO clients whenever the topic comes up.

[David Meerman Scott]

Hi Victor, Many thanks for stopping by my site and leaving this thoughtful comment.
Cheers! David

[james whelan]

Most ad agencies are nothing but a bunch of stupid order takers. They never think out of the box.
There is no flash on my agency website.
Jim Whelan
The Joan Randall Agency

[Marce]

I really love telling people about www.cleansheet.ca. When I first saw the intro, it made my cry a bit. Rather emotional. But the rest of it sort of god on my nerves - the whole "flipping page" thing. Grr. Whatever happened to text you can highlight and links and all that. I don't want to read websites like books. Not to mention, if there is a typo (which I found a few), it makes it that much harder to fix.

[Marc Rapp]

I think it's important to understand that an agency, technically, can not claim a style or look. Many struggle to remain neutral regarding their personal brand positions.
Because, we are in the business of ideas. To take a position ( visually inferred through design ) might mean the lose of a potential prospect. Granted, there are niche-based agencies across the board. But then, that's exactly the excuse used when the client isn't happy with the creative. ;)

Ideas are not tangible products and it is very difficult to reference something that is 'new' without an existing context to reference ( pop culture or other agency's work ). As many of marcom folks have stated above, "we care about the ROI." Fair-enough. Who doesn't? –well, the consumer doesn't. And your ROI is dependent on the consumer being able to relate, understand and be informed about your products, services or ideas. The means by which these things are communicated are, as you know, media. And media must look, act and interact in a certain way in order for campaign to be successful.

You are not personally there for every purchase and neither are the agencies. That's why communication by design exists.

Advertising is an end-result. It has no initial, true form. Research on the culture dictates the immediate form. And in this brand landscape, those matrices and plans are being circumvented more and more by the x-factor. And if your truly providing something new to the marketplace, then a lot of that stuff doesn't matter.

Six years ago, someone on the agency-side might have mentioned using Craigslist as a means to promote something. Sure, at the end of the day, you could have told anyone in your office to dedicate their day to filling out profiles and responding to the inquires. But then, how would the agency charge you for the idea? How much was that knowledge worth to your RIO? And for all that it was eventually worth, how long did it take us to convince you that it was an emerging medium.
And then how long did it take you to educate yourselves or other decision makers on the idea.

As for the concerns about agencies creating websites. Come on now, apply the life-cycle of the medium to the agency model from ten years ago. Now look at integration of the technology, new employee cycles, acceptance of the medium as a tool throughout the world and the ability for you, at any given moment, to review and learn about whatever is being pitched to you.

Perhaps some of these comments reflect personal experiences with agencies? If you bought into their hype, then shame on you. ;)

Still love this blog. :)

[David Meerman Scott]

Hey Marc,

Many thanks for adding to this discussion with your perceptive ideas. I really appreciate you taking the time to weigh in.

I've never worked at an agency, so it is easy for me to criticize... Yet, clearly everything that is done is for a reason.

Take care and thanks again.

Best, David

[Smivey]

Well, that was an interesting read. While I agree that most ad agency sites are a form of digital masturbation, I disagree that ad agencies are not a good place to go for Web sites.

I have worked at both ad agencies and interactive shops. Ad agencies are more concerned about remaining true to the brand. Interactive shops are actually much more about the aesthetics of the site.

A major client of ours has taken the Web site design away from our agency twice, thinking that an interactive shop would do a better job. Each time, they've come back to us to fix the damage that was done.

Recently, our client gave a major product launch to an interactive agency. The result was a site that was edgy and cool, but with actual content that was poorly written and not true to the brand.

That's the problem. When you're a major company and you give part of your account to an ad agency and part to an interactive shop, you don't end up with a synergistic product. You end up with something completely different. And that weakens the brand.

[chandani]

The new distributed viral forum/blog/wiki/classified/etc advertising engine is here. We can spread the word about your site in short amount of time to millions of people and help with your SEO process by using backlinks. Start your campaign today! http://widecircles.com

[Forex Advisor]

advertising agencies are way behind in web promotion