- Agencies are most of the time judged by reputation, also of their methods, by the collective WOM within business networks
- not competence alone, but a successful track record influence this most
- in order to attain a successful track record, agencies have to get projects that the system (that does not understand their relevance yet) allows them to perform. The resources are dependent on the project size
- corporations decision making is influenced by conservative and classical structures. Thus agencies without track record and proven methods tend to not get the project
- this forces on the long run, agencies to adapt their methods. They have to present something that people "want to hear", results and methods that can be integrated into the present best practice. If they don't, then they will run out of business pretty fast
- THE RESULT: big corporations have the resources that are needed to create such a system and legitimize it, small corporations have the capabilities but will loose them over time in order to fit in
- THE SOLUTION: you have to attain a high level of legitimacy from the start that legitimizes your methods. This can be done by WOM, positive one. In order to get this, it has to be artificially induced, not only as the result of natural reactions to the projects. This would be too slow
---> big agencies and small agencies have to share capabilities and resources. The small ones have access to deeper information and networks, the big one to business networks and financial resources. Together they can create value
- The deal, big agency helps small one to finance the time until legitimacy is gained. In return the big agency gets the capabilities of the small agency, aslo long-term and acces to networks, exclusively, gaining competitive advantage
- Connecting networks
Companies decide to employ people not only because they need them for a special project, but in order to enhance their HR capital. This includes both a long-term and abstract element. It will not be clear what exactly that person will be doing, but he/she will provide value that will exceed the salary. When it comes to agencies, on the contrary, companies engage services of agencies not in order to enhance HR or create synergies, but only for clear cut projects with a determined outcome. Even though they know that HR and synergies are most essential inside a company, they only integrate people on an employment basis. This brings two problems:
- people working for the company will be socialized on the long-run to adapt to a corporate culture that will be aligned with the corporate mind-set. They will tend to start to think like the people around them and will be flooded by the same messages, integrated into the same systems of thought and incentive structures. This makes thinking completely outside the box nearly impossible.
- the people employed have to be used "economically", efficiently, which excludes in most cases actions that are not ordered from above, top-down. Google introduced the 20% rule, this is a start, but not enough to create real out.the box innovation
What we propose is to look at small boutique agencies in a purely utilitarian way. An investment is justified if the money spend on it over time is less than the return on the investment. So if you spend 2,000 dollars on an agency each month for whatever reason (the reason is not important, you do not have to associate this with any clear cut project) and the agency produces more VALUE than this on average per month, then the investment is justified and should be made.
- The only question that counts, is, can the person employed or the agency engaged, produce VALUE to the company that exceed the costs spent on them.
- If you now calculate the value that our proposal wants to create over the course of one year, you will get a picture where we want to go with this. The VALUE is created predominantly through synergy effects, access to networks and consulting, and exposure in networks. Further, a competitive advantage in all pitches related to consumer networks, the ability to advertise this advantage and to openly associate yourself with the partner companies.
- to each of the above points, an economical value can be assigned that unfolds over the course of one year.
- the cost is calculated as a retainer that is much lower than the value, for one year. The build-up phase.
- what you get: access. Access to 30-50 magazines read continuously, student, OL and other consumer networks, creative input, etc ...
- This business plan is also a proposal for the agencies involved.
- magazine report, HNWI report, HNWI travel report
- costs, 8,000 Euro retainer per month. You can use our services for one year, means consulting from the side of Japan Access (senior and junior consultant). Our expertise can be integrated in any way possible
- access to interviews has to be charged extra. But not the access to our expertise
- you could integrate Masubuchi and Japan Access into any pitches. We would help to prepare material that enhances the competitiveness of Euro RSCG
like Philipp said, focus on synergies. And value created. Social value, access to networks that they are interested in accessing. We cover the social costs, decrease transaction costs. Make diagrams.
focus on new social media. We monitor it
No comments:
Post a Comment