EP47 - The Future of Agencies Kevin Krossing and Jeff Dack

Corby Fine: [00:00:00] So throughout my career, I've had the opportunity to both work at, and with agencies. Advertising agencies, creative agencies, media agencies. And there's always this struggle between, you know, [00:01:00] what are the services and capabilities that should be part of an in-house team, you as a brand, as an organization, and what are the things that you should expect from a partner?

Ideation, production, creative, media. There's just so many different angles to it. And with me today, I have two very seasoned executives from the agency space. 

Jeff Dack, who is currently the new and very proud, apparently, CEO of Funday. That's funday.agency, and we'll have a whole debate on domain extensions on another call, a 24 year 

track record in advertising and marketing.

Most recently, as the CEO of Wunderman Thompson, he's run full client experience agencies with creative, strategy, CRM, data and technology services, as well as running Dentsu's media business in Canada. So really an amazing cross reference of different experiences. He can talk about Funday, new job.

So obviously a lot of excitement. So Jeff's on the podcast today as well as Kevin [00:02:00] Krossing. Just a little transparency,

Kevin was my boss at one point, so I know him quite well. A strategic planner, digital transformation leader. 

Also more than two decades working across multiple different ad agency holding companies.

He's been a creative director. He's been a head of strategy. He's run his own shop. And now as a fractional chief growth officer, helping agencies and organizations with custom solutions, B2B, B2C, strategy, really across the board. Kevin's just one of those, uh, one of those gentlemen who's capable of so many things.

Both of you, 

welcome to the podcast today. 

Kevin Krossing: Looking forward to a good talk.

Jeff Dack: you Corby. Pleasure to be here. Kevin, lovely to see you. 

Kevin Krossing: Good see you again, my friend.

Jeff Dack: Yeah buddy. This good.

Kevin Krossing: It feels like a boy band,

Jeff Dack: Yeah

Kevin Krossing: Back together, back on the road.

Jeff Dack: something. 

Corby Fine: So just briefly, Jeff, just so everybody has context, maybe just a quick [00:03:00] overview of what you do and what your agency is all about.

Jeff Dack: Absolutely. And Corby, thank you for having me. This is fun. So yes, as you mentioned, uh, seasoned veteran, I got to get used to the seasoned veteran kind of thing, but, um, I am, this is my fourth week, I think at Funday, and I've come to the business. I've entered the business as its CEO and a partner in the business.

So excited about that, and we are a 50 person boutique agency throughout North America. And the interesting, the most interesting thing about Funday, aside from the work we do and the clients we do it for, and I'm sure we'll get into that, is that we're a fully remote agency. So I think it's just a modern way of working, which I'm really excited about, and just learning to kind of adapt to.

But so far so great. YOu mentioned my track record, so I don't need to go into it, but I've worn lots of hats in the marketing world and I'm excited to have a good conversation around the agency business and kind of all the fun stuff we're going to talk about.

Corby Fine: And Kevin, what's a fractional chief growth officer?

Kevin Krossing: Uh, think of a fractional chief growth officer like a freelancer. So instead [00:04:00] of incurring all the costs of someone to come in to focus on growth from an agency perspective or a professional services company, think about it as a fractional or freelancer that comes in highly skilled, lots of experience that comes in, pinpoints the issues that the agency or the professional services company's having and then works through a process to be able to make sure that they get in the market, stronger positioning, better sales capabilities, introducing potentially even some net new production capabilities and then helping to establish a beachhead in the marketplace so they can, they can grow the business.

Corby Fine: Let's jump right in. Um, I've had this question on my mind for a while and having worked in lots of different organizations and dealing with lots of different agencies, this question of the traditional agency structures, your creative, your advertising, your media, your strategy, do you think that the traditional model of the agency is actually holding back

on innovation, both within the agency and within the client [00:05:00] side, as technology and data and customer experience, and really expectations are changing. Maybe we'll start with Kevin.

Kevin Krossing: Yeah, sure. Um, you know, I think the quick answer, and this might be a tough answer, would be yes, it's holding back innovation. And I'm not, I'm not sure it's holding back innovation from the perspective that most people might think. So, if I think about sort of a traditional agency and a traditional structure of an agency, it's not lent for innovation, , out of the gate.

There is a lot of structure. There is a lot of hierarchy. Departments aren't necessarily connected. They're not sharing information quickly. When we talk about innovation, clients are looking for speed. Clients are looking for a net new capability to be able to put in the marketplace. Agencies historically haven't been very good at that.

Uh, and I think as we move forward in time, agencies are still struggling with that. I think there's a huge opportunity for them, but they still struggle with that. There's lots of layoffs happening right now in the industry, they've over anticipated their net new [00:06:00] business capability.

So they're doing layoffs that's affecting clients. Clients want innovation. They want speed , they want to be able to get in the market. They would need more agility from agencies. And I think ultimately what they need from agencies is better talent and better access to talent. And I think until we collectively can tackle some of the structural issues that exist within the agencies, everything from billing based on time which provides the wrong incentive, all the way down to more transparency from a client perspective on how their money is being spent and what kind of talent they actually have access to. I think until those issues are addressed, we're not going to see the kind of innovation that clients are really looking for from an agency.

And that innovation is coming from other places. It's coming from smaller, specialized shops. It's also coming from the consultancy world.

Corby Fine: So Jeff, would you, would you say that you guys are one of those smaller specialty shops and are you addressing any of those structural issues that Kevin just brought up?

Jeff Dack: I love that. We're getting into the debate right out of the gate. I love [00:07:00] it we are going to arm wrestle this question because, um, and Corby, will answer your question specifically. Exactly. Why wait? Listen, I think agencies are an option for innovation, but not necessarily the option, right? I think it's ultimately

agencies, like it comes from the name. We are an agent responsible for our clients and their needs, right? I would suggest our agency at Funday, just because we're a bit younger and nimbler and smaller, we move at the speed of culture, but we can only execute what clients want ultimately, right? We are, and I don't know if the structure has anything to do with that necessarily as being an option for clients, not necessarily the option, but an option, I mean, to the second part of the question with regards to kind of consumer expectations, I think

one needs to realize, 

as I know you gentlemen do, but maybe not everybody does, like what most of what we make for our clients these days is pretty disposable. Right? Like consumers don't expect million dollar TV

spots anymore, except for the Super Bowl. And so if we're going to make content that you're just going to quickly [00:08:00] thumb through anyways, it probably should cost a fraction of that and take a fraction of that time.

 And so I think it's really just about marketers coming to grips with what consumer expectations are in relation to the work product that we put into the market for them. And I think that needs to be aligned with the budget realities more than the innovation needs , for what it's worth as a marketer, if I know that my intended audience needs new content, like delivered daily for whatever that need is, then I'm going to need a content engine to deliver that for me.

If I only believe they need to hear from me once in a while, then because of factors X, Y and Z, then I need an agency to, you know, or I need a partner to answer the need that way. And so I think for what it's worth, the consumer kind of behavior drives the bus. But I guess the other point is. This isn't art, right?

Where we create something with our gut and hope that people respond. This is creative commerce,

 and what we make on behalf of our clients is a calculated strategic choice that, in our perfect world, it's executed [00:09:00] creatively. It helps break through and resonate, but ultimately I'm here to help clients achieve their goals, right?

If you want to sell more widgets, I'm here to help you sell more widgets, but I think the model to the question about the model is always going to evolve. Because people in their consumption habits are always evolving. And as there's more tech and different tools, we evolve with those that tech and with those tools.

But I'm glad Kevin, you brought up the, um, the time element because I know we're gonna get to that a little bit later. And I think we both have some thoughts on that. 

But that's kind of my take on this. So I'd suggest if agencies are one of several options to get innovation. Sure. If you're looking for your agency to be the innovation hub for you.

I think your logic might be flawed on that.

Corby Fine: I think there's some creative directors that might challenge the it isn't art comment, but the thing you said that's interesting to me is, disposable content. And so, in a world where we've got such fragmentation of channels of distribution, I mean, digital alone, which used to mean like two things, some banner ads and some [00:10:00] copy, it in and of itself has now fragmented into hundreds and thousands of different potential distribution points.

So how do you see that combination of what you said around disposability or sort of nobody's expecting the million dollar commercial with the fragmentation of all of these different distribution and media channels? Is that doing something structurally to the agency model? I've seen niche players show up that all they do is figure out how to get stuff on Amazon in front of you.

 It seems to be something that I'm witnessing. I don't know, maybe back to you, Jeff. Like, what's happening from the niche perspective?

Jeff Dack: Yeah, that's a good question. So to the, just before I go on that one, to the creative director art question,

here's the way I would pose it. If you have a brief, it's not art. And we answer briefs. That's what we do, right? If you create something originally out of your out of your gut or however, you want to make something that's art. But when you're asked to create something on behalf of somebody else, it's no longer art in my opinion. However to your question for what it's worth we operate [00:11:00] at the pleasure of her majesty our clients, right?

And as a client If you can afford to properly stand up and execute in all of those fragmented media channels and you see potential ROI in each of those for you and your brand, go at it. But I would humbly suggest, that what we're trying to do always for our clients is stretch the dollars further, give them the biggest bang for their buck.

And so there are times where, you know, one plus one can equal three. 

I think if you're leveraging a really strong creative product. That's actually breaking through while being consistent. 

You know, if I just think, think of our behavior, if you see, hear or read about something at some point in your day, and then you hear, see and read about it again in your day.

I think there's a compound effect to that and I know there's research that backs that up, and the point is, I guess, if you have I call it an ad like object because I don't know what an ad is anymore. But a thing that's being paid for by a brand for us to execute, if you have a something like that in market that helps bring the channels together, I think [00:12:00] that's helpful for everybody.

Create that compound effect. I think the problem arises when agencies pose themselves as being able to do everything full service, 'cause I just don't think that's true anymore. We do parts of the marketing funnel full service. So for example, at Funday, our core competencies are strategy, creative production, and media.

And that's how we think of our service as being full service for a client. But we don't do, for example, we're not experts in experiential or, or PR or CRM or data management. Now, theoretically, a holding company can do that work in all of those channels because they own a bunch of different agencies.

But I don't think there's one agency that can do all of it anymore. And I think that's a different, maybe a different conversation. On the other hand, the other issue is clients don't want, nor can they afford to have multiple agencies doing every channel for them. So to your point Corby about seeing Amazon specific agencies, XYZ specific agencies.

Yeah, we've come up across. different agencies that I would [00:13:00] consider consider like implementers. They just do this one thing and they implement it really well. As an agency lead, you're going to get into these situations. We call them IATs, you know, integrated agency teams where clients have various agencies with various motivations, all trying to be forced to work together.

And that can get messy. So listen, I would suggest there is no right or wrong way to do this, but if you have a hundred bucks to spend on your marketing, how you divide with the pie. I think has a lot to do with the type of model you'll end up working with, and then the type of work you'll end up executing.

And that's not necessarily the right way to do it either. Ideally, you'd have strategy leading the work, but I think sometimes you're beholden to the setup that you have based on the dollars you have. So I don't know if that actually answers the question, but that's kind of my roundabout way of thinking about all these different niche players and how they work together with us.

Corby Fine: Yeah, I like the, uh, how you distribute 100 question. I, I asked that in a different context in other episodes, but to take on that then, Kevin,

so as you're helping different organizations think through a lot of their [00:14:00] strategy for innovation, I take it that part of your role is actually helping to identify who are the right partners and players to then facilitate some of that work.

So what are you seeing as someone who's actually in a position to recommend to brands, recommend to organizations, and also recommend to agencies that you work with, the right strategy around niche versus all encompassing capabilities.

Kevin Krossing: Yeah, I mean, I think let me take a step back. I think it's a great question. That's, that's probably one of the main things that most companies are struggling with right now. I like to start those conversations from a strategic conversation. So the first thing I want to understand is what's the from to where does the client need to get to what's their current baseline and what are they trying to do from a revenue perspective that starts to set the stage for what, where we're going to look for a solution and what a solution possibly could manifest like, as well as who we can bring in from a partnership perspective.

Right? So, so what's our role in that situation from an agency point of view, we are the ones, okay, who need to come up with the creative idea, the creative [00:15:00] leap to create something in marketplace that people are going to recognize and understand and hopefully recall in a buying situation. So the client's dollar can be spent effectively on selling that product, not on sort of,

pointless media impressions. So I think part of the challenge will be who's the audience. What do they need to hear from us? What do we have that meets their needs? The innovation piece, I think comes in when there's a gap, is there a gap that we can identify that we can bring something new to the table that doesn't necessarily have to be a net new.

Innovation, a product or service has never been, never been thought of before. That could be an incremental gain, but that's still something net new. We're putting in the marketplace that the consumer hasn't experienced yet. That then the agency can bring to market on behalf of their client. And then, then that triangle wins.

The agency wins, the client wins, and the consumer wins. And so, for me, that triangle, succeeding across those three points, [00:16:00] is the key to be able to effectively go to market. 

So, let me go back, just for a second, because I think Jeff made a lot of really great points. For me, 

putting something in marketplace from a client perspective has all got to do with do people remember the brand at the time of purchase? In a buying situation, do they recall me, right? And so, I would agree that a lot of the media these days, and so here's the opportunity, 

I think Jeff, you make a really good point. A lot of media these days is disposable.

I'm going to say it's disposable because it hasn't been thought about very clearly about what its intent is and how it's going to make a difference to the brand and how it's going to be memorable.

Right, if we can agree that, that's a problem that we're kind of collectively all facing, because I do believe that probably 85% of what's going on in the marketplace now is, is disposable because it's not remembered, those are wasted dollars, from a client perspective.

 And so the debate can be had about did the agency not get a good brief? Was the client not clear? Did the agency not understand how to execute? Did they not understand how to properly channel plan? Those are [00:17:00] all sort of debatable topics. But I think fundamentally, if the model works correctly, client is clear about their from to statement, where they need to grow.

Agency helps them understand what's happening in the marketplace and what's happening either from a cultural perspective or a psychological perspective in the consumer's mind. Agency creates piece of rememberable content, they can put in the marketplace. It goes through proper channel planning.

Consumers, prospective buyers, see that and they go, oh yes, this meets my need at the right time. I remember the brand. I think they're the right thing to buy. I'm going to do it. So that would be sort of the cycle for me. 

Corby Fine: So, I really like this notion of agencies almost exist to help people remember the brand at the time of purchase. And in a world of all of this disposable content and advertising, how do we not waste money? And we'll get to that at the end because I want to talk about the notion of time versus outcomes versus like, what is the right way to compensate?

But [00:18:00] here's where it gets complicated. Buzzword of the day, Generative AI. So, here's the problem from my perspective. In a world where everything can be disposable, and now we've got these capabilities to mass produce,

the click of a button, even more disposable stuff and layering on all of this data, you know, both very explicit data that's given to us by our consumers, 

inferred data that's based on behaviors and attitudes, and modeled data.

Right, you put it all together and we've got this world where, and I asked someone recently, could every ad and every piece of content that goes out into the world in the future of AI be theoretically a deepfake? 

Because it's instantly created to try and trigger you as an individual. So, when you put all that together,

 in a world where, you know, this democratization of capabilities of tools of data of platforms of Gen AI, is out there.

How do the agencies [00:19:00] grab hold of this and shepherd or actually do it on behalf of their clients? What does the Gen AI world look like from an agency perspective, Jeff?

Jeff Dack: So, big loaded question with a less loaded answer. But from my perspective, and again, I am no expert on Gen AI. We have people that are experts. Listen, we are constantly staying, you know, ahead of, or we think we're staying ahead of in experimenting with different tech. Right, but we also bring partners to the table as needed.

I can tell you from a Gen AI perspective, we were actually asked that recently, because for us, it's another tool, but we were asked recently in an RFP situation, like they wanted to understand how we're using it. Because there was an assumption that we would be using it, and it was their assumption was right, and it was more just a question of them wanting to understand, how transparent we are in our use of AI.

And we're completely transparent about it. , Ultimately, we're going to use whatever tools are at our disposal to help our clients win, right? That's our job , you know, the client is ultimately the gatekeeper. They've empowered us to act on their behalf. [00:20:00] And lead the creation of whatever's in market.

, But you know, I would suggest we're not necessarily the gatekeepers for, for creativity or AI or anything like that. Sometimes we're the gatekeepers for good taste, just because we ultimately have to represent the consumer that the work is appealing to. And that consumer isn't always necessarily reflective of the client, making the decision.

So sometimes we have the opportunity to come in with fresh eyes and say, here's the right choice. Be it from a technology perspective, our communications perspective for this audience. And here's why, but it's ultimately the client's brand. They're responsible for it. We're just here to help them execute upon it.

And so, with regards to the tools themselves, I don't know. I think we see it. Maybe it's naive. We see it as an opportunity. Like there's always going to be tools that consumers can use and to the disposable points earlier. Yeah, if all you require as a brand is a little hit here or there, and somebody in their home can make that for you as an influencer or whatever, go do that.

If you require something a little bit more polished, and to your point, Kevin,

I love the way you said, [00:21:00] not just memorable, but rememberable. I think that's a great word, rememberable,

hard to say, content, then I think we're the potential partner for you. But ultimately the tools are here to help those brands win, and maybe that's a simple way of putting it.

But that's the way I see it. And the more tools we have at our disposal, the better we're consumers, just like anybody else. You know, average age in an agency these days is 29. So we've got lots of young folks experimenting with lots of cool tools coming out every day. And I hope we bring them into our tool belt and we can use them to help our clients do better work.

Corby Fine: I'm glad 29 is now considered young, uh, and can anyone spell remember a bull? I'd anyway, I'm gonna

Jeff Dack: hard to say.

Corby Fine: Kevin, what's your, what's your take on it?

Kevin Krossing: You know, I think AI poses, I think , some challenges for agencies or, potentially more broadly, all professional services companies. But it also, I think, provides a great opportunity. So, let's talk about the challenges. What I've seen from a Gen AI perspective is agencies are using it.

They're starting to [00:22:00] onboard it into the creative process. I've talked to lots of agencies who are using it for things like script writing, you know, I won't name names, but I was just at a conference recently where, the global creative director got up and said, we're using Gen AI and it does about 70% of the script writing.

Right? So 70% the machine will do and the remaining 30%, you know, a trained experienced art director, creative director will go and finish it off, right? Give it the flair, give it the, give it the sort of a final approach. So if you think about that, and Jeff, I think you make a good point about clients asking how you're using it.

Is the question, how are you using it? Because we want to understand the innovation potential. That could be one. Maybe the more direct question they're asking is, are you using Gen AI because of 70% of the work is being done by the machine. I don't have to pay you as much for that or at all for that.

I'll take that rebate. And then I want you to focus your people on what I'm paying you [00:23:00] for, which is creative excellence, which gives you the memorability or the rememberability and that's going to help me perform better in the marketplace. So I think you can look at it a lot of different ways.

 What's the opportunity? I think the opportunity for agencies is I think there's going to be. There's going to be an impact. I think it's unavoidable. I think you're seeing layoffs now where agencies have sort of overhired and they're rectifying their employee base.

But I think as Gen AI gains more momentum, all of those types of jobs that are repeatable. Or a part of a process will be done by the machine at some point. And I think there's lots of research that's already sort of projected 2030. There's going to be a sort of a hit to the creative economy around this.

 But the opportunity I think that it provides the agencies is all around creativity and I'm going to talk about creativity much more broadly. This is not about putting an ad unit on a digital platform or doing a spot, this is about solving a business problem through creativity. And so from my [00:24:00] perspective, the piece that hasn't been unleashed for agencies writ large is how do I use my creativity and all these amazing people I have within my shops to solve your business problems client.

And that doesn't necessarily mean I'm constrained only to comms. If I have the right people and I'm using creativity the way it's, I think is supposed to be used, solve the problem. Can I talk about supply chain issues? Can I talk about other things that are not bounded by comms and creativity expressed in comms?

 

Corby Fine: Interesting. Jeff, maybe just on the point of the transition of the roles in the world of, of AI. Is that, oh, hey, Mr. and Mrs. agency I don't want to pay as much for those resources anymore, or is it actually an inverse opportunity for someone like you as a president and CEO of an agency to say, well, actually, There's a huge amount of skill set that needs to be developed to actually corral this technology.

Can you charge more for that? I mean, it's an interesting sort of state we're in right [00:25:00] now.

Jeff Dack: It's, it's always an interesting state because it's constantly evolving to Kevin's point about that 70, 30 example. And I get there's just one person's example, but I think it's an interesting one. Whether it was the tools themselves or just general, I don't know, category knowledge that we all had the 70 parts easy.

It's that 30 that actually makes you exceptional, right? Like in the sense of there are lots of brands. There are lots of pieces of communication in the world that you look at, and it's like that's great because that brand did it, but it's almost like insert brand here, right? Think about car on winding road.

Cut to something interesting that happens. Could be any car, but the fact that car X did it means they own it. Good for them. The difference for me with the with the GenAI, I think to that 70 30 point is Yeah, that's 70 part. Like anybody can like I used to be a writer way back when I could do that part of my sleep.

It's the part that makes it exceptional, the part that makes it differentiating, the part that makes it rememorable. It's going to be that extra thing at the end [00:26:00] that at least to this point, Gen AI can't do now when it starts doing it, then we might have a real problem, right? When it's not basing its assumptions on the past and then modeling out new futures, when it's just coming up with original thoughts, 

then I think we all have a problem, but I don't think we're there yet.

That said that Sora thing that I saw the other day, it's pretty amazing, and I can only imagine where it's all going, but for now, as long as it's taking norms and just kind of refashioning them, I think we're okay, but I don't presume to know what's coming, what's coming down the pipe. I didn't know this would be down here.

This would be happening now. So it's, it's an interesting time for sure.

Corby Fine: PSA, this podcast is 100% human generated, so

Jeff Dack: are,

Corby Fine: are all real. We are humans. At least as far I mean, I'm not on your end, so I'm gonna go with that. So last question, kind of wrapping it all up then, at the end of the day All of this stuff kind of says, how do you evolve the model from a business perspective then in terms of,

if all of these new capabilities exist, all of these [00:27:00] new technologies. Are you changing the business model to go along with the change in the operating model? Meaning, are you all performance based? Are you, you know, the time thing came up earlier.

Is time an irrelevancy from a cost perspective even though it's actually the most valuable asset that any human being has? Is it outcomes driven? Is it art driven? Even though it's not art if there's a brief, I really like that quote. I don't know, Kevin, what are you seeing in terms of the way in which your clients are now starting to think about how they want to or are being asked to compensate their agencies?

Kevin Krossing: Yeah, I mean, I think the conversations I've been having have been really focused on incentive, right? So I'll use time base as an example, because that's sort of the easiest example to pull out when you're billing on time. It's actually not advantageous to you as the agency to get anything done quickly, right?

Let it run out, you accrue hours. The longer you accrue hours, the more money you make. And so, I think the reason that agencies and procurement are at odds all the time is because procurement has always won the game and will always win the [00:28:00] game around hours, right? And so I think agencies need to think about how do I get compensated a different way where I can bring the creativity required by my client to them in a more effective way and drive more value into their organization, right?

And I think that can be done a lot of different ways. Some clients or agencies are both won't walk away from the billable hourly rate. So that's 1. That's 1 part of the business model that I think you need to contend with, or the commercialization model. I think there is a equity play. Or an IP play where you're creating something and you are either licensing it back to a client or you're driving a result or an outcome or you're being compensated on top of an hourly rate, so like a bonus structure.

 You know, I've heard people even talk about subscription as a model. I think if you think about what's going on from an agency perspective right now, AOR relationships are shortened and starting to disappear. At least this is what the press is talking about. [00:29:00] And most of the clients are looking at, or a lot of the clients are looking at project based remuneration.

So in a world where you're project based, you need to make sure you get the next project and the next project and the next project. So you need to be driving as much value as you can per engagement. Typical agencies aren't structured in a way to be able to do that effectively. So is there a model that can be used both for large and small agencies where if the predominant way of working is project based now, how do we leverage that?

So we're delivering value, not only to our clients, but also we're reaping the value that we create on behalf of them. So I think there's an equity play. I think there's a time play. I think there might be a subscription play. There's certainly some kind of outcome or bonus structure play.

And I think the last piece would be IP and developing either my own product or my own service.

Corby Fine: Got it. And Jeff, walking into a new role, heading up an agency, you obviously took over an existing model. Anything there that you see [00:30:00] needing to change or wanting to change in terms of compensation models going forward?

Jeff Dack: I got lots of thoughts on this one. So bear with me here. We're going a bit of a bit of a run here, so I have been at this, the advertising marketing services world since 2000, and disruption has been the constant word throughout that all. It's meant different things in different eras, but it's always been about disruption.

In my opinion, the model always has to be client centric. At the end of the day, clients are paying us to do a service, you know, to do a job for them. I was a client. So while I've been doing this 24 years, 20 of them have been spent in agencies, four of them were spent as a leader, a marketing leader in A CPG.

So I led the marketing function in A CPG. And to this day, I still believe if clients could do it themselves, they will. Right? So what value do we as agency folks bring is that we have to be continually be ahead of them, surprising, delighting them with new services, new offerings. Somebody in the agency world, us included, is always gonna be out there building a better mousetrap, right?

And I think that's cool with me. It's cool to see different models, like ours pop up. Our model is fully remote. So we have, you know, obviously there's a tangible [00:31:00] offering that we can give to clients that others can't. But I think it's cool that new businesses pop up new ways of doing what we do pop up.

I think that's important and the tech enables it to, give you an example from a transparency perspective. Like at Funday, at our agency we use Slack, like Slack is our big kind of water cooler that we use. Clients are invited into our Slack, right? They're invited to participate in the process.

We want them to be aware of how we're operating and how we're best using their funds to build their brands to the point about the time thing. Let me use an analogy here. Um, the way I kind of see it is the analogy is that we are a contractor. right?

Building a client's marketing house, if you will. But at the end of the day, it's your house. It's not our house. We're building it for you. It's your house. So you're invited to come to the work site anytime you want. As long as you wear your construction hat, you wear your work boots. You can come to the site anytime it's yours.

It's your site. if you want to pick up a hammer and help us nail some nails. Great. Awesome. Have fun with it. Now, if you want to do the electrical yourself, that's not going to work. Right. And that's [00:32:00] why you hired us to be the experts and build you something you can't build for yourself. So I think, you know, if that's the analogy, I do think there's some agency models that no longer make sense, right?

Everyone has the right to make a living, do what they want to do. That's all good. But as a client, if you're my agency, like your, your margins. Aren't really my concern right in the sense of we were talking right to Kevin's point If i've agreed as a marketer to pay x for output y. How my agency divides up the pies shouldn't be my business and generally speaking I'm a fan of clients paying for outcomes versus inputs like time. However, if you're the type of client who has a procurement approach that dictates that you have to judge productivity by the amount of hours spent and to Kevin's analogy about how it doesn't incentivize us to go fast He's absolutely right.

It's kind of silly We're not lawyers or dentists charging insurance for units of time. Like that's not what we do here. We're supposed to be solving problems with creativity and whether that solution comes in one hour or 100 [00:33:00] hours really shouldn't matter It should be the outcome But if you have a client who's paid for a bucket of hours because that's how they're set up to do it, then their margin is their business in theory.

How are you justifying the hourly fee? What goes into that? What's cost plus? What's the plus? Uh, so I'm just a big believer in paying for the house to be built. Not paying for the time it took to build the house, to continue the analogy. So, you know, to kind of bring it home, as a marketer, I think it's about how you want to pay for your marketing outputs.

Because in some cases, it makes sense to stand up your own team. In some cases, it makes sense to bring in partners like us. Uh, in some cases, it means, you know, it's a hybrid approach, but how you structure your organization will ultimately dictate what you execute. And so if you have the choice and you see this more in startups or smaller organizations that haven't done a lot of marketing work, but if you have the choice before you hire an agency, before you stand up a [00:34:00] team, before you hire anybody, if you can figure out your strategy.

Even as simply as just W fiving it. Like, what do we want to say? Who do we want to say it to? When? How? Where? Before you hire any partners. It'll enable you to make those choices on kind of a justified and researched premise versus having to deal with decisions based on the people you already have in the stable or have been contracted to work with.

And then the last thing to Kevin's point, 

there's a number of ways to be compensated in this deal. I don't pretend to know the answers to any of it. I just know that, generally speaking.

I would like us to be paid for what we make for people not how long it took to make it if that makes sense

Corby Fine: Makes total sense. And one of the things that, having known Kevin for many years, burned into my brain was the really simple four tier of objective, strategy, 

tactics, measurement, and part of the problem that I'm sure

Kevin Krossing: You still haven't recovered from that. Have you?

Corby Fine: like [00:35:00] PTSD. And I'm sure that both of you have experienced clients that in and of themselves, don't even understand the KPIs that they're trying to achieve, which just adds a whole other layer of complexity to this, but.

You know, to your point, Jeff, if the, if the client knew what they were trying to get out at the outcome, and Kevin, to your whole point on, on measurement of value, uh, it would make this whole thing a lot easier because you'd be able to immediately prove that you were a component of contributing to the outcomes, as opposed to just another piece of the process without an ability to measure what happened at the end.

And so I do think that's often on the client's ownership to dictate to their agencies. Kevin, any final word to wrap up?

Kevin Krossing: Yeah, I would couch this whole conversation is I think there's a lot of opportunity for agencies. Barring the economic uncertainty, barring the client cutbacks, I think agencies need to step up and provide clients the value that the clients are demanding. On the other side, clients need to make sure that they're not solely procurement driven [00:36:00] and procurement's all about getting the best price versus getting the best value, right?

So I think if those two bodies can come together. And have a real discussion about what the outcome needs to look like and that they need to partner to be able to deliver that outcome because there'll be an innovation piece wrapped into that as well that builds a stronger partnership.

And I think that's going to get everybody to the finish line faster and more profitably.

Jeff Dack: Well said kevin. Um last I saw and again, I don't know if the numbers are accurate But there's somewhere around 150,000 agencies in North America. It is unbelievable how many, because I guess just barrier to entry is so low, right? You just say you're an agent, you're an agent. But I think with that said, it creates a lot of competition, but there's also a lot of same same out there. And so as a client, if I'm looking for an agency, I think, you know, Corby to your point before, it's really know thyself, know what your needs are. And try to find a partner who's going to help you best facilitate those needs, and [00:37:00] understand the value prop and what's differentiating, but it's complicated.

It is hard out there. It is hard to navigate. And I think a lot of, unfortunately, a lot of these decisions come down to like, Oh, I know a guy and I trust him. We're going to work with him. Right. Versus actually doing, a search process in the right way to find the best partner for you, even if that partner challenges and makes you uncomfortable, because I think that's how we all get better at this, right?

It's pushing each other and recognizing that nobody has all the answers. I don't know, creativity meets commerce and somewhere in the middle. But I love what we get to do for a living.

I love the agency business. I believe in it. It is always going to evolve. It is never going to be stable. That's the fun part. But you got to be willing to, uh, to take the hits and keep coming back for more. And, so I love it. So thank you for having me. It's been a lot of fun and it's great to chop it up with you a little bit here.

 

Corby Fine: Well, I know two guys,

not just one guy, and they both happen to be on this podcast. So again, Jeff Dack, uh, new CEO of Funday. That's [00:38:00] funday.agency. Uh, again, another topic. And Kevin Krossing, chief growth officer available for fractional work, and a good long term friend. I really appreciate the conversation on creating rememberable content that isn't just disposable, it's rememberable.

Kevin Krossing: There will be a spelling test.

Corby Fine: Thank you both for spending the time with me today.

Kevin Krossing: Thanks, Corby. This has been great. Thanks, Jeff.

Jeff Dack: Thank you, Kevin. Good to see you guys.

​ [00:39:00]