gapingvoid: "cartoons drawn on the back of business cards"

Hugh - you are certainly on the right track, but you need to go further. Most discussions about the "future" use definitions and assumptions based on what we know NOW.

Defining tomorrow with today's rules only gives us a partial image of what tomorrow will actually be like.

And - it is IMPOSSIBLE to accurately predict the future as I wrote on 06 Sep.

To take this discussion where it needs to go, we need a new lexicon. New definitions. New names for things. Things that probably don't even exist, as we speak.

"The thing is, the advertising industry is being unwillingly changed from the outside, not the inside. ... The big agencies can react, but they're incapable of making the first move. "

Newsflash: the "advertising industry" is made up of more than the "big agencies".

There are plenty of nimble folk out there, unencumbered by bureaucracy, who can get it. "Guys in pajamas" don't have a lock on getting it (although that belief certainly suits your personal profit model). Granted, the bigger they are, the farther they usually are from having a clue, but your pessimism is, well, ... pessimistic.

blogs are not easy... I'm on my third and I know that writing something interesting and stimulating nearly every day is hard. Unless helped by a brain dead job with not enough to do then one can post away like mad.

I think that this is being complacent...

In most markets, the big companies don't innovate well, but they are the ones that own the market and make the most money. They do this by following just behind the innovators, hoovering up the stuff that works best and then delivering to their customers.

Some thoughts

You said: "Agencies are in the business of selling stuff that is neither." Well, that's true, but blogs don't necessarily have to be cheap. It's usually true that the first few generations of a product is cheap, but it's not necessarily true that it stays cheap. For example - look at computer games - once written by one person - now using teams of hundreds.

One way of ramping up the cost of blogs might be to pay to create an ecosystem, rather than a superstar. TV can afford the glossy production values because the producer to consumer ratio is strongly weighted towards consumers. You could reduce the production values and that ratio by creating many, many discussions about a brand (the ecosystem). Each would be read by fewer people, but the net effect might be the same.

Another way might be to create a Martha Stewart figure.

I think that the values of a space are embedded in the behaviours of those who interact in the space. If that's a bit metaphysical: before the huge growth of the internet I used to read Usenet. Afterwards I couldn't. The people in the space no longer worked to the same rules. At the moment blogging is a niche area compared to TV, but it's growing quickly. I'm not sure that it yet has enough mass to maintain the current ethic. I can still imagine that professional copy writers could change the rules of blogging.

Jeff

"Why not? Because blogs, when done well, are CHEAP and EASY. Agencies are in the business of selling stuff that is NEITHER."

You define agencies in such a way that they could never have a clue, and then act surprised when they don't have a clue. What were you doing at the WK blog in the first place if you really have no hope for an agency blog? Rubbernecking?

An agency doesn't write with your voice. It doesn't connect with your customers. It doesn't listen when they've got a problem. It doesn't help them get the most value from your product.

An agency's value is like the value of a bricks and mortar distributor. It "breaks bulk" and "carries credit". Out of necessity, it interferes with the relationship you have with your customer.

Agencies just "message" to your "audience".

Ptooie!

Interesting stuff.

Hugh, I agree that the big agencies in particular have problems turning around. Watch any big ship in action and you'll see why. Inertia. Ingrained habits. Protectionism.

However, for every dinosaur not getting it there are many, many new agencies that do - my own included. And even the dinosaurs are taking notice. I recently received a pdf document on blogging and the new markets from O&M that was as insightful and refreshing to read as anything that makes the rounds in the blogosphere we all know and love.

Do you remember the 1990's? We had lots of new media agencies spring up, using almost the same terminology that many of the bloggers use now. They shared the same conviction that ad agencies would be dead within the decade, that they were not getting it, that they would never be able to offer a similar service.
What happened? The big agencies watched, learned and then pulled out their cheque books and bought the talent they needed to survive.

The new reality in advertising isn't about the battle of the tools. And blogs are a tool, let's not forget that. It's about honesty, integrity and, probably most importantly, relevance to the consumer's needs.

you ask: 'What will replace the monolithic agency model? Another monolith? Or lots of different little new models?'

you've already answred it: you and me.

"It's about honesty, integrity and, probably most importantly, relevance to the consumer's needs."

Then we're really screwed. Heh.

Here's what it looks like when a big agency makes a blog:
http://www.juicyfruit.com/?fromEmail=yes&emailSection=hercules_landing&blog_day=39

I'm with Hugh.

Oh sweet jesus @ the juicy fruit "blog." That has got to be the WORST attempt at "speaking to the people" that I've ever laid eyes on.

Jeff, while I agree with you (that Juicy Fruit blog IS an abomination if ever I've seen one) one bad blog does not mean that all blogs created by ad or new media agencies suck.

Look, the truth is: Blogs are the flavour of the month, or maybe the year. As a result, blogs are highly visible. It's only logical that this visibility attracts the marketing folks. Will they be getting it right first time round? Of course not. Will they learn? You can bet the farm on that.

Look at Microsoft versus Apple (Sorry Hugh ;)
Is Apple better at innovation than MS? Of course they are.
Is MS more successful in the market? We all know the answer to that one.

Microsoft succeeds because of two reasons. Their products don't suck badly enough to make switching easy and they LEARN. Every release, every update is making the product better.

The same, in my opinion, applies to ad agencies. They have some terrible clever people working for them (ok, there's also a fair share of idiots, I know, I know) and they will learn, adapt and evolve.

I don't agree. I mean sure, there are agencies that do blogs for show. But there are those run by the younger ones (like myself) -- and we do know what it means to blog :)
I have a blog myself -- not a corporate one, but showing connections with my company. And if a customer came to me and asked for a blogging campaign, I would know what to do :)

..can real blogs pee?

What do think about niche blog consultancys like weblogs work?

Alexander, I have no real opinion. Yet.