Did you see the Martin agency started a specialization? Love it. When you think about bigger agencies, they may have a tougher challenge associated with carving out a specialty. Take, for instance, Leo Burnett. They, and others their size, face the challenge any agency faces – ye olde idea of specializing, yet not wanting to turn away business. Great big agencies have great big monthly payrolls. One particular industry, category or segment might not pay all the bills for one of these great big guys. Leo Burnett. Ogilvy. DraftFCB. BBDO. DDB. Etc. Take your pick.
Anywho, one way a large agency might specialize is to own a large area that enables “chunkifying.” Some thoughts:
- By family member
- By age
<Yawn.> The above are fine, I suppose. But we can do better:
- By emotional state
- By purchase cycle
- By purchase size
- By season
All of the above areas have multiple bits to them and offer bundling possibilities. An agency I used to work for back in the day used to be known for one particular area. They acquired agencies to grow beyond that area. But the areas had no connection to each other. Take this chunkify approach, and it can all stitch together nicely.
I wonder if there isn’t a agency out there that could be known simply for having depth, and then demonstrating that across multiple categories. “Depth” here could mean vertical integration…unique partnerships…services or capabilities…all sorts of stuff.
Strategies like these are fat enough to move across a broad area, yet enough to build some specificity and expertise that can differentiate, enable you to charge a premium, and attract clients more efficiently.
What’s that? You say you like the idea of a tighter specialization because you think it might be a faster, more efficient path to growth? Well then, stick around. that sounds like a terrific post idea!