Comments on: Change is coming fast. Not all plans will be equally effective.

By: Stephen Curry

Stephen Curry — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 12:53:37 +0000

To be clear; I’m in no way opposed to the changes that lie ahead. (And it wouldn’t matter much if I were.)

My point (in talking about agency/employee loyalty, and the commitment to mutual growth for each) is that in the industry of marketing, there will always be a place for “experts.”

What they will be “experts” in, is a very different matter.

The very existence of this blog is proof. You’re putting a stake in the ground for yourself and your agency, establishing your credibility as an “expert” in what lies ahead, instead of some other schlep.

It seems your strategy for resisting the threat of crowdsourcing to your agency, is to become an acknowledged expert in crowdsourcing. Smart. And perhaps the best chance at preserving some revenue and differentiation for your agency.

Hopefully when your agency hands a client an invoice for $300,000 instead of $3,000, that expertise will have value.

Meanwhile, in our commitment to grow our employees, it may be time to emphasize different skill sets and different tools of creation. But I still think agencies can earn their keep as “experts.” If they’re flexible and open and honestly committed to the best interests of the brands they serve.

By: edward boches

edward boches — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 23:10:49 +0000

N;
Thanks, too bad there isn’t something new here everyday. It’s too much work. Plus I have a real job, a couple of kids and 400 daily emails to plow through. And now, having read Brogan’s Trust Agents, I learned I’m actually supposed to respond to the damn things. Anyway, thanks for your interest. Subscribe and it will save you showing up all the time. In the meantime, I’ll try and be provocative. Or at least interesting.

By: Nostradamus

Nostradamus — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 17:43:22 +0000

I agree with Doug. I might disagree vehemently with your take on crowdsourcing, but you’ve got me coming back to your blog every day to check up on things.

By: edward boches

edward boches — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 00:58:56 +0000

That’s the point, right? Want to know a secret? On many posts I learn more from them than they learn from me. Have met and engaged with some interesting and talented people. Thanks for the kind words.

By: Doug Erickson

Doug Erickson — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 00:46:10 +0000

You know, one of the reasons I love your blog is you actually engage in dialogue with your readers. You're thoughtful and perceptive too. I appreciate your work. .-= Doug Erickson´s last blog ..What Is That? =-.

By: edward boches

edward boches — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 11:40:32 +0000

Doug:
Didn’t mean to imply that. In fact, the opposite. Sort of. Though we have a dilemma. As conversations and community proliferate, value of good content will be greater, and necessary to generate attention, engagement, propagation, etc. Point was more that the content creator may no longer need the studio, the movie theater or the network, just as great writers may no longer need the overhead and infrastructure of the newspaper and printing press. The creators have long paid a huge sacrifice for the power of those who could distribute. The value of those intermediaries was two-fold. One, they were the only way to get the message and entertainment out. And they virtually assured money (in the case of books and newspapers, probably not enough) for the creator. Now here’s the dilemma: if people are willing to pay less, believing that digital technology entitles them to free, and the publisher/distributor has less money to pay the creator, the intermediary’s clout and value will diminish. We are left with a huge challenge. While we can all figure out the distribution part — over the web — we still have to pay (or get paid) the writers, artists, directors, who make the good stuff. Ironically as great content becomes a premium, getting paid for it may become harder and harder except in select, blockbuster cases.

By: Doug Erickson

Doug Erickson — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 03:28:21 +0000

Great post and discussion. I agree with almost all of it. Where I disagree is about the future value of content. I think it depends on the content. Just because I can watch millions of free videos on YouTube doesn't mean I will pay less to watch a video by Quentin Tarantino. Just because I can see my neighbor's paintings free doesn't make a visit to the Louvre less valuable. To the contrary, the better and more scarce the content by trusted creators, the MORE I will be willing to pay for it in the future. As attention becomes harder and harder to gain, value to those who can grab it increases. .-= Doug Erickson´s last blog ..Sheer Imagination =-.

By: James

James — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 21:46:02 +0000

If that’s your business plan we should talk because we’ve learned a ton of lessons on what works and what doesn’t.

Interested?

By: James

James — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 21:42:38 +0000

Hedge fund is an interesting analogy. Creating an open marketplace is the first condition to unlocking creative work and making it easier to source, buy, sell and iterate on.

By: edward boches

edward boches — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 21:19:28 +0000

Hey,
You just revealed my business plan. Shhh.