Marcel and AI – the future of agencies?

First up, a couple of disclaimers. I used to work at Publicis some years ago, and still have some extremely fond memories of the place and the people. And secondly, what I know about Marcel so far, the AI system Publicis has just announced it’ll be spending all its award entry and sponsorship money on for the next year, is what’s publicly available.

Still, from what I can see, the majority of the reaction to Marcel has centred on the likely impact that missing out on awards might have on the motivation of creatives across the business. If they aren’t going to be recognised by winning awards, how can they judge their success, so the argument goes. Marcel is described by Publicis as a ‘professional assistant system’, which will incorporate detailed profiles of every member of staff in order to pull together teams to address specific client needs, the idea being that staff can ‘bid’ to be involved in client briefs.

Hmm. Let’s just take another look at that, shall we? Whilst it’s heralded as a natural next step in delivering the “Power Of One” approach that has supposedly done away with individual P&Ls to facilitate cross-company working (tell that to the poor souls presenting quarterly numbers for which they are being held accountable by the way), in my opinion the real promise that Marcel makes is to remove the need for managing directors and business unit leaders altogether. Well, if you have the technology to match people to opportunities across geographies, time zones and markets, what’s the point of having managing directors to manage those people? If the promise of the work itself is strong enough, one presumes, there will be no need for traditional leadership of any kind.

It kind of fits, though, with what’s happening across the communications business as a whole. The exodus of mid-level and more experienced account handlers from the PR and medcomms business continues as people walk away from the always-on demands of agency roles to freelance. They don’t seem too bothered about any lack of personal development or growth opportunities, in fact some see not having to participate in company-led initiatives as an advantage. Loose collectives or groupings of freelancers happy to work together on projects directly with clients are springing up all over the place, as our work becomes increasingly commoditised.  It becomes about the ‘stuff’ we deliver rather than the value of the thought behind it.  To be fair though, talented creatives and planners have long been able to name their price in the freelance market, picking and choosing the work they want to do and the hours they want to work.

The days when clients relied on agencies as their institutional memories are rapidly disappearing, as the value of long-term relationships is continually degraded. In the race to cut costs, most agencies now have to repitch regularly even when the client is happy, because that’s what procurement requires. The influence of procurement on agency selection increasingly forces marketers to view all creative agencies as much the same, and the only way to differentiate between services becomes about chemistry and teams rather than the ability to do the work to a higher standard or think differently.

What Marcel offers, in my view, is the opportunity to remove even that differentiation. It promises to use predictive technology to match talent with client briefs, wherever it’s located. The problem for me is about seeing ‘talent’ (or as I like to call them, people) simply as a series of building blocks, albeit with varying characteristics, rather than in all their rich diversity. Amongst other things, this limited view provides procurement with the opportunity to more clearly specify which blocks it wants to buy, at what price. So, I foresee a future where procurement will specify the use of x hours of y shaped talent at z price (not that different from what happens now), and the beauty of individual creativity will be lost in translation. If you’re a freelancer, you’ll be forced to fit into that mould too, whether you’re under the radar or not.

And if you don’t fit those specifications, if your creativity isn’t quite the right ‘shape’, or if you need a different kind of opportunity to grow your skillset, well that’s tough because there won’t be a manager or a leader in place who gets you and is willing to fight your corner.  In the race for flexibility, we are at grave risk of losing our individuality, the ability to engage with and support real creativity that’s different and chafes at being put in boxes.  Winning awards is often the result of creating environments that nurture difference, that encourage creativity and enable people to be themselves.  You can’t wish winning teams into existence just by picking people from all over the world and shoving them together to answer a brief, they need leadership and support, and technology alone won’t deliver that.

Maybe I’m wrong, hopefully I am, but my worry is that Marcel heralds a future where the importance of the individual contributor within agencies becomes meaningless, certainly from an account handling and management perspective. And once this AI system has got enough data on board about what makes a successful campaign, how long will the individual creative be safe? Whatever happens we can’t get this particular genie back in the bottle, because where Publicis leads, others will almost certainly follow.  In ten years time, perhaps the hottest shops on the block will be agencies that offer a return to ‘old school’ working, with teams all together in one place rather than scattered to the winds.   What do you think?

Nearly there…

After weeks of frantic election campaigning here in the UK we’re nearly there, and whatever your voting intentions tomorrow, you’ve got to admit that campaign managers from all sides have had their work cut out keeping their candidates on track, in control and on message.

Maybe it’s just me, but there have been times when I have yearned for candidates and party spokespeople to set aside their soundbites, stop using the techniques so painstakingly learned to avoid people’s questions, and instead speak to the electorate as human beings. Yes, it’s important to stay on message, but that doesn’t mean trotting out the same stock phrases out over and over and over again in response to numerous different questions. “Strong and stable” made sense the first time I heard it, but as time went on and every Conservative Party spokesperson hitting the airways used it, the phrase lost its meaning and became risible.

Don’t agree? Well, it certainly gave the opposition room to counter-attack with “weak and wobbly” every time manifesto promises were clarified and amended in response to public criticism. Oh, and by the way, do stop answering every question with “let me be clear”, it begs the question of why you weren’t clear in the first place. Why not drop the barricades a little and use your own natural speech patterns – unless of course you spend your time in the pub continually interrupting people and shouting “let me finish…” whilst completely ignoring the question you’ve been asked. No? Thought not.

Now, when I have gone into pitch for business, one of the key things we’ve done to prepare is to make sure we’ve got the facts at our fingertips. So, when going into a radio or TV interview to talk about say, the cost of policing, it’s a good idea to have written the numbers down in big letters where you can see them, so you don’t have to make up the answers on the fly (and get found out when you get it wrong – repeatedly). Also, on this same topic, maybe learn from your mistakes so that if you’re invited onto another programme to talk about perhaps local election results, you don’t make the same error all over again. In fact, if this is your candidate, I’d be taking them off the airways altogether  – oh…

In the communications world, there’s a lot of work that goes on behind the scenes on issues management – looking at where problems might lie for brands and businesses in order to defuse them before crises happen. So, if your own personal beliefs seem to be at odds with the mainstream, or even your own party’s policies, it’s worth taking time as a candidate to think through how you might respond to challenges about them. Just ignoring the issue simply makes it worse, and gives the appearance of not caring what people think about your views – as does a long period of silence followed by an unconvincing denial. We don’t all have to agree on everything, but pretending you do when you don’t can be fatally damaging to your reputation.

I worked with an HR manager years ago whose mantra was that you should take time to understand the intention behind people’s behaviours, because it was almost invariably good, even if the execution left a lot to be desired.  It was a good lesson, and worth applying in this instance, because I don’t believe any of the campaigners and their advisers went into politics with the intention of misleading or alienating the electorate. But I’d give anything to hear a politician today dropping the front, speaking like a human being, admitting when they’re wrong and talking about what really matters to them, and I’m sure I’m not alone in that.

So, some last minute advice to all the candidates today – lose the rhetoric, speak from the heart and remember what it is to be human. There’s an appetite for change, and those who can actively listen, engage openly and acknowledge other’s views in debate rather than simply blindly defend themselves are likely to make more headway in today’s environment.