There has been a huge growth of in-house creative teams which has resulted in a changing relationship between companies and their agencies. In this episode, we will look at the pros and cons of in-house and agency creative teams, the different ways they work and where these relationships need to in the future.
SHOW NOTES:
http://thecrazy1.com/episode-40-creativity-who-owns-creativity-in-house-or-agency-teams/
FOLLOW THE CRAZY ONE:
Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook
There has been a huge growth of in-house creative teams which has resulted in a changing relationship between companies and their agencies. In this episode, we will look at the pros and cons of in-house and agency creative teams, the different ways they work and where these relationships need to in the future.
SHOW NOTES:
http://thecrazy1.com/episode-40-creativity-who-owns-creativity-in-house-or-agency-teams/
FOLLOW THE CRAZY ONE:
Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook
What is going on everybody, and welcome into the 40th episode of The Crazy One podcast. As always, I'm your host, Stephen Gates. And this is the show where we talk about creativity, leadership, design, and a whole host of other things that matter to creative people. I cannot believe that we are already at the 14th show. I feel like we should be driving and overpriced sports car having some sort of like a mid podcast crisis or something. It feels like just yesterday, I started the show. And it's a little hard to believe that we're already 40 episodes in. But instead of doing something that cliche I actually wanted to mark this occasion, within a bit of an exploration of something that I think is a really important topic that's facing creatives today. And it came out of the fact that about a month ago, I was on a panel for the New York festivals, advertising competition that was called who owns creativity. Now the panel had me and two senior editors. executives discussing that topic. And in a lot of cases, it really wanted to be the us versus them the in house versus the agency argument about in this day and age who owns creativity. Now, the thing that I really feel like is that this isn't a topic that is as simple as I think a lot of people think it is. This isn't just an in house versus an agency team. I wanted to spend this episode discussing this topic in a bit more depth. And as usual, we're gonna kind of break it down into probably about four parts. I think the first one that I wanted to do is just look at the basics of both sides. Because one of the things that I've found is that at this point in my career, I've spent equal amounts of time working on the agency side as I have on the in house side, probably even at this point a little bit more on the agency side. In a lot of cases, I feel like the one side doesn't necessarily think about or appreciate the other side. So I just want to go through the basics of that. Then just like let's just take a minute, look. The pros and cons of both of those sides. I want to then talk about kind of just fundamentally what I think is leading to this debate like, what is it, it's really probably a different way of working that's driving this discussion, this debate this this ongoing shift and what's going on in this sort of like commercial creativity. And then finally, just have a bit of a discussion about where as an industry do we go from here. Now, I know that a lot of cases episodes that tend to focus on things that you can do as an individual, tend to be the more popular ones. But this is one of those ones that I really think is important to listen to, because this affects all of us. If you are a creative for money, this affects you, and that we're all need to be a part of this discussion. We all need to be a part of where this is going. But if we just sit around kind of go, look, this is somebody else's problem. That's where we all get it into problems. We're going to run through those four things and really just kind of take a look at this question of in this day and age, who really does His own creativity. Now let's start with the basics, because that's always the easiest place to start. Because like I said, I've spent equal time on the agency side and on the in house side. And you know, even now that I'm running an in house team, I still work with a lot of different ad agencies. So I still very much am connected to that world very much connected to the way that they work. And I work with ones from some of the biggest mega holding companies in the world to a few more kind of independent shops. This is one of those things where I'm not someone who makes assumptions about one side or the other. What we really are seeing here is that over the past 10 years, there's been a shift in the industry. And it's been a shift where we've started to really see the rise of in house creative teams, they continue to grow that whenever I first started out in advertising, there were very, very few companies that actually had really quality in house teams. These would be the Nikes the apples that companies like that, that those were the only ones that really had in house teams. Now you're starting to see it in a much different place and a much different scale. And as a result, that dynamic between companies or companies within house design teams and agencies is changing. Let's start by like I said, let's just look at the basics of each side of this conversation. One of the things that is the great part about agencies, especially if you're creative, is that being creative is the heart of the house. It's the reason for being You are the very center and the the fuel that drives the engine. That's really what you're selling. You're selling ideas. You're selling that creativity that is very clearly the product of an agency. Now for an in house team, and I think that this was something that I had to kind of wrap my head around a little bit when I first went to Starwood is that a creative team or design team is important, but it is not the main product of the company. Whenever I was with start with the main product was putting heads in beds. Design is not the leading person product. But it's like I said, it doesn't mean that it's not important. But it just has a different position a different orientation inside of the company. Now, like I said before, the focus of an agency is really on ideation, because that's really what they want to do is they want to come in, they want to have a lot of really good ideas, a big variety of ideas work on a variety of clients. And that that's a real strength of theirs. The difference with the in house team is that here again, you want to focus on ideation just as much. But the interesting component that often comes with it is that in many cases, you are responsible for seeing it from ideation, all the way through to launch and you are also then responsible for living with that idea. And I think that a lot of cases in agencies, they can come up with the idea and then hand it off to have it built. They may come up with the idea and maybe they actually even do see it all the way through production. But they just they don't have to live with it the same way because it's a different company. They aren't helping Hold responsible for the actual financial results of something like an app or an ad campaign or, I mean, they can be in the way that they may be able to be fired. But you just relate to something differently whenever there is that couple of degrees of separation. And it's like I said, before, agencies are all about variety, they have a lot of different clients. That was one of the things I love, and quite candidly, really miss about the agency side of things, is the fact that you get to work on an airline or an automotive account or an insurance company or a casino or, or, or, and, but there's a huge variety that you can work through. And it really lets you be able to kind of develop that ability to empathize and see through the eyes of a lot of different consumers. Now from the in house side, it really is about ownership, brand ownership, product ownership. And I think that was what led me from the agency side to the client side. Part of the work was because I had clients like American Airlines that I'd worked on and I had As a client that I was working on when September 11 happened, and so then we spent the subsequent years working with them to keep them out of bankruptcy. And that really led me to the place of realizing that building a brand and building a product was so much more of an interesting challenge to me than just building an ad for that brand. And so that for me, the ownership piece of it was really what drew me to the in house side because I could be closer to the executives, I could be closer to the decisions, I could have a different impact then again, when I had that few degrees of separation whenever I was in an agency. Now, that's just the basics of kind of the two different sides of that. But let's scratch below that surface a little bit more and look at a few more of the pros and cons of each of these and, and really, let's expand on those basics. And let's just I don't know it feels like a good number. Let's pick five for each side. Let's do five pros and cons of agencies five pros and cons for in house. And since I'm in house now let's start there because it probably is the easiest for me I think that one of the biggest things that an in house team has going for it is that, well, it seems obvious enough they are in house. And that means that they have a cultural connection to the work and to the company. And because of that you are a part of the company you are viewed differently than when you are at an agency that if I as the you know, head of design versus a head of design for ADC say the exact same thing. It is heard internally differently, because they feel like since I'm a part of the company, I have a bit more of a vested interest in that decision. Now, the con of being inside of the company, is that you have to work to keep perspective you have to work to stay fresh, because this is the one thing that I see is you can start to lose the forest for the trees after a while because you don't have that variety. You don't have the objectivity that comes with that few degrees of separation. And that that can be a challenge for some people. The extension of that, like I said, is because you really are part of the culture is that you really you live the company's problems. There's a depth of understanding there, because that is what you do day in and day out. And that can be an incredibly powerful thing. But the con of that is that you can also start to use that as an excuse for why things can't be done. Because you are a part of that culture, you could drink the Kool Aid, you can get accustomed to all the excuses for why stuff can't get done. And that really can be a challenge. The third thing about this is that you do then end up with a dedicated team. And that means that these are people who know that this is really something that that they own. This goes back to the ownership that we had talked about before. That this is something that you are dedicated to this is something that you own you have a stake in. But here again, the flip side of that of that is that if you don't try to stay hungry if you don't stay aware of that, being dedicated can mean that you become complacent. Because you again, you can just become a little bit too indoctrinated. So the problems to the excuses to why things can't get done, and you just kind of start to lose the edge and you lose the drive. It's why in so many cases, whenever I've run internal teams, I always like to describe them as an in house agency with a client who just can't fire me. Now, the reason why I describe that is because I think what you have to keep is the drive is the edge that agencies have, because at the end of the day, agencies have that inherent threat that they know if they do bad work, if the client isn't happy, they're gonna get fired. That creates a sense of urgency, it creates a focus that allows them to really dial in on making sure that they're doing the best work that they can. Well on the House side, you don't have that. Then it can be the maybe you personally can get fired. But if they're investing in this team, it means that you can then by extension, become complacent. Now, the fourth thing that I think in house teams have going for them is sometimes and I will categorize this is sometimes this. And look, this is, in general, not meant to be this kind of like all or nothing sort of a thing. I never believe that all of anything is true. All men don't do something all women don't do something all in house teams don't do something, all agencies don't do something. It's never all. So all of this stuff is just meant to be things that are really set as sometimes. But the fourth thing is that sometimes cost can really become an issue. Because in general, in my experience, and whenever you look at it on a head by head basis, in house teams are cheaper, because they aren't carrying the overhead that agencies are and they aren't carrying a lot of the other expense. The con of that is that they are a full time expense. So that that means that you have to be careful and diligent about how and where you put those heads. Because if you get too big, and if you get too bloated, it is something that can easily then get cut, because it's a dedicated part of what this is who you have to kind of again, keep that agency mindset try to be a little bit nimble with it. But again, no That you can use that to your advantage as an in house that in general, if you invest in the in house team, it's gonna save us money. Now the fifth one, and this one, again is a sometimes one is speed, because whenever I have dedicated in house resources, they can start right away. They're already ramped up on the problem they already briefed on our brand. They already understand our systems and our structure. So I can get them up and running much faster than in many cases I can with an agency unless I have a dedicated team there. And we'll talk about speed we get to the agency side here in a second. But the con here is that for an in house team, it oftentimes is then hard to flex your capacity. How do I scale up and down if my pipeline of work flexes? Because in many cases, I'm tied to dedicated headcount. And that means I oftentimes can't get new heads, whether they're freelancers whether they're full time, approved quickly, so that if unless I'm actively working through this problem, Speed can actually work against me as well. Those are the five. Like I said, that would just be for me the top line, thoughts around pros and cons for in house teams. Now let's talk about the agency side of this from the agency side, we already hit on this a little bit. The first one, probably the biggest one is that agencies bring a fresh perspective and inspiration. Because that's the thing. They're always looking for new ideas and new perspectives because they're, again, they're used to that variety. You're used to thinking on your feet, they're often cases whenever I talk to those teams plugged into a much wider base of culture and of inspiration, because they don't get tunnel vision in on whatever it is they work on. Whenever I had teams that start with they tend to get very focused on what was other hotel competition doing at city you tend to get very focused on what what's the other bank competition doing. Don't get me wrong, that's definitely important. But a lot of times if you want to find something new if you want to find something innovative, you've got to look past that you have to take it from a wider set of things. aspirations. And I think agencies do that really, really well. But it's, like I said is that the con of that is that there isn't a whole lot of ownership, really past the ideation phase over time, because that tends to be the main part that they focus on is having the idea, then the fidelity of that execution or kind of having to live with it. That's not necessarily something that they always have to do. Now, the next piece of this, and this really comes hand in hand with that fresh perspective, inspiration, really is that agencies have a fantastic depth of experience. And this comes from the fact that they're working across a lot of different industries, a lot of different mediums. So that it may be that there's a I don't know what a booking flow or a checkout flow that I did whenever I was part of an airline. Well, then I could bring that to work on a hotel or maybe even to a bank or to anything like that. Because I've seen the best practice I've seen something or an inspiration from a different industry or from a different medium that I can then bring across and bring that experience in. Hear again, I think that the ability to look across many different things, the ability to work on a lot of different work really is a huge advantage because it allows you to have just a different reference and skill set to be able to do these things. And it's something that, you know, as somebody that's now gone in house, that's something I really fight to try to keep. And it's hard because people want you to just focus in on the one thing that you do. But this is why I'm into a ton of different stuff in the art industry art into fashion, into movies, into photography into podcasting, like a bunch of this other stuff, because it forces me to keep that perspective open. But the con here is that in the end, this is what we talked about, again a little bit before is that that breath a lot of times doesn't necessarily breed depth, that it may be something that I have, you know, an understanding of an airline industry or a hotel industry or a bank or something like that, but I'm not working in it day in and day out. So I don't really have the depth of experience, of really understanding the deep part of the problems to really be able to just Generate deep ideas that can then change the business. I think this is why you've seen really that kind of new breed of agencies evolve, the ones that have come out of the consulting models, the Deloitte Digital's the things like that, are you seeing the the ideas or the spy partners or places like that, that really looked to bridge that middle ground between not just being the ideation people, but then how could they also come in with processes with ways of thinking with research so they can have a deeper understanding of really where that is. Now the third one, for agencies, again, it goes to breath is the fact that in many cases, they have a much broader skill set. And they have the ability to much more easily work on different applications, different technologies, to really be able to kind of pivot and try things much faster and much more easily because again, that's really part of the ideation process and as ideation you're trying to impart sell the new, what's been different, what's new, what's going on? How can I tell my clients or other people about what the trends are that are going on out there. So they tend to be much more engaged, much more active in a lot of those spaces and really looking at what's going on. The con to that that I've found is that in many cases, it tends to be a superficial understanding of that they may come to me in to talk about virtual reality, or augmented reality or chat bots are a lot of these other things. But whenever I then press them on tangible experience, whenever I press them on more of the fine detail of how they would design that experience, one of the things that you find is that they either learned it just enough to produce a demo, they learned it just enough because they watched the keynote, but in many cases, I may have to pay them to actually get the depth of experience, because they've learned it just enough to talk about it convincingly. Here again, the places that are the middle grounds, they oftentimes will do a better job with this and take a bit of a deeper look into some of these things, that breadth versus depth sort of a conversation. The fourth thing that I think agencies do really well is it They honestly have much better budget flexibility. Because this comes really from a lot of different things. One is that in many cases, they have a much deeper bench of talent that allows them to bring big teams or small teams, it allows them to be able to do things more quickly, or it allows them to be able to just kind of play with the numbers a bit more than what internal teams can, because internal teams so often, really are much more burdened by process or by regulation, or by other things because of the way the company works. And that, you know, because of that, in many cases, they just they don't have that seems sort of budget flexibility, and maybe even and we'll get to this here in a second. Some of the speed that an agency would have the problem that comes with that budget flexibility is the fact that in many cases, I may get speed that maybe I'm not going to get depth. This is the old classic thing of if you drew a triangle on each corner of the triangle, you wrote good fast and cheap and then you'd only be able to pick two of those. This is really where that came out of is that I may get, you know, budget flexibility, but I'm not gonna get good work. And so again, there's always a trade off for that that is going to come with that. Now the last thing for agencies that I think that they do really well is speed. This is one of the biggest things, even as you know, an in house team that I still look to them to do is because of the fact that he didn't see culture is just different. It really is the fact that they are used to working fast, they're used to working all night, they're used to doing whatever it takes to get the job done. And then many cases as an in house team, whenever you have those projects that come along, I can either kill my own team, but it probably a little bit easier if I kill an agency because they're much more used to that they're more trained to work those kind of hours. But as a result of that, though, the thing that I've seen is that they tend to have a higher turnover rate than an in house team. Because agencies do take a toll working that way giving up your personal life, your nights, your weekends isn't for everybody. And that's the thing is I know A lot of people who will leave agencies to come in house because they want a better work life balance. I also know a lot of very, very successful creatives who, you know, really have chosen that and as a result are on their third or fourth marriage. And I love it. I also know some that are willing to work those hours and just have incredibly understanding spouses. But it is a trade off. And it's a different one than a lot of times you have to make for in house team because there aren't many in house teams that are pulling all nighters. It certainly can happen from time to time, but it's not a huge part of what goes on there. So it's like I said, this is just this is just to lay the foundation, I think to try to get both sides have perspective on what the other one is. But to also start to set up an appreciation for the other side that there are pros and cons to both sides of these quest of these questions of these equations. And I wanted to start it and talk about this stuff. Because for me, just that basic question of who owns creativity really implies that there is an owner, but I think that what's going on here is It's not necessarily about ownership, that beneath these basic differences, there is also quite frankly, a split in perspective, and how creative teams are working with their clients. And I think that's the real discussion here. Because I think if we want to strip away all this other stuff, a finger pointing name pointing of each side, thinking the other side somehow isn't as good as the other one, then I think that there's a different issue here. And it's like I said before, this isn't saying that this is true for every agency. It's not true for every in house team. But it is true across a lot of them that I've seen. And so let's go back to that panel in New York festivals for a second, because it was about in house versus agency teams and who owns that relationship. And it really is kind of saying that what's underneath ownership for me and the real topic to discuss here is about really, how do you work with your clients? How do you choose to engage them? How do you choose to include them in your creative process because I think that to me, is where the real Divide is, because that's really what is at the heart of all this is that it's about do I bring them in? Or do I keep them at arm's length, because generally, generally, in house teams tend to be more inclusive with their clients. And in a lot of cases, you have to do that to be successful because you're a part of the company. And so to be able to do that, you really have to build support for your ideas, if you actually want them to launch if you are exclusive of them. And if you just say, look, you know, we're creative, you don't get what we do. You don't tend to get much funding, you don't tend to get a whole lot of support, and it tends to be a pretty decent battle uphill with your ideas. In house teams generally, are a bit more inclusive with their clients. And I'd also say that you also see that inclusion, honestly, because the entire idea of a product, quote, unquote, product. Well, that's changed a lot over the years. Because it used to be that products were done by like specialized firms that you would never have Talk about a company unless you were somehow like a packaged goods company about having a product internally. And we have apps and websites and all these other things that require creativity and design that are now products as well, that don't require big manufacturing machines that don't require a lot of these big sort of things. And I think that and the need for that inclusion, that's what's driving this resurgence that we're seeing this rediscovery that we're seeing in things like design thinking, because design thinking is an inclusive methodology. It's about creativity. It's about giving that creativity shape and form in a way that most anybody can plug into. That's really what's driving it is that a lot of these teams are trying to figure out how to be inclusive, and that's a great blueprint to be able to do that. The other side of that coin, when we talk about agencies, now agencies generally are a bit more of the arm's length or the exclusionary sort of thing. And I think that a lot of cases it makes sense because they are external to the company. And the thing that you see is that agencies too often see their clients as the people who stand in the way of great ideas. And this was something that I was guilty of, because there was very much a time that whenever I worked on the agency side, that you went client side when you wanted to, essentially die or retire or fade into the sunset, or do something like that you didn't go to client side to do great work, you got client side to get a better paycheck, work more reasonable hours, and to be able to just be fine kind of swallowing your pride in any career ambitions with, you know, the fact that you wanted to do bigger things. Some of this is true. But I think that it's also that, you know, there are a lot of clients and we've talked about this in the past about how do you kind of keep clients from screwing up your creative process, but I would also say that, here again, it comes down to the depth and the ownership piece, that in a lot of cases, your clients just have business realities that they're accountable to. I would love to be able to do things that look different. I'd love to be able to be more creative and not have to listen to research sometimes or do a lot of those things, but there's a business reality that I am tied to We'll also that will usually kind of influence my decisions. But I think in a lot of cases, the thing that I see is that so many of these agencies, they have their own proprietary process to have ideas, and they like to use it to work really just kind of behind closed doors, they like to keep it a secret, they feel like it's one of those things that makes them more valuable. It's the secret sauce sort of a thing. And then they like to present those ideas back to their clients. So that's really the issue here. Because I think whenever I have this discussion, that's what it really comes down to is, am I going to include my clients? Or am I going to say, look, you know, I'm the creative person, I'm the one who really gets and understands this. So as a result of that, I need to be the one who's gonna go off and think and ponder and then I will be back with a solution. We're back to where we started, who owns creativity? And I think that the simple answer for me in this and maybe it's not quite the answer that I think everybody wishes it was, but for me, the simple answer is that both sides still own it. But both sides need to evolve because both sides are currently a part of the problem. companies want more inclusive models, they want to be able to get this expertise and house, they want agencies to invest. Because what they're really looking for talked about this and other episodes is they want people who can teach them how to be creative. That's what they want more than design more than anything else is creativity. And then they want those teams, internal or external to then have the confidence, the skill, the strategy, the investment, to then let those ideas go out the door and get them out the door in a form that people quite frankly, still give a shit about. Because that's a huge problem. That's a huge part of this. I think that that really is part of it, at least on the agency side is that for me, the thing that I see is that agencies need to figure out how do they return to genuinely valuing relationships. I don't mean this in like the account guy who's going to take somebody out to lunch. I do. don't mean this in the hollow pointless compliment or the sycophants suck up sort of thing that you say that I mean, genuinely investing in the relationship between the agency and the company. Because that was the biggest thing that I saw whenever I was at Starwood, tons of companies wanted to work with us. But so few of them were actually willing to invest in that relationship to do something that was beyond just the basics beyond just Okay, I'm going to get billed for every little thing. Because the reality is, is that when you're on the client side, and this is something that I work at every single day, as I try not to be the crappy client that I used to have that would drive me crazy. Some days, I'm able to do that. Some days because of reasons out of my control. I can't. Sometimes I show up with great projects and have plenty of time and plenty of money. Sometimes I show up with a crappy project that doesn't have enough money that needs to get done overnight. And I need people who can work with me through both of those because I'm not always going to have everything that's in my own control and in my own disposal to be able to control things the best way possible. That's really a part of it, though, is that in that return to the relationship, we also need to see these massive mega holding corporations understand the value of that relationship. Because the thing that I've seen time after time, heartbreakingly so is I see these huge, massive holding corporations, they come in, they buy up these small, mid, even larger size agencies. And then the routine is inevitably the same. That the account people who were such great partners suddenly are talking about the pressure that they're under to get their Billings up, then all of a sudden the rate card starts going up, the quality of the work starts going down. And that ultimately, they just, they don't respect the relationship with us anymore, and they just start to look at us as dollar signs. Well, then, if that's the case, then we start to look at them instead of as a partner, but as a vendor. That's really the problem is that whenever that comes down to that relationship, it's not about trust. It's not about any sort of relationship anymore. It's where each side is constantly doubting the other one. That was what I think, really also led to the rise in house design teams was because there were too many companies that suddenly very much became aware of the fact that they were just $1 sign to too many agencies. And what they started to see was that if they use internal resources, in many cases, they could be just as good as their agency. They could get it for less money. And they started to see studies that were being done by Fortune magazine and others, that were really would look at the companies who over indexed on design. Now, the one in particular, that one tends to reference included the team that I helped to run at Starwood that those teams over a 10 year span, they were 110% more profitable than companies who didn't on the s&p 500. But that was the thing as you started to see, look, if they're just gonna look at me as $1 sign if the quality of the work isn't going to be as good and I can invest in these people who will be here every day, they're going to you know, live and breathe and die on our problems. They're going to be able to look at this stuff more, a little bit more deeply than what an agency could that why wouldn't we start to invest in those things, it suddenly becomes a decently easy argument to make. That's been a bit of the problem. Because of the fact that it has been easy to make. Because you've seen this strain or this breakdown in the relationship, you saw more and more design teams starting to rise up. Now, let's not pretend and I'm certainly not going to pretend like just because I'm client side, that those companies get a free pass because they absolutely do not. They've got work that they need to do to because they need to do a lot of things. One is them to realize that they need agencies, you need a fresh perspective, you need a broader skill set. You need people who are looking at things differently. I always will want that I'll always need to bring that in because I'm so incredibly aware that I may start to like lose that perspective lose the forest for the trees, but I also need to bring them up and set them up to succeed. I need to let them do their work. I need to stop holding them back. I need to stop giving them crappy briefs and giving them problems to be really those solutions be vetted, not those problems to be solved, because that's the problem that I see so many times are great agencies that just get beaten into submission. Because of the fact that time and time again, the more creative stuff more of the right solution isn't really what they're producing. It's a very simple test, to have a one on one conversation with the person at your agency who you think is most likely to tell you the truth. pull them aside after a meeting, just the two of you tell them there are going to be no repercussions, but you need an honest answer. And ask them, are they doing work that they're proud of? It's a very, very simple answer. It is a very, very simple question is one that I think in house and agency teams do not ask nearly enough because they don't want the answer to it. But pull them aside and ask them is what it is that we're asking you to do. are we setting you up to be successful? And are you proud of the work that's coming out of it? And listen to what they say because the thing that I find is that these people who are all smiles are all spin who are all great and These meetings when you pull them aside. And when you say, Look, guys, are you really proud of this work? They go, Oh, god, no. But you know what we need to get paid. We need to keep this thing going. So what we're going to do is we're going to give them that work. But no, this is absolutely not what they should be doing. This is the dumbest thing possible. And that's the problem is that we default to the easier thing, we default to that sort of a thing, because that's the problem. And I said this before, we need agencies that are partners, not just vendors, because if you treat them like a vendor, then that's the relationship that you get, if you treat them like a vendor, that's the work that you get. And quite frankly, it's the work that you deserve, because you don't trust them. And that's a huge problem. Because that's the real lesson here, I think, is that both sides need each other, both sides have to have each other, but they have to take the time to understand each other. Yes, there are differences in approach and a lot of other things. Yes, in house tends to be more inclusive. Yes, external agencies tend to be more exclusive. But each side needs to learn from the other because the best agencies that I've ever worked with, they have the confidence to open the kimono to let you in to let you be a part of the process to not fear that to not think that oh, well, then they're going to see that we don't have the answer right from the beginning. Because if you're working with a client who thinks that you're working with a client who doesn't understand what they're asking, creativity is not about having the right answer. It's about having a lot of wrong answers on the way to the right answer. And this is where we're getting it wrong. Because agencies don't understand how companies are changing, and how they need to work with them. That it is about being more trusting about being more open about making it a relationship. They need better models for working with in house teams and not just competing against them. Because that was the thing that I saw very much firsthand was that a year and a half ago, whenever I had left Starwood and I was going out there and I was interviewing, I talked with a lot of the biggest agencies that are out there, digital and traditional, and one of the questions I would ask them is, I would say Can you tell me? How are you working with in house teams? What's your plan for how you're gonna be able to do that better 100% of the time, I got crickets and blank stares. And that is terrifying. because things are changing. They need better models, you need to not be in this place where it's us versus them. Because that's the one thing that I can tell you is that whenever we're doing that, whenever we're competing against each other, both sides lose. Because if an in house team and an agency team are competing against each other, if they aren't working together, one side may win, but the other side is going to lose. And in that reality, both sides lose because the role of design and the role of creativity in that company is hurt. Because now there's a division, there's a split opinion, they aren't working together because there's so much more strength in doing that. And I know that we live in an era that everybody wants one side or the other. This is every discussion on religion Lord knows it's ever discussion on politics where whatever the one side said the other side absolutely has to agree or disagree with categorically without even hearing what it is. But this is one of those places where if we want to make inroads here if we want to grow commercial creativity, which means creativity for money, not fine art. But if you want to get paid to be creative, it has to be about partnership. Both sides need each other, both sides need to understand this, that it's one of those things where the in house team, they need to act a bit more like an agency, they need that sense of urgency, they need to be able to actually go out and to be more aggressive. To act more like an internal agency. There's a lot that agencies do that they could learn from, and the agencies, they can learn a lot about partnership, about depth of understanding about going in and really being a part of a business and doing things that a lot of the in house teams are doing really well about being more inclusive and including your clients in the ideation and creative process. But that's the thing. Is that each side can learn from the other. But what it takes is it takes all of us setting our egos aside, and just having a conversation because there is such a massive amount of shared ground here. We shouldn't need to be competing for work, it shouldn't be in us versus them because the in house teams are going to continue to grow and agencies aren't going away anytime soon. So this is a reality that faces this industry. It's a reality that we have to start dealing with. And it can't be who owns creativity who owns design? Because there's not a single answer to that. And if there is, it's not gonna work out well, for either side. Like I said, I know this was a little bit of a different exploration than what we usually do, but it's just such an important topic that I keep coming back to time and time again, and the discussions that I have, and as I go and talk at different companies as I go and talk to different agencies, this core piece of it underneath, people just don't seem to understand I want to deal with so hopefully you like The show hopefully you continue to find this valuable. If you do if you find yourself ever having written something down having recommended the show to a friend, please take a minute, go over to iTunes, go over to your favorite podcast platform and leave a review. If you're feeling like you just have a couple seconds go click the stars on iTunes. How much work is that? If you feel a little bit more robust, go in and write a sentence or two because it really does help. Because for me, it is about trying to affect the industry. It's about trying to help share what it is that we're doing with people so that we all can get to a better place. And that that happens, and not surprisingly, through reviews. As always, if you want to find out more about the podcast if you want to get the show notes because you've been scribbling furiously, maybe you missed a few things. You can always head over to podcast, Stephen Gates calm. I continue to do a lot of work about the show notes. You can listen to other episodes, see related articles for Navy shows, do all of that stuff. If you have a question, if you agree about what I've talked about today, if you absolutely think I am full of it, and I do not know what I'm talking about. It's a conversation that I want to have The place that we've been having that is over on Facebook, if you go to Facebook type in The Crazy One podcast, give that page like there are people every week around there asking questions, I'm putting up interesting articles and other things. Whenever I find them. I every Friday, I published my weekly inspirations, which are the best articles and things that I've seen for that week. But that's the place to have that conversation in a form where we all can participate. As always, the boys who are down and legal want me to remind you that all of us here on my own, they don't represent any of my current or former employers. These are all just my opinions. And finally, I say it every time because I mean it every time. But thank you for your time. I know that time is truly the only real luxury that any of us have. And I'm always incredibly humbled that you want to spend any of it with me. So thanks for the time and as always, stay crazy