Just come across some interesting comments from Simon Law on the implications of Unilever outsourcing creative development of new Peperami advertising...
"This is one of those 'interesting' concept ideas, right up to the point where it becomes the home for the latest Peperami brief and The Guardian writes an article about how Unilever are ditching their ad agency to see what comes out of crowdsourcing creative ideas. At which point, it becomes a very real alternative to having an ad agency… well, depending on the outcome. And it will be fascinating to see what comes out of it.
At the same time, it’s sad – because Still Price Lintas (that merged into Lowe) was the agency that invented the Peperami character and now any creative can write a story around it. Without them getting a penny. And, the reality is, the difficult bit was inventing it in the first place. So, is it OK that we still don’t own any future revenue streams off the ideas we generate? A problem that has been around a long time with little resolution. But, as we enter a world where content and characters are the value, could agencies be giving too much away for little reward?"
The debate about outsourcing is well catered for on both sides. But I thought Simon's second point touched on a possibly more interesting question: the old chestnut of IP.
There has always been a slight disgruntlement in agencies over givingn ideas away for free, in perpetuity. But this was always a case of swings and roundabouts on the income front, when we were the only game in town - you lost your idea, but gained someone else's in return.
But if outsourcing becomes established that model falls apart.
Which looks bleak if you're an agency...unless we look at this as an opportunity to renegotiate things in our favour.
In the past, there was always mutual agreement between client and agency to not get to bogged down in IP, because of the 'swings and roundabouts' argument.
But like vandals down the park, Unilever's Peperami decision has broken the roundabout and pulled down the swings. And maybe (naively) one of the results of this will be that agencies find it easier to argue for some kind of IP related payment for initial idea generation in future: an on-going royalty payment or hefty buy out perhaps.
After all, a boy in his bedroom in Boise Idaho may be able to write a passable (and obviously cheap) script to an existing campaign idea, but most clients will still need to work with a proper agency to develop and nurture that idea in the first place.
Because it is only an on-going relationship which provides an agency with the requisite market, brand and consumer understanding to develop an idea that actually delivers. And from the other side of the fence, it's that same relationship that allows a client to access the holistic skills and knowledge agencies can provide...and which some 'bloke on the internet' (tm) lacks.
So if outsourcing becomes established as a cost effective way to work with a well established campaign idea (and I can see the advantages...and it's a game we can still play), maybe now is the time for agencies to start revisiting remuneration of the initial idea development that makes this outsourcing possible.
Or to put it another way: no more giving stuff away for free.
