About a month ago, I wrote about some ad agencies trying to re-make themselves, even if in name only, by calling themselves anything but an ad agency. According to an Advertising Age story, Campbell-Ewald proclaims on its website "We are not an agency." The site goes on to explain that they're "hundreds of diverse minds rattling as one."
Saatchi & Saatchi, says, "We're not an ad agency. We're an ideas factory." Lowe tells people it's a "high value ideas company."
Now the name game is hitting the Public Relations field. A story in The New York Times ad column Wednesday told of changes at Golin Harris. The headline: "Account Executive is Antiquated. Consider Yourself a Catalyst."
The story says it took the folks at Golin ten months to come up with new titles for staffers to denote specializations and the agency's ability to work in the areas of digital and social media. like catalyst and strategist. So now, Golin won't have account executives or account supervisors. Suddenly, these people will be transformed into "strategists" and "catalysts."
Say what?
The story says the new titles cover four categories: Strategists analyze a client's business; Creators are the writers, designers and producers; connectors are the staffers who reach target audiences through traditional and social media; and catalysts are the account people.
Looks to me like they'll have the same people, but just with different titles. Oh, I suppose they'll bring in more young people familiar with social media to be the "connectors." Isn't that we've always called publicists or media relations people?
Years ago, when I was a senior VP at Manning Selvage & Lee, they had some specialists who worked across account groups, assisting individual account teams as requested. They had someone who was the writing expert, offering much-needed help with what would have been poorly-written releases and backgrounders. They had someone who assisted clients with coaching for TV interviews, and someone else who had been a business journalist who helped account teams target and formulate pitches to major business media targets. So now the specialists help work with digital and social media – nothing really new.
I've always viewed part of my role for clients as assisting with strategy. But I don't call myself a strategist. And I am a catalyst to generate exposure for clients, but I don't call myself a catalyst. I think Golin's name changes are baloney, but their big clients may buy it. More power to them.
It seems so many PR agencies (and ad agencies, too) are running scared, afraid they'll lose billings to newer shops who specialize in digital or social media PR. So they're scrambling to make themselves look different – even if they're really not.
If what we're doing is PR, then we're a PR agency, regardless of what titles we confer upon our staffers. It's really as simple as that.
If I were a client of GolinHarris, my first question would be, "What have you been doing for my account if you are just starting to develop strategies, be creative, and reach my target audiences? Isn't that what you were suppose to be doing for my account right from the beginning?" You are right, David, Stu Elliott's column was nothing but baloney and he should be ashamed of himself for not seeing through GolinHarris' ridiculous smoke screen of poor PR spin for PR nonsense.
Posted by: Rocco Sacci | June 17, 2011 at 09:12 PM
I agree with your first point, Rocco, about a legitimate question a GH client could ask.
I think you're being a bit tough on Stuart Elliott, though. Golin is one of the largest PR agencies in the country, so even if these changes they're announcing are BS, it still is news because (hopefully not) it may be a change that other agencies might follow.
Posted by: David Reich | June 18, 2011 at 08:20 AM
I couldn't have said it any better. Large agencies will look to create new titles and divisions to help them better sell new fees and more staff. Smaller agencies, likes yours and mine, will continue to do what we always do -- it all! I think I (we) bring more value by being the strategist, catalyst, creative and connecter all in one.
Posted by: Sherry Goldman (twitter @sherrygoldmanpr) | June 18, 2011 at 09:40 AM
Thanks Sherry. I agree 100%. The better of the smaller agencies have done and will continue to do it all.
Posted by: David Reich | June 18, 2011 at 10:03 AM
I disagree with Sherry's point that a small agency does it all. It can't do everything well and its owners should know whom to call in with the appropriate expertise and to share the fee so as to do the best for clients in the most efficient way and at a reasonable price.
As to the subject of the post and Elliott’s column, I couldn't believe it took 10 months for Golin to come up with nothing more than blah blah jargon. It makes me sad that such a prestigious agency would add more gobbledygook to an industry that so many misunderstand even when we describe what we do in simple terms. As PR people our jobs are to clarify, not obfuscate.
Posted by: Jeanne Byington | June 18, 2011 at 12:24 PM
In fairness, Jeanne, during those 10 months Golin also built rooms where staffers could monitor online and social media. You and I have those things on our own desks -- computers, they're called -- but it looks like Golin built some good-looking hi-tech rooms with lots of screens.
Posted by: David Reich | June 18, 2011 at 12:33 PM
David, can I marry you and have your babies? You talk so much sense!! This story has had a lot of publicity in the UK press too and lots of people are going 'ooh and ah' but it's pleasing to see that you have seen straight through the BS - and yes, the big agencies are struggling to cope with the speed of digital, which is why a lot of them are buying up boutique agencies.
Posted by: HelenMoore | June 20, 2011 at 04:33 PM
Whoa, Helen. I'm already married with 2 babies -- 30 and 35. But I appreciate the sentiment -- it certainly brought a smile to my face.
Yes, the Golin move is BS to make themselves try to appear more relevant. The thing is, they are already relevant, so why bother with crazy job titles that don't really mean much?
Posted by: David Reich | June 21, 2011 at 09:15 AM
I can't imagine that prospects and current clients won't see through this thinly-veiled attempt to attract attention. As you said, they're changing titles, but doing the same thing. For the past few years, people have been trying to elevate their jobs from the mundane to the ridiculous, calling themselves Gurus or Evangelists. Does a title like Catalyst explain to clients what you do? Stop the madness!
Posted by: Toni Antonetti | June 21, 2011 at 06:31 PM
Thanks for joining the conversation, Toni. This is your first comment here, I think.
It's like garbagemen calling themselves sanitation engineers. They're still picking up the garbage, right?
Posted by: David Reich | June 22, 2011 at 09:05 AM