Google buys DoubleClick and the fear amongst the ad community is that it has now gone beyond fear of war and declaration of same – it has now actually entered the fray.
Then, WPP acquires 24/7. The shoe is now on the other foot. Microsoft and Google wonder what we are up to.
Chapter 3: Microsoft purchases (subject to SEC etc. etc.) aQuantive, an Internet focused group that includes the online ad agency Razor Fish, and panic e-mails flood the ether: Is Microsoft now competitive with us?
So what does it all mean?
Each of these deals included, as bidders, the three entities—as well as others—and the bidding was fierce.
Each of these deals has been rationalized, brilliantly and beautifully to showcase the current strength and future leverage each company brings and will achieve for the deal.
Each company has publicly stated that they are not really getting into the others’ business. In fact, the deals are merely logical extensions of where each company is today and imperative for the future health of its business. “Frenemies” we call them…and by the way, there is opportunity for all of us with each other…well maybe not MSFT and Google…
So what’s the truth?
You tell me!
Maybe a little of “this” and a little of “that” with a dash of “whatever” thrown in…
I don’t mean to be too flip or cynical but I’m not sure there is a truth—or if there is that it really makes much of a difference.
What if we were trying to be Google or Microsoft? What if they were trying to be us?
What if our industry wished we could control them (roll back the world to the old days of agency control of media and channel)?
What if they want to take over the end to end process: develop; create; produce and deploy (roll back the world to the old days of agency dominance in communications)?
It seems to me we are both in the same boat but coming at it from different ends of the value chain. Actual success may not be quite what was wished nor anticipated but something different and unique: new alliances; new thinking, new challenges, and of course new opportunities.
So where does that leave us? And by us I mean the industry in the macro sense and us in the micro sense because we ain’t alone in this…
Chew on this thought a while;
“People who cannot invent and reinvent themselves must be content with borrowed postures, secondhand ideas, fitting in instead of standing out.”
Warren G. Bennis
We need to continue to differentiate and to build on our strengths. It’s easy to say we need to reinvent ourselves and open a sandwich shop—the real way to stand out is to add value based on experience, expertise and ability.
It’s about bringing insight and wisdom to new ventures and making them better.
We can always follow the crowd, become whining chasers of others’ ideas and then wonder why our new clothes don’t seem to fit right, why we look awkward in good company and take on that patina of unwanted guest. In fact, we went there once…..anyone ever hear of Impiric?
Or we can stand out. We can continue to stand out and reinvent (as opposed to follow). We can add depth and in general stay focused on the truths that won’t change (haven’t changed and I don’t think will ever change).
• All relationships are local
• Follow the customer to the store they have all the answers and all the money
• Companies should acquire customers with the intention to loyalize them. But the right customers must be persuaded to want what the product does rather than what the promotion offers
• CRM = Customers Really Manage
There are others. But start here. Ask yourself these questions about MSFT and Google. Do they deliver? Can they deliver? Will they deliver?
Some yes, some no; some who knows? But the bottom line is we can—as long as we continue to reinvent…
Your turn!
Thanks for this point of view and for asking questions that some of us indeed struggle to come to terms with over the weekend.
To me it is clear that ‘business as usual’ does temporarily not apply. At the same time frenzy means opportunity. Taking a risk means accepting consequences. In this case each of the players played their cards in a game for which we are still defining the rules. Will we ever have time to define them? Who knows… the beauty of the current playing field are the dynamics imposed on us by, well the playing field itself.
I am simply curious to see how it plays out between WPP and Microsoft. I think in the heat of the moment some strategic ramifications of the concluded deals have been overlooked in the process. Is that good or bad? Think that this is slightly out of my zone of influence but I am sure some interesting solution will be found.
I further agree with you that Customers Really Manage today. But I think there is another element we tend to overlook.
As Michael Schrage rightly puts it in an article recently published in the FT:
“The central marketing question confronting brand leaders therefore is not “how can we radically increase customer loyalty?” but “how can we radically increase our own loyalty to customers?”
Let’s take a step back for the moment and see how this applies to Wunderman as well. If we are loyal to our customer and consistently strive to deliver the best the customer has all the reasons in the world to be loyal to us.
If they choose to do otherwise then we face a tough decision: keep going or let go? Invest or divest? Play down or play up? I think we should cross that bridge when we get there. Even better, hopefully that bridge to cross was built by us to explore new horizons.
Let’s keep our heads up and practice what we preach and keep that sandwich shop in mind for a rainy day.
Thanks, Matt
I’ll cut the bread……seriously — excellent point on customers — are we loyal to our clients???