11/05/2024 07:44:18 AM 
(17) 
(17) 
The thought of an advertising agency having an R&D lab doesn't make sense to most traditionalists thinking of advertising as represented in the "Mad Men world. Certainly, in the 50s and 60s, there were departments devoted to understanding the science of advertising, but they weren't about innovating and building.
Fast forward to today and you are starting to see "labs" emerge as a new nomenclature.
You've got BBH's Lab
Labs is BBH’s global innovation unit. We’re tasked with pioneering new outputs and approaches: building new platforms through which brands can engage, and exploring new agency models. The overall ambition is more engaging content, developed more effectively and efficiently. We’re particularly interested in the following areas:
- Innovative new forms of creativity
- Original ways in which technology and collaboration can be powerful forces in the marketing arsenal
- Novel approaches that are rapid, iterative & curatorial
- The mashup of thinking from radically different sources & industries
The Ogilvy NY Digital Innovation Lab creates, showcases, and markets digital innovations that deliver competitive advantages to our clients.
The Digital Lab is both:
* A physical space showcasing unique new technologies surrounding daily life centered around home, work, and on-the-go environments, and
* A place where teams can work on developing award-winning and innovative digital work for the benefits of our clients today or tomorrow.
There are probably others, if there are, please let me know.
Both labs, but very different missions. BBH is looking at the big picture- even exploring new agency models and Ogilvy is much more focused on the specifics of innovation in the digital world.
What they both have in common is dedication and space. There's a sort of implicit understanding that this new stuff is complex and requires effort and brainpower to not only build it, but also imagine what it can be. It's a recognition of the pace of change in the industry and how important it is to inspire and imagine new things and new ideas for internal employee audiences and clients.
While Mad Men is compelling viewing because you see the dramatic societal and cultural change that spills over into the ad world and there are certainly many parallels with today's environment. However, the big difference is that technology back in the 50s and 60s was not advancing and impacting advertising quite as fast as it is today. These were golden years for the business where captive consumers could be programmed to buy.
Those days are now long gone and the industry has to innovate to keep up with technological and consumer change.
Labs demonstrate that the agencies involved get the fundamental change that's at hand, but clearly they are not for everyone. Many probably feel that these units shouldn't be external and that everyone needs to have a "lab" mentality, which to some extent is true. The reason they need to be dedicated is that in an environment where the pace of change is so fast, it's hard for people to adequately deal with the present, while at the same time imagining and developing a near future.
Having a "lab" mentality is a must for agencies today.
Posted by Ed Cotton
comment from an inspiration lab
I agree with Mr. Caddell. Having a Lab mentality has been a must for the best agencies and world changing companies always. Nothing new. The dichotomy between agency and labs, as well as digital agencies and traditional agencies, shouldn't exist. There are visionaries with balls on one side and businesses lead by fear on the other. Fear is again the BIG issue. The question for agencies (and other business) is: Do you need balls or do you HAVE the balls? * balls = labs
Posted by Andres Colmenares / WABI-SABI inspiration lab. on 11/08/2024 07:41 PM
I agree with Mr. Caddell. Having a Lab mentality has been a must for the best agencies and world changing companies always. Nothing new. The dichotomy between agency and labs, as well as digital agencies and traditional agencies, shouldn't exist. There are visionaries with balls on one side and businesses lead by fear on the other. Fear is again the BIG issue. The question for agencies (and other business) is: Do you need balls or do you HAVE the balls? * balls = labs
Posted by Andres Colmenares / WABI-SABI inspiration lab. on 11/08/2024 07:41 PM
co-sign
I'm with Bud and Andres. If your culture can't be a lab in and of itself, then you're a different type of agency. The only argument I can make for "labs" in the long run, is if they wind up becoming the agencies themselves. That would be a good thing for us all.
Posted by Ian Schafer on 11/08/2024 07:53 PM
I'm with Bud and Andres. If your culture can't be a lab in and of itself, then you're a different type of agency. The only argument I can make for "labs" in the long run, is if they wind up becoming the agencies themselves. That would be a good thing for us all.
Posted by Ian Schafer on 11/08/2024 07:53 PM
Selling labs to beancounters
Isn't the bigger problem not that a Labs mentality is preferrable and required, or that Labs needs to be integrated into the culture, but that Labs is hard on the P & L? Hard to sell to the beancounters?Google is frequently cited as the prototypical example of Labs done well. But unless you're a very profitable organization, like Google, how to do justify it?(Here's some back-of-the-envelope calculations for the costs of Google's 20-percent program: http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2010/08/free_time_innovation.html)The times when I've seen Labs initiatives done well are when they're used as marketing to show clients and prospective clients what can be done.Does that provide the most realistic approach to putting Labs into practice?
Posted by James Sherrett / AdHack on 11/08/2024 08:28 PM
Isn't the bigger problem not that a Labs mentality is preferrable and required, or that Labs needs to be integrated into the culture, but that Labs is hard on the P & L? Hard to sell to the beancounters?Google is frequently cited as the prototypical example of Labs done well. But unless you're a very profitable organization, like Google, how to do justify it?(Here's some back-of-the-envelope calculations for the costs of Google's 20-percent program: http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2010/08/free_time_innovation.html)The times when I've seen Labs initiatives done well are when they're used as marketing to show clients and prospective clients what can be done.Does that provide the most realistic approach to putting Labs into practice?
Posted by James Sherrett / AdHack on 11/08/2024 08:28 PM
NUMMI
I do want to say that the impossible is often worth doing - and in the case of creating a lab that truly transforms the larger agency, to be successful you need a lot of conditions to be perfect. I can't think of a better case study of a failure than GM's lab, NUMMI, which was a joint operation with Toyota. This American Life did an awesome episode solely dedicated to telling the NUMMI story: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/403/nummi
Posted by Bud Caddell on 11/08/2024 09:39 PM
I do want to say that the impossible is often worth doing - and in the case of creating a lab that truly transforms the larger agency, to be successful you need a lot of conditions to be perfect. I can't think of a better case study of a failure than GM's lab, NUMMI, which was a joint operation with Toyota. This American Life did an awesome episode solely dedicated to telling the NUMMI story: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/403/nummi
Posted by Bud Caddell on 11/08/2024 09:39 PM
Currently transitioning to a labs model
Great post and insightful comments. The organisation I work for (www.josephmark.com.au) is a boutique design and web development agency, so we have a strong digital focus. We've recognised that the model needs to change and have been working towards becoming a fully-fledged lab, moving away from our studio work. We recognise that this is a long term goal but have already experienced some interesting transitional hiccups. Even with a small agency, as Bud pointed out "the challenge of spreading the lab's practices and success to the larger organization is a huge hurdle". We've trialled a number of processes to help us get better at this and I truly think we're getting there. As Andre pointed out, there was a dichotomy when we first started: this was because we allocated one person responsible for "creating labs" - but obviously it needs to come from the whole team, so we've since re-evaluated our approach. As James highlights, the beancounters can be an issue: for us being small with the aims of transitioning, we don't have a lot of spare cash lying around to bankroll this innovation. For us, it literally is all or nothing, but that's also great for the innovation process. it's our own butt's on the line, so we are more determined to make it work than if it were "safe to fail". And Bud, thanks for the link about NUMMI: we originally were looking for partners in labs projects as a way to kick start our movement to labs, but realised that's running before we can walk.
Posted by Sarah Moran on 11/08/2024 11:13 PM
Great post and insightful comments. The organisation I work for (www.josephmark.com.au) is a boutique design and web development agency, so we have a strong digital focus. We've recognised that the model needs to change and have been working towards becoming a fully-fledged lab, moving away from our studio work. We recognise that this is a long term goal but have already experienced some interesting transitional hiccups. Even with a small agency, as Bud pointed out "the challenge of spreading the lab's practices and success to the larger organization is a huge hurdle". We've trialled a number of processes to help us get better at this and I truly think we're getting there. As Andre pointed out, there was a dichotomy when we first started: this was because we allocated one person responsible for "creating labs" - but obviously it needs to come from the whole team, so we've since re-evaluated our approach. As James highlights, the beancounters can be an issue: for us being small with the aims of transitioning, we don't have a lot of spare cash lying around to bankroll this innovation. For us, it literally is all or nothing, but that's also great for the innovation process. it's our own butt's on the line, so we are more determined to make it work than if it were "safe to fail". And Bud, thanks for the link about NUMMI: we originally were looking for partners in labs projects as a way to kick start our movement to labs, but realised that's running before we can walk.
Posted by Sarah Moran on 11/08/2024 11:13 PM
From the outside in
I'm not at an agency, but across the street in vendor row. I'm with a group that does interactive development for myriad agencies, from mega large traditional agencies fighting for digital cred to small digital agencies trying to out from behind the shadows of the giants. I'm looking from the outside in, which probably makes me the least credible here to talk about it, but also explains why I'm unclear on how this hasn't happened already. About a year ago, I noted the need for a technical strategist within agencies. Engagements are moving more and more to platforms, and unlike the open web, those platforms have rules. It's suicide to pitch a project without vetting it against things like Apple's HIG, or Facebook Apps TOS. You probably wouldn't be surprised how many times that happens. That's basic, though. The more you know about these platforms, the greater your competitive advantage. You can flip it in ways no one has thought of -- true hacking, right? Unfortunately, it's rare to find people that understand guts of an API spec and can apply that to a brand identity, or map it consumer behavior. Labs are absolutely necessary. They always have been. They've just never worked because not everone knows how to share the information in meaningful and useful ways. I've seen a couple agencies figure it out, but it's mostly due to finding those rare people that a) understand the technology and b) have the people skills to share it.
Posted by Matt Albiniak on 11/08/2024 11:31 PM
I'm not at an agency, but across the street in vendor row. I'm with a group that does interactive development for myriad agencies, from mega large traditional agencies fighting for digital cred to small digital agencies trying to out from behind the shadows of the giants. I'm looking from the outside in, which probably makes me the least credible here to talk about it, but also explains why I'm unclear on how this hasn't happened already. About a year ago, I noted the need for a technical strategist within agencies. Engagements are moving more and more to platforms, and unlike the open web, those platforms have rules. It's suicide to pitch a project without vetting it against things like Apple's HIG, or Facebook Apps TOS. You probably wouldn't be surprised how many times that happens. That's basic, though. The more you know about these platforms, the greater your competitive advantage. You can flip it in ways no one has thought of -- true hacking, right? Unfortunately, it's rare to find people that understand guts of an API spec and can apply that to a brand identity, or map it consumer behavior. Labs are absolutely necessary. They always have been. They've just never worked because not everone knows how to share the information in meaningful and useful ways. I've seen a couple agencies figure it out, but it's mostly due to finding those rare people that a) understand the technology and b) have the people skills to share it.
Posted by Matt Albiniak on 11/08/2024 11:31 PM
Do something different...
Great discussion and some interesting points of view... I have long argued that for an industry so focused on creative, big ideas, pusing the boundries, etc... the traditional ad agency resist change often to the point of going out of business. Over the past 50 years the marketing chessboard has been drawn up by clients. And advertising agencies have watched it happen. The strategic side of the board, the high ground, has been seized by marketing and brand consultants - those with the labs and willingness to try something new. And many traditional ad agencies are stuck on the tactical side of the board with little clout over the client?s business and few invitations to come into the board room. There are exceptions, of course. And a few more ideas on what can you do here - http://sandersconsulting.com/newbusinesshawk/bid/51986/The-un-Changing-World-Agency-Leadership Call it a Lab, or an attidude, a willingness to try something new, accept the challenge of changing, be willing to fail; those are the marketing firms that will be successful in the long run. Keep up the good work guys! Bob Sanders President Sanders Consulting Group Blog: http://sandersconsulting.com/newbusinesshawk/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/newbusinesshawk
Posted by Bob Sanders on 11/09/2024 04:14 PM
Great discussion and some interesting points of view... I have long argued that for an industry so focused on creative, big ideas, pusing the boundries, etc... the traditional ad agency resist change often to the point of going out of business. Over the past 50 years the marketing chessboard has been drawn up by clients. And advertising agencies have watched it happen. The strategic side of the board, the high ground, has been seized by marketing and brand consultants - those with the labs and willingness to try something new. And many traditional ad agencies are stuck on the tactical side of the board with little clout over the client?s business and few invitations to come into the board room. There are exceptions, of course. And a few more ideas on what can you do here - http://sandersconsulting.com/newbusinesshawk/bid/51986/The-un-Changing-World-Agency-Leadership Call it a Lab, or an attidude, a willingness to try something new, accept the challenge of changing, be willing to fail; those are the marketing firms that will be successful in the long run. Keep up the good work guys! Bob Sanders President Sanders Consulting Group Blog: http://sandersconsulting.com/newbusinesshawk/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/newbusinesshawk
Posted by Bob Sanders on 11/09/2024 04:14 PM
Why Labs (or studios or kitchens or experimental entities) are necessary.
In a perfect world, all agencies would be labs or use a "google 20% model". Agencies aren't compensated in a way that allows for it any more. The big agencies have big clients and big daily challenges and are often housed in big spaces not providing the right conditions for innovation. Having worked in the agencies that acted like labs in the early days (Wieden and Crispin), I know it's possible. But in this day, commitment to innovation requires resources and people that can be dedicated. A lab is thinking beyond your existing clients and businesses so that you ultimately provide more innovative and inspiring ideas to those very same clients. As part of an internal incubation team at Microsoft, I visited BBH labs a few months ago and walked away thinking--how can I hire this group? Long Live the Lab
Posted by robin lanahan on 11/09/2024 04:54 PM
In a perfect world, all agencies would be labs or use a "google 20% model". Agencies aren't compensated in a way that allows for it any more. The big agencies have big clients and big daily challenges and are often housed in big spaces not providing the right conditions for innovation. Having worked in the agencies that acted like labs in the early days (Wieden and Crispin), I know it's possible. But in this day, commitment to innovation requires resources and people that can be dedicated. A lab is thinking beyond your existing clients and businesses so that you ultimately provide more innovative and inspiring ideas to those very same clients. As part of an internal incubation team at Microsoft, I visited BBH labs a few months ago and walked away thinking--how can I hire this group? Long Live the Lab
Posted by robin lanahan on 11/09/2024 04:54 PM
Its a Dog's life
Good to see this post and even better to see these comments. Tim Berners-Lee said the Internet was a ?Dog?s Life.? When asked to explain himself, he said he wasn?t saying the Internet was a miserably unhappy existence, a quality-of-life issue. Instead he was speaking about ?Quantity,? as in ?one human year equals seven years for a dog.? Anyone in the industry worth their mettle knows that the entire foundation of marketing has been shifting to a new model ? one where advertising and marketing resolve to creative delivery of technology applications. For agencies and major marketers this is a time sensitive issue that should have been addressed w/ the utmost urgency. You say we are starting to see "labs" emerge? The great majority of agencies are many "Dog Years" too late.
Posted by Lubin Bisson on 11/09/2024 06:54 PM
Good to see this post and even better to see these comments. Tim Berners-Lee said the Internet was a ?Dog?s Life.? When asked to explain himself, he said he wasn?t saying the Internet was a miserably unhappy existence, a quality-of-life issue. Instead he was speaking about ?Quantity,? as in ?one human year equals seven years for a dog.? Anyone in the industry worth their mettle knows that the entire foundation of marketing has been shifting to a new model ? one where advertising and marketing resolve to creative delivery of technology applications. For agencies and major marketers this is a time sensitive issue that should have been addressed w/ the utmost urgency. You say we are starting to see "labs" emerge? The great majority of agencies are many "Dog Years" too late.
Posted by Lubin Bisson on 11/09/2024 06:54 PM
Generations of Makers
Having a lab is a state of mind. We are among new generations of makers. Kids and young adults exploring fearlessly and challenging the possibility of tools and technology that used to be only reserved for experts. 3D animation software for example was 100K a seat on a 150K SGI in 1995. Now Autodesk's Maya is 2k and runs on an iMac. I know, I am teaching a 14 year old the same technology used to create VFX for film then. Creativity can't be bottled and it certainly should not be contained to 4 walls. Agencies should be adventurous as they learn their clients businesses. New products, fresh design, innovative technology, disruptive ideas, all can be born from invention. We should not confuse being creative with having imagination. A lab, has the possability of creating a culture of doers.
Posted by Keith Johnston on 11/09/2024 08:16 PM
Having a lab is a state of mind. We are among new generations of makers. Kids and young adults exploring fearlessly and challenging the possibility of tools and technology that used to be only reserved for experts. 3D animation software for example was 100K a seat on a 150K SGI in 1995. Now Autodesk's Maya is 2k and runs on an iMac. I know, I am teaching a 14 year old the same technology used to create VFX for film then. Creativity can't be bottled and it certainly should not be contained to 4 walls. Agencies should be adventurous as they learn their clients businesses. New products, fresh design, innovative technology, disruptive ideas, all can be born from invention. We should not confuse being creative with having imagination. A lab, has the possability of creating a culture of doers.
Posted by Keith Johnston on 11/09/2024 08:16 PM
See some of the work of the 6 Ogilvy labs
thjanks for the name chaeck. in fact ogilvy has 6 labs globally including london, singapore, san paulo and beijing as well as new york. whilst some do focus on more specific executions within the digital marketing realm, others look at new business models based around product and servcie creation. see a video of some of our work posted here: http://interactivemarketingtrends.blogspot.com/2010/11/every-agency-needs-innovation-lab.html
Posted by giles rhys jones on 11/09/2024 09:17 PM
thjanks for the name chaeck. in fact ogilvy has 6 labs globally including london, singapore, san paulo and beijing as well as new york. whilst some do focus on more specific executions within the digital marketing realm, others look at new business models based around product and servcie creation. see a video of some of our work posted here: http://interactivemarketingtrends.blogspot.com/2010/11/every-agency-needs-innovation-lab.html
Posted by giles rhys jones on 11/09/2024 09:17 PM
Labs is the agency, the agency is Labs
Ed, thank you for the mention and for sparking an interesting debate - one which might be less about the need (or not) for innovation units in agencies and more about how agencies equip themselves to evolve. Truth is, if I weren't in a lab, I'd be with Bud, Andres and Ian. The natural assumption is that a specialist unit moves responsibility for innovation sideways and away from the core. In the current climate, I'd agree that sounds akin to corporate suicide. I can't speak for other units, but BBH Labs doesn't presume to do this. Very simply, everyone at BBH is responsible for evolving what we do and how we do it, it's part of the day job in a very restless organisation. The difference with Labs is that experimentation and the transfer of learning IS the day job, it's all we do. The role of Labs here boils down to two things, I think - 1. Reducing complexity (new stuff can look and feel labyrinthine at the outset, it helps to have a few scouts) and 2. Accelerating the transfer of knowledge (to extend the metaphor, the scouts need to carry a ball of wool). What this hopefully sheds light on is the fact that we have enough fluidity and external focus to bring new approaches to bear, but that our relationship with the rest of the agency is a close, symbiotic one. To be successful, it has to be. Our central interest in new agency models is born of a desire to help reinvent, not replace. Even if we do learn a huge amount from early start-ups, every day I'm reminded that the business of transforming an existing agency is a very different thing. (If it were straight forward, would we be having this conversation?) I say all of this with such certainty ... but in the knowledge that *nothing* stays the same. BBH Labs' role at launch (two years ago now), I'll admit, was different and probably flawed. But we learned and moved on. In short, a lab in an agency context is perhaps best viewed as a muscle, not a separate limb. Developing a mindset oriented around learning and imagining, as you say, is the real key. The useful, human stuff you take forward with you, whatever environment you find yourself in.
Posted by Mel Exon on 11/17/2010 01:08 AM
Ed, thank you for the mention and for sparking an interesting debate - one which might be less about the need (or not) for innovation units in agencies and more about how agencies equip themselves to evolve. Truth is, if I weren't in a lab, I'd be with Bud, Andres and Ian. The natural assumption is that a specialist unit moves responsibility for innovation sideways and away from the core. In the current climate, I'd agree that sounds akin to corporate suicide. I can't speak for other units, but BBH Labs doesn't presume to do this. Very simply, everyone at BBH is responsible for evolving what we do and how we do it, it's part of the day job in a very restless organisation. The difference with Labs is that experimentation and the transfer of learning IS the day job, it's all we do. The role of Labs here boils down to two things, I think - 1. Reducing complexity (new stuff can look and feel labyrinthine at the outset, it helps to have a few scouts) and 2. Accelerating the transfer of knowledge (to extend the metaphor, the scouts need to carry a ball of wool). What this hopefully sheds light on is the fact that we have enough fluidity and external focus to bring new approaches to bear, but that our relationship with the rest of the agency is a close, symbiotic one. To be successful, it has to be. Our central interest in new agency models is born of a desire to help reinvent, not replace. Even if we do learn a huge amount from early start-ups, every day I'm reminded that the business of transforming an existing agency is a very different thing. (If it were straight forward, would we be having this conversation?) I say all of this with such certainty ... but in the knowledge that *nothing* stays the same. BBH Labs' role at launch (two years ago now), I'll admit, was different and probably flawed. But we learned and moved on. In short, a lab in an agency context is perhaps best viewed as a muscle, not a separate limb. Developing a mindset oriented around learning and imagining, as you say, is the real key. The useful, human stuff you take forward with you, whatever environment you find yourself in.
Posted by Mel Exon on 11/17/2010 01:08 AM
Should exist but seldom does
I agree with the idea of the labs concept, because the state of change is not slowing down. It's unrealistic, though, to think that innovation just happens within an organization. If it isn't a dedicated unit or part of an allocation of someone's time, reality sets in with client work and other demands so it stalls. Creativity happens best through organic situations, but process is a key component of innovation (ask IBM, 3M, Microsoft and other big patent holders).It takes a commitment, both from a resource and financial position and everyone has to be on board with the long term vision and how it impacts revenue. Skunk work projects are great but short lived unless they can be sold in to clients to reinvest in the program.
Posted by Dustin Jacobsen on 11/17/2010 02:29 PM
I agree with the idea of the labs concept, because the state of change is not slowing down. It's unrealistic, though, to think that innovation just happens within an organization. If it isn't a dedicated unit or part of an allocation of someone's time, reality sets in with client work and other demands so it stalls. Creativity happens best through organic situations, but process is a key component of innovation (ask IBM, 3M, Microsoft and other big patent holders).It takes a commitment, both from a resource and financial position and everyone has to be on board with the long term vision and how it impacts revenue. Skunk work projects are great but short lived unless they can be sold in to clients to reinvest in the program.
Posted by Dustin Jacobsen on 11/17/2010 02:29 PM
Get the labs right
Have to agree with Mel, but I might add something more. An ad agency cannot have as a day job all their resources innovate the ways of doing stuff. It is just not profitable and it is not efficient as a company. Working as we used to is part of the agency job, but having a strong innovation unit that brings new order to the old and tested methods we already have is a must. The lab thinking should be part of the entire agency mindset, always looking to improve, innovate and test new stuff. But the actual lab job should be given to the best suited resources every agency already has and developing new ideas by themselves or collaborating with other professionals inside the organization has to be their only deliverable to the company. I really like the BBH Labs model of researching and developing new stuff, is like bringing the pharmaceutical lab model to advertising.
Posted by Miguel Tokumoto on 11/17/2010 04:43 PM
Have to agree with Mel, but I might add something more. An ad agency cannot have as a day job all their resources innovate the ways of doing stuff. It is just not profitable and it is not efficient as a company. Working as we used to is part of the agency job, but having a strong innovation unit that brings new order to the old and tested methods we already have is a must. The lab thinking should be part of the entire agency mindset, always looking to improve, innovate and test new stuff. But the actual lab job should be given to the best suited resources every agency already has and developing new ideas by themselves or collaborating with other professionals inside the organization has to be their only deliverable to the company. I really like the BBH Labs model of researching and developing new stuff, is like bringing the pharmaceutical lab model to advertising.
Posted by Miguel Tokumoto on 11/17/2010 04:43 PM
Structure
This is a brilliant debate and one I'm very very passionate about. You can do your normal job and work on side projects. This is proven at tech companies and more importantly ad agencies and I've got practical experience to back this up. It's damn hard to fight for the time but if you have the right support structure in place, then as I said - it is possible. If you can't make it work then frankly your not motivated enough or your management structure is broken. A tech lab with a clear goal can work - tech labs are proven - it doesn't take much to use the downtime of your developers to whip up concepts if they have a clear vision. Just as long as you avoid sticking all your tech in one corner of the building. You also need someone senior overseeing this who can spread this work to the creatives and account teams so then it can find a home. We've actually found that having great relationships with tech startups and trying to find a home for their R&D is must easier than trying to make our own. It is pretty clear who owns the I.P, we get shiny new toys that can be applied to creative and business problems and the client gets something new for less risk. Win, Win, Win. But fundamentally, looking at new forms of technology should be the day job of all of the creatives & technologists in your agency - Looking at new forms of media and communications should be part of the day job of all your strategists (or specific insight hires) - Looking at how this can all work within a business context should be part of the day job of your management, account directors, creative directors and business dev people. If you are not employing an agency full of curious people who have a desire to bend the rules, create and sell in spec work and frankly work above and beyond the 9-5 then you will not find it easy to deliver 'innovative' work. This has to be a top down change, you need a strong management team who get what it takes to create and implement new agency processes, try and fail constantly and have the vision to allocate resource away from billable work. Anyways this is massively exciting and as Edison did or didn't say - I have not failed. I've just found 10000 ways that won't work. P.S I am insanely jealous of BBH LABS - Having 100% time to play would be a dream - Congrats to you guys for keeping pushing the ideals of what an agency is. Respect.
Posted by sermad buni on 11/18/2010 12:01 AM
This is a brilliant debate and one I'm very very passionate about. You can do your normal job and work on side projects. This is proven at tech companies and more importantly ad agencies and I've got practical experience to back this up. It's damn hard to fight for the time but if you have the right support structure in place, then as I said - it is possible. If you can't make it work then frankly your not motivated enough or your management structure is broken. A tech lab with a clear goal can work - tech labs are proven - it doesn't take much to use the downtime of your developers to whip up concepts if they have a clear vision. Just as long as you avoid sticking all your tech in one corner of the building. You also need someone senior overseeing this who can spread this work to the creatives and account teams so then it can find a home. We've actually found that having great relationships with tech startups and trying to find a home for their R&D is must easier than trying to make our own. It is pretty clear who owns the I.P, we get shiny new toys that can be applied to creative and business problems and the client gets something new for less risk. Win, Win, Win. But fundamentally, looking at new forms of technology should be the day job of all of the creatives & technologists in your agency - Looking at new forms of media and communications should be part of the day job of all your strategists (or specific insight hires) - Looking at how this can all work within a business context should be part of the day job of your management, account directors, creative directors and business dev people. If you are not employing an agency full of curious people who have a desire to bend the rules, create and sell in spec work and frankly work above and beyond the 9-5 then you will not find it easy to deliver 'innovative' work. This has to be a top down change, you need a strong management team who get what it takes to create and implement new agency processes, try and fail constantly and have the vision to allocate resource away from billable work. Anyways this is massively exciting and as Edison did or didn't say - I have not failed. I've just found 10000 ways that won't work. P.S I am insanely jealous of BBH LABS - Having 100% time to play would be a dream - Congrats to you guys for keeping pushing the ideals of what an agency is. Respect.
Posted by sermad buni on 11/18/2010 12:01 AM
Labs make ideas tangible
Great to see this debate flourishing. YES, a 'Lab' should be a mentality that permeates the entire agency, but as James says, you need that physical space to show clients and the wider industry something more tangible. I guess it boils down to the overall purpose of any one lab over another. Too many clients are afraid of 'digital', even in this day and age - but you find that 99 times out of 100 if you take them into a room that showcases the best of today's technology and they can experience it first-hand, they become much more open to suggestion. Of course it's hugely important that agencies ARE labs, a hot-bed of innovation where ideas come first, but it's just as important that agencies HAVE labs so these ideas can be experienced first-hand. A good example would be UM London's Curiosity Lab - it's used as a showcase for the latest sensitive and digital technology, where clients, media owners & partners are free to come and try out the advertising mediums available to them. The innovation in terms of agency 'lab' mentality and digital media planning comes from the rest of the floor - who, Sermad, are curious people with a desire to bend the rules. This has proved hugely successful in the 3+ years it has been running!
Posted by Chris Howell on 11/22/2010 04:09 PM
Great to see this debate flourishing. YES, a 'Lab' should be a mentality that permeates the entire agency, but as James says, you need that physical space to show clients and the wider industry something more tangible. I guess it boils down to the overall purpose of any one lab over another. Too many clients are afraid of 'digital', even in this day and age - but you find that 99 times out of 100 if you take them into a room that showcases the best of today's technology and they can experience it first-hand, they become much more open to suggestion. Of course it's hugely important that agencies ARE labs, a hot-bed of innovation where ideas come first, but it's just as important that agencies HAVE labs so these ideas can be experienced first-hand. A good example would be UM London's Curiosity Lab - it's used as a showcase for the latest sensitive and digital technology, where clients, media owners & partners are free to come and try out the advertising mediums available to them. The innovation in terms of agency 'lab' mentality and digital media planning comes from the rest of the floor - who, Sermad, are curious people with a desire to bend the rules. This has proved hugely successful in the 3+ years it has been running!
Posted by Chris Howell on 11/22/2010 04:09 PM
It appears you don't have Flash installed.
Ed, I have to disagree with the post. But it's a great discussion. Agencies don't need labs. Agencies need to become labs. From an evolutionary biology perspective, the agency ecosystem is in turbulence, and these organisms (the agencies) need to adapt as quickly as possible to achieve fitness in the new landscape. While having a lab may seem to satisfy that condition - by integrating mutation, crossover, and ultimately novelty into the larger organism, the challenge of spreading the lab's practices and success to the larger organization is a huge hurdle - one that organizations almost always fail at. The lab becomes successful while the larger agency continues to falter. More criticially, the innovation of the larger organism gets pushed, packaged, and quarantined to the tiny lab instead of percolating throughout the building. Talent becomes confined instead of distributed. Management puts a false border to innovation. Labs are too little too late.