Among other things, I watch advertising agencies pitch for a living. And what’s evident is that these agencies are in the curious position of being the world’s most fluent storytellers but too often the least convincing protagonists.
They urge brands to “zig when others zag” while presenting themselves in a blur of identical language, interchangeable case studies, and purpose statements that sound cloned from the same master brief.
Every agency promises transformation, is “platform-agnostic” and “data-informed.” They all claim to be allergic to silos while quietly maintaining several of them for structural comfort.
I would say it’s less hypocrisy than an occupational hazard... when differentiation is your product, it’s astonishingly easy to assume you already have some.
The problem isn’t that agencies lack massive talent or belief, it’s that they believe their own rhetoric too literally. They confuse saying something distinctive with being something distinctive. Brand purpose decks multiply while operating models remain eerily familiar.
What’s missing isn’t vision, but consequence. True differentiation is inconvenient. It means choosing a lane and actively disappointing the clients or prospects you’re not built for. Just read Blue Ocean Strategy and don’t be scared.
All this means structuring teams, incentives, and leadership around a point of view, not retrofitting a point of view onto a structure that already exists.
Until agencies treat their own brands with the same ruthless clarity they recommend to clients, they’ll keep mistaking belief for proof and wondering why everyone else sounds exactly the same.
Comments