yet another illustration of what ails agencies

A article in yesterdays NY Times did a great job of illustrating to me the ingrained flaws in the way ad agencies and the people that run them think. Never mind that the article starts out with: "DECADES ago, brewers determined that television commercials were just about the best way to sell beer..." Decades ago? and that should be relevant still now why? But the thing that really pissed me off was at the end of the article:

Even so, Mr. Haven [Jim Haven, co-founder & creative director @ Creature] is demonstrating a fondness for kicking it old school. From all the film shot in Mexico for the online videos, “we cut a couple spots” in 30-second lengths, Mr. Haven said, that could become TV commercials.

“And the music is licensed for air,” he added hopefully.

WHAT??? The agency wasted the client's money by not only licensing the music for broadcast but also cutting 30 second spots? Now I understand that licensing is cheaper when done in batch negotiations, and that adding the extra versions probably didn't add substantial cost either, but the fact remains that both were done for the egos of the agency folks. There appears to be absolutely no reason to have produced TV spots besides the fact that the CD wanted to hope for both splashy TV and an "integrated" campaign to submit to the awards shows. This in my opinion is the kind of mind set that should get agencies fired by clients. It's one thing if the data shows that not only is TV and appropriate medium for reach but also that the audience pays attention and gives a damn about your TV presence. Generally, this is no longer true. But, TV ads keep being produced even when not appropriate at least in part because agencies like making them and the awards shows glamorize them. Don't even get me started on the media component of things...
The article in full can be read here >>