Marketing Briefing: Why holding companies are taking a ‘platform’ approach to pitch more cohesively

Structure shifts like Omnicom’s recent move have become commonplace at holding companies in recent years. How they shake out differs by holding company. Some have parted ways with agency brands altogether in favor of one unified brand like Denstu while others have consolidated agencies like WPP’s move to merge Wunderman with VML.

“Holding companies were about scale, aggregating as much revenue as possible and, to a lesser extent, about having conflict shops,” said Andrew Essex, senior managing partner at TCS Interactive. “Now that is too much and it’s much better to be one throat to choke with an end-to-end offering that you call a platform [managing everything] from ideation to implementation.” 

The thinking seems to be that holding companies are pitching their scale as well as the capabilities of teams across various agencies with the promise that the best talent at each of those agencies will be available for clients when they need it. To Essex, it’s a shift from “horizontal integration to vertical integration,” where holding companies tell clients that they’ve got teams who can deliver on everything they could want from “concept to CRM to design to data” where it’s all “integrated as a platform, not a collection of agencies with their own different cultures and the notion that you work together.” 

The move for a more cohesive approach isn’t necessarily a move away from agency brands altogether — even if agency brands seem to matter less than they once did — but a recognition that there’s less distinction between big agency brands than there once was, explained Nancy Hill, former CEO of Marcus Thomas and former CEO of the 4As. 

“You’re going to see much more coordination, especially with large clients who have, let’s say Omnicom contracts, of deciding who might be the right [agency] brand to work on a given assignment,” said Hill, adding that the shift comes as project work continues to be more common. Project work is “not necessarily short term,” as they can go on for years “but it’s not a guarantee and this allows the group to manage those resources better.” 

Holding companies are looking to appeal to marketers with simplification by providing “a comprehensive solution to the marketer by offering a holding company solution,” explained Lisa Colantuono, president of search consultancy AAR Partners, who added that while this trend has been ongoing, “it’s [now] one level deeper; everybody is certainly pushing for efficiency.” 

Greg Paull, principal at search consultancy R3, echoed that sentiment in an email. “Clients are looking for more simplified arrangements with holding companies that drive better creative outcomes and offer more flexibility,” wrote Paull. “Some of Omnicom’s largest clients stretch across multiple creative agencies, so this new approach should drive better consistency, synergy and results.” 

Even if the move could appeal to clients looking to streamline their efforts, relying on a holding company approach could be a tough sell at times. While some marketers may not care about the agency brands on the same level as they once did, those brands and brand reputations served as distinctions that gave advertisers a real sense of who they were working with and if it would be the right fit for them.

“Clients are more aware of agency brands than network brands,” noted Ken Robinson, partner at search consultancy Ark Advisors. “As a result, there is a shorthand. Meaning, if you were to talk about the work that would come from Anomaly versus the work that would come from Mono [you understood the difference.] They’re both Stagwell agencies but the tonality of the work is different, the culture is absolutely different, the pricing will be different.” 

Robinson continued: “In general, I think that by sunsetting individual agency brands, networks put themselves at a disadvantage from a client interest perspective.” 

Agency brands are not only markers for clients but also “employer brands,” added Hill. The culture and cache of shops like Wieden + Kennedy, Droga5, Goodby Silverstein & Partners, among others, would draw the top creatives who would then hopefully make breakthrough creative work that advertisers covet and brings them into the agency. 

“The need to leverage scale and efficiency to drive shareholder value is a long-term trend,” said Allen Adamson, co-founder of brand consultancy Metaforce. “The downside is the lack of understanding that agency brands are about culture. Good culture creates great creative. What they’re giving up are the cultures these agencies had that were a catalyst for great creative. Ultimately big is not better for creativity.”  

3 Questions with Javier Garcia, svp of sales and marketing for the central division at Comcast

How is Comcast marketing its bundled products? 

When you think about bundles, you need to recognize that the landscape has changed from TV into streaming. We think there is a space still for cable products. Definitely, we still have a ton of consumers that like live sports, very specific channels. So there is definitely an opportunity there. The second piece is NOW TV [a standalone streaming service that provides access to a variety of live TV channels and on-demand content that was launched in April]. It is a combination of the right content that you can stream and bundle on top of your internet. 

Is there a difference between marketing a streaming bundle versus traditional, linear television? 

Years ago, we were really focused on the cable product. That was what we advertised the number of channels, et cetera. Then we transition into our data and mobile products. Now with streaming, there is an opportunity to resurface the combination of video or streaming and data. 

Xfinity’s streaming bundles include Netflix, Apple TV and other streaming services. These streaming services could be considered competitors. How do you square that from a marketing perspective?

You could argue with our cable product, Netflix is a competitor. Netflix or Hulu are competitors and typically, customers are switching there. A couple of years ago, we had the decision to say, “How do we think about streaming? It’s inevitable.” Ultimately, what we decided to do is to say, “We’re going to partner with Disney, Netflix, et cetera, and make them part of our product.” Then on the advertising side, we don’t do a ton of joint partnerships. But ultimately, we leverage, for example, some of our content partners when we go to market and do advertising. — Kimeko McCoy

By the numbers

Marketers are using generative AI tools to create images for use on social platforms, but only a few of them are owning up to it, according to Gartner research firm Capterra. Per a survey of 1,600 marketing professionals in the U.S., Canada, U.K., Mexico, France, Italy, Germany, Spain, Australia and Japan 39% of companies are using generative AI tools for social content production — but only a third of those are using AI labeling tools. — Sam Bradley

• 62%: The proportion of marketers surveyed that said required labels for AI-made content on social media would have a positive effect on their social media performance.
• 67%: The proportion of those who said they were “moderately to highly concerned” about misinformation online.
• 30%: Those using AI-made content that are labelling it as such.

Quote of the week

“Everything we’re doing now is through a creator lens.”

— Mike Armstrong, chief marketing communications officer of Italian soccer club Juventus, when asked about the shifting mindset around creator and sports brands relationships which has evolved from keeping creators at arm’s length to welcoming them with open arms.

What we’ve covered

• The cases for and against the CMO
• Why Washington State is investing in a new kind of voter education campaign
• What do advertisers want from Tubi in the U.K.?