Can Agencies Learn?
I’ve been thinking recently about similarities between the agencies I work with.
It’s a diverse group - some have been in business for 1 year, others 30 years, and they represent a variety of disciplines (marketing, design, software development) but they have lots in common:
They’re all run by the founder(s).
None of them have a full-time employee dedicated to business development.
None of them had a systematic approach to marketing prior to my involvement.
What’s most interesting to me is that when I talk to agency owners who started their business last year or thirty years ago - there’s no difference. They’re facing and thinking about the same marketing and sales problems. Nothing has changed.
Of course technologies have changed, we spend more money on the internet now and less money offline, but has the nature of the problem really changed?
Agencies still struggle to bring in new clients and haven’t seemed to crack the code on a long-term system for growth.
I recently listened to one of my favorite writers and thinkers, Morgan Housel, talk about cumulative knowledge vs. cyclical knowledge (podcast here, blog here).
And it’s all so relevant for agencies…
Here’s Housel explaining more:
In some fields our knowledge is seamlessly passed down across generations. In others, it’s fleeting. To paraphrase investor Jim Grant: Knowledge in some fields is cumulative. In other fields it’s cyclical (at best).
There are occasional periods when society learns that debt can be dangerous, greed backfires, and more money won’t solve all your problems. But it quickly forgets and moves on. Again and again. Generation after generation.
Is there a better way to characterize the feast/famine cycle for most agencies? I don’t think so. We’re not in an industry that’s naturally blessed with cumulative knowledge (at least on the sales and marketing side).
The vast majority of us don’t enjoy the business stability of our clients and are quick to double-down on a channel that seems to be generating revenue in the short-term only to get distracted from it at the first sign of a slowdown.
As Housel points out, “Some fields have quantifiable truths, while others are guided by vague beliefs and individual circumstances.” Agencies certainly fit the second description best.
It did get me thinking though. Might it be possible for us to start stacking marketing and sales knowledge to identify some universal truths?
I think we can. Here are three cumulative pieces of knowledge we can start with.
There is no silver bullet.
Growth strategies and tactics don’t always translate from one agency to the next, and they may not even translate from one year to the next. Your marketing and sales plan needs to come from within and take into account your people, personality, and goals. There isn’t a magic formula for more leads tomorrow and if something seems like it may solve all your growth problems, it’s not going to last. Set your own expectations accordingly and be prepared to invest time and/or money to make it happen.
Consistency matters (but don’t be an idiot).
Whatever you’re doing, you have to do it regularly. You can’t expect a podcast or email newsletter to lie dormant for six months, then immediately deliver results when you turn it back on. If you’ve found a marketing channel that fits your agency’s personality and abilities, make it a core part of your firm’s process. If it’s going to work, it has to be tended to. But tending doesn’t mean blindly producing. Watch the numbers and pay attention to your gut, if the arrow isn’t going up over time or you don’t feel like the content is good enough - consider a change.
All new business comes from three sources.
All your business to date and in the future has come from a relationship, a referral, or your reputation. When you invest time or money in a sales or marketing activity, ask yourself which of those three “R”s you’re supporting and what else you can be doing to enhance the impact.
What have I missed?
