And it is pages 71-73 of the printed version, not of the PDF. It’s from LBiQ, our quarterly print publication, so is a bit of a plug. And shame on me for not reading it before …

I’ll have a think about the “Is Full Service a good idea” post – I’ve got some opinions to share!

@Marcus A – Totally agree about collaboration. But Trad agencies and branding agencies have never and will never, fall under the full service “digital” agency umbrella.

For instance – the project I am currently working on involves at least 3 different agencies (at least one of which is Full Service) along with a ‘trad’ consultancy, a branding agency and a SEO company. Not to mention a raft of other integration/technology/infrastructure partners the client has who have some connection to the work. This is not rare, this is typical.

In fact, it is surprisingly rare for a FSDA employed to provide full service for any individual client!

But I do think that there are other cases when having everything under one roof has massive advantages. The lines between the disciplines are becoming more and more hazy. Take Search, for example. Apart from the specialist search activities, which of the following do you think a Search Agency such as Bigmouth Media get involved in:
* The business planning/strategy phase to help predict increased revenue to do increased search driven traffic
* The Information Architecture / Wireframes to ensure the URL structure makes sense, and that each page has the correct levels of headings
* Designing the site to make sure it has a healthy amount of textual content and other elements determined at design time.
* Writing the copy to ensure it is search engine friendly
* Building the client side markup to ensure it is semantically correct and search engine friendly

Sometimes I do have a crisis of confidence and decide that this whole Full Service thing is a terrible idea. But when we work with external Search|Usability|Other agencies (who are, don’t get me wrong, very good) I start to remember how useful having all the disciplines working together really can be.

I do plan to write a “Is Full Service a good idea” post at some point too. Feel free to write that one first

I think Richards’s description of a full service agency having a limited focus offering could spark a lot of debate. He’s going down the route that every agency should be a specialist in their own discipline (whether that’s design & build, Search etc.) but not necessarily operate in all key areas (like some the 9 you mention above). Take Webcredible for example, they could position themselves as a full service user experience agency, or Bigmouth Media as a full service Search agency. It’s an interesting concept which I personally believe has more meaning than the ‘one stop shop’ scenario. (I am going to point him in the direction of this post to air his much more expert opinion than mine!!!).

The NMA listing debate is a funny one and in my opinion, it’s often far off the mark. Some Agencies (although not meant to) include clients media spend in their turnover to boost their position. A bit underhand as the money never really touches their pocket before being spent on search engines and advertising. Apparently they’re going to be clamping down on it next year so there may be some big changes in the positioning…

Interestingly from a financial perspective the markets view WPP/Omnicom type agencies as significantly less valuable than the more technical ones like Atos Origin, Wipro, Cap Gemini. Mixed agencies such as LBi and Sapient(6500 staff versus LBi’s 1600) fall in between the two.

I think specialism is definitely a route a lot of the smaller ones should look at. The problem is that it takes significantly more work and courage to go that route, not to mention funding in the start-up phases.

Thanks again for the comments. I think you’re right about the NMA list. I don’t think the rankings mean much, but at least they provide a list of agencies. WPP is an interesting one. They have 4 in the top 100, and that excludes Ogilvy Interactive and Wunderman. Don’t even have staff numbers for those. Omnicon have 5, excluding Tribal DDB and Weapon7, who don’t declare their turnover. I think the difference between LBi and the consortiums is that we do try harder to integrate the disciplines. Having everyone in the same building helps. Of course the consortiums co-operate between their sub-brands (especially on bids and things), but I don’t think the smaller companies in their groups get the benefit of scale that the Top 5 get.

I don’t think Cap Gemini, Accenture and the rest should be on here. They’re very different. The budgets for their projects are normally at least an order of magnitude bigger that someone like LBi. Accenture have 180,000 staff worldwide. LBi have less than 3000, I think. Accenture generated over US$20 billion last year. Completely different kind of company.

I agree that some of the smaller shops may be better off becoming highly specialised. Things like SEO are a prime example of that. Then the good ones get bought. Our SEO department is the company formally known as Netrank. So we get the specialised expertise and, in theory, the whole becomes greater than the sum of the parts. It’s good getting a specialised SEO agency to audit your site and improve the rankings. But it is even better when they’re involved from the beginning to ensure you thing you design and build will make their life easy. Similarly for other specialist disciplines.

Are these all a one stop shop despite being different companies? I suspect they are just as much as LBI – I am sure that internal department heads all have their own P&L targets and projects are cross charged between departments.

I am sure the smaller guys will also claim they are full service as they see it as a term that makes the clients feel more comfortable about hiring them and importantly, it lets them talk about any possible lead with the client – I know, I’ve been there. Actually a lot of them would be better off becoming highly specialised and non-FSDA, if I can say that. Billing rates go up, and demand for their services can do so as well, with the correct marketing and networking. However, when you are small and need the money and clients and are not well capitalised there is huge pressure to find any piece of work that passes in front of you – it’s about survival.

I find the NMA list very distracting – surely companies like Cap Gemini and Accenture should be on there as well? Maybe I am cynical but I think the list is designed around the companies that buy NMA – there is a certain amount of ego stroking going on as in “hey we moved up from 15 to 12 – we must be doing something right”. Self certification as well? Who cares what postion you are in. The question is are you making a profit? are the shareholders getting good returns? Assuming these the client will be getting a good service as well. Maybe I am being harsh though.