One-stop-shop VS One-man-show

Today, John Moore points out Dan Pink’s idea that talented people in marketing and advertising no longer need to be a part of a larger organization, they can go it alone.

But is that what’s best? Are the talented people better off on their own, where they have to spend a large portion of their time cultivating business to fill the rest of their schedule?

As part of a small agency, we talk about this one a lot. I think the role of the agency is changing, and the giant organizations are going to be slowly and steadily replaced by organizations of about 20 or fewer people.

I do think, however, that there are efficiencies to be realized by not quite working alone. There’s an advantage to having a copywriter in house with an art director. It’s good to have a go-to account person to field all calls from clients, instead of allowing them open access to the designers and creative directors.

There’s a level of organization that simply provides better service to clients, more comprehensive and immediate service. It’s a more efficient and productive way to work to allow the left-brained folks to do their thing, and the right-brained folks to do theirs.

My bet is that five years from now, boutique agencies are going to be the first choice for businesses looking for marketing, advertising and public relations services. One-stop-shops have far too much overhead, and one-man-shows just don’t have enough to offer.