Branding a (web) agency 01
' Branding an agency
1.
First of all,
Branding an agency that does other people's work,
an agency that does domestic business rather than overseas,
an agency whose clients are not regular for-profit clients but local governments spending public money
— that's an armchair exercise and display-administration through and through.
We criticize display-administration, but because it's the paycheck we can't help it, and before we know it, display-administration has seeped into us.
2.
Even so, if you must brand,
the first thing to ask is why an agency should brand at all.
If it's to be different from everyone else — buzzer.
If it's to be competitive with rival firms — again, buzzer.
If it's to recognize and improve your own role — ...maybe.
If so, a deeper conversation seems worthwhile.
3.
Branding is, in the end, a path to finding what makes you you. In other words, the process of finding identity.
You have to think of your path as something like a "steward" or "strategist" —
how about like the late-series Kang Baek-ho, or Star Trek's Spock?
(Image sources: http://7poseidon.tistory.com/53, http://tvshowdictionary.tistory.com/660)
Not sure how many will relate — but
there are people like that. People with that kind of nature.
People who don't need to be the protagonist.
There are services like that. Products like that.
People who follow their own judgment and values over others' approval.
Services (or products) that aim for "best effort" without needing to be "the best."
6.
People who work at agencies are often more technical (in implementation) than the client.
They analyze outside cases, track trends, and offer "objective" (?) alternatives.
Which is why they often criticize clients' "gap-jil" (power-tripping) or snark at their "foolish" decisions.
Well..
This is a bit like..
How about an example?
The project deadline is already tight, but the design lead keeps tweaking the design.
The national coffers are empty, but someone wants welfare budgets increased, citing advanced-country examples.
Not even this month's salaries might be fully covered, and still end-of-year bonuses are being discussed.
In other words,
the situation on the ground can never be replaced by outsiders' objective, logical judgment.
The client's power-tripping, the CEO's decisions about welfare, the PM's "just about right (or appropriate tech)" — each has its own considerations behind it.
Of course, such trade-offs deserve plenty of thought and discussion. Of course.
But if they become targets of gossip or criticism,
then perhaps the preparation to be an agency employee or operator is still lacking.
Just as agency decision-makers or employees have their own circumstances and therefore act the way they do, so too does the "gap" who power-trips have situations that leave them no choice.
Now. What would Kang Baek-ho do? What would Spock do?
Exactly. A strategist or steward never rebukes their lord or CEO for indecision or differing judgment.
Because drawing out that decision is itself part of their role.
7.
Anyway, so what do you actually do to brand an agency?
I said earlier that branding is the process of finding what makes you you.
Shouldn't the first question be: why do agency staff criticize the client, as in section 6?
If a strategist is criticizing the lord, there are two cases. First, the person in the strategist role actually has the temperament of a general or a lord. Second, the lord has failed to create a situation where the strategist can fulfill the strategist's nature.
If the latter, firing all the current staff and hiring new ones won't solve it.
The same person facing the same problem will solve it in very different ways depending on their current situation.
If you expected the answer to be "more bonuses or benefits" — buzzer.
What's needed first is a physical guideline that maintains employees' current state or condition.
(Option 1) What's needed is keeping them in their right mind.
We need to build and sustain the conditions for that.
No need to build a swimming pool like company J.
No need for the massive salaries of company S.
Create a life where an afternoon exists.
You, who have worked hard,
need to clearly recognize what that "hard work" is actually protecting for you.
IT companies see frequent job changes.
And changing jobs has even become a measure of ability.
Why?
This is too heavy to brush off with "kids these days are all like that."
IT workers are people who absorb outside information daily while they work.
The result is obvious.
The knowledge and situation they absorb in the course of work doesn't give them enough reason to stay put.
Conclusion. It isn't because they're irresponsible — it's because there are too many things they need to take responsibility for.
Because what can take responsibility for them has become even scarcer.
Think about it this way.
North Korea blocks media. Their worry is that residents who absorb outside information (dramas, music, etc.) will defect. Is North Korea's response foolish? I don't think we can simply challenge their decision.
That's why I'm not criticizing existing agency CEOs. I too have, briefly, hired and run people. But stepping outside and looking back, I feel for decision-makers trapped in making the only choice available in situations that leave them no choice.
Then what's the most fundamental answer? Create reasons not to leave, even when they encounter outside information.
And so
You have to create a life where an afternoon exists.
You, who have worked hard,
need to clearly recognize what that "hard work" is actually protecting for you.
Just as we can't readily agree with the North Korean regime's criticism and punishment of defectors,
neither can the "migratory birds" who leave agencies be lightly criticized.
Just as the lord picks generals and strategists,
so too do employees, quite naturally, choose for their own lives.
Just as the lord fights desperately to defend his realm,
employees also make their choices to protect their family and life,
and those choices cannot be called irresponsible or selfish.
(in progress — )
...
(Option 2)
Beyond the wordy alternatives and methods, what all of this ultimately aims at is:
Even after leaving, being able to hear "xx alumnus."
Even after leaving, acting in a way that makes "xx alumnus" something not to be ashamed of.
That's what it comes down to.
(in progress — )
...
(Option 3)
This is an era where you can get attention without being the protagonist.
Is it the writer's skill? Their intention?
Is it because the times have changed?
Because the world has changed?
Well.. I think it's because the attitudes of supporting characters have changed.
(Sources: http://www.jstarclub.com/3909, http://rjdjdl12.tistory.com/79 )
(in progress — )
All of a sudden, lead vs. support?
I wonder if agencies are like that.
I wonder if each employee is like that.
When "eul" stops criticizing "gap" and starts finding their own role,
employees can understand the company's situation and act on their own.
What lay under the supporting characters' ability to play their parts?
A director who lets supporting actors shine.
That's what an orchestra conductor is,
and that's what the mindset of a gambler playing janggi is.
Leadership..
The baby-boomer issue isn't demographic market influence; it's the social culture and common sense they produced. Too much and too-hasty entrepreneurship is like a too-hasty marriage.
Like heads of households who aren't ready to be parents, a flood of agencies have been created without being ready to lead.
# (Having said all that) Epilogue
Of course, in issue-selling,
raising a sincere issue from the speaker's standpoint can be perceived by the listener as "the complainer type."
Even so,
I don't want to be the kind of person who "keeps still to stay at the middle."
I don't want to live that way.
Rather than dodging this way and that to avoid being wrong, I'll accept being wrong and take the loss.
And admit the wrong and fix it.
I'd rather be bumped and broken than rot.
To call the me of today "me" — I'm still too young for that.
There are people like that too.
I am that kind of person.
