My analogy inside for the agency structure goes back to far too many years ago when I was hired to start up a new “IT Audit” function for a large corporate. To put this is perspective this company is now #1 in its global industry segment – so it required solid thought and execution.

At the time, and everywhere I turned e.g. the major banks, the “IT Audit” groups were a separate empire from Internal Audit. There were some huge departments, 3 floors of a building, but on a different plant to Internal Audit yet apparently part of Internal Audit.

My solution was very different, and fits with your solution. I declared that every IT Auditor would work as part of the existing regional audit teams – mainly accountants but some engineers and waste loss specialists. I would be the only IT Auditor working outside the team, and reporting to the Chief.

So I set strategy, methodologies, training, took part in recruiting, performance reviews, kept abreast of trends etc. And I also went into the field as part of regional work assignments to ensure I had my feet on the ground.

I also developed skill ladders and development paths for the IT Auditors, who were fully integrated into the regional teams.

Actually this kind of model is used for many corporate functions such as IT, or finance in large companies.

This is more effective and efficient for the business, less costly than empires in the lines of business, and the specialists themselves feel more a part of the individual teams, yet overall strategy is aligned. Actually they can also build new career paths which are more encompassing than the niche where they started.

As you said, no rocket science here. As to some comments about why social media strategists etc – these types of skills are needed until any new field or approach becomes fully integrated into the “way of life”.

Walter Adamson @g2m
Social Media Academy, Australia

It’s akin to plenty of other business models that require expertise in multiple areas. For instance, a foreign policy think tank does not often find analysts who have an expert degree of knowledge about every region or country; it hires an analyst who has a concentration in West Africa and another one for Eastern Europe, Central America, and so forth. They are united hopefully by their analytical philosophy and approach.

The same can be said for a planning department. And because not all media can communicate a given strategy equally, such a model is even preferable. The way I see it each channel does what it’s best at to express the comms plan – all are components of a greater narrative (the notion that every channel communicates the entire strategy/narrative is a all too common myth). If there are several members of the planning team who each have an in-depth understanding of their respective channel of expertise (haha, that sounds way too legitimate), all the better will the executions and campaign be for it. And as long as the team is united by their philosophy and approach there shouldn’t be any decentralizing of the strategy…

@ Brett: I’ve been hemming and hawing whether or not their ought to be a spinoff post about appropriate titles, and the divide between strategists vs. tactician would be at the heart of it. Ultimately though, I think we’re probably all aligned in the functions that are needed.

Some environments do need a digital champion, someone to enlighten and sell through the opportunities of the space. But the best know it is just a component of a bigger picture.

Personally, I’d take an information architect or user experience designer over a digital strategist any day. At least if I was a client, that’s where I’d rather see my money spent.

How a planner in this day wouldn’t use digital tools as part of their trade is beyond me. But I guess some exist. Though I’ve yet to meet one…

My concerns are greater now that we are seeing agencies dividing their online departments to traditional online and social media online. These steps are taken by agencies as a way to generate income, however it opens a wide gap among the online teams, who do not have a hollistic online strategy and approach but 2 different ones, with different objectives and visions.

@ Nick: Man, you opened up a whole new can of worms! I can’t fully answer your question without droning on about Naked, but suffice it to say that our model is predicated on bringing unbiased planning across all comms channels, with advertising being just one small sliver of that pie. That often leads to business planning, corporate affairs, and beyond. I’m not sure that addresses your entire concern (we don’t handle security risks and a caseload of other issues), but it takes us way beyond selling one business unit function.

thanks for sharing.

@ Pedro: Amen.

It is just another proof that people have hard time dealing with changes.

Most strategists are digital immigrants, trained in brand thinking & planning for a monologue communications world (RIP, 1950 – 2000). Digital strategists are trained & experienced for a world of dialogue-based, flexible communications (Hello New World, 2001 & onwards). I know which skills I’d prefer to have right now and moving forward. And I believe it’s fundamentally easier for a ‘digital’ strategist to learn necessary traditional skills than vice versa.

Of course, a split in strategy development makes no sense long term. But, right now, it’s a product of a huge skills deficit in ‘traditional’ strategy & the speed of development of digital. The two probably won’t meet fully again until 2015 – and it’ll be the digitally adept thinkers who lead.

There are a few reasons why I think it can be useful to have a digital “specialist” on the team (in 2009, at least):

1. Digital technology is much more fragmented than traditional media ever was. In addition to hundreds of devices (cameras, the Kindle, netbooks, mobile) that fundamentally change how consumers interact with brands, not to mention all the different web platforms that change constantly. Just keeping up with all of this can be a full-time job (and something that some — not all — traditional media strategists can have trouble with).

2. Unlike any other medium, the web is a science lab. You can’t spend 6 months developing a campaign, release it, and never touch it again (as was the tendency with TV/ print/ radio). Advertising on the web needs constant nourishment to be successful – this is something that traditional strategists (and most clients) may not yet understand.

3. Communication is bi-directional. I know I’m preaching to the choir here, so I’ll keep it short: consumers now have the ability to react to, talk about, and communicate with your brand in ways that they never could 15 years ago. Successful marketing strategies must take this into account (the best leverage it to their advantage).

It’s important to keep in mind that the digital world is still relatively new. We are still seeing fast paced changes on a regular basis. In 5-10 years, could a traditional strategist cover this role? Hopefully. But right now I don’t think it’s realistic to expect it.

@ Bryan: Fortunately, I’ve only had the pleasure to work places where strategy was valued, intellectually and monetarily. However, the defensive attitude that pervades the annual APG conference probably supports your point.

@ Mishi: Broadly speaking, yes strategy is a skill set. As is creativity though, right? You need not hold the title to hold the skill set. Nor does holding the skill set does earn the position. Not sure I see the redundancy though.