David Sutherland is the Managing Director at the Micro Agency, part of the M&C Saatchi Group. He has built his career as an in-house agency model consultant, helping advertisers select the suitable model for them and implementing it into their roster.
When the industry talks about in-house agencies, the conversation quickly turns to either in-housing or outsourcing, as if these are the only options. But in fact, there is a wide array of agency sourcing options, with most advertisers choosing one of the many hybrid models.
David shared some common agency models beyond in-house and outsourced and the benefits and watch-outs for each.
You can listen to the podcast here:
Follow Managing Marketing on Soundcloud, Podbean, Google Podcasts, TuneIn, Stitcher, Spotify, Apple Podcast and Amazon Podcasts.
We’ve been called in a number of times because suddenly the CFO’s going, “What are these 70 people doing here on the payroll?”
Transcription:
Darren:
Hi, I’m Darren Woolley, Founder and CEO of Trinity P3 Marketing Management Consultancy. And welcome to Managing Marketing, a weekly podcast where we discuss the issues and opportunities facing marketing, media and advertising with industry thought leaders and practitioners.
When the industry talks about in-house agencies, it seems the conversation quickly turns to either in-housing or outsourcing as if these are the only two options. But in fact, there is a wide array of agency sourcing options with most advertisers, invariably choosing one of the many hybrid models.
My guest today is someone who has built their career as an in-house agency model consultant, helping advertisers with selecting the model that’s right for them and implementing the chosen model into their roster.
So, what are some of the more common agency models beyond in-house and outsourced, and what are the benefits and watch outs for each? To discuss these questions and more, please welcome to Managing Marketing, David Sutherland, Managing Director at the Micro Agency, part of M&C Saatchi Group.
Welcome, David.
David:
Thank you, Darren. Thank you for having me.
Darren:
Well, in-house agencies are not a new thing, are they? They’ve been actually around for, well, the middle of last century, I think.
David:
Certainly has. They’re absolutely nothing new, but I think over the last probably 12 months in this market, they’ve gotten a lot more traction and a lot more visibility, but they’ve always been there especially in the UK and the U.S., in those markets as well.
And some of the agencies that I’ve worked with within our group have been around for close to, eight, nine years.
Darren:
Because retailers were very enamored with having their own agencies for years, the in-house advertising department as it was known. I remember both David Jones and Meyer had those back in the 60s, 70s and 80s.
But what do you think has driven this transformation in the last, well, the last two decades, I guess for more advertisers to embrace it, other than retail colleagues?
David:
And it’s interesting that you say the retail style. I think that they drive a lot of change in the industry. I think some of the main benefits are really starting to come to the fore around in-housing, particularly things like speed to market, speed of which people are working on delivery and execution.
Also having creative individuals or that creative mindset closer to the brand is also quite a positive benefit to the brand as well. Cost is also a big thing that often comes up. I mean compared to some external agencies, having an internal team is relatively cheaper from a cost perspective.
But I think what brands are finding nowadays is that having an in-house agency is more than just an executional or delivery team. It’s actually something a bit more of a strategic tool that businesses can use to provide growth within their own business. And also having a creative mindset within a more corporate environment.
There’s also benefits of having that creative culture as well which leads to things like more resilient cultures. And I think in an age where we’re getting more shocks every week, I think having that resilience is important.
Darren:
Because it seems to me technology’s played a big part in this, two ways. One is the amount of deliverables that clients find themselves needing. We track that with doing agency fees based on outputs.
And back in 2004, 2005, the average brand was producing around 200 to 250. 2019, which is the last full set of data we’ve got on this, it was about 2,500 to 3,000 pieces. Most of it, because of digital channels churning through huge amounts of content. That has to become a big issue for marketers. You can’t get a 10 times multiple.
David:
Completely agree.
Darren:
And still afford it.
David:
Completely agree. I think marketers’ challenges are doing more with less is always top of mind for them. And technology is a driving force for doing more with less. Introduction of AI, we were just chatting about that I think is only going to speed that up. And it’s something that we’re very interested in, and we’ve been dabbling in as everybody has been.
But in particular from an in-house perspective, because it also can answer a lot of that high volume work that in-house agencies tend to do. And I think marketers are really struggling with being able to just try and hit as many channels as they can with as much volume as they can for the same budgets.
Darren:
There’s a little bit of, if you throw enough mud at the wall, some of it’ll stick though, isn’t there? Because one of the big complaints about the industry is that the quality of the work, it seems to have disappeared while the volume is exponentially increased.
David:
I think that’s an interesting point. In-house teams do get a bad rap, I think. There was a saying that someone told me a while ago, “That in-house is where creatives go to die.” And I hated that. Because, well, personally, I was 34 when I went in-house, and I was like, “If I’m at that level, then there’s a problem with me.”
I disagree with that quality component, I feel like there’s a lot of great talent that’s hidden in-house that is really starting to get a lot more traction, a lot more focus. So, if you look at markets like the U.S. I think over 20% of the Super Bowl ads this year were in-house.
You could argue that the level of creativity probably could have been hit and miss, but I feel like some of those ideas were well thought through, well executed. And I think that’s only going to increase as brands lean more in-house. I think the talent will follow.
Darren:
David, I think that’s where this whole conversation about in-house immediately goes into this dilemma of in-house or outsource, because in actual fact, very few clients that have in-house capabilities don’t use any outsource creative talent, do they?
David:
That’s right.
Darren:
I mean, it is a hybrid model almost exclusively. There’s not 100% in-house or 100% outsourced. There’s this recognition that in-house has its strengths, but that being able to outsource creative talent on perhaps a more ad hoc basis. Actually, then enhances the in-house capabilities, doesn’t it?
David:
You’re totally right. I think it’s a rare occasion where in-house is done 100% in-house, especially in the Australian and the UK markets. It’s a little bit more prevalent in the U.S.
I think there’s a real benefit to this hybrid model, to this hybrid way of working, to your point. And it’s about building bespoke or sharing bespoke capabilities that answer our businesses need at that time.
And I guess that’s what Micro really does as well in terms of providing guidance to businesses and brands that are looking to bring in what they may see as the always on the high-volume work internally and supporting them with not only that transition, but also external capabilities that they may need on an ad hoc basis.
Darren:
And I think that’s important because, the point you made earlier about cost reduction, all of our analysis shows that really if you’re honest in your accounting, there’s often a calculation that shows in-house is significantly cheaper because they often overlook many of the costs associated with actually having a full in-house agency.
And what I mean by that is they’ll look at things like salaries and then they’ll apply a very minimal overhead, but they won’t do anything like recruiting costs or redundancy costs if you ever have or productivity loss, if you’re managing a studio that’s suddenly three people are ill and that’s 30% of the studio and getting free …
None of that seems to be accounted for, and yet agencies and external outsource partners absolutely account for all of those costs, don’t they?
David:
Absolutely. Yeah. I think that you are right in terms of building an in-house team, there’s a lot of unforeseen costs and it can be quite cost prohibitive when you start from scratch. When you have an in-house agency already set up, you probably have a better understanding of those hidden costs is probably the wrong word to use.
Darren:
Well, no, I call them non accounted or unaccounted costs because they’re sort of things that conveniently get left off the reporting so that they can say, “Oh yeah, but look, we’re saving 30% on if we’d outsourced it.”
And you go, “Well, no, because you’re actually not accounting for these costs.” You’re not accounting for say, utilities because that’s just bundled in with the cost of the whole company. You’re not accounting for real estate because-
David:
The desk space.
Darren:
The desk space. And some of them don’t even account for the technology. Which is, these are all things that an external agency would be accounting for. And so, it’s a bit of a pea and shell game, it’s like, where are the costs hidden?
David:
Darren:
And I’d rather clients go, “We are doing this for speed, we’re doing it speed to market, we’re doing it for our brand consistency. We’re doing that for our data security when we’re personalizing,” than always going on about cost.
David:
I agree.
Darren:
I mean, it’s the worst thing that they could actually do it for, saving money.
David:
, it is not an inexpensive exercise. And that’s why it’s even more important to make sure that you get it right and that you are finding it, those returns on your investment from what you are actually spending.
And you touched on it just before in terms of where agencies are very good at identifying areas of improvement, be it through workflow and for having the right talent and processes and things like that, which in-house teams invariably aren’t that savvy with.
And therein I think lies a lot of the opportunity for ad agencies as this change happens and the in-house movement continues. In fact, I don’t believe it’s going anywhere. That’s where I find some of the space for advertising agencies to help and help with the transition.
I think the opportunity sits beyond just doing creative or a typical advertising campaign for external agencies. I think that there’s great opportunity for them to lean into the more operational support that can sit around an internal team. And that’s where MNC and Micro are really focusing on.
Darren:
And we’ve just done some big projects overseas where the client was on the path to building their own in-house agency, and we highlighted the fact that they — because substantial size of business. We actually highlighted all the benefits of implanting an agency.
They called it an extended workbench, because it’s a very IT thing to say. We said, “Alright, extended workbench,” but implanting an agency to provide all of the benefits, but then in some ways take all of the HR management-
David:
The headache.
Darren:
The things that are short and long-term headaches, can work really well, can’t they?
David:
Definitely. And we’ve done that for a couple of our clients, as you’d know, I’m under the MNC group. So, that the outsourced in-house model is I think, something that even you coined in one of your articles recently.
Where you do have that completely managed team that sits in-house and yeah, that’s a model that can work for a lot of businesses as well, because it does remove a lot of, as I said the headache and the peripheral things that kind of CMOs don’t really want to manage and probably shouldn’t have to manage.
And that does fall back onto to the external who are the external agencies are the experts in being able to run creative teams effectively and efficiently and get the best out of them. They understand the best workflows and the processes, the tech stacks or the latest trends that they’ve got from a global perspective, they can input into these teams as well.
And again, I think that’s where the greatest opportunity is for ad agencies is to help support in those areas, support the in-house team.
Darren:
It’s interesting because it also helps with the whole talent thing, doesn’t it?
David:
Absolutely.
Darren:
Because you can rotate people from the agency into that in-house team and actually tap into a larger pool of creative and strategic talent on a need’s basis.
David:
We find that quite relevant. There’s a lot of challenges for in-house teams around talent and resourcing either to have the right talent for a particular project, but also to scale up when needed and if there’s any overflow requirements.
And so, my conversations with a lot of in-house teams reflects that the ability for an MNC or an ad agency, for example, to plug into those teams where required and supplement that team with an expert like a chief creative officer is what we’re plugging in right now with one of the in-house teams as required, and we parachute that individual in for a project. Or where they’re as an external additional studio,
And so, I think being able to flex above what that core team can operate and achieve is really an area that external agencies can play in as well.
Darren:
It’s interesting how the holding companies particularly have moved heavily into this space. We’ve seen Hogarth, which started out at WPP as pretty much a production arm, has really been building their creative and strategic, and I use that advisedly, but capabilities to become more like this overseas out of the UK but across the U.S. and Europe. You’ve got Oliver, doing an amazing job for their clients.
Locally, there’s now started to see the same rise. I mean, you’ve got you guys, Lucian and MNC have been doing this for quite a while. Because you’ve got quite a few implants at Optus and Woolworths and a couple of other places, haven’t you?
David:
That’s right. We’ve been doing it for close to a decade. I think one of the things that we find is that we’re not shying away from in-house. I find it interesting that a lot of agencies are still quite defensive on in-house.
I think there’s a real opportunity for agencies to position themselves in a way that truly supports clients and places them at the center of that marketing ecosystem. And in-housing is part of that.
And having MNC and Micro, the birth of Micro is to go out to market, to say that we are an in-house consultancy who can help you do this, is proofed in how much we actually think in-housing is relevant not just for the agency landscape, but for our clients as well.
And I would imagine that more and more crop up as well. I don’t see it diminishing, I think is.
Darren:
Though, David, do you see it as something, because it seems the big clients with the big volumes and the big demands are really embracing this, most of the brands that we’ve been talking about are relatively large.
Do you see it’s also an option for the smaller brands as well, because from my perspective, I see and in some ways, I think the worst possible way of building in-housing is a smaller company going, “Oh, it’d be good to have a Mac operator here with a designer.”
And suddenly, there’s one there with a Mac and they’re using Canva or whatever to bash out what used to be called desktop publishing. Remember when it was called desktop publishing. But they’re doing artwork and things like that.
And then suddenly it’s grown and now there’s a videographer that’s coming in part-time and it just keeps growing and growing and growing, yet there’s no real strategic thinking about it. But it’s almost like the … what was it, the wart on the asshole of industry. It just keeps growing and growing inside this organization.
David:
And you are right. If there isn’t any strategic intent behind bringing creative resources internally, then it can very quickly become the wart, I suppose. And the Frankenstein-esque agency appears after five years, and you think, how did we get to A, this size, or B, doing this when we don’t even want to be doing that in the future.
So, you are right. I think large clients, it makes a lot of sense. With smaller clients, I think there’s an opportunity to do it at a much smaller scale, but also at an ad hoc scale. I think there’s a lot of disintermediation happening at the moment within the industry where you’ve got individual content creators creating and getting closer to brands themselves via just reaching out in connections and not via traditional agency connections. And that in itself can be an extension of an in-house team.
And you might have an individual spinning up some campaign work or the like. And I think that’s the really exciting part for me is this deconstruction around the agency landscape where it’s not necessarily, creativity doesn’t sit in a large factory anymore.
It actually is being much more deconstructed into these little bite-sized pieces, which is where the exciting change is.
Darren:
It does drive a big difference for traditional agencies, though, that would rely on production for the bulk of their revenue. It was almost like, well, we almost give away the strategic and creative thinking, because we’ll make it all on production, but if more of that production’s actually going in-house, they have to rethink their fee model to actually get paid for thinking rather than doing.
David:
And that is the critical point that I think the industry faces. And I think thankfully consistently faces because we need to think about these things and how do you adapt and evolve your fee model and your structures around this epicenter of creativity being brought internally and being brought and taken out of those traditionally larger agencies. And I think that’s the exciting part.
Darren:
Now, as a measure of how in-housing has evolved here, we’ve now got the … what’s it called, the In-House Agency Council, quite a lot of significant brands on the In-House Agency Council, all with significant investments in resources to actually bring those services in-house, isn’t there?
David:
I was one of the founding members of IHAC.
Darren:
That’s a terrible acronym, IHAC.
David:
You know what, it’s a very Australian approach of naming. It says what it does on the tin. I think the community of IHAC is really great. I think it was needed, having built and managed and run the Optus in-house agency.
Darren:
That’s Yes, isn’t it?
David:
It’s Yes Agency.
Darren:
The Yes Agency.
David:
The Yes Agency. Again, a great name which-
Darren:
Can you work this weekend? Yes. Could you have this done by yesterday? Yes.
David:
Can you do this brief? Yes. It was an interesting thing to change internally, but that’s for another podcast. I think IHAC is, as I said, really great for the in-house community. I think bringing brands together to discuss and share insights and various ways of improvement is a really great thing to do.
Darren:
David:
I was one of the founding members. I worked with Chris a lot in terms of-
Darren:
Chris Maxwell.
David:
Chris Maxwell, a lot in terms of providing a lot of insights and learnings from Optus and Yes agency and shared that. And I was chair of one of the sub councilors within IHAC as well. We did their branding which is good. And so, I think that as a community of in-house agencies is a fantastic thing.
Darren:
And in the U.S., they have a similar body, don’t they?
David:
They do, it’s called, IHAF. So, it’s called In-House Agency Federation. CORECTION: In-House Agency Forum
Darren:
A federation rather than a council.
David:
That’s right. And even in the UK-
Darren:
It’s called?
David:
IHALC. So, the In-House Agency Leaders Club, because everyone loves a club in the UK.
Darren:
I’m seeing Chesterfield chairs and-
David:
It’s not quite. I went and visited them recently and met with the CEO there. It’s not quite the Chesterfield-
Darren:
So, there’s something interesting because one of the — you brought it up earlier that the industry seems to say “Yes, yes, in-house, fine,” but it’s where creatives go to die. Or there is this sense that the creative standard can’t compete with what’s already in the marketplace.
So, is that one of the reasons you think that all of these a club, a foundation and a council have all started their own in-house awards as somehow to debunk the myth?
David:
Look, I mean, I think that’s something probably more around elevating the community of in-housing and rather, I mean, and less about debunking any creative myths. I think I mentioned earlier, I don’t feel like there’s a huge … there is a gap in terms of external versus in-house from a creative output. But I think that gap is absolutely closing.
I think the more talent start to move in-house, because again, as I said, that’s where the epicenter of control is shifting. I think that gap will only close in the future.
Darren:
It seems, because I don’t know any consumer that’s sitting at home looking at advertising going, “Oh, that was created by an in-house agency,” whereas that was created by an outsourced agency. Do they?
David:
No, you’re right. That doesn’t happen.
Darren:
It’s a little bit naval gazing. Which is, don’t get me wrong, there’s lots of parts of the advertising industry-
David:
You could say that happens everywhere.
Darren:
That gaze at their navels and pat themselves on the back for having a particularly attractive navel. But I’m just wondering whether the purpose is actually driving it forward.
David:
I think it’s great to celebrate these things. I think as I said, it’s about community engagement. It’s about having that in-house agency comradery and sharing the work. And I only think that’s a good thing.
Darren:
The other problem, of course, with in-housing, we’ve seen this particularly where clients have built their own in-house function, is when there’s then a change in CMO and you get a CMO that doesn’t want an in-house agency.
It’s one of the costs that’s rarely accounted for is the redundancy packages, isn’t it? I think there’s been some prime examples around the world of very large in-house agencies that have suddenly disappeared faster than they actually appeared. Do you think that should be part of their planning?
David:
I think it absolutely needs to be part of any consideration for an incoming CMO, definitely. And I think it probably stems from there might be a slight change in strategy with an incoming CMO. And I think one of the things that is often missed when CMOs start on their in-housing journey, and I mentioned it earlier, is that strategic intent of what the team is there for.
And my belief is that it should be part of the business strategy, and it’s there to not just execute and deliver on marketing communications, but it’s actually a growth tool. And as such, any CMO should look at that team as something to use in that way.
Darren:
Because we’re big supporters of actually implanting, because it’s far easier to terminate an agency contract than it is 50 employees. And one of the other things that we’ve found is the amount of pressure on CMOs when the headcount of their in-house agency goes up.
We’ve been called in a number of times because suddenly the CFO’s going, “What are these 70 people doing here on the payroll?” It’s a big issue, isn’t it?
David:
It is. I mean-
Darren:
Or can be.
Yeah. Headcount cost always under scrutiny, and it’s just part of the CMOs remit now is to absolutely have that under control. And yes, we’ve built in-house teams that are 100% owned by the business, but also 100% owned by us as M&C Saatchi as well. And it probably gives a little bit more flexibility for a CMO.
Darren:
One of the other things that I’ve noticed is when it’s built by an agency and implanted, there’s a lot more focus on actually counting and managing deliverables to actually keep across the productivity of those resources. Whereas often in a in-house agency built by the marketing team, there seems to be less of that accountability.
David:
I’m not sure why that is. I think from my perspective, I guess from an agency perspective, that accountability has always been there. And my background, spending a couple of decades in the industry is all about making sure that you’re efficiently, and what you’re delivering is accountable and measurable and delivers an impact in X, Y, Z.
And so, I find it interesting or surprising that CMOs or brands don’t consider that when they’re looking at it, I think it should absolutely be one of the core pieces of why you would do it.
Darren:
My experience says that it’s cultural.
David:
Yeah.
Darren:
Because they see them as colleagues not as suppliers, vendors, or agencies. And so, to then make them accountable for what they’re actually producing appears culturally to be treating them as different class of colleague.
Because no one’s walking around saying to the brand manager, “How many things have you done today or this week?”
David:
That’s really interesting, I haven’t considered that. I do know though, from in the states that they are starting to implement KPIs and measurement KPIs around their in-house team. So, maybe that’s a cultural thing that’s shifting.
I’ve never worked in a marketing team; I’ve sat on the fence obviously having run Optus. But yeah, I find that if everyone should be accountable for their work and have KPIs and measurable KPIs, and so I would just see the in-house team as an extension of that.
Darren:
I think it’s also grown out of the production part, not so much the create. Creative in agency or in-house is always about the idea. The measurement is about the quality or the perception of the idea. Whereas when you get to production, it is very much a production process.
David:
It’s much easier.
Darren:
There’s a timeline, there’s a budget, there’s a number of deliverables within that that need to be delivered, and so it’s much more quantifiable. And so, as that’s often the part that’s embedded in-house, it will carry with it that same sort of production KPI mentality, I think.
David:
I agree with that. I think it’s much easier to itemize and put hourly rates on that production side of things. I hope that that might evolve and change as the ambitions of in-house teams grow and investment in in-house teams grow, and we invariably have more creative and ideation that comes and sits in-house.
I think there’s learnings from the external agency side where we can provide guidance and measurable value around what the creative and ideation can bring to an in-house team without it being broken down into the hours and broken down into that, which CFOs love because it’s easy to pop into an Excel spreadsheet versus, what can this idea bring to the business and what’s that return to the business from this as well?
So, I think there’s a shift and a reset in terms of how we think about, it comes back to the value model pricing and things like that. But I feel like there’s probably some learnings that we can apply to in-house teams around that as well.
Darren:
Because a number of in-house teams that have introduced pricing have then found that it’s actually undermined the in-house team. Because the brand managers sitting there with their budget and going, “Oh, hang on, used to be free, now I’m actually losing some of my budget. I’ve got to make down the road that can do it cheaper than you.”
And so, you get all the leakage, which is one of the reasons, that brand consistency, brand control, then just appears because it’s suddenly about a financial transaction.
David:
And that’s a real shame. I think that’s an education piece in terms of the marketing side of things, is understanding how, and this is one of the things that we spend a lot of time on especially in Optus, but all the other in-house agencies that I’ve worked with as well, is the education piece in how you manage and how you interact and engage with this team and the purpose of why they’re there. Yes.
But how you engage with them, and they are a headcount. They need to be accountable, not just from a delivery perspective, but they are a headcount and they’re a cost as well. And that needs to all be considered too. So, it’s probably, an education piece on that.
Darren:
Now, listening to you, David, as we’ve had this conversation, it’s very clear that you see this as it’s going to continue to grow, is that true? What’s the end state, that everyone’s working in-house?
David:
No, no, I don’t think. I mean, we touched on it before that there’s a need for this hybrid model where there’s in-house and external. I don’t think everyone’s going to go in-house. So, if I can put my futuristic hat on and maybe-
Darren:
Like two weeks into the future.
David:
Two weeks.
Darren:
Or 20 years into the future.
David:
And it would be great to get your take on this, because I’d love to hear your thoughts, but I would think that it would be more of an in-house continues to grow. We will hit a stage where it would lessen off.
But I feel like we’re not quite there yet. From last stats, I believe it’s most businesses, roughly 80% of businesses have some form of in-house team.
Darren:
And I saw that stat, and I have to say, it put up a big question mark because that could have been one or two people sitting at a Mac.
David:
Yes.
Darren:
As counted as an in-house team. And there was also no support for what sort of businesses they were.
Were they small, large, medium size, 80%. If you count a Mac operator sitting at a terminal bashing out some flyers for real estate agent, in-house agency then, yes. I think 80%’s probably perfectly reasonable.
David:
And how you define an in-house agency is interesting. I think as I’ve mentioned earlier as we’re deconstructing this agency landscape, and technology’s driving a lot of that as well. What constitutes an agency, I think is an interesting thing.
I think it could be that influencer that I mentioned before that does their own ideation and production and execution and dispatching, are they now considered an agency because they do everything an agency does or so yeah, there’s lots of questions, I agree with you.
But in terms of going back to your question in where does this end or what’s the future look like? I would love to see, — I think there’s a balance. I think there’s an integrated balance, and I think I don’t see it disappearing anytime soon, but I think that agencies need to lean in more to the in-house agency and providing greater support than what they currently do.
I think I’ve mentioned there’s a lot of defensiveness in the industry, which I find odd. I think there’s a real opportunity and a chance for positive change to happen if agencies were to lean in and be that support network for in-house teams.
Will it go back to the other way? I don’t think it will. If we look at what the U.S. is doing and the UK to a lesser extent, they’re a lot closer to us. I feel like it probably won’t, and I’m not saying we’re close to the U.S.
I don’t think it’s going to go that far where you’ve got the CCOs and the CSOs all being brought in-house. I just don’t think we’ve got the size to be able to accommodate those salaries and those head counts. I think that should probably still sit in the external space.
And so, what does the role of the advertising agency look like when you have those heavy hitters, those strategic thinkers sitting externally? And you have the more delivery and designers and probably more senior level in-house, but not those heavy hitters as well.
And so, I think that’s the balance, that hybrid balance. And I think again that opportunity for agencies to provide that creative, that strategy, but also the operational support for an in-house agency is just screaming out.
Darren:
So, the hybrid model will get more traction in the marketplace.
David:
I think so.
Darren:
David Sutherland, thank you very much. We’ve run out of time, otherwise, I’ll be sharing with you my vision, but it keeps me awake at night.
Hey, before you go, I have a question to ask, and that is, which in-house agency do you think will produce the first Cannes Award winner?