Out-of-Box Strategy or Case Study

12th April, 2010

Recently a prospective client asked me to present a case study of my agency credentials on the given industry. The client was surprised that how come an agency made a pitch without presenting a case study of the work done. I suppose mine was probably the only presentation in a multi-agency pitch that did not expect to get the communication mandate on the strength of the work done thus far. However, the idea to not to present the case study was a deliberate one. I had given it a serious thought and taken a conscious decision to not boast of the track record and instead focus on the SWOT analysis of the project and work out deliverables with tangible metrics.

The experience left me wondering as to whether it is the Case Study that is the differentiator between the agencies or it is your understanding about the needs of the clients and the given project. In my opinion it is the understanding of the clients’ brief and your suggested communication solution that gives the agency a cutting edge. However, what I find as a practice in the industry is to over emphasise the past track record called Case Study.

If an agency has handled two real estate companies, they are supposed to be an expert on the sector. The same goes true with other sectors, like health or education. I often fail to understand as to whether such agencies are really experts in terms of knowledge about the industry, or it is by default that they are in the right place at the right time. If they are really experts on the given industry, then how come their presentations and suggested communication solutions fail to reflect that?

Conceptually I am not against the idea of presenting the case studies, which does reflect your credentials in the given industry. However, my understanding of the industry is that such case studies are more often over rated and over projected. Say for instance, if an agency is pitching for communication mandate of a company going public with an IPO, a past track record of successful IPOs in the same industry is seen as an asset. However, what makes an IPO successful is a combination of various teams including the PR, Merchant Bankers, Finance Officers, Legal and Marketing team. Within the PR too, it is the agency and the in-house corporate communication team that works in tandem.

Ideally a successful case study like the above mentioned has very many claimants who have their share to make the campaign a success. If a product launch is successful, it is not just the PR that can make a bad product good or can substitute the marketing initiatives and dealership network. Just because an agency has been there at the right time in the right place (performance could have been good, bad or indifferent), is it logical to assume that they are an expert in the given domain?

I feel the Case Study and the so-called expertise in the media space is an over rated commodity in the communication business. It is the out-of-the-box strategy that should be the criterion of evaluation, and not the past track record which may look impressive by default.