From Interactive Agencies to Agency 2.0 23:17 on Monday
Continuing my not too serious take on ten years of web…
1996 – Interactive agency
New media was created in “interactive agencies”. The bigger the agency, the better the agency. Despite the name, there wasn’t that much interaction going on:
- investors told entrepreneurs what they needed (money)
- entrepreneurs told their new media pros what they needed (something to invoice for)
- new media pros told clients what they needed (a color coded navigation)
- customers were told by clients what they needed (we know you want our product XYZ so shut up)
Very top-down. Very non-interactive.
The remaining interactive agencies seem to be constantly sizing down to keep the investors at the top of the food chain happy. Investors stay happy as long as they get profit. Even though 100 people are quite likely to turn out less profit than 2000 people, profit is better than loss. Hence, the only destination for the interactive agency is oblivion. If you work for one, get out and put up an Agency 2.0.
2006 – Agency 2.0
Web 2.0 apps couldn’t be made anywhere but in 2.0 agencies. An Agency 2.0 is a true agency, in a sense of being an agent for outsourcing and managing the work of free professionals. All the cool agencies are small. This is of course for no other reason except to rid off annoying responsibilities such as paying a monthly salary when the work is slow. And when the work gets really slow, an agency doesn’t have tens of people to fire, nor investors to keep happy. Lean!