Email The Lost Jacket Subcribe to the blog via RSS

The Entrepreneurial Agency

by Stuart Foster on September 8, 2009

entrepreneurial agency

The "open agency" or "agency as a community" is an interesting idea. The model is my vision of what social business is going to look like in the agency world. I've erased a lot of white boards, thrown multiple plans away and discussed this at great length with a team of advisers, colleagues and friends.

The model that surfaced? The Entrepreneurial Agency.

Most businesses (and agencies) originate from an entrepreneurship background. However, once these businesses hit a critical mass, key lessons learned during  the leaner years fall away. This can be chalked up to human nature and the fact that the executives can probably enjoy a bathtub full of Benjamins ala Scrooge McDuck.

Ideas stagnate, concepts rot away, and political in-fighting eventually takes its toll. It doesn't help that the agency could be operating on a model that may be spinning around the drain of irrelevance (ie. static advertising).

How do you maintain that hunger, excitement and commitment to new ideas in an agency model? Create an agency made up entirely of entrepreneurs.

The model that I came up with is influenced by artist living/workspace models, worksifting, co-op space and crowdsourcing.

(Aware of how many buzzwords were in that sentence, but bear with me.)

The basic outline:

1. Find and acquire space for the agency (living and working preferably).

2. Partner with 10-15 highly talented entrepreneur types with their own companies. (Number can be flexible dependent on scaling).

3. Entrepreneurs split time between their own companies and the agency. This solves two key problems: It keeps entrepreneurs excited about the work that they are doing AND it allows them to have a steady income. (Assumed breakdown would be: 20 hours/20 hours. This should be flexible dependent on volume of work.)

4. Each entrepreneur works in the space for both their entrepreneurial endeavors and agency projects. This way innovation, new techniques and creativity can be crowdsourced and channeled directly into the agency.

5. Clients can come and have the "Skunk Works" experience of sitting with an agency made up of entrepreneurial minds to work specifically on their company. This would be beneficial from a content and creative standpoint.

6. The ability to create this kind of environment offsite could be made possible via Skype, IM and video chatting. Connecting the loose parts to the whole. (This also will extend the talent pool).

7. Selling points: Environment and truly open agency concept could be a boon for potential RFPs.

What's the benefit to an entrepreneur? The agency acts as a "super incubator" via funding, multiplication of the start-up via the agency's collective network, and an accelerated development cycle. Plus, the entrepreneur is paid for the work that they do at the agency.

What's the benefit to a brand? Access to entrepreneurial minds. An ability to understand and rapidly implement advanced technology. Partnership opportunities with various start ups.

The true potential of this model won't be known until it is officially implemented. The Lost Jacket™ could potentially use this model (and likely will). I decided to open up the model to criticism and feedback in the spirit of collaborative development and crowdsourcing.

Related Posts with Thumbnails

If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment, showing us some social love or subscribing to the feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.

  • Share this article on Facebook
  • Digg this article
  • Bookmark this post on Delicious
  • Stumble this post
  • Upvote this article on Reddit

tagged as , , , , ,

You're a moderator for http://thelostjacket.com Site admin
You're following this conversation Unfollow
Conversation 
Sign in and Post
bobbiec1 moderator
Pending approval

Hi Stuart, Two related points. Your Scrooge McDuck point is well taken -- I find that there needs to be a fine balance between keeping a roof over your head and the adoption of the "Resort" mentality where hard work is unheard of. There are a number of virtual agencies out there (I've even employed a few of them on various projects but won't name names.) One of the issues with this model is that everyone seems to want to do the "fun stuff" and (here's the relationship to the first part of the quote) it is hard to get anyone to take on the drudge work. How do plan to you address this?

Approve comment
bobbiec1 moderator
Pending approval

Hi Stuart, Two related points. Your Scrooge McDuck point is well taken -- I find that there needs to be a fine balance between keeping a roof over your head and the adoption of the "Resort" mentality where hard work is unheard of. There are a number of virtual agencies out there (I've even employed a few of them on various projects but won't name names.) One of the issues with this model is that everyone seems to want to do the "fun stuff" and (here's the relationship to the first part of the quote) it is hard to get anyone to take on the drudge work. How do plan to you address this?

Approve comment
bobbiec1 moderator
Pending approval

Hi Stuart, Two related points. Your Scrooge McDuck point is well taken -- I find that there needs to be a fine balance between keeping a roof over your head and the adoption of the "Resort" mentality where hard work is unheard of. There are a number of virtual agencies out there (I've even employed a few of them on various projects but won't name names.) One of the issues with this model is that everyone seems to want to do the "fun stuff" and (here's the relationship to the first part of the quote) it is hard to get anyone to take on the drudge work. How do plan to you address this?

Approve comment
bobbiec1 moderator
Pending approval

Hi Stuart, Two related points. Your Scrooge McDuck point is well taken -- I find that there needs to be a fine balance between keeping a roof over your head and the adoption of the "Resort" mentality where hard work is unheard of. There are a number of virtual agencies out there (I've even employed a few of them on various projects but won't name names.) One of the issues with this model is that everyone seems to want to do the "fun stuff" and (here's the relationship to the first part of the quote) it is hard to get anyone to take on the drudge work. How do plan to you address this?

Approve comment
Ted moderator
Pending approval

I think what you just outlined here is not only the future of an agency, I think it's the future of business organization. Technology allows it and it just makes more sense. Every company will have a talent community made of individuals interested in adding value to the business. It's a cool concept, keep writing about it.

Approve comment
Tamsen McMahon (@tamadear) moderator
Pending approval

Having spent the all but the last seven months of my career on the client side, I'm curious about the distinction between freelancers and entrepreneurs--I don't think that's one that many brands would understand or appreciate. How do you see the two as different, and why would entrepreneurs be preferable to the freelancers Adam has in his model? How would you balance the push and pull of the personal brands of the entrepreneurs versus that of the agency? In other words, why wouldn't I just hire the entrepreneur? (Or a freelancer)? And what would determine which work "belongs" to the entrepreneur and which to the agency? How do you avoid conflict of interest? The trick would be, I think, to find a compelling story for the premium that hiring the agency would bring--and to find a premium that is less than typical agencies. In that case, it seems the profit model would be based on volume, not margin...which brings the conundrum back to how to make it crystal clear to the client how both the experience and the product would be different from that of hiring either a solo entrepreneur or a traditional agency.

Approve comment
Suzanne Vara moderator
Pending approval

Stuart Great post. There was a group of people that tried this in Las Vegas and pretty much failed. Their model was this, they have the brick and mortar and all of them had other businesses. The problem is that it became more of a referral for their other businesses. The new agency charged x amount for a certain amount of hours. On top of that their clients were billed separately for any work done by the individual entrepreneur's company. They had a ridiculous amount of unhappy clients as the agency never seemed to do anything except prepare a report on what the client was doing incorrectly (which people said was helpful) and then referred to the entrepreneur to fix it. They did have networking events but they only promoted the agency. This model can work very well. Some of the problems that can exist are when clients only need one part of the offerings of the agency meaning that some people are putting in their 20 or so hours while others are not. I agree that is has to be a brick and mortar setting as virtual would only really be a referral type business. Would love to see how you make it work. Suzanne

Approve comment
SteveSeager moderator
Pending approval

Nice call Stuart. Great stuff. Actually, we are an online PR 2.0 startup that works pretty much in this way. (We don't call ourselves an agency.) A thought on 1. How would the agency work in terms of equity? Who puts how much time into what. There's your equity share on a job. And the CEO position. Why do you need a CEO? We don't. Just lots of great minds working collaboratively. Each with his speciality. It just takes a different headset. Luckily (?), I have always worked client side. I have engaged pretty much all the major pr & communications in Europe, Middle East and the US at one time or another. By learning what does and doesn't work for the client, we have taken those, and circumnavigated them by using a model very similar to what you propose. Nice to see a like mind :) Congrats on the the thoughts! Steve Seager we do communications

Approve comment
Stuart Foster moderator
Pending approval

We're definitely looking at that model. (I currently work at Mullen, 2 days a week) The issue there? Agencies like to be involved with any strategy with the client for implementation. They can't execute without first engaging with the client. Which could lead to you getting cut out of the potential business.

Approve comment
Stuart Foster moderator
Pending approval

Agreed. I think moving forward I need to incorporate this philosophy into the model. It definitely will take a certain type of person and/or group to get this off the ground.

Approve comment
bournesocial moderator
Pending approval

Stuart, I think that the idea of collaboration between solo artists and bands is a sound one, but while Graceland was a good album, I've always thought that Paul Simon was at his best when he focused his energies with Garfunkel, instead of with Lady Smith Mombazo. But I digress... I think that this model has risks as well as rewards. Basically, everything that has been said in other comments: revenue sharing, team spirit vs. community, too many chiefs and not enough Indians, etc. The idea of having many people test an idea out and then have a company produce it, is also a great model for an organization. That's Quirky.com. Consultants working for themselves and for the group could be fantastic, but it could result in one-hit super bands like Blind Faith that burn brightly but briefly. And you can call me Al.

Approve comment
ally moderator
Pending approval

Ally Hemming here from The Hired Guns. Love the ethos of the idea - keep pushing out. Here are the biggest challenges... keeping clients more than winning them Administration (who gets paid what and when)? Politics. Adam is right about having all chiefs and no indians. And freelancers are far from a bunch of indians. Many are indie solo-preneurs. Why not focus on the ideation phase, and partner with a bigger agency to kick up the big ideas. (they can handle implementation and maintentance). And everyone still gets to get their creative juices firing -- all while getting compensated for it!

Approve comment
AdamPieniazek moderator
Pending approval

Nice idea. Am a big fan of forming a community inside/around a company, and here you basically create a community of entrepreneurs to act as the company. We've got a similar plan in the works for The 42nd Estate, but instead of entrepreneurs, we'll have mostly freelancers. We'll in essence act as a clearing house and a one stop shop. Something to consider is using freelancers in your model. Having just a team of entrepreneurs can lead to too many leaders trying to re-invent the wheel without anyone actually creating that new wheel. Plus, it would help with crisis mode if you had a batch of people ready and willing to jump in. Think your #1 problem here is something Jun mentioned, if you have a bunch of CEOs come in, they might not want to do some of the grunt work involved with being a part of an agency rather than leading one on their own. Like the model, love to see version 2.0 of it.

Approve comment
Stuart Foster moderator
Pending approval

Definitely. It needs more polish for sure, but it's a cool enough idea that is worth investigating in more detail.

Approve comment
Jeff Stolarcyk moderator
Pending approval

Huh. It's like Voltron. I'm in love with the notion, but not sure how it would work practically, for several of the reasons already cited. Still, with the perfect group of people, it could be a winner.

Approve comment
Stuart Foster moderator
Pending approval

(1) An administration/core leadership team would be in place at the agency and would responsible for coordinating, organizing and bringing in new business. (2) That's why I set it up for going down the line you can have exponential expansion. The model works visually...the story works better in a brick and mortar setting though. (3) Contracts could be signed for scopes of work and what's laid out in the RFP. This way everyone can be held accountable. (4) We'd preferably do it off a minimum 20 hours of agency time and work around from there. If we can have an initial commitment (and the ability to lighten or heavy the load at different points) we'll have a lot more success. (5) Hierarchy would be based initially from top to bottom. As more innovation, work and development comes from the entrepreneurs (and clear separation becomes apparent) we can offer more responsibility and money. Really is a make your own way type of organization.

Approve comment
Stuart Foster moderator
Pending approval

Those aspects are incorporated into my calculations/thoughts. New business will be acquired at first via the story and experience of working with this type of new concept. Then the work should stand up for itself.

Approve comment
Stuart Foster moderator
Pending approval

2 and 3 can be easily answered (I'm going to have to think about question 1 and come back). (2) Workloads will be determined by a minimum commitment of 20 hours. This can be increased or decreased dependent on circumstances. (3) This model assumes that an administration does exist for the agency. They would be responsible for strategy, coordination and any other fill in the gap stuff. Grunt work is done on a rotating basis. Keeps everyone humble :).

Approve comment
Carlos Miceli moderator
Pending approval

Random thoughts, not to turn your idea down (I really like it), but to help you ponder about those aspects a little more. 1) Having few people work at the agency full time wouldn't hurt. Maybe for organization purposes, maybe for feedback or as outsiders idea sparkers. 2) Everyone having to be in the same place helps with some aspects, but limits your reach a lot. Maybe a mix, similar to what 37Signals does could work. this could work locally, nationally or internationally. 3) Productivity-wise, constant switching from one company to another could be troublesome. 4) The amount of work a start-up demands varies. Sharing a perfect schedule between so many entrepreneurs with different amounts of work could be a problem without proper organization. 5) What are your thoughts about hierarchy?

Approve comment
JunLoayza moderator
Pending approval

Hey Bud, Sounds like a great incubator to me. Except not necessarily an incubator because all of the startups are working on an agency that provides revenue. Here are my thoughts and questions: 1. How would the agency work in terms of equity? If all of the 10 entrepreneurs split the equity evenly, then how would positions and executive status be decided? For example, everyone is used to being the CEO for their company. Who would be the CEO for the agency? 2. What about workloads? Will every entrepreneur put in equal time into the agency? 3. A company does not need 10 CEO's. It will probably cause the downfall of the agency. In that sense, out of the 10 entrepreneurs, someone has got to do sales and someone has got to do the grunt work. How would that work out? I think that these questions can of course be settled by the entrepreneurs before the agency is established; however, I would love to hear your thoughts about how to make these processes smooth. - Jun

Approve comment
dan360man moderator
Pending approval

If it's a business model, you should draft some sort of visual for how it works.

Approve comment
Stuart Foster moderator
Pending approval

The compensation would need to be beneficial from both sides. Obviously, we want to make money (preferably lots of it). But we need to take into consideration the costs, maintenance and everyday grind that something like this would take and that takes cash. Co-op space is great for emergencies. But wouldn't you rather have an experience that could be completely branded out for your start up?

Approve comment
Stuart Foster moderator
Pending approval

I don't think so. Mainly because it lays out in more visceral terms who the players would be. What industry would be involved and the nuts and bolts behind the idea. Also, I think that the Dachis model relies on a more social construct for business and allowing for more effective internal collaboration. I created this to be a workable business model...not theory.

Approve comment
dan360man moderator
Pending approval

Isn't this, really, the Dachis model?

Approve comment
jackieadkins3 moderator
Pending approval

Stu, this seems like the beginning of a killer idea. Some initial thoughts... 1. The 20/20 work split seems like it would be tough to juggle responsibilities on each end, but I think it's definitely doable for an entrepreneur. 2. So what I'm gathering is that compensation would be primarily be based on the amount of work you're doing at any time and the quality of that work? 3. Since you're sort of mixing the virtual collaboration with the physical office space, would it be encouraged that the employees come to the office for meetings with clients or for certain times? I'm wondering if more "traditional thinking" companies may be hesitant to do Skype meetings w/ an Agency (or are these simply not the companies you'd be targeting?). Maybe some more questions after a while...

Approve comment
Stuart Foster moderator
Pending approval

Answer to (1). I think an initial space (especially for entrepreneurs that don't have any) would be a great way to make a splash both from a PR and a business angle. Brick and mortar still speaks volumes. I think it will shift to a more virtual model as time goes on but I like the concept of pooled resources and shared space to much not to include it in a first run. (2) Crisis mode dictates certain adjustments. New people can be taken on, people who haven't committed can be kicked from the program/agency, additional workloads=more money.

Approve comment
keithtrivitt moderator
Pending approval

Staurt, this model is incredibly forward-thinking and certainly one in which I know I need to take some time to digest. It seems very innovative and has the potential to produce some tremendous results, as well as get agencies away from the inevitable political battles and malaise that sets in after the lean, more entrepreneurial years are behind it. A couple of things I'm curious abut: (1) Why acquire space from the agency when you say this agency will be made up of 10-15 entrepreneurial types who already have their own businesses running and would be splitting the time between the two? If that is the case, why couldn't you just run a pure virtual agency, and conserve even more resources, thus keeping overhead costs down, which benefits clients, while also getting away from the typical problems of office life (commute, malaise, etc.). 2) With a 20/20 work split that you propose, what happens in a crisis moment or during a time of potentially unforseen heavy workload for the entire agency? Would the partners be expected to drop everything with their other business(es) and tend to the main agency's business, or would some compromise be worked out of who would take care of what and when during a situation like this? Overall, this is definitely a very innovative idea, and I'm very interested to see how it plays out. Keith Trivitt @KeithTrivitt

Approve comment

Trackbacks