A question I was asked today so I thought I would put a reply on here.
I'm afraid I can't provide a straight reference to a book called Business casing account planning because there isn't one. Planning doesn't guarantee an ROI - but since most clients have no idea what their advertising is doing for them anyway the perspective that planning can bring to a campaign ought to make it great value for money.
If the client wants to go a la carte - then I would start with the simplest option
a) - they should write the ads themselves and hire a designer to art direct/code
They then have all the risk themselves for the lowest cost. Next up
b) is using a creative hotshop and placing the work themselves but buying in creative ideas. Within this they still have to pay for a production team and an account handler
c) Add a planner - who brings strategic skills (though these are also to be found with good account handlers in ad agencies) - in other words deciding how does the work build the brand and how best to use communications to achieve marketing objectives? The planner also brings a consumer perspective with or without research so will argue about the effectiveness of the ad when the account handler shuts up because if the client is happy then the account handler is happy. The final thing the planner brings is the experience of using different media channels - how the media channels are consumed.
d) Add a marketing consultant and you have a whole new layer of cost, lots of presentations and charts but no better work because they aren't creative people. They would still need an agency to execute.
My argument would be that in the scale of things d) is far too expensive. But I don't think b) gives the client enough value for money. The addition of the planner c) brings in 3 new areas without the client spending significantly more budget. If the client doesn't want to pay for a strategically thought out piece of work which is aimed at customers and which understands how to use the media channels to deliver this then perhaps it is time they were using a studio and doing it all themselves.
An option you haven't mentioned is the client claiming they have already paid for planning once through advertising and don't see why they should pay for it again on dm or digital. That's a toughie!
One of the best things about planning is the contribution it can make across the whole span of business from 200K a year accounts to 20 million. This is primarily because thinking about a piece of business and challenging the existing orthodoxy almost always saves money and helps to make money. And because planning skills are well understood and written down - it isn't just a question of calling in a planning guru and asking if they have any ideas. There are tangible contributions which every planner ought to be able to make even without an IPA effectiveness casestudy and an econometrician.
I was interested in Jon Steel's perspective in the interview which I put on the accountplanning.net site last March. He brought planning to Goodby Silverstein but only used it on new business and on newly won accounts. Over time all clients became users of planning. I don't know if he would take this line but if a client refused to have planning on a pitch for the business then perhaps the agency should withdraw. That way clients understand that planning is integral to the agencies product and if you fire the planning function you may as well fire the agency. Agencies using planning in new business win more pitches than those without. But I think you have to be equally strong so that if planning helps to win the business then the client can't turn around and say they're not going to pay for it.
What does everybody else think?