Agency management is a leadership task that is often treated like an administrative one. You write briefs, give feedback, check invoices. All of that is part of it. But whoever really wants to steer agencies must above all achieve one thing: set a clear framework in which other people can do their best work for one’s own brand.
This is more important than it looks, because a large part of what a brand shows to the outside is not created in house. Campaigns, images, films, media plans and digital experiences are often developed together with external partners. The quality of this collaboration therefore directly determines the quality of the brand.
- Agency management is leadership, not administration.
- The brief is the most important steering instrument.
- Feedback needs agreed standards instead of personal taste.
- A few deeply involved partners often have more impact than many specialists.
- The client should also regularly ask for feedback.
Table of contents
What agency management really means
An advertising agency is at its core a service provider that takes on consulting, conception, planning, design and execution of communication. This definition sounds like a clear division of labour: the company orders, the agency delivers. In practice, good collaboration works differently. It resembles a partnership in which both sides bring different strengths.
I know both sides of this partnership. At the agency oddity I worked for dm-drogerie markt and presented concepts directly to the client. There I learned how much the quality of the work depends on what is prepared and decided on the client side. Later, at Breuninger, I sat on the other side, with my own team in house and with responsibility for communication strategy, media planning and agency management. This double perspective still shapes my view of briefs, feedback and approvals today.
For me, steering therefore does not mean controlling every step. It means ensuring three things. First, that the agency understands what the brand is and where it wants to go. Second, that the task is clearly described, including what is not expected. And third, that there is a reliable way to judge work and make decisions.
The most important tool for this is the creative brief. A good brief is not a form, but an intellectual effort. It forces the company to commit before the agency starts working. From my time on the agency side I know that weak results are often due less to the agency than to a brief that leaves too much open.
Good agency management also includes a clear understanding of roles on the company side. When several people give the agency different signals, uncertainty arises. An agency needs a contact who decides, and a line it can rely on. Just as important is that this person is actually allowed to make decisions. When every approval passes through several levels again, the agency loses not only time, but also trust that its counterpart can speak for the brand.
Where agency management fails in practice
The most common mistake is feedback without a standard. When creative work is judged by personal taste, the agency cannot learn what the brand needs. Every round becomes a guessing game. It is more helpful to measure work against criteria agreed beforehand, as I describe in the article on how to evaluate creative work.
A second mistake is the number of partners. Many brands work with several agencies for creative, media, social channels, production and retail. Each on its own may be good. Without clear steering, however, duplicated work, friction and a brand image that frays at the edges arise. Coordinating these partners is a task of its own that needs time and experience.
In fashion the situation is particularly demanding. The pace is high, imagery decides a lot, and the line between brand and product is fluid. An agency here has to understand not only communication, but also collections, seasons and the logic of retail. I think it makes sense to involve agencies early in collection development, so that campaigns are not only created once all important decisions have already been made.
A third mistake is managing the relationship only through projects. Whoever only approaches the agency when a new assignment is due gives away the knowledge it has built up over time. After a few years, good agencies often know the brand better than new employees in house. They remember ideas that were rejected and reasons long forgotten. This memory can be used if you also involve the agency in strategic questions between projects.
What good agency management means for a brand
For the brand, good agency management above all means consistency. When all partners work from a shared understanding, an image emerges that fits together across channels and seasons. That cannot be achieved through guidelines alone, but only through regular exchange.
It also means better work. Agencies achieve the most when they feel trust and are challenged. Whoever gives them room and at the same time formulates clear expectations gets bolder proposals. Whoever restricts every idea immediately gets, over time, only the predictable.
Not least, agency management has an economic side. Clear briefs, few correction loops and unambiguous decisions save money on both sides. Many costs in the collaboration arise not from the actual work, but from lack of clarity. I therefore think it makes sense to look together at the process after larger projects, not only at the result. Where did it get stuck, which alignment was unnecessary, what could have been clarified earlier?
One strategic question always remains open: what should the brand be able to do itself, and what does it buy in? Some companies bring services in house, for example through an in-house agency. That can make sense, but it also changes the role of the external partners. They are then needed more for what is hard to create internally: a fresh perspective and specialist knowledge.
What I would do differently
At the beginning of the collaboration I would talk openly with every agency about how we want to work together. Who decides, how feedback is given, how quickly answers come, how conflicts are handled. These agreements seem banal, but they save a lot of friction. I would put them in writing and check together after a few months whether they have proven themselves.
I would also regularly ask for feedback on my own work as a client. Agencies see very clearly where a company stands in its own way. This view is valuable, but it is rarely sought, because the power imbalance makes open criticism difficult.
And I would choose fewer partners and work with them more deeply. In my experience, a small number of agencies that really know the brand is more valuable than a large network of specialists who each see only a section.
I am unsure about the right length of an agency relationship. Long partnerships create trust and a deep understanding of the brand. But they can also become comfortable, on both sides. A regular, honest look at whether the collaboration still produces something new seems more important to me in agency management than any fixed rule. Sometimes the question of when the agency last surprised us with an idea we had not ordered already helps.