As a business owner, one of the questions I have kept coming back to over the last 18 years is: How much do you want to grow? Most people just assume that bigger is better and the more people you have on staff, the more jobs you can handle; thus further diversifying your overall capabilities. Also, people assume that if you’re bigger, the optics suggest you’re a bigger player or better than the little guys. Ok – I can understand that line of thinking. If I was an e-commerce retailer, or a law firm, the number of boots on the ground indicate legitimacy. As a young owner, this was my dream. But most of that was driven by my 30-something ego. Hopefully after 18 years of creative management at Watts I’ve learned some things – and I’m happy to report that I have; or at least things have been verified for me as it relates to the pros and cons of staff growth.
In 2011, Watts more than doubled our staff from 8 people to 20. Bolstered by a 3-year retainer from a large client; the predictability of the revenue seemed to take the apprehension out of the staff increase. I’ve always been a hands-on Creative type, working on nearly every project that came through our doors. If I wasn’t concepting, I was editing, directing or doing whatever the project needed from me. When we first started, I did nearly all of the hands-on production (‘cause there was nobody else to do it, dammit!). The constant integration was normal, keeping me fresh and inspired. I don’t love deadlines, but they definitely keep your head in the game. As we grew, I found myself being pulled further away from the actual creative projects, and was subsequently more consumed with inter-office squabbles, logistical challenges and personal issues of the employees. Why is this a problem, you ask? Well, that’s a twofold answer.
The biggest benefit I see in being a ‘boutique’ sized creative agency is the attention to detail a smaller team can provide. The old post-house model from the 90’s was a conveyor belt of content creation. Projects would come in and be executed via the specific direction of an Ad Exec (or whomever). Ad Exec’s sat on a comfy couch, read emails and were treated like royalty with nice lunches and unlimited snacks. What lacked was the collaborative aspect between client and creative team. Rather, this method was just a one-way communication between exec and editor. For Watts, as we grew and brought on more ad-hoc specialists (the 3D guy, the Motion Only guy etc.), this siloed dynamic seemed to creep back into the picture. As you get larger, more and more things start slipping through the cracks. Creative Director is responsible for the integrity of the original idea, but if the CD is stretched too thin across multiple projects, the quality control elements become compromised. Worst case is clients don’t feel taken care of, and their feedback gets “telephoned” through too many different people. Obviously, some bigger creative agencies do a great job of juggling all of the craziness – and they have waves of people they can throw at any job. Nurturing an idea from inception to delivery is extremely delicate and nuanced, so does it really benefit from having more bodies thrown at it?
My opinion is NO. Too many cooks might be good at the Cheesecake Factory, but too many people on a creative project often leads to inertia. A few years back there was a project I partnered on with a fairly large agency. I brought the project to the agency with good intentions. The sheer size of that agency precipitated 4 different account managers in the first 4 months of the project, clearly showing the client that they were not a priority. Plus, the need to ramp up 4 different people on 4 separate occasions caused lots of frustration.
One the of the big benefits of being a high functioning, smaller team is that our clients have unfettered access to the creative decision makers, not a slew of messengers. This helps us get through projects faster, with better understanding and less mistakes mainly due to the streamlined communication.
In my opinion, effective and smart creative production is not a mass-producible endeavor. My studio sees each video as a carefully crafted piece of art - which solves business challenges via a myriad of production techniques. I liken it to the ‘white-glove’ analogy; and many clients, I’ve found enjoy the process - because it’s more collaborative, there are less dynamics to manage and feedback is addressed immediately. And to top it off, handled by experienced people who has been mentally invested since the kickoff meeting.
So, in summary, is smaller better? Certainly, for more discerning clients and especially for folks who are fairly new to video production – because if they are creatively invested, they will learn a TON via the tighter, personal approach. And no, this isn’t just an ‘ad’ for Watts – but I think it surmises what I believe to be our competitive edge in the marketplace.
Thanks for reading,
Andy
P.S. - if you want to reach out to us, just send an email to hello@wearewatts.com. Or if you’re curious to see our work, you can view it through our homepage.