Why the Discussion About Marketing Agency Models Often Falls Short

Hardly any topic is currently keeping marketing departments and agencies as busy as the question of the “right” agency model. Integrated or customized – unity or individuality – which construct leads to better results? The industry debates passionately, but this is exactly where the problem lies: the discussion falls short.

Because no model is inherently the better approach. The current heated debate in Germany was triggered by a major pitch in which Telefónica/O₂ decided to move away from a much-praised customized model and switch to an integrated one. Since then, the industry has been polarized: some emphasize the complexity and inefficiency of highly customized setups, while others point to the challenges of integrated models, where different corporate cultures, unclear responsibilities, and the tension between central control and local flexibility often prevent the expected efficiency gains.

The central truth is as simple as it is uncomfortable: the agency model must reflect the organization’s strategy and clearly contribute to its goals. It’s not about integrated or customized per se, but about which model best fits the company’s culture, structures, and ambitions. Moreover, there are other agency models, such as the Best-in-Class Roster model or the classic Lead Agency model. All models come with advantages and disadvantages, with strengths and weaknesses in flexibility, management, governance, collaboration, partner commitment, transparency, integration, speed, specialization, creativity, and leadership.

The Tensions That Drive Decision-Makers

• Complexity vs. Simplicity: More agencies mean diversity and expertise – but also cumbersome coordination. Fewer partners bring clarity but often at the cost of options and specialization.
• Strategy vs. Reality: On paper, models sound elegant. In practice, they fail due to unclear roles, endless alignment loops, or political wrangling.
• Governance vs. Chaos: In the end, governance decides. Even the best models lose their effectiveness if there is no well-thought-out framework for steering, responsibilities, and decision-making processes – or if such a framework is defined but not lived.

Emotions That Are Tangible

Behind these tensions lies more than pure organizational logic. There is frustration when ambitious constructs fail in day-to-day business. But also the longing for clarity – and the hope that the right model will finally bring efficiency, creativity, consistency in brand management, and impact into alignment.

Governance as the Decisive Lever

The crucial insight is this: it’s not the model itself that makes the difference, but the governance that underpins it. Governance defines processes, roles, and decision-making paths for all parties involved – agency partners and the company – and it must reflect the organization’s culture and align with its goals. Centralized or decentralized, strictly regulated or flexible: any model can work if governance is consistently conceived, established, and enforced. Without it, uncertainty, inefficiency, and ultimately failure loom – regardless of whether the model is integrated or customized.

Conclusion:

Anyone who reduces the debate to “integrated or customized” misses the point. What matters is not the label, but the fit with the strategy – and governance that supports the model. Only then can agency models unfold their full potential and contribute to the organization’s goals.

This article was first published in Werben & Verkaufen, Germany.