And with a robust problem comes the ability for an agency to affect real change and properly partner with a client.

There is something simple but compelling about positioning oneself as a "problem solver" as opposed to the "agency planner". With it comes the pitfalls of client over-reliance, but it's worth it for the work and a better brief.

should agencies not be more proactive and doing more proper solution soving without a brief? Instead of scam ads, why not grab a problem (there a plenty, just read the papers) and do something about it...

Hanibal said :either we find a way or we make one"

We either we get a juicy problem or we make one could apply for agencies.

Off course the biggest problem would be the agenvy revenue model that relies on hours billed

just some thoughts

That would imply a thorough business education and and an understanding of why people make the decisions they make on the part of the modern marketing department...

But that might just be too much to ask when they're too busy playing one man agency using fancy brainstorm techniques, overly elaborate equity statements, emotional involvement briefings and other such nonsense.

Two schools I encounter quite a lot lately:

Marketing managers that are playing the 'creative and emotional' cards internally to hide the fact that they don't have a clue of what is happening in the market and why the figures don't go their way. So they generally leave out all the hard data and so any idea of the business problem at hand will be hard to find.

Marketing managers that are acting like sales directors, generally formulating a business problem which is not necessarily rooted in an understanding of the market. They'll give you all the hard data and tell you it's your job bring the figures up, without specification and often withholding information which would help you make more sense of the data.

In both cases the solution is to go higher up the food chain, to dig for people who do care about long term business success. Which is probably why we generally make better work for smaller clients, where you get to talk to those who care about a business problem because they're personally involved. And not just until the next evaluation or bonus deadline.

At our design firm, we call ourselves not "problem solvers" but "problem makers." It's a reaction to exactly what Richard and Yves wrote above: clients who regularly lack the perception and desire to properly isolate and frame the problem for their creative partners. Someone has to pick up the slack or else everyone suffers through months of off-the-mark development.

Tired of this needless suffering, we no longer let our clients frame the problem. Instead, we've developed workshop's (we invite clients into) specifically tailored to defining a worthy challenge.

Another great post and lots to think about Richard. I agree that the best briefs are those that have at their core a business objective. I have alway maintained that a great cleint brief has the following:

1) Business objective
2) Marketing objective
3) Brand objective

leaving the role of communications clear to be filled in by the respective value-add partners (agencies).

My experience over time has led me to believe this is imperative.

In order to create that situation where the brief is written with a full understanding of how an agency can deliver value is one where the client has a clear understanding of the value that the agency can play through a deep trust in the individuals who caretake/curate the brand over time for them. This again is where planning has a huge role to play.

Writing PPT decks is one thing - and there is too much emphasis being placed on junior planners in every agency in London. The key of course is simply to cultivate planners that are able to command respect with a client about how to respond to their inherent needs rather than their wants.

Sadly there are very few individuals operating in agencies that have the intelligence to know the difference between a marketing and a business objective, gravitas to deploy the right insight at the right time, knowledge to know how to respond to a brief and when to question it and the confidence to pursue a strategy that is right despite the lack of evidence to support it.

So - in short - those agencies that find themselves trying to solve a bigger problem than the brief asked of them probably have a planning head who has very few of the skills I have outlined. Sorry but that's the way it is folks.

I really enjoyed this.

The issues Mark addresses also apply to the client side. In many instances, the marketing department, while controlling an often substantial budget, rarely commands respect at the boardroom table. That is not necessarily a reflection on the marketers, but on an industry-wide reluctance to latch onto and own the resolution of business objectives.

Clearly a strong, strategic partnership between agencies and client-side marketing departments could help address this. But it needs to be a real partnership. Trust, transparency, maybe even skin-in-the-game. And that scares the hell out of most people. Me included. But it is where we need to go.

Can't agree more. We need problems. We need restrictions.
Here is what I think an excellent solution to maybe 3 problems:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zXU9Ur9QznE

Will.

Just wanted to say, I really enjoy reading this blog. It's always thoughtful and well written.

And I whole-heartedly agree with this post.

At the research end, fluffy objectives are evident in discussions on sample.

We’re often asked to help define the sample. Isn’t that odd?! How can a client not know EXACTLY who it is they need to talk to? How can they leave this to the research company?

I’m not sure of whether this reflects a lack of understanding about business or about research. Either way, needless to say, defining the right sample – a fundamental part of pragmatic qualitative research – starts with well-defined business objectives.

Katie

Amen.