IIDigital MarketingGuide
The Agency Brief: What an Agency Needs to Know to Do Good Work
An agency can only work as well as it understands the business. The brief is the document in which that understanding is created, and it is the client’s job.
Key takeaways
- There is a double information asymmetry between business and agency: the agency knows its craft better, the business knows its customers better. The brief closes the second gap.
- A good brief has eight fields: goal in sales numbers, starting point, target customer and problem, core message and evidence, budget and time, framework, in-house responsibility, measurement and sign-off.
- A study of advertising agencies found that clients judge their agency above all by how it behaves in contact, because the result of creative work cannot be checked for a long time (Davies 2009).
- The brief is not only sent but discussed. The agency then summarizes it in its own words, and only then does work begin.
Why good agencies deliver poor work from poor briefs
The assignment reads: “We need a new website, modern and with more inquiries.” After eight weeks the agency delivers a draft that looks modern and puts the wrong services front and center. Three rounds of revisions follow, a postponed launch and an invoice for additional work. In the end both sides are dissatisfied, and neither is entirely wrong.
The cause usually lies before the first draft. This guide therefore answers the question: What does an agency need to know about a business to do good work, and how does the owner get that knowledge into a brief? We first clarify the term and a model that explains why briefs are so often incomplete. Then we look at findings from research on agencies, build the brief field by field and clarify how the meeting runs.
If you do not inform the agency, you pay it to guess.
What is a brief, and what does not belong in it?
A brief is the document in which a client describes what is to be achieved, under what conditions and how success will be measured. The article on choosing an agency names four points that belong on one page even before the first inquiry: goal in sales numbers, starting point, budget and time, in-house responsibility. For working together after the selection, this page is extended. It is then often called a project brief.
What does not belong in it matters. A brief describes the problem and the goal, not the solution. “We need a video” is a solution. “On the phone, prospects do not understand how our system fits into their hall” is a problem, for which a video may be one of several answers. A brief that dictates the solution gives away what you pay the agency for.
This is distinct from the rebrief: the agency’s summary of the brief in its own words. It shows what came across and is the simplest test of whether both sides mean the same thing.
The thinking model: principal and agent with a double information asymmetry
Principal-agent theory describes a relationship in which one person, the principal, delegates a task to another person, the agent. It was elaborated by Jensen and Meckling (1976) and fits any relationship in which someone acts on behalf of another, as the article on principal-agent theory in the business shows. Two assumptions carry it: the two sides do not pursue the same goals, and the agent knows more about their work than the principal. This unevenly distributed knowledge is called information asymmetry.
With agencies there is an additional peculiarity that I call the double information asymmetry. The agency knows more about its craft: design, technology, channels. The business knows more about everything that makes the work effective: which customers buy, why they hesitate, which service brings contribution margin and which only revenue. The theory deals mainly with the first gap and, according to Eisenhardt (1989), recommends two remedies: better information about the agent’s behavior or pay based on results. Only the principal can close the second gap. The brief is the tool for this.
| Who knows more? | About what | Tool that closes the gap |
|---|---|---|
| Agency | Craft, tools, experience from other industries | Nine-question test, reference call, pilot project |
| Agency | Its own effort and way of working | Share of hours, fixed rhythm, understandable reports |
| Business | Customers, reasons to buy, objections | Brief: target customer, problem, evidence |
| Business | Profitability of its services | Brief: goal in sales numbers, priority of services |
| Business | What becomes of the inquiries | Measurement through to the order, feedback from sales |
What research shows about agencies and clients
Davies (2009) studied the relationship between advertising agencies and their clients. The starting point is an observation every owner knows: whether creative work is effective can often only be judged after months in the market. Clients therefore rely on how the agency behaves in contact, not only on what comes out. The author describes the presentation of the brief and of the ideas as the core of this contact and notes that revision loops are common. In his analysis, the quality of interaction, meaning coordination and exchange in conversation, predicted clients’ tolerance of mistakes more strongly than fixed procedures.
Levin, Quach and Thaichon (2019) surveyed companies in Australia and New Zealand that work with advertising or marketing agencies. Creative competence, clean project processes and the project outcome affected relationship quality through perceived value and the personal relationship. Only creativity had a direct effect. For agencies, it follows that keeping to deadlines and budgets carries the relationship, even if it does not inspire on its own.
Most instructive for clients is a case study with account managers of Spanish advertising agencies (Díaz-Méndez and Saren 2019). The authors distinguish four types of clients: low-involved novices, highly involved novices, control-concerned experts and experts concerned with integration. Not every relationship created value. Some fell into a cycle the authors call value depletion: working together cost both sides more than it brought. A novice who shows little involvement risks exactly that.
Source: Díaz-Méndez and Saren (2019); Levin, Quach and Thaichon (2019); Davies (2009)
All three studies have limits. They concern advertising agencies and mostly larger clients, and they rely on surveys or case studies. For a small business, a clear role follows nonetheless: it should act as an involved client who supplies knowledge, not as a passive one who only signs off.
The brief in eight fields
The model shows what belongs in the brief: everything the business knows and the agency cannot know. I arrange it in eight fields. The first four correspond to the page from the article on choosing an agency; the other four are added for the collaboration.
| Field | Guiding question | Example |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Goal in sales numbers | What should change measurably in twelve months? | 20 qualified inquiries a month for hall maintenance |
| 2. Starting point | What comes in today, through which channels, and what becomes of it? | 8 inquiries a month, 5 of them through referrals |
| 3. Target customer and problem | Who buys, and what drives them to inquire? | Operations managers at midsize logistics firms after an outage |
| 4. Core message and evidence | What should customers remember about us, and why do they believe it? | Roof, pillars and foundation from the messaging house |
| 5. Budget and time | What total amount, how many hours from in-house? | Total budget in the first year, 6 hours a month of support |
| 6. Framework | What is given, what is ruled out? | Brand assets, accounts in the company’s name, no prices on the website |
| 7. In-house responsibility | Who supplies, who approves, within what deadline? | The owner approves, within three working days |
| 8. Measurement and sign-off | How do we recognize success, when do we check? | Inquiries per source, checkpoint after 90 days |
Fields 3 and 4 are the most valuable because only the business can fill them. For field 3, the criteria from the article on defining target customers help. For field 4, a finished messaging framework is enough, as described in the article on defining the core message. Anyone who has neither should say so openly. Then clarifying them is the agency’s first work step and belongs in the proposal.
How long and how detailed? Two views
The first view calls for a detailed brief. The more the agency knows, the less it has to guess and the fewer revision rounds there are. According to the model this is consistent: every piece of information the business holds back widens the gap that the agency fills with assumptions.
The second view warns against the overloaded brief. Twenty pages with company history, organization chart and every wish of every department blur what has priority. Overly tight specifications take away the agency’s room for better ideas, and the very creativity that, according to Levin and colleagues, directly carries the relationship is curtailed.
I consider one distinction sound: precise on the goal and the customer, open on the path. The eight fields fit on two pages. Anything beyond that goes into an appendix. And every field has a priority: if only one service can be at the center, the brief says which.
Worked example with freely chosen numbers, not a measurement. It shows the direction that follows from the model: every gap in the brief is paid for later as a revision.
The briefing meeting: five steps
A brief that is only sent remains a text. Only in conversation does it become clear what is ambiguous. The following flow fits into two hours.
Send in advance
The brief goes to the agency three days before the meeting, with a request to prepare questions.
Walk through rather than read out
In the meeting the owner goes through it field by field and names the priority for each. The agency asks questions.
Name the gaps
Whatever nobody can answer is noted as an open question, with an owner and a deadline.
Rebrief
Within a week the agency summarizes in writing what it has understood and how it intends to proceed.
Approval
The business approves or corrects the rebrief. Only then does work on the draft begin.
The rebrief is the most important step. If it deviates from the brief, that is not the agency’s fault but a sign of where the brief was unclear. Clarifying these deviations now costs an hour. Clarifying them after the first draft costs a revision round.
What can be generalized
The brief is an example of a general rule of collaboration: whoever delegates responsibility must hand over the knowledge needed for good decisions. Control alone does not close the gap, because it only starts once the work is done. Information starts beforehand. This applies to agencies as much as to employees, tax advisors or IT service providers. The business that discloses its customers, goals and numbers gets partners who can work in its interest. How success is then measured is described in the article on measuring marketing success.
The limits lie in the evidence. The studies concern advertising agencies and are based on surveys and case studies; the revision rounds in the worked example are an assessment. The model is robust: only the client can close the gap in knowledge about customers.
Conclusion and what you can do this week
The guiding question was what an agency needs to know about a business and how the owner gets that knowledge into the brief. It needs to know what should change in sales numbers, where the business stands today, who buys and why, what customers should remember about the business, which budget and which specifications apply, who is responsible in-house and how success will be measured. In eight fields on two pages, discussed rather than sent and confirmed by the agency in its own words, this becomes a brief with which a good agency can do good work. It may choose the path, not the goal.
- Fill in the eight fields on two pages and name the priority for each field.
- Attach three real inquiries without customer names.
- Honestly mark open fields as open.
- Schedule the briefing meeting and agree on a written rebrief.
- Set approval deadlines and the person who approves.
Frequently asked questions
What belongs in an agency brief?
A brief contains the goal in sales numbers, the starting point, target customer and problem, core message and evidence, budget and time, the framework with specifications, in-house responsibilities, and measurement and sign-off. It describes the problem and the goal, not the solution.
How long should a brief be?
The essential details fit on two pages. Extensive material such as statistics or past campaigns goes into an appendix. More important than length is that every field makes clear what has priority.
What is a rebrief?
A rebrief is the agency’s written summary of the brief in its own words, usually with a first proposal on how to proceed. It shows what came across and uncovers misunderstandings before the actual work begins.
Who writes the brief, client or agency?
The client writes the brief, because only the client knows the goals, customers and profitability of its services. The agency can help with questions and templates. If the business lacks a part, such as a clear core message, clarifying it becomes a separate work step.
Why are there so many revision loops with agencies?
Often because the brief had gaps and the agency filled them with assumptions. A meeting about the brief and a written rebrief before the first draft reduce the number of revision rounds.
Sources
- Davies, M. (2009): Service quality tolerance in creative business service relationships. The Service Industries Journal, 29(1), 91-110.
- Levin, E.; Quach, T. N.; Thaichon, P. (2019): Enhancing client-agency relationship quality in the advertising industry: an application of project management. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 34(2), 463-473.
- Díaz-Méndez, M.; Saren, M. (2019): Managing advertising agency client partnerships for value co-creation: Characteristics, categories, and challenges. Marketing Theory, 19(1), 9-26.
- Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989): Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 57-74.
- Jensen, M. C.; Meckling, W. H. (1976): Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305-360.
