moneyball

I'm going to do something I've never done (and probably against my better judgement I'm going to do it now)...blog about the competition.

The other day Creativity posted their "best of the year" awards. For the 5th time this decade they named MJZ production company of the year. Love them or hate them. Admire them or disapprove of them. Whatever feelings they conjure up, and it's never ambivalence, it is hard to dispute they are undeserving. 

MJZ has assembled the best roster of talent from top to bottom in the entire industry. They have also maintained it for years. It has been accomplished almost primarily through acquisition. In other words, they have wooed directors from the companies where their careers became established. Some in the industry may substitute woo for poached. Personally, I don't believe a human being can be stolen but they can be seduced. And, MJZ is the ultimate seductress. 

It is easy to rationalize it as simply a financial proposition. Of course money is a factor but it can't be the only enticement. If it were why the hell aren't the rest of us doing it? David Zander didn't invent this practice but he has raised it to an art form. 

The transition of MJZ from solid production entity to perennial company of the year is forever linked to the fall of Propaganda. While the rest of the production community watched in awe as the biggest of us fell, Zander siezed this opportunity to make a major play. He made incredibly lucrative offers to three directors, Kuntz & Maguire who were emerging as stars but not quite there, Dante Ariola who was entering his prime as A-List. And, Spike Jonze who rarely works in spots but the association alone was the key to the strategy. It was a risk. And, it paid off.  

It is unquestionably a successful model but is not without its detractors. There are arguments to be made that MJZ's model has thrown off the director pay scale so drastically that the liability companies now incur outweighs the compensation they dole out in profit participation. Without MJZ's looming presence, director deals may have been held better in check. I have heard many of my peers list several reasons why they don't care much for the company. Some probably have legitimacy while others are probably sour grapes. 

I know I will get lots of shit, privately I'm sure, for saying this but I like having MJZ around. It's as if were playing in the same division as the Yankees. They have deeper pockets, want to win at all costs and hold themselves to high creative standards. Their presence raises the bar for the entire industry. Like Billy Beane, Oakland A's General Manager and subject of the Michael Lewis book "Moneyball", we are forced to compete by developing different models that are reflective of our own strengths and assets. Lord knows we can't compete by coping theirs. This is healthy for our industry. They also are the strongest example to clients and agencies that what we do has value. 

I for one don't worry about what MJZ does. I only worry about what Epoch does. Their culture, their philosophy and their tactics are not for everyone. This is why Baskin Robbins makes 31 flavors. I don't want to replicate their model nor would I care to or even begin to know how to. It is not my sensibility but that does not make it wrong. If anything it's something to learn from (good and bad) and utilize that insight to help make Epoch stronger. And, I don't feel that way solely about MJZ, I feel that way towards all our competitors.

As the business evolves quickly and with much uncertainty, it will interesting to see whether the MJZ model can adapt with it. It may not be as dominant. Or maybe more so. Who knows. My guess is it will remain a power player as long as David maintains his interest. Recognizing and landing talent never goes out of style.