Forrester Research fouled the digital marketing realm yesterday with its report, "The Forrester Wave: Interactive Marketing Agencies." I suppose it's in Forrester's business model to create this kind of analysis, but the end result isn't any more useful than Slide.com's Top Friends Facebook app. After reading the ad trades' reactions, I feel like I'm back in junior high school.

AdAge tries to be diplomatic: "To Lead Overall Brand Strategy, Digital Shops Have Much to Do"

Adweek (surprise!) goes negative: "Forrester: Web Shops Not Ready to Lead"

Granted, we are at year's end. So a listing of which digital shops are or aren't "ready" to lead client brands on overall strategy probably seems natural. Right alongside "Which Traditional Agencies Still Haven't Got A Clue About Digital" or "Which Marketers Continue To Blame Agencies Both Traditional And Digital For Their Own Cluelessness In Marketing." (Can't wait for those reports and lists, Forrester.)

I'll admit I haven't read the full report. I don't have $795.00 to spare. (Anyone else have it and want to send it my way?) So I'm curious about how the agencies were, "evaluated on 52 criteria that included agency tools, techniques, strategic capabilities, planning process, measurement and emerging channel experience and expertise," according to AdAge. Wouldn't it be useful, perhaps even audacious for Forrester to post those 52 criteria on a public wiki, perhaps even allow commenting? And will those same criteria be used to measure the same agencies again in 12 months? You know, like in a real analytical inquiry?

Adweek quotes Brian Haven, senior analyst at Forrester Research and author of the report, "The interactive agencies are in a position where all their staff is focused on executing on digital," he said. "They need people who understand that broader relationship between online and offline media."

Those are broad statements, Mr. Haven. And they're absolutely untrue.

When I interviewed for a job at Digitas/Boston two years ago, their primary interest was my ability in traditional advertising. I've got acquaintances at AvenueA/Razorfish with 15+ years experience in TV and print and many good friends at OgilvyOne/Interactive with killer TV and print books. These "digital" agencies have strong, experienced talent in traditional realms. Are they 100% focused on executing digital? Of course not.

And to suggest digital agencies today, right now, lack, "people who understand that broader relationship between online and offline media," is patently false. I can't wait to see the analytics, the footnotes and the proof in Forrester's report that pretends to back up this claim. Have you not met Jan Leth? Or David Kenny? Or read any of David Armano's insights?

Adweek quotes Mr Haven again, "interactive agencies have not yet proven they have the capability to manage brand strategy." You read that, and you might think R/GA was absent from the room when the whole Nike+ project was developed.

On the positive side, notes AdAge, "the report suggests interactive agencies are better positioned to take over brand strategy than traditional agencies because of the data and insight they are able to cull from interactive channels and because consumer behavior is shifting toward such channels."

And there's no reason why traditional shops can't acquire that experience, too. Or even marketers.

I'm curious what use or good can come from a report like this.

- - - - - - - - - -

UPDATE:  David Armano's written an insightful and compelling manifesto in response to Forrester's report over on the Critical Mass "Experience Matters" blog. Definitely worth your time to read and share!

ANOTHER UPDATE:  As expected, Forrester has no mercy for traditional agencies either. (Link to the abstract of their full report.)