The Business of Fame / A Polemic

Agencieshave no shoes.

The industry sells fame for a living. It has never once bought any for itself — and that’s not an oversight. It’s a confession.

By Ed Tsue
The Business of Fame Desk · ~1,050 words · 5 min read

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are mine alone and never reflect any policy, strategy, or opinion of any client or employer — past, present, or future.)

“The cobbler’s children have no shoes.” — English proverb

Marketers spend millions of dollars hiring agencies to make their brands culturally relevant (or, famous).

Agencies spend millions of dollars in pitches espousing the importance of fame and claiming how they alone have a proprietary, proven, and repeatable way of achieving it.

Yet, there are no famous advertising or media agencies.

I don’t mean industry, Cannes Lions fame. I mean normal people fame.

Like, ever.

Ask your niece if she could name one.

Now, ask your mom. (Maybe Sterling Cooper?)

It’s a tragic paradox.

If agencies believe in the power of fame to drive growth and claim to know how to do it, why don’t they do it for themselves?

Wouldn’t it be the single most important investment of all agencies?

This is different from other professional services. Law firms, consultancies, accountants — none of them claim that fame matters. Agencies do. Constantly.

Thesis #1

Normal people fame doesn’t matter.

Premise —The reason your niece can’t name, doesn’t recognize, and will never name or recognize any agency is because agencies don’t care about your niece. They care about CMOs and CEOs — because that’s who pays the bills.

I don’t know if this makes sense for at least two reasons.

  1. Every CMO and CEO is also a normal person — a mom, a dad, someone who watches trashy reality TV, pumps gas, buys groceries. This is an artificial distinction. It’s arguably the same reason IBM ran “Smarter Planet” ads or Oracle bought stadium rights.
  2. If I had a nickel for every time a CMO killed an idea because he showed his wife and she didn’t like it, I’d be wealthy. That spouse is probably normal.
Thesis #2

Fame requires agencies to have a POV.

Premise —Agencies can’t be famous because it requires a distinct POV that may alienate existing or future clients.

Again, I don’t know if this makes sense for at least two reasons.

  1. POVs don’t have to be polarizing. It’s a spectrum.

    Safe end: IBM’s “Smarter Planet.” Citi’s “Live Richly.” GE’s “Imagination at Work.”

    Middle: Dove’s “Real Beauty.” Chipotle’s “Food with Integrity.” Airbnb’s “Belong Anywhere.”

    Sharp end: Nike’s Colin Kaepernick. REI’s #OptOutside.

    Let’s agree to exclude the sharp end. There are still plenty of safe POVs to be had. Agencies have chosen zero.
  2. If I had a nickel for every time an agency preached the importance of a brand having a clear, compelling, and differentiated POV — to stand out, to be memorable, to govern media spend, or for countless other reasons — I’d be wealthy.
Thesis #3

Clients pay agencies to make them famous, not the other way around.

Premise —The moment an agency spends time, money, or creative energy on its own fame, it’s stealing resources from client work. Every hour spent on the agency’s own brand is an hour the client isn’t getting. The economics of the industry — hourly billing, project fees, retainers — all assume 100% of agency output flows to the client. There is no line item on any SOW for “agency self-promotion.” The math of the business forbids it.

I don’t know if this makes sense for at least two reasons.

  1. The best client work comes from agencies that are famous. Famous agencies attract better talent, get better briefs, and command more creative freedom. Investing in agency fame isn’t at the expense of client fame. It’s what enables it.
  2. If I had a nickel for every deck that recommended clients invest a percentage of revenue in their own brand, I’d be wealthy. Agencies preach this to clients. Agencies spend nothing on themselves. It’s not resource allocation. It’s a double standard.
Three excuses. All plausible. None true.
The Real Reason

We’ve lost faith in fame. We don’t believe it anymore.

The real reason — the one I believe — is uncomfortable.

Systemic, insidious, and tight-roping on Occam’s Razor.

But we forgot to stop selling it.

The cobbler’s children have no shoes.

Not because the cobbler can’t make them.

But because the cobbler stopped believing shoes work at all.

And hasn’t found anything better to sell.

Further Reading

The fame-and-growth canon — Binet, Field, Sharp & Wood · external links open in a new tab
R01Binet & Field — The Long and the Short of ItThe empirical case: fame campaigns show the greatest profit growth.
R02The Key Works of Les Binet & Peter FieldThe godfathers of effectiveness, gathered in one place.
R03Tom Roach — The Greatest Hits of Binet & FieldA readable tour of the fame-drives-growth evidence.
R04Les Binet — Creativity PaysFame and brand-building buy firmer pricing power.
R05Byron Sharp — How Brands GrowFame as mental availability at scale — the science of it.
R06Orlando Wood — LemonHow the industry lost its feel for fame — and its effectiveness.
R07The Long and the Short of It — distilledBinet & Field’s findings, summarized in one page.
NO SHOES · Vol. 01 № 01 · Set in Archivo & Source Serif 4 · © 2026 Ed Tsue