Agency Openness

What were to happen if an ad agency let all their design property be available for download from their site so that all those who work on the account will have a consistent identity to work from?

I read an article recently where an ad agency is losing some of HP's account so that HP can consolodate their marketing and advertising. Most likely this is happening because there is no synergy and to have a seamless campaign accross multiple mediums is only a pipe dream.

Would this be a market for others to steal that property?

Would it create a synergy between firms and between co-workers because of the openness?

Would it do anything at all?

I think the industry would progress. Other firms may look at it and think, "That is a great idea, I can apply that over here..." and then comes progression. Not re-inventing the wheel, but building foundation upon foundation of good solid ideas that help streamline our processes and make it all better and more seamless for the client. Better and seamless = more sales = more money for both the client and for the advertising agency.

Two examples:

1. Obama for President campaign.
I had a friend who was an Obamamaniac and with that passion, he accessed Obama's website and was able to plaster his phone, his computer, his blog, etc. with all sorts of Obama-related logo's and propaganda. McCain? He had nothing available for download on his website. Obama marketed a lot better than McCain allowing him to bring out a new generation of Americans out to the polls, both old and young. We now see the results of someone being a marketing rockstar vs. someone being stuck in the "tried-and-true way."

2. Bicycle cranks had long had the square tapered bottom brackets (spindles) that have been around since the beginning of mountain bikes in the late 1970's and even before that on road bikes. The square tapered was not cutting it anymore, as more strength was demanded from lighter parts in the bicycle world. Shimano bike components designed something they tagged as the "OctaLink" for the next generation of bicycle cranks and bottom brackets a few years ago. It was a great and innovative design, it solved the problem of strength and weight and wearing the bottom bracket out. However, they did not allow any other companies to use the design by license or by any other means.

Smaller boutique companies in the biking world took notice and developed their own design, called "ISIS", which was a standard interface between cranks and bottom brackets; meaning you could take a RaceFace crank and pair it up with a Truvativ bottom bracket or vice-versa and with other companies products. Even though it was matching up competitors products, this took off like a wildfire. Anyone could license it and use the technology, creating a big market of strong, but lightweight cranks and bottom brackets. That led to progression. In our day now, we see a form of this ISIS design, but now with integrated bearings into the bike frame, with stronger and lighter cranks than even the OctaLink and ISIS designs. Shimano is a part of this new design now too, their OctaLink being outdated.

So in the end, the mountain bikers won because they got a lighter and stronger crank and bottom bracket. Component companies (including Shimano) won because they were not satisfied with the status quo. And it is my belief that the smaller companies won even more for developing a cooperative design that lead to a really great innovation.