Case Study — Brightline Agency

Module 4, Unit 1 | Marketing case study

By the end of this case, you will be able to:

• Identify the real business problem beneath competing stakeholder priorities
• Map the current workflow and mark where an AI or automation proposal might responsibly intervene
• Analyse likely human impact, including who may benefit, who may be negatively affected and who needs to be consulted
• Prepare a proposal, workflow diagram and leadership presentation without building a working technical solution

Scenario snapshot. A 64-person Manchester marketing agency. The CEO has publicly promised 20% productivity by year-end. AI is positioned as 'the answer.' Is it?

Back to the five scenarios

Your Brief

You have been asked to advise leadership on whether and how AI or automation should be used in this organisation. Your recommendation should be specific enough to act on, but restrained enough to be credible.

You are not expected to build a working solution. Use the case to prepare a one-page Opportunity Brief, a workflow diagram or process map, and a 7–10 minute presentation followed by approximately 10 minutes of Q&A.

Organisation Snapshot

Brightline is an independent integrated marketing agency based in Manchester with 64 staff and annual revenue of £6.2m. It serves around 30 clients across retail, SaaS, and professional services. The agency is structured into three departments: Strategy (account management and planning, 18 staff), Creative (design, copy, video, 24 staff), and Performance (paid media, SEO, analytics, 22 staff). The CEO is a former planner who sold a previous agency in 2019.

Business Context

The agency has historically punched above its weight on creative awards but is now losing fee revenue to clients in-housing parts of their marketing function and to cheaper offshore competitors for production work. The CEO has publicly committed to the board that Brightline will deliver a 20% productivity gain by year-end — measured as billable output per head — to protect margin. Three senior account directors privately think the target is undeliverable without compromising quality. AI has been positioned by the CEO as 'the answer.'

Process A — Monthly client reporting

The Performance team produces a monthly performance report for each client. This involves pulling data from a long tail of platforms: Meta Ads, Google Ads, GA4, Klaviyo, HubSpot, LinkedIn Ads, TikTok Ads, Shopify, plus around six client-specific platforms across the book. Analysts manually consolidate the data into PowerPoint decks with commentary.

Pain points

• Average effort per client per month: 6 hours. Across 14 reporting clients, that's 84 hours/month spent on assembly rather than analysis.
• Reports often arrive late, eating into the strategic conversation with the client.
• Analysts complain they spend more time copy-pasting than thinking.
• Quality varies between analysts — one client recently caught a £4,200 spend reporting error.

Process B — Creative briefing → asset production

Account managers brief the Creative team on new asset requests (banners, social posts, video edits, landing pages). Briefs are submitted variously through Slack, email, Asana, or in person. Creatives request clarifications, sometimes 3 or 4 rounds, before producing. Once a draft exists, an approval workflow runs in one of three tools depending on the client (Frame.io for video, ReviewBoard for static, or email for some legacy accounts).

Pain points

• Average cycle time from brief to approved asset: 9 working days. CEO target: 4.
• Creative team estimates 30–40% of their time is spent waiting for clarifications or approvals.
• Account managers blame creatives for being slow; creatives blame account managers for vague briefs.
• Three different approval tools mean version control breaks regularly.

Voices Around the Table

These voices are evidence. They do not all agree, and that disagreement is part of the case.

CEO (lead sponsor): "I have committed to 20% productivity by December. I do not care what tool gets us there, but I need the board to see numbers."

Head of Creative: "If we are not AI-first by Q3 we are dead. Every other agency is moving and we are debating."

Head of Performance: "Honestly? Fix our data plumbing before you touch the production layer. We are producing fast and reporting slow."

Senior Account Director: "Three of my clients have explicit clauses against AI use. If we get this wrong, we lose accounts, not just hours."

Junior Designer: "I am excited about AI but also nobody has told me whether my job exists in two years. That makes me weird about it."

Client Lead at ethical skincare brand (external): "Our customers trust us specifically because we don't fake imagery. If you ever use AI on our campaigns, the contract is void."

Proposals Already on the Table

Before your team was brought in, others in the organisation had already proposed ideas. Some may be useful. Some may be distractions. Evaluate them without getting captured by the loudest pitch.

Practical Realities You Should Know

Each client uses a different combination of ad platforms in different configurations. Naming conventions for campaigns are inconsistent — Brightline's internal taxonomy is something like 'MAY26-RETARGET-PROSPECT-LOOKALIKE-V2' but around half the clients use their own conventions and have declined to change them. Some clients give Brightline read-only API access to their accounts; others share nothing and email screenshots monthly. The Performance team has not yet done a full audit of which clients sit where.

Constraints

• Year 1 budget for AI and automation tooling: £40,000
• UK GDPR compliance for any staff or client data processing
• Some clients have explicit contractual prohibitions on AI use
• CEO requires visible ROI within 6 months
• No appetite for sustained productivity dips during transition
• Staff anxieties about job security have already produced some quiet resignations

Your Team Task

• Define the real business problem in measurable terms.
• Map the current workflow and mark where your proposal would intervene.
• Decide whether AI or automation is viable, and whether a lower-tech process change should come first.
• Explain likely human impact: who benefits, who may be negatively affected, and what support or consultation is needed.
• Name the risks, data limits, ethical concerns and governance requirements.
• Prepare your one-page brief, workflow diagram and 7–10 minute presentation.

Remember: This is a proposal exercise. You do not need to build a chatbot, workflow automation, dashboard, wireframe or prototype. A clear workflow diagram is enough if it helps the leadership panel understand your recommendation.

KSB evidence focus

• K22: Collaborative working principles to explore AI and automation solutions and implement prototypes, pilots or proof of concepts.
• S22: Present and communicate information including the translation of technical concepts into accessible materials to support clear dialogue with stakeholders.
• S23: Work with others to achieve agreed outcomes or outputs. Provide evidence-based analysis and insight to leaders on the likely human impacts of automation projects.
• S3: Undertake analysis to identify if automation is viable.
• S6: Review and complete workflow and process mapping.