Ad men seen as Laborers rather than Architects

Over at AdAge there's an article by A. Louis Rubin worth a gander: "Why Ad Agencies Are Viewed as Laborers Rather Than Architects"

J.P. Donlon, editor in chief of Directorship, a monthly publication on corporate governance, notes that the "reason why there are few communications professionals on boards per se is that only a handful understand that communications is an amplification of business strategy -- not something separate or apart from it. Certainly CEOs need to understand this as well.”
The bottom line is that few communications professionals are invited into the inner sanctorum of marketers' strategy and planning sessions on the executive committee level.
How did this happen?

I agree with the beginning of the article and how we got here. End clients are dictating costs right down to ad agency salaries in some cases, advertising and marketing is seen as an expense not an investment. A. Louis Rubin then goes on a rant about strategy - the cornerstone of any great advertising as we all know, but Mr. Rubin seems to be under the impression that it no longer exists.
Is this really the case? I don't think so.
Our problem lies in how we charge for "time" rather than the impact of the idea we sell. We've always sold ideas, but we've been charging comission on mediabuy, hours behind computers and in meetings, and never for what we really bring to the table. The big idea. The big idea is worth everything and technically worthless as that is the thing we never seem to sell.