Its not about being lazy...

Just to clarify for those keeping track, this blog was never intended to condone apathy or laziness. The point is that by taking a second to think through the best way to accomplish something, you may just find that you save yourself time and energy and become a more productive marketer in the process.

Hurry Up and Wait!!! Why Hurry?

When I first started working in advertising, I like so many other youngsters full of "piss and vinegar" would readily commit myself to evening chores that would come up in the hours before closing time as a gesture of my commitment to the cause and ambition in the workplace. As I got older and my involvements with clients increased in accordance with my experience, I would readily commit my teams to a similar fate. I was no longer the one always staying late, but I was essentially endorsing the behavior by agreeing to overnight deadlines. The more experience I gained, the more I realized agencies were constantly overcommitting themselves to deliver beyond "in a timely fashion." And it wasn't just little overnight projects, it was presentations of critical scale and importance that were being rushed. In fact, pretty much everything being sent over to clients had a rush order on it. But how often were deadlines met without warrant? How often was a quick turnaround met with a lengthy pause in terms of approvals or even feedback? How often was the quality of thought sacrificed for the urgency of a response?

My sense is that more than just a few of you agency folks out there can relate to the frustrations caused by "hurry up and wait" relationships with your clients. While I empathize, I think the agencies are as much to blame for the quandary as their clients. If you allow yourself to be treated as a vendor (i.e. "Yes Man"), not a partner - that's exactly how you should expect you and your teams to be treated. And this is exactly what you become when you rush to respond. "Yes sir may I have another" is not a behavior consistent with self-respecting individuals, nor agencies...so why let it happen in the first place?

Now I'll accept there is an agency/client dynamic that inherently requires an agency's commitment to their client's fullest satisfaction...it's a "client service business" and to ignore this would be agency suicide. However, I raise the issue, "is turning around a deliverable on an unrealistic and/or unnecessary timeline client service or client/agency dis-service?" I think there are a couple of things that suggest the latter...consider the potential bi-products:

1) You burn through and/or burn out employees
2) You condition your agency/organization to act, not to think

The former cannot be afforded if our industry is ever to be taken credibly among the masses. There is already a dearth of premium talent in the advertising world. It is a cynical and often thankless industry that to this day finds its credibility undermined by the many misunderstandings derivative from misrepresentation in urban legend and in Hollywood (these portrayals are nowhere close to accurate). Its hard enough to entice premium talent to take a serious look at advertising as a career (low pay at entry-level, zero loyalty, "cut-throat" reputation). Even worse, as an industry we have done a horrible job at nurturing and cultivating the talent we do manage to attract.

Many would counter that I'm being too sensitive, that late nights and exercises in seeming futility are simply part of the "weeding out" process that serve as a rite of passage in reaching advanced levels within the industry. That "we've all done it" so why should younger generation's experiences be any different. I challenge this position, in fact, I throw it out as absurd. "Because its been done" is NEVER a suitable grounds for continuing to do something. Too many variables in our world change over time.

Now consider the client perspective. Yes, its good to get what you want when you need it. You count on your agency to arm you with intelligence to make smart decisions and defend them. Further to this end, given the speed of business in today's world you count on your agency to do so fast. But how fast is too fast? Are most clients really getting what they need from their agencies? According to a February industry survey released by Forrester Research, not so much..."ad agencies are failing miserably to deliver what clients want." A major reason cited, agencies are not providing the level of strategic (thinking) insight, clients need. So is there a connection between "hurry up and wait" and client dissatisfaction with their agencies? I think so...

I think every time thought becomes an expense of response time (and this is all to often the case), agencies do their client a disservice. One one hand, quick responses are commonly ineffective because the appropriate time has not placed on interpreting a request - this for the most basic of deliverables. Agencies get back to clients without thinking something through and/or thinking of how the client might use the information provided and before you know it, you've spent more time doing 2-3 versions of something when all it would have taken was a moment to pause and consider (or ask) what exactly the client needed.

On a larger scale, consider exactly this, "what are clients REALLY looking for"...they are fighting for a seat at the table within their own organizations (see today's adage article "Why There's an Ad-Chief Exodus in the Auto Biz"). They want thinking that helps them look smarter, that demonstrates an understanding of their business (not just their marketing). But isn't this often, exactly what is sacrificed in turning around a project too abruptly? I wonder how many clients would be willing to sacrifice a faster turnaround time for better thinking from their agency? Ideally the word "sacrifice" would not be part of the equation, but is that always a reality? What if you had to choose?

Clearly, I've taken some liberties in making my point. Different scenarios are likely require different approaches and the weighting of variables of importance are likely to change in accordance (sometimes you just need an answer quickly). But, I do so to challenge conventions that I feel haunt agency hallways. Too often we find ourselves rushing to come up with an answer right away, whether it be the right answer or not. Too often we are quick to come back with an idea when more time might lend greater insight. I'll stick to my earlier comment, if thought becomes an expense of response time, an agency is doing their client a disservice.

So the next time (it might even be later today) a deadline is determined and pressure to deliver fast begins to mount, consider what value you are providing to your client and what you may be giving up by providing a quick answer?

Never Let a Girl Know How Much You Like Her

I was fascinated recently to see an adage article referencing Cramer-Krasselt's success in the wake of telling CareerBuilder.com to stick it. This after the client had effectively told the agency they were putting the account in review because their Superbowl ad didn't rank high enough in the annual USA Today ad poll. We could spend all day on the this latter point, but I think the clients position speaks for itself. All I will say on this is that the CareerBuilder.com action is sadly telling of the degree of respect most clients (not all) appear to have for their agencies.

What I rather choose to do with my time today is celebrate my top 3 personal favorite moments in which agencies had the cojones to end a relationship in which they were treated as a commodity offering and give a quick shout-out to those clients (i.e. Porshe) that referenced said agencies' cojones as a reason they might (and in Porshe's case did) award an agency a piece of business.

"Hooray" to Peter Krivkovich for putting CareerBuilder.com on notice...and with such conviction, "There are a few times in your life when you have to tell someone to f*ck off and mean it!"

"Hooray" to Pat Fallon for telling BMW to beat it after the client put the North America account into review. This, after the agency work over the previous decade had established the auto manufacturer as the literal manifestation of its tag-line, "the ultimate driving machine."

And lastly, "hooray" to GSD&M co-founder Roy Spence for his most-memorable and eloquent spin on telling someone to "go f*ck themselves." ---“I want to thank Wal-Mart for inviting us to re-pitch the business. I have decided to decline. We helped build Wal-Mart from $11 billion in sales to $312 billion. We declare victory."

Honorable Mentions: Crispin-Porter (Gateway), Goodby-Silverstein (Subway)

You never win a girl's heart by telling her how much you like her nor by bending over backwards to become her puppet. You may win her attention and even keep her around for a little while, but ultimately you lose her respect and you lose your dignity.

Whereas there's always going to be another agency that is willing to sell their soul for a monthly retainer, there's something to be said for those willing to maintain their dignity, even if it means losing a piece of business.

Too Stubborn, Too Self-Indulgent

My blog has been out of commission for a little bit simply because I refused to give in to the terms and conditions set forth by Google. The hostage situation is over, my blog has returned. Stubborness may eventually lead to my undoing. For now, we move forward with a smile.

In my time off, I looked back to review some of my initial postings and realized I may not be communicating in the fewest amount of words...such hypocracy!

...so, my intention moving forward is to take my own advice, less (words) is going to be more and I'll also do my best to keep things as colloquial as I can.

Readers, please keep me in check as you see fit!

Paralysis by Analysis: The Fatal Flaws of Reliance on Data

Alas, the need to quantify marketing efforts has become a mandate that today exists at most major corporations. CMO teams are consistently measured on their ability to move a brand metric needle or in some cases bottom line. There have been countless articles that have addressed the varying measurement practices, so I won't go too far down this path as it deserves its own blog, but I will raise the reality, that the quantification of marketing efforts has become a norm that drives a fair majority of marketing and advertising decisions; and that we live largely in a "cover-your-ass" world as a result.


Here are 3 reasons why this is a bad thing:


#1 The extinction of going with your gut. When I was younger, I cheered for the Philadelphia 76ers and Larry Bird used to kill my team, thus, forever earning a place on my shit list. As I used to watch Bird light up the scoreboard everytime the Celtics and 76ers played, what I remember hearing about the most was his "feel" for the game, his "court sense" and why these things made him such a good player. Of course these references drove me crazy, but they were fairly accurate. He wasn't the fastest guy on the court, he could hardly jump, but he had such amazing vision and sense of how players would react to his action, that he became one of the greatest players of all time.



Switching gears ever so slightly, when I worked at Hal Riney, I would hear countless stories of Hal breaking the spirit of young creatives by conveying his opinions of their work in a a less than polite manner, but equal to the number of these stories were those that spoke of his natural insight and the ability to act upon it. How Hal could sell a campaign to Ernest Gallo over the course of a cigar session by articulating a feeling he had and how best to bring it to life. These were just stories, but the idea that strong instincts and the ability to go with a feeling and succeed were themes I found truly compelling.



I don't believe its a coincidence that two individuals from such different disciplines were able to rise to the pinnacle of their professions by commonly employing instincts and intuition, nor do I believe these are the only reasons why these individuals succeeded (Larry Bird could shoot the lights out). What I do suggest is that instincts and intuition can be valuable tools, especially as they are honed through experiences to provide a degree of expertise.



What concerns me in this day and age, is that without a series of data supports an idea derived from good judgement, insight and expertise can be quickly dismissed. As individuals look to protect themselves in cya fashion, they increasingly look to the numbers for the defense of their decisions. "What does tracking tell us?", "Where are sales numbers this week?", "How does the campaign compare to norms?" These questions are common in practices that rely too heavily on numbers as rationale for decisions, practices that are widespread and in my opinion quickly undermining the value provided by a gut feeling. Honestly, if numbers really told us everything we needed to know, wouldn't more campaigns be succeeding? Would we be seeing the third Sprint campaign in less than a year? Wouldn't Ford and GM's sales woes be on the mend? In all seriousness, numbers can be helpful guides, but they are not the end all be all.




Which brings me to reason #2, numbers can contradict common sense- There is a great quote that I ran across sometime back that states the mathematician's blunder: "if you tell a mathematician that 3 people are in a room and 5 happen to walk out of that same room, a mathematician will tell you 2 people have to go back in the room for it to be empty." To me, this sums up the approach applied to all too many marketing challenges. A number may say that one campaign will likely peform better than another or that a certain tagline is likely to resonate more favorably among the consumer masses, but its is not a substitute for applying good judgement and common sense.

We may not all have the instincts of Hal Riney, but most of us have a degree of reason inherent to our very nature as humans who live among other humans. When numbers tell us something that contradicts a feeling or instinct, a red flag should go up. But all too often decision makers put their complete faith in a number, a study or a data point. As I mentioned earlier, if numbers were 100% reliable, wouldn't marketers be reaping the kudos for their successes rather than defending their actions.

Which gets us to my next point of concern (#3 for those keeping track at home). Numbers are not 100% reliable, because they are commonly misinterpreted. Methodologies are frequently misapplied, complete faith is often placed in the pov of a non-marketing employee and all too common is the sourcing of a number without appropriate context. When I first became and account planner, my boss at the time warned, "a number without the appropriate context is a dangerous thing." Over the course of time I would quickly understand why this was all too true. I observed clients making decisions based on data without truly understanding what the data was telling them. They assumed because the number for one cell was higher than another, then that cell must contain a stronger response. Little/to know concern was paid to statistical significance.

Statistical significance is a term that very few in our business understand yet its a foundational element in basic quantitative interpretation. It ultimately takes into account the size of a sample and the degree of variance required for a number to be statistically different from another. Clients were choosing one campaign over another because they interpreted it as better performing according to the data when in reality this was not necessarily the case. This is almost forgivable in comparison to projecting the response of 8-10 people in a focus group to a national level. Believe it or not, I've seen this too...the idea that if 6 out of 8 said one thing then 75% of the real target must feel the same way...so the client chooses the campaign that 6 out of 8 like versus the campaign that 5 out of 8 liked.

If a marketer does not understand what a number truly represents, how can they rely on a number to aid in decisions let alone serve as a decision making variable of significant influence?