Why does it feel so wrong to say the client is not always right? Take a job in advertising, and if you don't learn this fact by the end of your first month, you are probably too much of a people pleaser and you should move on to another career. I'm not trying to be caustic, it really would be for your own good.
When it comes to their business objectives and goals, the client is most definitely right - except for when they're not right there either, and in those cases Darwin's Law seems to work things out. The role of a marketer is to help the client achieve their goals through strategic creative executions.
(As I typed that last line, In my head I could hear John Cleese reading it aloud with his mocking tone, chastising me for falling into MBA speak.)
The job of a
commercial persuader is not all cocktails and coloring books. This is a legitimate profession. Everyday we struggle with the
science of behavioral economics, and the talent of
charming an elusive muse to delight us with creative inspiration. Research and analysis. Immersion and transmediation. Each campaign - each message - is a hard-fought journey.
Thankfully, people pay us for our unique ability to influence others, and it is because of that fact that the client is not always right. When a client chooses to partner with an advertising agency, the de facto agreement is this:
"We trust that you know more about the craft of commercial persuasion than we do. We would like to pay you to help us." Simple enough. The client trusts the agency to do good work, and in exchange, the client's business will reap the benefits of strong results.
But what happens all too often is a shift from a simple results-based relationship to a new, more complex relationship mired in politics and ego gratification.
The work loses its place of value in favor of maintaining
the client/agency relationship. It may seem like the right thing to do, making the client happy, but in the end everyone involved will be dissatisfied and disappointed.
Back in the summer of 2005,
Dan Wieden of
W+K took on this beast in a speech to his team as they
reset the course of their business:
In big agencies, the client/agency relationship is the most sacred thing. The difficulty seems to be that the work then serves the relationship, and everything becomes political. And when things get political, the work suffers. And when the work suffers, the business suffers, then the client agency relationship suffers, and you suffer. In creative boutiques, the ego is supreme. The work is there to enhance personal reputations. If I said the work is wonderful, the work is wonderful. Shut up and sell it. Problem here: again, the work slip is, the client agency relationship goes south. When we say the work comes first, we are saying that things work best when everyone – client and agency alike – are focussed on whether or not this is great damn work. Politics aside. Egos aside. Is this hot shit, or not? ...
... And when we say the client/agency relationship is second to the work, that doesn’t mean it isn’t important. Because the work is a direct reflection of the quality of that relationship. If it is strained, the work shows it. If people are having fun, it shows. If people are bleeding, it shows. If people are just trying to turn other people on, it shows. And that’s when it’s most effective.
The irony of it all is that
the work is what wins the client's business in the first place. The message from Wieden to his tribe should be championed by all commercial persuaders. Serve the client with good work and naturally the relationship will thrive.
(nod to
AdPulp for granting me clarity long ago)
