More Mythology, Analogy and Mixology

We’re working on a major rebrand project for a client split across two geographic locations, with three separate, all equally significant, lines of report. There are a range of different tasks and budgets involved, so the ‘project’ is, in fact, a number of separate interlinked projects, requiring a number of different project managers, conversations etc. We have set up a weekly status telecon but it’s not delivering the goods, with the result that we’re spending more and more time ironing out details and agreements between the different parties. Needless to say there’s a healthy dollop of politics in the mix which also requires constant management. So what do we do? How are we going to stop this many-headed beast from swallowing us whole?

As Prince Charles and The City Beat Gang sang in pre-iPod days “War is a game of chess” and I was reminded of this cheesy refrain when I read your question. You have a very difficult situation and to be successful you need to operate in this constrained framework in a way chess players would formulate their strategy and put their pieces in place.

I sympathise with you as the many-headed beast you describe is less of the Cerberus in the last posting (purely coincidental to your description) and more of a Hydra – not sure where this surge of classical mythology has come from but let’s go with it - even it is a weird cocktail with the 80s music reference.

1) If I remember correctly, the Hydra that Hercules had to conquer was a tricky beast with 9 heads but there was one head which was key to its survival. You have to work out which decision maker to target so that all the other ones will fall in line. I think it is in the nature of some account handlers in certain types of agencies to try to please all the clients - tiptoeing through the politics and trying to steer the work through the dynamics of the many decision-makers. In my experience, a lot of good ATL guys are quite single-minded and solely target the big cheese, knowing they will get the work through if they convince the right person as everyone else will fall in line. I don’t always admire the means by which it is done but I respect the efficiency of the result. I think it is the bane of brand agencies to have to deal with a number of clients with conflicting interests but you may benefit from this type of singlemindedness.

2) You may have put in place a weekly status but the number of people involved and the level of those attending may mean that no strong direction and little decision-making will happen and that type of telecon just sucks up the energy and time of a project. I wonder whether you could suggest a higher level weekly status (not called that though) where the senior team get updated on the progress and are consulted on particular decisions which allow the project to keep on track in terms of objectives, budget and timings.

3) It may also be stating the bleeding-obvious but with the project being multi-headed then concentrate on the important – ie what is going to make the biggest difference to success and prioritise accordingly. It is easy to lose sight of this. Keep the client constantly reminded of the objectives and the agreed route to achieve them.

4) Also it may be too late but don’t let the creative work become the instrument to solve conflicting business issues. If you can resolve any such business discussions before the creative is shown you have a better to chance to get multi-lateral acceptance.

5) And finally because I know it is easy for me to theorise and harder for you to deliver with the practicalities of location and internal politics, make sure you always have a good bottle of Chablis chilling in the fridge for when you have escaped the monsters.