Telecon Rhetoric

So I have a question but I don’t need an answer to my rhetoric question: Are we spending more time on teleconferences rather than in face to face client meetings where we can develop stronger relationships and have the luxury of discussing knottier problems?
It makes sense for clients in multi-locations but although it speeds things up it has a number of disadvantages apart from the two already mentioned. Really the issue I struggle with is that there is a lot of unwritten protocol about telecons which is being ignored with this need for speed. How many times are we on calls when we don’t quite know who the others are? How often does the conference organiser take control of the telecon by making sure everyone is briefed of the meeting objectives in advance , making sure everyone has a say and providing the documents to be discussed well in advance so it can be a productive conversation.
Often with so many people on the line it is a very cold clinical conversation whereas in a face to face meeting things would warm up. The last time I had a laugh on a call was when some wag when dialing in announced himself as Sir Martin Sorrell. It suddenly got everyone’s attention but that was a while back.
My plea to clients and agency folk alike is to use them wisely.
Please – it is doing my head in!

I agree. I think Tom Fishburne's recent cartoon above also highlights another aspect.

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.

Many Headed Client

Our main client contact is a control freak and won’t allow the agency to have contact with any of their more senior colleagues. This is born out of fear that they will lose control of the work we have been briefed to do, but it’s affecting our ability create a meaningful, trusting and financially rewarding relationship with this client. How can we address this?

You have a guard-dog guarding the senior decision maker like Cerberus guarded Hades – to add a bit classical imagery – something no doubt Rory Sutherland would allude to if he were answering your question but much more eloquently. In various versions, Cerberus is overcome by doped honeycakes, wooed by enchanting music and enslaved in chains. I think with your difficult gatekeeper client I would use stealth tactics rather than overt aggressive behaviour. So rather than state that you are going to go to the senior client as it is your right as a commissioned agency, you need to employ more subtle methods.

Presumably you need to initiate a real relationship with the client before you can start an ongoing dialogue. Yes, this person may have sat on the pitch who appointed you but it doesn’t mean that you necessarily have a relationship with them. So how do you start this? Well back to the doped honeycakes and enchanting music. This is where I believe client hospitality can play a role. First of all do your homework – what is the senior client into rugby, rock music, opera, golf? Then put an invitation together which would appeal to the senior client and your Cerberus client (you do not want this person’s nose out of joint with an exclusive invite just for the senior client). Then put together a team from your side, choose your best shot to seal a connection with the client and make sure you have a few people to cover off your regular client.

If the client does not take up the traditional hospitality route or you feel it is not appropriate, invite them to an interesting seminar or maybe appeal to the professional ego: ask him/her to speak at a joint client seminar held at the agency (attended by other clients) on a theme you know they would be comfortable with.

Once you have sealed a connection, then the excuses for an ongoing dialogue are easier – regular one to one meetings with your senior equivalent, joint agency/client planning meetings, agency performance reviews etc.


PS Talking about Rory Sutherland you may have seen other blogs referencing his TED talk. You have to check it out – it’s a top performance and a great score for the IPA.

D.I.V.O.R.C.E?

We have got to the end of our tether with a client of ours. The relationship is not significant financially at the moment, the work is tedious (as our staff keep reminding us) and they expect a lot for very little. We have a rolling contract with them, so should we just walk away?

This is similar territory to the question about taking on a tobacco account and having the agency split into two by the ethics of the situation. Both situations are undermining the spirit and energy of the agency.

Having been faced with similar clients before and knowing the downward spiral just continues, I would advise cutting your losses and getting out quick and focusing your energies on new, more productive clients. But that is easy for me to say without knowing whether in these times something for the agency is better than nothing and that also you are not contractually in risk.

Based on the assumption that you can get out of the relationship easily and are not gaining anything financially from having the account – which you sort of say in your question – I would make sure beforehand that you consult with the main client contact to see if there is anything that can be fixed. It also allows you to flag that there are problems and that from a business perspective, it is not sustainable. So what you are doing is preparing the client for a potential “it’s not working” conversation later on. Consequently, if you do have that conversation, it will not come out of the blue, it will not appear arrogant (as there is business sense behind it) and you may be able to leave the door open for projects which play to your skills and will work for you financially.