Measuring Up

A Darker Shade of Pink

Today's guest post is by Peppercommer Matt Purdue.

There’s been a fascinating public relations battle waging this month, one that bears watching by all PR  professionals.

As we all know, October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. For three weeks now, we’ve been swimming in a sea of pink, let loose by breast cancer advocates all over the country to remind us that this disease still affects far too many women and their families. NFL players have donned pink cleats. APG is marketing a pink Snuggie sleeved blanket. KFC is selling pink buckets of chicken.

But there’s another side to this pink PR crusade that has been quickly creeping up on the national agenda. Let’s call it a darker shade of pink. On blogs and social media networking sites, people are starting to question the appropriateness of this plethora of pink. Megan Casserly on Forbes.com called it, simply, “crap.” One blogger on the Washington Times site called it “sickening.” Another green blogger questioned the true intentions of companies that make pink products for the cure while simultaneously fostering environmental and human rights abuses.

The anti-pink tide is rising.

So how is the other side reacting? Susan G. Komen for the Cure (SGK), the 800-pound pink gorilla of breast cancer foundations, has gone on the offensive. SGK founder Nancy Brinker is taking on the critics. She recently blogged that there “still isn’t enough pink.” It’s an interesting PR tactic. Brinker acknowledges the messages from the detractors, but quickly discounts them. She tugs at our heartstrings, reminding us that we need more and more pink because a woman dies from breast cancer every 69 seconds.

But does this really explain why SGK lists nearly 200 for-profit “partners” on its website, from Microsoft and Deluxe Checks to Otis Spunkmeyer and Payless ShoeSource? How many pink products does it take to cure breast cancer?

Clearly, it’s not as simple as selling pink products to fund a cure. Breast cancer death rates have slowly decreased over the years, but, strangely, the number of women getting mammograms has also decreased, despite all the pink products. How effective all this awareness really is should be deliberated every October.

How this public relations battle will shake out is anyone’s guess. But one thing is for certain: when it comes to women’s health, healthy debate is a good thing.

Independent and infuriated

As we approach the coming November 2nd elections, a number of fuzzy political/business issues and nuances are now becoming crystal clear to me.

I realize that nothing good ever comes from pontificating about religion and politics.  So I promise to stay clear of the latter, while I air my grievances solely about the former. Maybe some won't like my views. But, what the hell. I think it could be a little cathartic for me because my general disgust with politics, the economy and those who are supposed to be leading us is boiling over.

First things first. I am an Independent (and an infuriated one at that). My wife likes to say to our friends that I hate all politicians and all politics. I think that's one of the most accurate statements she's every made about me.

Now, in no particular order, here's a litany of bad behavior going on these days. Sorry in advance if my rants aren't pretty or politically correct.

I had great hopes with our current President. I think he is smart, truly cares about people and is a decent man with morals. He was an easy vote for me (the anti-right wing one). But to date, he hasn't done nearly enough to revive our economy. Let me be precise here. I don't blame him for the recession we're in. But, I am beyond frustrated that he is such a lousy politician within his own party. Because Obama can't lead (or persuade) his liberal colleagues, our economy suffers. Most pointedly, he hasn't found a way to pump enough money into the areas that matter in our economy to make any difference. Americans are going to vote many Republicans into office in a few weeks. It's inevitable now. It probably won't get any better, but I tend to think it can't possibly get much worse than the political stalemate we're stuck in today.

My feeling is that neither party is any good, though. The Democrats have little spine to make anything substantial happen (witness a watered down health care plan that provides very few real solutions). And, what used to be a party that leveraged ideals to (sometimes) create a variety of pragmatic solutions, seems to now live in Alice in Wonderland's fairy tale world.

On the flip side, I don't recognize the Republican Party anymore.  The witches, wackos and Washington special interests force feed most every decision they make. Let's just call a spade, a spade.  This political group should be renamed ‘The Radical Party,’ because there isn't much left that looks like the Reagan or even George Bush (the first one) Republicans anymore. The ‘Radicals’ scream that Obama has created big government and over spending. Well, the fact is that we need to spend more in bad times to stimulate business growth, more jobs and consumer confidence (just like in good times, our government needs to have the discipline to cut back). And, it was their President, Mr. Bush (that would be the second one), who actually started all that spending.

The problem is that while our administration is spending, it has failed to ensure that those essential institutions (i.e. banks) actually use this money to open up their coffers and provide necessary credit and funds to tens of thousands of small businesses and consumers who deservedly should receive it. Thus, businesses aren't hiring and consumers aren't spending. What a travesty that is.

I'm also sick and tired of seeing and hearing from the same old career politicians. Sorry to pick on the Democrats here, but what kind of morons are we to allow career politicos like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank stay in office? It's laughable that they led the bill to create new financial legislation which is supposed to protect us from Wall Street. The oh so bitter irony here is that these bozos created the actual legislation some 25+ years ago which forced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to start doling out mortgages to consumers who weren't credit worthy. Yes, that means they helped to create the mess. And now, this dynamic duo are primed to be the heroes who've come to save the day from those evil subprime Wall Street villains? Puhlease...

We also need to be fair on this issue. All sides deserve some blame for this mortgage mess. I think it's a tad pathetic that over the last week, we've seen how the biggest banks were forced to succumb to political pressure (thereby putting a freeze on all foreclosures). Don't get me wrong, consumers should always be protected in cases where banks committed fraud in how they packaged these risky loans. But, seriously... we're all adults. And, adults need to stand up and take some responsibility for lapses in judgment. The fact remains that many people didn't have the income or credit to take on these large mortgages. And, they are just as guilty for sticking their heads in the sand versus trying to understand the risk/reward associated with the loans they were so gleefully receiving.

Of course, nothing has really changed for the banking community. Many took TARP money to survive. Now, so many of them are reaping record profits, just two years after their near distinction. How can that be (you may ask)? Well, they aren't creating anything of real value for society. Nope. As interest rates shifted, they simply made a ton of money trading the spread on the TARP money they were given. Something about that simply doesn't make any sense, even in this chaotic world. One could always look at that as being a half full glass (I guess). Making Wall Street whole again certainly pumps a lot of needed money back into our economy (especially New York City)... which is good.

Still, I believe in equity. I think most Americans would have loved to see the government actually create a system which penalized any company that received government money for at least a few years. Think about it. That penalty could be realized through restraints on just how much compensation the company can shell out to those traders, investment bankers and other employees, partners and senior executives who are back to filthy rich yearly bonuses. I'm sure that Wall Street leaders would tell us that they can't be competitive if that penal system existed. I think that's nonsense. Since they all took TARP money, it wouldn't matter. They'd all be operating and competing under the same restraints. There's nothing more equitable than that.

Now that I've gotten all of that out of my system (and feel so much better), where does it leave me? Well, I can still say with most certainty that as bad as it is, I'd run for the Canadian hills if the American people ever lost their minds completely and voted Sarah Palin into The White House. Absent of that, we still have a democratic, capitalistic system which beats most every other one on this great, big planet. Still, I'm a disillusioned, Independent voter looking for better answers. I want to believe again. I'm just begging someone to show me how...

Say goodbye to the easiest interview on earth

Earlier this week, Larry King called it quits after 25 years as the host of CNN’s “Larry King Live.”

Larry is an iconic figure who will always be remembered. This man found a unique way to straddle the fence between the lightest of light hearted broadcast journalism and pop culture/entertainment talk show reporting. You could always count on the fact that each evening Larry would be interviewing someone who was either front and center in the news, or simply was viewed as the latest political, business or cultural phenomena/superstar of the day. Love him or hate his style, the fact is that Larry’s show (up until recently) was unique because it reached millions of people who crossed a multitude of demographics across our society. This diverse viewership made Larry’s show incredibly appealing to my industry.

There’s no doubt that the public relations world will greatly miss Larry. Sure, many entertainment publicists loved to book their hot Hollywood clients on his show. But, that’s not what I’m getting at here. You see, “Larry King Live” was the dream interview for our clients who faced the deepest public crises of the moment. I can remember many times throughout my career when a client was being torn apart by national media for some controversial business or personal scandal and it was critical to find a way to “get our client’s real story out” through a kinder and gentler format. Larry was that desperate, much maligned client’s salvation.

You may not have ever noticed this, but in many cases Larry actually allows his guest to interview themselves. Sure, he’ll start the interview off with a few relevant questions about the crisis at hand. But, the beauty behind Larry’s style is that he then allows the interviewee to take over from there. I’ve watched former heads of state, indicted CEOs, accused murderers and others (who should be sitting on the hottest of hot seats) simply dance around that opening tough question and then spend the next 15-20 minutes offering up a one sided monologue, rebutting all the negatives that other tough journalists had properly written about before. There were even times when Larry was so lax in his questioning that it seemed like he (Larry, that is) was empathizing with the interviewee. Just think about how powerful this opportunity can be for someone who has basically been indicted and found guilty through the media. Larry King provides an on-air asylum that can influence millions like no one else.

Let’s not forget the other side of Larry. The man has this lackadaisical (mostly forgetful), folksy style that should have gotten Larry in deep trouble many moons ago. But, instead, after each embarrassing moment, he simply shook it off with little care and moved on. Larry committed some legendary blunders and some consider him a laughable joke because of these. For example, there was the time when he interviewed the two remaining Beatles a year ago (Ringo and Paul). Of course, Larry had no idea what their names were as he started referring to Ringo as “George” (as in now deceased George Harrison). After Larry did this three or four times, Paul finally spoke up making fun of Larry and his cluelessness. Then there was the time a few years back when Jerry Seinfeld was being interviewed on the show. Larry actually asked Jerry if it’s true that his show would be ending soon (referring to “Seinfeld” which had been off the air for more than a decade). Being the good natured comedian, Jerry had some fun and responded by asking Larry if this was indeed CNN and was he actually on The Larry King Show.

My PR World is now in mourning for losing Larry. In essence, he is/was a critically important crisis communications delivery vehicle when the calamity of the day had reached a breaking point. I think everyone who watches Larry recognizes that his show has become old, he looks tired and it’s time for him to ride off into the sunset.  Although I’m sure Larry’s next career move will allow him to stay in the limelight in some fashion, there goes the easiest prime time interview on earth. Larry you will be missed.

BP translates to Brutal Pattern

I haven’t jumped on the BP bashing bandwagon. Just felt that the media and thousands of other blogs have pretty much covered this disaster ad nauseam. But, I just can’t stay away from covering the latest debacle from yesterday because, in totality, I don’t think I’ve ever seen any one company consistently screw up its public relations efforts so badly in dealing with a serious disaster.

You’ve probably heard the latest. BP’s chairman stood up on the White House lawn and told the world “We care about the small people.” Amazingly, he reinforced that phrase over and over again. And, the reaction was… ? Just what you would think. Thousands of outraged citizens in Louisiana and other affected states were angry, feeling that this big corporate tycoon was incredibly condescending. I heard a few quotes from gulf fisherman that included words such as “humiliated,” “who does he think he is?” and “on top of everything else, this disgraceful phrase (small people) continues to put us down.”

OK. Maybe we should cut the guy some slack. After all, he is Swedish and English isn’t his first language. Right? And, a few hours later he did apologize telling the world again that he didn’t intend  for ‘small’ to be taken in any derogatory way. It was instead meant to describe all the working class people who have been greatly affected by this horrific disaster.  Under normal circumstances I would agree that this bad play on words is simply a mistake. And, should be forgiven.

But with BP, a real pattern has emerged that is unlike anything else I’ve seen in some time. Just about every few days, some senior BP official (usually it’s CEO Tony Heyward) makes an offhanded, negatively received comment to the press, online or to some constituent audience, which simply shows how pathetically ill-prepared the company is on the communications front. Adding to these insults is the fact that BP often communicates one thing (such as how transparent the company will be with media) and then actually does the exact opposite.  The result is turning this company into a complete laughing stock everywhere.

Having been on the side of BP’s public relations experts many times, this reality just should not be happening at this point in the crisis. Senior executives should be completely consistent with their messages/statements and they should only be communicated with the understanding that whatever they say (or tweet) will actually be the reality of what they do. We all see that BP is handling the crisis with the opposite philosophy in mind. In the case of yesterday’s “small people” remarks, some senior PR official should have worked with the chairman to make sure that whatever words he chose actually had the right meaning when used among the American people. Come on. This is crisis PR 101… and BP should be kicked out of the class for its reprehensible communications efforts.

It’s hard to say whether senior management simply doesn’t listen to their PR counsel. That often happens at first. But, typically when a disaster reaches this epic proportion, they begin to see the light and understand just how vital the right type of PR is. Or maybe in this case, PR counsel is woefully inadequate. To this candid outside observer, it feels as if both realities are taking place. Either way, something has to change. It’s bad enough that we’re in day 59 and the spill continues to ravage the gulf. The least these big time executives can do is figure out how to stop this amateur level of crisis communications.

“I take full responsibility”

When is the last time you heard a U.S. President actually say that in the context of admitting a mistake?

Can’t say that I remember W ever using words like that around Hurricane Katrina. And I certainly could be wrong, but I doubt former Presidents’ Clinton, Bush and Reagan ever did either throughout the handful of major crises they blundered through.

Last night, President Obama held a closely choreographed press conference to discuss the latest with the BP oil catastrophe. Within this speech, he threw out some typical political rhetoric by blaming a variety of parties for not plugging the leak (front and center, of course, was BP). But, he also conceded that real mistakes were made on his watch and he owned up to the fact that “there wasn’t sufficient urgency in terms of the pace of how those changes (to stop the leak) needed to take place.”

I find the President’s remarks refreshing. Sure, any cynic will immediately counter my point by stating that the President’s remarks were purely politically driven. He had to say something because of how poorly his administration has looked over the last few weeks in its inadequate response to BP’s failure. I’m sure, to a certain degree, political posturing could have been one of many reasons why he offered contrition.

But, the cynic’s rebuttal is probably the exact reason why I feel good about his remarks. You see, past Presidents did everything and anything possible to never have to admit any mistakes… even when it was so overwhelmingly obvious that they were wrong. Just look at W (again) around Katrina. During the worst of those times, the American public had their eyes and ears peeled and pressed wide open, just hoping that our President would come forward and explain how and why under his watch things could have possibly become so bad. Yet, we never heard anything. To most Americans (with the exception of those die hard conservatives), we lost just about all respect for this leader because, in the end, he took absolutely no responsibility for the outcomes of this hellish disaster.

Obama’s concession was not only a smart political move, but it also shows that even when he (and his administration) isn’t in tune with the sentiment of the American people, he somehow finds a way to regroup, recover and make the right communications decisions before falling into a political abyss.

By the way, this is ironic because yesterday I was a few seconds away from writing a post about how our President has become tone deaf through this latest gulf shore debacle. And, of course, apologies (in the greater scope of just how much devastation this spill has caused) really mean very little to thousands of fisherman who have lost their livelihoods and all the wildlife life that has been lost. That is what really matters now. Still, I’m glad that I decided to wait a day before writing a post that would have typically taken just another jab at our President.

We need this like a "hole in the head"

Stupid people make stupid laws. And, that's exactly what this is. 

Less than a decade removed from the worst airline terrorist attack in our country's history, Georgia lawmakers have approved a law that will allow gun owners to carry registered fire arms in certain parts of our airports (which aren't under Federal control). Even though Atlanta Hartsfield Airport vigorously disagrees, the legislature is just waiting for the Governor's signature.

Tell me why this makes sense. Please someone... explain it to me.

Airport security is still at an all time high because every few months some maniac tries to light a bomb from his sneaker or bring weapons on a plane. Even today, new federal regulations were enhanced to make security agencies check lists of suspicious individuals who shouldn't be allowed to fly, every two hours. So, why on earth do we need to add a new layer of anxiety during our airport experiencing by allowing guns (even if they are registered legally) anywhere near an airport?

Sure. I understand all that jazz about our constitutional right to bear arms. Those groups representing gun interests have been screaming about this for 100 years. To me, this shouldn't be an argument about the legality of this issue. Instead, I'd focus on plain ol' common sense (which should be the overriding reason not to do this).

Think about what will inevitably happen. Maybe in the beginning, ordinary gun owners will be more careful about walking around with registered side arms in "approved parking and terminal areas." But, within a certain period of time, comfort will allow lax attitudes and probably breaches in the rules. Then, someone will forget (or not care) that he/she is packing and either accidentally go through security, or create some commotion when other people accidentally see the firearm. That will cause real alarm. Then, just wait until that first Middle Easterner, who simply shares the same skin color as would be terrorists, (but is actually just an innocent traveler) is found carrying his legally purchased hand gun in the airport. What kind of absolute chaos and panic do you think that will cause? And, we all could think of examples that are far worse and more serious beyond that.

We live in difficult times. The botched Times Square bomb incident is just another example of what new terrible disaster can happen on any given day. Guns in airports are a ridiculous combination. Come on, Governor. Do what is right.

Do I see blue skies on the horizon?

They certainly were bright, blue and sunny from my vantage point. I started writing this post sitting aboard the top deck of a cruise ship that was rounding the last bend of a hot, tropical vacation.

What's clearly more interesting about this topic is the fact that this moderately high priced vacation ocean liner was completely packed, as in sold out. And, it seems that at least three other similar cruises that embarked on the exact same voyage fared the same.

Normally, this inconsequential fact should mean little to you and me. Except, a little birdie (in this case, one of the captain's crew) happened to mention to me that these exact same cruises were only 40-50 percent filled during the same time last year. And, had 20-30 percent vacancies just three and four months ago. After doing a little research on the Web, I found a number of travel publication articles which confirmed the same type of numbers over the last 18 months.

So, what does it mean? To me, it's a tell-tale sign that the masses are finally starting to become consumers again of higher end vacation packages. I'd say that means they also feel more confident that our economy has stabilized and life is getting better, as well.

By the way, I haven't taken a cruise in 20 years (and the one experience I had was commonly referred to as a "booze cruise.") So, I really didn't know what to expect from a Royal Caribbean Cruise line vacation. In the end, I'm not sure that I'm a cruise faring guy (cramped living conditions don't do it for me). But, I have to say that Royal Caribbean's (RC) service is simply fantastic and the overall experience was very positive. So, here's a little bit of a plug for the RC brand since the topic coincides with this post.

Every night, dinner was a true delight. Most people think of eating on cruises as a caloric adventure because of the "all you can eat" mindset. But, that doesn't necessarily equate to eating good food (only gaining lots of weight). Sure, you could get all you want at RC. But, surprisingly the lunch and dinner meals were gourmet in nature and whether one chose steak, seafood, Italian or even Indian, it all tasted great. In fact, each meal was so scrumptious that we felt as though our family could have been transplanted into a high end New York City restaurant.

There were about 2,500 people aboard our boat. That's a lot of needy souls. Yet, the customer service across the board was truly phenomenal. From the cleaning woman who took care of our room (she literally created animals out of our towels at night for the kids), to the waiting staff (who seemed to have a Radar O'Reilly sense of quickly providing us with something before we even had to ask), to every staff member I came into contact with (who never stopped smiling). Just pretty amazing.

This was a special vacation because we celebrated my parents’ 50th wedding anniversary. I know they really enjoyed having our whole family together to mark this momentous occasion.  Here's to them and the hope of more blue skies ahead.

A celebration or abomination?

This ballooning crisis that Virginia Governor McDonnell faces because his state is officially “celebrating” Confederate History Month is well deserved. Media, bloggers and many others are up in arms because he initially removed anti-slavery rhetoric in the official charter behind this month. The stupidity of that act is honestly hard to even understand.

So, of course, he recently apologized to a national audience by inserting language to demonstrate that he (and his State) do not support slavery in any way. Bravo Governor. A third grader would have probably made that same next move if given a multiple choice exam, to contain the damage. However, to me, the problem of this Month runs much deeper.

Quite simply, why would any government within these United States pay homage by celebrating a confederacy that supported human slavery? In my mind, extolling the Confederacy is completely incompatible with a multi-tolerant, racially diverse democracy, and ultimately, patriotism itself. The Governor is misguided. He became a Saturday Night Live joke when the man declared that slavery just wasn’t a significant aspect of the Civil War. Reread your history books, man. While, the war also focused on state sovereignty by trying to gain independence from a federal government it didn’t agree with, don’t forget that infamous line given by a sitting president not too long ago, “It’s the economy, stupid.” Slaves were critical to the South’s booming agriculture products. Ensuring that African Americans stayed in bondage was a foremost priority to keep the South’s economy prosperous.

The Governor claims that this entire idea was implemented to simply bring greater tourism to his state during a bad economic time. The problem I have is that this backwards Confederacy should never be celebrated at all. Instead, it should be understood because the War provides great insights into a host of socially, political and economic issues. But, that’s a major change in nuance that someone should have thought about first. Already, the South romanticizes too much about what some still call the “War of Northern Aggression.” Highways, statues and schools were named and created in honor for Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Jefferson Davis and others. Say what you will about honor, glory and anything else they might have thought they represented, these men fought to keep slavery intact and that’s an affront to the African American community and so many others who immigrated to Virginia since the Civil War. What kind of mixed message does it send to our children when people say that these were great men who also supported the continuance of human bondage?

As an analogy, should there be a day, week or month named to remember and understand the Holocaust? You bet. We should always remember. But, think about how Jews around the world would feel if Germany decided to create a “Holocaust Celebration Day”, or a “German World War II Pride Day,” instead. I could just see those busts of Hitler, Himmler and Goering lining the streets of Berlin, now. Oh, what a wonderful dedication…
This governor has certainly gotten himself into quite a pickle. Maybe some good will come from it though because crisis often brings about change. If enough citizens speak out, we may just be able to keep that word ‘celebration’ from ever being associated with the Southern Confederacy again.

Where America's great recession is felt the most

Last night, I took a four hour road trip through upstate New York to see Cooperstown. My boys have been excited for weeks to see the famous Baseball Hall of Fame. So, we made this fairly long trek over and around many long windy roads, seeing dozens of tiny, obscure towns along the way.

Maybe I shouldn't have been surprised. But, I was. In almost every case, tiny little rural havens in places called Broome, Middleburgh and Cairo (no, I wasn't in Egypt) were completely lifeless. Most only showcased dilapidated houses and barns. Some were actually burnt out and others had scores of abandoned trailers (and many dead farms, as well). It was truly sad and quite depressing. Our eyes were glued to the scenery that looked like something from a Great Depression movie. And, our mouths were wide open as we just sat in disbelief.

When we finally found a town that had a suitable coffee house (and, that wasn't easy), we pulled over to grab a quick bite. I struck up a brief conversation with a nice waitress about the communities surrounding this area. She was quick to point out that over the last two years, maybe 35-40 percent of farms and homes in the area were foreclosed on. She also said that "the good people in these areas are scrambling like never before to just put food on their kitchen tables. Welfare stamps have become more of a normal staple of life versus what was once the exception."

With the exception of Cooperstown (which is beautiful and prospers for obvious reasons), the statistics support what this friendly waitress said. Greene County (one of the major areas we traveled through) has an unemployment rate of almost 15 percent, way above the national average. I read an article from the regional newspaper up here that showed families are picking up and leaving for towns and cities where employment chances fare better.

It's hard to blame them. These people clearly haven't seen or felt any benefits of the administration's economic stimulus plan. And, I truly wonder if it's too late for their communities because of it.

From time to time, I complain about paying too high taxes, or receiving too few small business benefits in these tough economic times. But, this experience has put it all in perspective for me. I've got nothing to moan about when so many are living in complete crisis mode.

Let's hope some combination of an improving economy and many more stimulus dollars reach these small towns in the near future. They are the ones who really need our help.

Hiring freezes send shivers down clients’ spine

The other day, I was reading in a PR industry trade that one of the largest public advertising holding companies has finally lifted its 18 month hiring freeze. I guess either business has come back (at least a little) for this mammoth marketing services company, or it finally decided that it just can’t maintain a complete hold on bringing in new talent forever.

This definitely brought back memories (mostly negative) of my days at J. Walter Thompson. I remember that we had an “unofficial” hiring freeze for about a six month period. While, no official edict had come down from the corporate decision makers in the UK, all senior executives understood very well that any new hires had to be approved in triplicate form by the top brass, or there would be hell to pay. This reality meant that a typical hire could take a long time to be approved (in some cases four to five months). So, the effect caused many firms within the global network to either just give in and find ways to maximize current talent (as they had lost the stomach for fighting against the system), or become ultra creative to work with outside talent, but not officially hire them. This often included fudging the use of consultants/freelancers or even offering people jobs, but being very creative in how their salaries were hidden within a larger cost structure.

Of course, the only ones that really felt the collateral damage with these across the board freezes, were clients. Think about it. Let’s say there are over 200 individual marketing services companies in a typical advertising holding company. I guarantee that even in the worst of times, at least five, ten or even 20 of those companies are doing just fine because their businesses ran counter cyclical to the masses. As a businessman, I understand the need to cut costs and protect the larger entity as a whole, but the 5-10 percent of firms who still need to hire because business is coming through the door, can’t when this mandate is set. So, what happens? Clients are promised x, y and z in terms of quality and quantity of talent to service their account. And, you can bet your bottom dollar that some of that is sacrificed because as much as the agency rants and raves to higher level management sitting in their ivory towers, the resources needed, simply can’t be allocated. A secondary evil that then transpires is that very good account and creative leaders and managers within those well to do agencies start walking out the door. They are frustrated beyond belief and have had quite enough with the big agency model. Sometimes the domino effect ensues because the delicate agency balance between having really great talent to service new business and top accounts diminishes once the anger and frustration spreads.

Any way you slice it, across the board hiring freezes are just dumb policies. This whole topic is kind of ironic considering that agencies are only in business to service clients in the highest way. So, the big, public holding companies (without saying it) actually advocate doing the opposite during bad times through these poorly created mandates. 

Big, bureaucratic policies like these, which have no room for flexibility to meet the most basic client needs (and demands), represent some reasons why we started Peppercom in the first place. When times are bad, it’s understood that sometimes resources need to be let go and adding staff just can’t happen. But, most independent firms are smart and would never just implement something so inflexible as a cast in stone hiring freeze. Instead, it’s about understanding which marketing or communications areas clients need the most professional help in. Then, if necessary, these smaller agencies make trade-offs or just plain invest their own money to ensure that clients are being served they way they promised to. Profit levels are often sacrificed when this happens, but that’s understood. The public agencies can do no such thing because they are under the constant pressure of their investors.

I’m not a public holding company basher (at least, not usually). It’s just that this practice has been happening for so long and just hasn’t changed. You’d think someone at the top would get it (finally). But, I guess not.