Measuring Up

The Cadillac of Cardiac Care

I've spent the better part of the last three days in New York Presbyterian’s Cornell Hospital. Not a fun time. My mother  underwent surgery to fix leaking heart valves. Not to worry... her operation was a success and all the experts think she will be just fine.
 
Putting this main issue aside for my post, I want to focus on this hospital. More specifically, let's talk about its unique cardiac unit and heart institute. To sum it up quickly in four words– man, am I impressed.

This is not "your grandfather's hospital" (sorry for quoting an old Oldsmobile tag line, especially given this post’s headline). No, the Ronald O. Perelman Heart Institute feels like what the best hospitals will become over the next decade or two. The waiting area is a pristine, marble atrium where family and friends can sit comfortably watching flat screen TVs, connect to the Internet (through six computers), sit back and read a book or simply do nothing. There are special tutorials on monitors and along the walls which describe the various procedure's undertaking in this wing (great education), all while a casual Au Bon Pain serves coffee, sandwiches and desserts in the background.  To this blogger, it felt more like experiencing a new museum or the lobby of a Fortune 500 company versus being in any type of hospital setting.

Moving on to the staff, nurses and doctors, I've never been so enthralled. Every hospital talks the customer service mantra. My experience is that most don't really care and never deliver it. Cornell passes this test with flying colors. From the night before the operation, when a team of five surgeons came into my mother's room every hour to check on her and openly discuss any fears she had, to how these same people called us and then came to the atrium after the surgery to walk us through each and every detail... it was truly special. Whenever we had a question or needed help, someone came to my mother's bed very quickly.

Now, we're experiencing the aftercare in ICU.  ICU is a pretty scary place simply because all the patients there are just coming out of surgery and are dealing with 20 different pains and possible problems. That often creates a lot of chaos and confusion, with lots of nurses/doctors/families stressing out (at least that's what I've seen in other hospitals). That just isn't the case at Cornell. The round the clock nursing staff and attending doctors are firmly in control and create a very confident, peaceful setting which evokes calmness. And, that goes a long way in helping patients (like my mother) recover that much quicker.

Lots of Wall Street/ financing money was given to make this wing a truly special place. All one needs to do is look at the walls to see that the major benefactors were: Ronald Perelman (private equity), Maurice Greenberg (former AIG CEO) and John Mack (CEO of Morgan Stanley). Clearly all of this money came before the crash three years ago, which is a very good thing. Many ordinary folks might not think too highly of these and other Wall Street titans these days. Can't say I blame them. But, here's one tremendous example of a little good that greedy Wall Street sprinkled onto New York City's outdated hospital infrastructure. The results are magnificent.  And, that's worth writing about.

It's sad when credit companies haven't a clue about credit

Peppercom has always used American Express for our small business needs. The company has always given us the benefit we need. That's why it's sad that we were forced to TRY and change credit card companies recently.

You see, my business partner and I (and a lot of our other senior executives) fly a lot on Continental Airlines. AMEX had a great points partnership with Continental and we used those points to purchase free tickets or upgrade. But, to our dismay, that relationship is ending in September.

We recently switched over to a Chase Small Business Card because that's Continental's big partner now. What's sadder, and equally as frustrating, is that Chase has no idea how to service the small business market and doesn't know very much about its target customer either. That became apparent yesterday in an appalling call I had with a Chase Small Business representative.

The call only happened because Chase gave us a paltry $17 thousand limit on our cards. With upwards of 15 executives using these cards to travel for clients, we knew that at a minimum, we needed a limit of 250k. That's what we have with AMEX. The credit professionals there understand our needs, how we use it and they see how we easily pay the balance each month.

Chase told us they needed two years of our audited Peppercom financials to approve this level of credit. We told them no problem. We're profitable, pay our credit debt on time and have plenty of revenue to qualify for this amount.

Yesterday, a Chase Small Business analyst left me a voice mail telling me that our credit request was declined and we are stuck with the original $17 thousand limit. That made no sense at all. So, I called him to discuss the matter. Here was our basic conversation (paraphrased):

Ed: "Hi, you denied us the amount we are asking for. Can I ask why? AMEX has no problem approving this amount or even more."

Chase Rep: "This card is really only meant for one person. While we appreciate your business, we're not sure how you could need that much credit."

Ed: "This is a small business corporate card, right?"

Chase Rep: "Yes."

Ed: "Well then if it is, you'd understand that it isn't for one person's personal use, but instead will be used for travel, hotels, client campaign purchases, office needs, etc., by many senior Peppercom employees. Thus, we could be spending 100 or 200 thousand per month and just want to have a safe limit in case. Again, we've had a 16 year relationship with AMEX that we are now looking to transfer to you. But, you need to understand our needs."

Chase Rep: "Thank you. We do understand your needs. But, that limit is just much too high for one person doing business, sir."

Ed: "Do you understand that this is for my company’s business, not one person? Why did you ask for two years of financial records from Peppercom if you only care about my card? I am not asking for a personal credit card. This is for all Peppercom's needs."

Chase Rep: "I understand and appreciate that. It just seems that our credit analysts feel that 17 thousand, your current limit, should suffice to fill those needs."

Ed: "That's ludicrous. Do your credit people see any issues with our financials? Ok, what about if I lower the limit to maybe... 200 thousand?"

Chase rep: "Nothing on my documents shows any issues with your financial statements, Mr. Moed. That's not a problem. But, 17 thousand is all that we can approve."

Ed: "Ok. I'm getting nowhere. How long have you worked in the small business area for...because you clearly don't comprehend the difference between consumer and business needs."

Chase Rep: "This is my third week, Mr. Moed,"

Ed: "Good-bye."

Based on my experience, Chase should not be in the small business credit card market business. The company wasted my time and that of Peppercom's financial managers as well. Any bank or credit vehicle that understands small business credit would enthusiastically want Peppercom as a customer for that amount of credit.

The moral of this post is for companies to stick to the knitting they know versus trying to expand into areas where a lack of experience will only damage their reputation. I'm done with Chase and every time I see one of its ridiculous small business commercials it will remind me to tell this story again and again and again...

A fruit that has clearly soured

Yesterday’s financial reports from RIMS, manufacturer of Blackberry devices wasn’t pretty. The Canadian technology company missed its earnings projections by a lot. Probably more importantly, its immediate future is unclear and the company plans to lay off thousands of employees as it ponders its next move to compete in the ever competitive mobile device marketplace. Based on my recent experience, I can’t say that I’m surprised.

I am far from an expert on this type of technology, or the latest products that have emerged.  Like many business professionals, I listen to the advice of my company’s IT professionals and often try the latest product based on what they recommend and some of the hype that other technology leaders create.  As a matter of fact, I’d probably consider myself to be the opposite of an early adopter of new technologies. Instead, I just want a product that will serve its basic functions for me well. And, if I can have the added benefits of some new, cool bells and whistles, then I’m one happy customer.

Peppercom has always been a Blackberry loyal company. Because on our client serving needs, we thrive on immediate email on a 24/7 basis and from a business standpoint and the easy to type keyboards work well with our style. Each and every new model has been accepted enthusiastically by our professionals. Then in trying to break into Apple’s ownership of the lucrative consumer iPhone market, RIMS finally released the Torch late last year. From what I’ve read (and understand), this product was released very quickly so that RIMS could showcase its newest foray into the consumer marketplace. Our IT professionals were a little weary of recommending it. But, because Blackberry has such a proven track record with creating high quality products for professional audiences, they suggested I try it to find out if it could work for me.

At first, I really enjoyed the product and experience I was having.  That’s because the Torch tries to integrate the best of both worlds–  the touch screen and ability to maneuver very quickly through many apps and files (like the iPhone), with a real key board that is pretty easy to type on (a critical part of the Blackberry experience). Unfortunately, that experience only lasted two days though, because all of a sudden, half my emails only came through in bits and pieces. They were unintelligible and that created immediate problems for obvious reasons. As this continued, I found that the system actually became sluggish and it took quite a bit of time for some applications to open after I clicked on the icon.

To make a long story short, our IT whizzes spend hours on the phone with Blackberry trying to fix the email problem. It seems that countless other customers were also experiencing this frustrating problem. What really surprised me (though) is that the RIMS gurus had no idea how to fix it. That just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. After reading through numerous tech blogs on the topic and interviewing Peppercom’s IT professionals, it seems that one truism exists. RIMS was in such a hurry to enter the consumer market that the company didn’t create products that actually worked (or that they knew could work). The consumer experience failed and now we are seeing just how bad the fall out is (and will continue to be) for this once proud technology leader.

For me, well…I returned my Torch and actually decided to try an iPhone instead. So far, so good. I like it mainly due to most of those features that the Torch promised (but didn’t deliver on) are being realized with this product. The bad news for RIMS is that Blackberry loyalists (like me) will now think twice before using one of their new products in the future. Maybe more importantly, those in the know (like our IT professionals) feel much of the same. Deivis Baez, our Director of IT actually told me, “I feel let down because RIMS had plenty of time to come out with the right operating system for this product. Its failure to do quality control prior to launching is a real failure.”

Companies that are extending their brands into new areas need to understand that getting their first product launch right is so critical to ensuring that trust and confidence in their brand continue. The Blackberry failed to do this and its reputation has soured because of it.

Bring back the Pony Express…

The U.S Postal Service (USPS) is going broke. That’s not entirely new. Throughout the last few decades, our  official government mail carrier has faced a myriad of financial woes which almost put it under.

What I find interesting this time is that a complete lack of foresight and innovation is leading to this once proud institution’s downfall. And, because Americans still depend on their daily mail, we’re also going to see the Federal Government provide yet another bail out very soon. Truthfully, it’s too bad that we can’t take a laissez faire approach, and just let the USPS die a normal institutional death like other organizations which simply aren’t able to keep up with what the market needs, or their competitive set.

The main storyline behind this is that those eggheads who lead the USPS never had the ability to foresee a couple of key factors that impact business:
    1) The economy eventually goes down – When that happened, Americans stopped spending so much on first class mail. That’s one of the key ways the postal service makes money. Sending out tons of junk mail is the other money maker for the postal service. Our recent recession turned the junk mail spigot off. Everything else that the USPS sends out from daily letters to big packages, are money losers. In fact, because it charges only 44 cents per letter, regardless of how far that letter has to go, when volume increases, this organization loses money.
    2) We are moving towards an email, paperless society – Yet, our postal service is in the stone age when it comes to digital products (meaning: they have none) Ever hear of e-letters? Many national postal services throughout Europe (like Sweden, France and Norway) have.  Each has modernized its product offerings, making lots of money and profit because they innovated years ago when everyone saw the writing on the wall.

What’s amazing is that if the USPS was a real company, it would be the 29th largest on the Fortune 500 list. It employs 571,566 workers as well. It also is $15 billion in debt, owing $12 billion to the Federal government. And what’s really ironic is that it spends over $25 million on advertising to promote how mail should be used as a marketing tool (i.e. bring back demand for junk mail). Unfortunately, none of that seems to have helped because all the marketing in the world won’t make a dent in the bottom line when the business model has failed.

I guess we shouldn’t be surprised. Many of the USPS’ senior management (including its current Post Master General) came up through the ranks of this governmental bureaucracy. Without any outside business training or real experience in running other behemoth organizations, it’s very difficult to bring in new ideas or perspectives that have worked elsewhere.

My take has always been to let the strong survive and the weak… well let them figure it out for themselves. Of course we know that FedEx, UPS and the others couldn’t readily step in and just take over the enormous daily mail needs that the post office provides (rumor has it that the USPS delivers 40 percent of the world’s mail). But, there certainly has to be a better solution than forcing the tax payer to pick up yet another bill to save an institution that hasn’t been right since the days of the Pony Express.

Are you receiving senior-level attention?

There’s an interesting debate in PR Week’s “Gloves Off” column this week. Two agency CEOs dispute whether senior executives should spend most of their time serving clients or focusing their efforts on other agency responsibilities.

Monty Hagler, CEO of RLF Communications, feels that agencies need to depend more on their dedicated account teams to handle the bulk of the work. He feels that these teams are seasoned and should be responsible for providing strategy, creativity, execution of programs… and results. Monty feels that senior folks should focus on bigger picture stuff like quality control processes and enhancing agency resources, because by raising the bar in those areas, clients across the board will receive more value and better results.

Amy Binder, CEO of RF Binder, argues the opposite. Her reasoning suggests that with the advance of all new factors (like social media and everything digital), we need to give our clients senior level thinking all the time to navigate through the challenges and take advantage of opportunities. That means senior level professionals need to be a dedicated part of each account team.

While this issue isn’t black and white and both of these smart leaders make good points, I tend to agree with Amy. In fact conceptually, her thinking is pretty much the way Peppercom was built 16 years ago (before this digital landscape even mattered).   In any consultative, professional services industry, clients want and need senior level thinking. And, it shouldn’t only be given at a monthly or quarterly update or planning meeting.
The world of communications has indeed changed greatly. Every single day, most companies can leverage or should be concerned about news that swells up in the media/blogosphere about it and/or its competitors.  Businesses are adapting new models, changing product lines and just assessing new strategies within their marketplaces quicker than ever before because they now have valuable information at their disposal through a push of the button.

Only very seasoned, senior communications practitioners have the experience to turn data into insightful strategies/approaches that are recommended to clients. That critical thinking is what clients typically want and pay us for. As good as most account teams are in executing programs, they don’t have the wherewithal to offer this value. And, they aren’t at a level where recommendations can be communicated with the conviction that is needed to provide clients with peace of mind.

Monty makes some valid points. The most senior agency people need to also step up to ensure that their firm is always improving resources, ensuring quality control and watching over a host of other critical factors to maintain agency sustainability. But in my eyes, that should never come at the expense of working with clients and our account teams week in and week out, to provide critical direction to their communications efforts. Our industry has a bad reputation for constant client turnover. There’s no doubt in my mind that the major reason why this occurs is because clients aren’t feeling enough love from our industry’s senior level folks. This reality will never change until this key aspect of client service does.

Haunted by their own past words

It's pretty funny to watch all the rhetorical grenades that the major wireless companies constantly throw at each other. What's interesting is that in light of all the consolidation now taking place and constant changes in this industry's pecking order, it makes each of the major players look like outright clowns in a circus.

For years, AT&T, Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile have publicly battled over which network is strongest, reaches most consumers and provides the best, latest technology. They've lambasted each other's ad campaigns, sued one another for false statements and generally have done most anything possible to win consumer loyalty by claiming superiority over their competitors.

Now, as AT&T looks to acquire T-Mobile for $30 billion, these once hated adversaries find themselves speaking out of both sides of their mouths as they try to take back or reinterpret past comments made about each other. And, the other major players seem to look just as silly. For instance, T-Mobile's current parent, Deutche Telecom, ran a campaign last year making fun of AT&T's supposed inferior, slow speed. Now, its president is quoted as saying, "AT&T is the best solution for our customers. That's why we did this deal." What is the best solution...having really slow speed?

Another great example of how words can come back to haunt a company is delivered by Sprint. Sprint loves to promote how it was the first to offer extra fast 4G phones. It also touts how it still leads this category and that superior 4G technology is the most important benefit when choosing a carrier. But, After the AT&T/T-Mobile deal goes through, Sprint could be a distant fourth in the cellular war, finding itself far behind the pack in technological prowess in this 4G battle. I'd imagine that Sprint is wondering how its marketing messages need to change given the current environment. More importantly, will customers focus on the fact that an attribute it once claimed as critically important to its customers' needs won't ring true anymore.

Understanding how future competitive events might impact one's own company is not easy. But, if there's anything to learn here, these companies need to realize that bold claims can be used against them later on. And, when an entire industry changes the rhetoric so often, credibility is eroded and it begins to create misbelief among consumers. That impacts long term reputation, sales, stock price, etc.

I'm not sure if most people even listen to all the shouting that is aimed at them anymore. I really don't. All I care is that my phone works well. However, I do think this industry needs to become more sophisticated and less bafoonish about how it communicates and markets points of supposed differentiation to its customer. Lord knows its players spend enough money on advertising and promotions. It would be great to see a different strategy employed to build our confidence and loyalty.

Who can you really trust?

Yesterday, The Today Show ran this controversial  and damaging segment (see below) about the hotel and resort industry. Seems that some players in this industry are breaking rules and laws by writing phony reviews about themselves (and their competitors) on super popular review sites like Trip Advisor, Oyster and Frommers.  I wanted to comment on this news story, considering I just wrote a review about my own experience with vacation resort the Cancun Palace. My post was then linked  to Trip Advisor.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

If this piece is accurate, and fake reviews are as rampant as we’re led to believe, then I think this industry is quickly moving head first into a real crisis.  These sites are very popular. That’s because the masses who use them (like my wife) believe that other vacationers/travelers will offer up the most honest information and tips on so many important nuances within each hotel and resort. The plain cold reality is that consumers who use these sites are very fickle. Unlike most Internet surfers, many don’t mind spending lots of time on these sites because the reviews are chock full of interesting details on so many significant nuances. But, they are also a highly skeptical bunch to begin with on this very topic. The rationale behind using a Trip Advisor is that there are very few sources which can provide in-depth tid bits on everything from food, to service, to what the rooms are really like, like these sites. If they start to perceive (right or wrong) in any way that any of these reviews are hotel fed propaganda (or worse), a pack of lies, then these once helpful web sites will be panned very quickly.

On the Today Show piece, Trip Advisor and a few other reviews sites commented that they do have systems in place to ensure the accuracy of each and every review. If that’s the case (which right now is hard to believe), I suggest they aggressively start to communicate specifics on what their safe guards are before this spirals out of control. This should include going back to The Today Show and many other key media outlets to prove their case. They should also use their own sites to boldly explain how each safe guard works.

I don’t think anyone is shocked that this fraudulent activity is taking place. It happens all the time in other categories and industries and the web is a perfect medium to create and distribute fake content. But, that still doesn’t help these companies who are only valuable because their readers believe what they are digesting is both authentic and timely.

To Travel Advisor and all the other competitors, the clock is ticking. Now is the time to act. Readers are planning their next vacation and wondering whether they need to start looking for all new, reliable sources in place of you.

This all inclusive is all right

I just came back from a family vacation (with good friends) in Mexico. With six small kids between us, fun on these breaks is all about keeping them very busy through many different activities (so that the adults can find some relaxation). We decided to try an all-inclusive resort called the Cancun Palace because of this.

Neither my wife nor I are big fans of any all-inclusive getaway. Although my experiences are limited, we've found that while the food is plentiful, it usually is also substandard. On some Caribbean islands, service always comes with an attitude (see Almond Beach in Barbados for this). And, although this will certainly come off as snobby, the level of clientele sophistication (that would be hotel guests) and overall ambiance within these beach front facilities typically leaves something to be desired.

That's why we were all pleasantly surprised with our week in the Cancun Palace. Here's what made it a success for us.

For starters, the resort was new, contemporary and even a tad luxurious. And, the food (at pretty much all five different themed restaurants) was very good. That, in itself, made my wife's trip.

All the other basic wants and needs were positive as well. Employees were very happy and always attentive. The facilities, from tennis courts, to fitness center, to the pool and beach were all well-manicured and taken care of. Most importantly, with the exception of the lobby ATM machine, everything always worked. We loved that. I managed to keep a little more cash in my bank account, to boot.

There is one factor that really stuck out at me, though. And, that's why I'd recommend this place to any family. Even with a very affordable price, the Palace never chose to nickel and dime us on a hundred little items (like most resorts tend to do). So, we weren't paying extra for top shelf alcohol, or offsite excursions. With the Palace, all-inclusive really means that everything is included. From what friends have told me, that is very rare indeed.

If I had to use one phrase to describe the Cancun Palace it would be consistently very good. (Here is a link to them on Trip Advisor) Nothing about our experience was bad or even mediocre. As the days went by, we could feel just how hard this superior resort tried to make its guests' vacation great. As I went into this vacation, my expectations were set fairly low so as not to be disappointed. Every once in a while, it's nice to be so surprised the other way.

Where everyone knows your name…

That line from the title song of the 80s sitcom “Cheers,” represents such a positive feeling to most who remember it.  It means something entirely different to me, though.

Saturday was my birthday. I had a really nice day. But, I also received about a half dozen emails like the one in  this caption all wishing me a happy birthday. Ecommerce sites, web vendors and other  service providers are just so sweet. They all must have really caring customer service people who spend their days writing down customers’ birthdays just to send us e-cards with a smile, right? Not. Instead, the reality is that they’ve acquired every bit of data and information on our personal lives and habits. Thus, sending me a birthday email probably takes very little effort. But for some marketers, it’s a smart way to establish closer bonds with audiences they care about.

Here’s the rub about this specific one. I hate Quicken Loans. Quicken wasted my time for over four months this summer when I tried to refinance my primary mortgage. Quicken deceived me and Quicken lost me forever as a customer or someone who will ever recommend its service because at the 11th hour, this banking intermediary told me that the type of mortgage I had been accepted to receive, was now dead and buried. That’s right. I had a closing basically scheduled, when Quicken pulled the rug out from under me and said it could no longer finance this product.

I’m pretty busy. The only care I have when doing anything like this, is that the service provider is dependable and makes it simple, quick and, ultimately, shows me the money. In the end, Quicken did none of that. Ironically, one month later, I chose another mortgage broker who promised me much of the same. You know what? This time the promise was realized in just three short weeks. I had a new mortgage. It was so easy, very quick and I got the money… at a much reduced rate.

What’s the point of this post (you might be wondering)? I had put the distasteful Quicken experience behind me. Then, I received this email. Some idiot there never took me or my private information out of the Quicken database, even after I ranted and raved for a few days at them when the fiasco happened. So, because this company has reengaged me, I’ve decided to now let everyone know that I hate Quicken.

Of course there is a marketing lesson in this tale.  Mass marketing without any quality control can have some very real consequences to a brand. Problems always exist when a company promises one thing in its marketing messages but delivers a totally different user experience?  I think it's such a huge problem that we're actually beta testing a possible solution.

I am not a fan of this company. Many people there heard my roar. Someone should have removed me from this smiley face database before this automatic email went out. Before, I was simply done with Quicken and the brand was no better or worse for it. Now, I’m actually an anti-fan who is passing on a negative experience to anyone else interested in hearing about it.

Going global?

Every few months, I find myself in situations where the same ‘global’ questions are raised by corporate marketers to their agency partners. Just recently, this emerged at some different meetings and lunches where a few clients and prospects asked their agency partners (which included Peppercom) what their global capabilities are and/or what’s the best strategy for leveraging agencies on a global scale.

In one meeting, a few different agencies from the advertising, digital and PR world proudly touted the breadth and depth of their 30 and 75 office global network. They walked the client through global campaigns that had been launched for other clients, dazzling the client with how simple this feat was and how the same natural replication could take place on this client’s behalf.  I really didn’t say too much during these conversations, because although we do have an international partner network (comprised of good like-minded agencies across the globe,) on the surface it doesn’t trump wholly owned global offices.

At the end of one of these conversations the client finally came around to me and asked why I’ve been so quiet on this matter. (She clearly is used to my never shut up attitude.) She also asked what I thought could be the best solutions for her company as it needs consistent communications and branding around the world. My answer was simple. I exclaimed that there is no silver bullet solution to leveraging agencies to do this. I further elaborated by explaining that while global agencies have a ton or resources, the reality is that most have been put together through acquisitions creating offices in different markets that specialize in quite different services and core capabilities.  At that point, I could feel the tension in the air from my agency partners (one actually gave me a pretty negative smirk.) But, I was on a roll and figured it was time to talk reality here.

So I explained my experience at the ‘biggest of the bigs’ (J. Walter Thomson) as a case in point. I told her that when we needed to offer strategy and/or execution for a consumer product client in 25 markets around the world, my experience was far from positive because the Frankfurt office only had financial services people working there and the Paris office really only focused on fashion. Thus, it was almost impossible to really offer in-depth experience and knowledge that could provide value to our client’s need consistently across the globe.

Now, I was feeling completely toxic among this group (for speaking the truth). But, hey… that’s what the client asked for. Naturally, her next question was, “OK, what should we do, then?” I reiterated that there is no one stop shopping, easy answer. My suggestion was to have one lead agency enforce the strategy across the globe and find the best partners in key pockets that have the same mind set and experience to become good local partners. Some of the local partners would undoubtedly come from offices of the agencies sitting around the table (including our International Partner Network,) but we may need to go outside this group to find a few new ones in areas where real gaps exist.

Interestingly, the dynamics changed among this group at that point. This was mainly because the client was starting to think differently about her situation and what she needed to do (and everyone saw that.) Any jockeying for position as the ‘one stop global agency’ stopped (at least at that meeting,) and we all started working together to figure out which shop had what pieces to make this puzzle complete. While I don’t think that anyone there (except the client) appreciated my candid thoughts, it served to open up a valuable lesson learned for this client.  Easy to implement, ‘one stop shop’ global solutions for clients simply don’t exist. (Note to all clients: If you are being sold this bag of goods now, I’d think carefully before agreeing to anything.) As I wrote, there is no simple solution.  But, if a variety of agency partners are willing to truly work together using an integrated philosophy (it will take a lot of work,) but the job can still get done.