Measuring Up

You’re the agency to beat

There’s very little Joy in Mudville when a client tells you that his/her account will be going up for review. That’s because in almost every circumstance, the agency is stuck in a no-win situation.

The simple fact is that once an account goes into review, it’s extremely rare for the incumbent agency to keep the business. Yet, what often transpires is that the agency receives very positive communications from the client about how it should definitely stay in the game and pitch the business because the odds are quite good that it will win. So, never wanting to lose a good piece of business, the agency spends countless hours and $$$ trying to show the client(s) just how well the team understands their business, the great results that have been achieved and a host of other positive factors that it believes should position it well above the bright eyed competition.

While I’m sure this isn’t the only reason why incumbents lose, the key reason why the agency is actually the underdog from the beginning of the pitch process (contrary to what the client says) is because everyone likes shiny, new objects in life. And, when the pitch review starts, those shiny new objects (as in the other competing agencies) represent a fresh look at the world. That, in itself, is very appealing to any client… even though he/she will never tell the incumbent that.

We recently found ourselves in just such a position. We’ve had this client for 9 years. It’s a pretty dysfunctional company. That might sound like sour grapes, but it isn’t. If you asked our client contacts there this question, they would agree. The company has had a revolving door of CEOs (probably 7-8 over the last nine years). And, as much as they wanted us to provide them with strategic communications, they never had the ability to let us do anything beyond tactical media relations… up until the last 9 months, that is.

Ironically at that time, a new CEO came into town to shake everything up. At first, we viewed this as a very scary new reality. He beat us up pretty badly (I still have the bruises to show for it), as well as our clients. He wanted to know why there hadn’t been more strategic work executed on the brand to set the company apart from the serious competition that exists in the marketplace. Those were anxiety ridden discussions because as much as we tried to push through new campaigns that could have delivered the type of results he screamed about not seeing, nothing ever happened due to the internal inertia that exists within this giant company. So, we assumed that our agency and some of the clients would be summarily terminated.

Instead, because we pushed so hard (for one more try) this CEO gave us a reprieve. For the first time, he provided the tools we needed (and senior level approval) to offer a strategic assessment of where the brand should be and then we implemented a nine month campaign to generate results. I tip my hat to our team because those results are simply phenomenal… and they keep on coming. Our client(s) gave us uber praise and this hard-nosed, tough CEO actually handed out a number of compliments as well.

Still, that wasn’t enough. This CEO decided that his marketing people needed to conduct an account review just to see what other firms are out there. According to the CEO, he wanted to make sure that his company had the right firm for the long run. We talked it over and decided not to enter this review. We felt that our work should speak for itself and understood that incumbents rarely every win. But, one of our clients told us that because of the great results achieved, we had a very good chance of keeping the account and it really was “ours to lose.”

So, we decided to compromise. We didn’t officially pitch the business, but still left our hat in the ring to potentially keep it. Of course, that never really mattered and we pretty much understood that from the beginning. Ironically, I think we won the CEO over. In our last meeting a few weeks ago, he said to me, “You are the agency to beat because you know us and have generated some really good results. We’ll make a decision very quickly.” Those words were his last to me, though. Last week he was ceremoniously let go. And yesterday, those marketing people decided to choose a shiny, new agency to take our place. The parting words we received were, “We just need to make a change.” Nothing more was said.

So, what’s the moral of this post? I’d say that there are actually a few:
    1)  Incumbents rarely win – regardless of what the client says. Keep your head about you and know that you     have very little chance of maintaining the business for all the reasons I explained above.
    2)  If your client organization is completely dysfunctional, know that it often takes more than a very strong     willed CEO to actually change the culture or your ability to really make a dent.
    3)  Don’t get upset or angry about being terminated. Use your experience as an advantage. We will – we’re     excited to leverage our knowledge of the industry to help a different competitor in the not so distant future.

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.

A ‘mole-free environment’

That’s the term our management committee created earlier this year. No, I’m not referring to an ugly skin  growth. Our definition of a mole is someone who gathers intelligence or is 'in the know' within a prospect company that we are targeting. The mole is typically a friend of our agency and, unbeknownst to the prospect, is feeding us intelligence on how to win his business.

One would think that having a mole as your friend is only a positive, right? We’ve found that at times, it’s actually just the opposite. On countless occasions over the last few years, any one of our new business teams have staked large (or entire) parts of their strategies and campaigns based on specific moles telling us that this is “absolutely” the direction or approach that the prospect wants to see. Sometimes, we’ve even reshaped or changed our entire presentation (even when it instinctively didn’t feel right) based on the mole’s strongly worded counsel that what we have now is all wrong and he/she is utterly confident that this other approach will win the business for us.

I’m guessing that we lost 75 percent of those mole-led pitches over the last few years. Sadly, I can remember a few that ended so poorly that you could actually see the prospect’s look of utter confusion after the pitch because we had gotten it so wrong. For me, the worst of these mole-led pitches happened about two years ago. I’ll never forget it because the business clearly should have been won by Peppercom and the entire episode is embarrassing. We were in a competitive pitch against just one other firm (great odds in this day and age) for a large financial services organization. This prospect company was conservative in nature and had never really executed any ‘big idea’ creative programs before. Our mole was already acting as a consultant within this company.  I had worked with him in previous agency lives and aside from being a pretty smart guy, it seemed like he really understood the mindset of the top decision maker at the prospect organization. So, we were all ears in listening to his recommendations. I remember how we developed a program that included both big ideas and many conservative approaches that all flowed with the objectives laid out for us by the prospect. Everything seemed to fit nicely within a greater theme we had created. And most importantly, we had many choices to choose from, depending upon the decision maker’s appetite for risk and reward.

A week before the actual pitch, we asked our mole if we could present our program to him for candid feedback. I actually assumed that he might make some slight changes and give us a few ideas that we hadn’t thought of. Instead, he boldly exclaimed that this wasn’t what the decision maker wants to see. Instead, he excitedly told us that we needed to go with one huge idea that should be fleshed out in much greater detail to show how it could work over a two year program. He said that this big idea campaign would set us apart by demonstrating how we would make a huge impact from beginning to end and the details would provide smart rationale as to why this program can work.

Now, those of you who aren’t in the business should know that this isn’t a normal way of recommending communications programs. For starters, it places far too much emphasis on just one recommended idea or approach. And, that’s plain dangerous if the prospect hates it. Secondly, we typically don’t go into excruciating detail until the business is won and then, once the prospect is a client, together we create a detailed program that is tailored to that company’s needs, nuances and cultural fit. So, when the mole recommended that we take one risky big step forward, I questioned his recommendation a number of times. Of course, what I heard for the next 15 minutes was a strongly worded counter argument that because he’s been consulting with said prospect for two years, he understands the way the decision maker thinks and this is exactly what we need to do to win him over.

So, I acquiesced. Over the next three days, we turned our presentation on its head by going with our best, most creative theme/ideas and, in a linear fashion and created tactics that would build on this month by month over a two year period. A few days later, we presented to four executives (including the decision maker) within this organization. What we received were a lot of blank stares and a few confused looks. To our credit, my team was pretty good at articulating why this program made sense and how it could really have a tremendous positive impact on the organization.  But, that had little influence.

After the presentation, we made small talk with the prospects for 15 minutes and left. They told us we’d hear very soon who had won the business. Then, we waited. And, we waited. And, we waited some more. Finally, about two months later, the decision maker called me to say that he decided to select the other agency. He was very professional and cordial and didn’t offer much detail (even though I greatly probed) as to why we had lost. Except he reinforced a few times that the other agency just gave them a program that seemed to make more sense for his company.

Fast forward this story to about one year later when one of our senior executives happened to meet this same decision maker at an informal industry cocktail reception. As she made small talk with him, he decided to let loose (finally) on how he viewed our presentation. I probably have the exact words wrong, but it was something like “…a bizarre meeting. They gave me a program that could never be executed by our conservative company because the ideas were too big and then all the details were just too much. The program made no sense for us, so the decision to choose the other firm (who had recommended something easy to execute) was simple. I won’t be calling on Peppercom anytime soon.”

Hearing that feedback felt like a slap in the face. But, it was a true lesson learned, as well. The moral of this post is that we learned (the hard way) that while moles can provide some interesting intelligence into any company, we will never use their information or feedback in any type of vacuum again. Instead, we look at their advice as just one slice of the informational pie when pitching business. Some on our management team believe we should have an entirely ‘mole-free environment", meaning, we should turn a deaf ear towards whatever they tell us. I don’t. But, leveraging their information the right way is critical in the greater scheme of how we understand what a prospect really wants and needs. 

New business gone bad: too many people are in the presentation.

New business consultant Robb High recently sent out another tip of the day for marketing agencies. Here’s what he has to say about the topic of having way too many agency folks in the room for a prospect presentation:

“The CEO “has” to be there. The director of strategy, too. The head account person, of course. The creative director and the team that did the work being presented (for ad agencies.) The media director, as well. The digital specialist (to show that the agency is part of the modern world). And finally, the team of people that will work on the account (because the client asked for that).

Pretty soon that adds up to a lot of people . . . and a formula for failure.

An effective new business presentation needs to be executed like a Broadway play. And putting together a good play with so many people in just a few days is nearly impossible.

Plus, with so many “players” on the stage (and everyone has to have a speaking part or it’s really weird), it makes the presentation far longer than it needs to be . . . and pushes it over the allotted time.

The best Broadway plays have only 2-4 main characters and so should all new business presentations.

And who should be on the pitch team . . . the rule is: only the best actors go on stage. Titles aren’t relevant. Neither is the “team that will work on the business” (yes, a “switch” may have to be done later. And that won't be easy. But, it’s a problem only the winner has.)”

In my opinion, Rob is spot on… with the exception of the final sentence (which I’ll get to in a minute). Our experience as an agency, has led us to believe that ultimately it’s truly all about who are the “A list” players from your agency who can present with a flair, be articulate and come across as incredibly smart and knowledgeable about the prospect’s issues. Those players also have to be the best at creating chemistry with prospects. These are “the actors” (as Rob wrote) who need to lead the most important new business presentations taking place across your agency.

I also agree that too many cooks in this kitchen (meaning within a new business presentation) can create an awkward environment where as many as half of them have almost no role and just come across as seeming clueless or shy by the prospects. It also dilutes the presentation if the parts are split between six or seven people versus having the best presenters take on large roles, where they can really shine.

To Rob’s point about not needing the team to be in the room….our agency has wrestled with this issue. Unless the prospect asks, we don’t include the entire team who would work on the business in the presentation. That just isn’t necessary and often hurts the pitch. But, most prospects want to (at a minimum) understand who their day to day account lead will be. By leaving that person out of the meeting, you’re often asking for trouble because the question will come up. I don’t think we’ve found the perfect solution. But, what we’ve tried to do is always have that person in the meeting….even if he/she isn’t a great presenter. If that’s the case, we’ll make sure that a limited, but important, role is given to that account lead in the presentation so that it doesn’t hurt our efforts, but ensures that the prospects do see we have a bright, energetic executive that they will be dealing with.

My guess is that most agencies have yet to find the silver bullet way of presenting. Would love to hear anyone’s experiences or views on this topic.

Making Oscar ethical again...

I found this article amusing. As you'll read, one of the co-producers of the highly acclaimed small budget film "Hurt Locker" has been banned from attending this year's Oscar Awards Ceremony.

It seems Nicholas Chartier broke Academy rules by emailing some Academy judges in February, urging them to vote for his film as movie of the year. In the same email, he lambasted the high budget, fan favorite (Avatar) that is the clear front runner.

Academy campaign rules ban direct personal communications with members, and explicitly ban any attempt to cast a negative light on a competing film. Mr. Chartier has apologized. But, his penalty is set in stone.

It's hard for me to say whether this man's "ethical” lapse in judgment calls for a penalty like this. But, I find this whole episode ironic. From what I hear, personal emails such as this are really just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to how studios (and their representatives) now market, lobby and directly sell, push and prod to convince Academy judges to vote for their films.

Yes, this has become a big business within Hollywood. And, one that isn't taken lightly by PR, promotions, advertising, agents and other niche service providers who make big bucks spending lots of time and energy waging hard hitting campaigns to achieve results. The pursuit of the Oscar is understandable. Winning one these days means instant fame for newbie's in the business and creates an ongoing spotlight of recognition for any actor, director (or even sound producer) who is continually looking to build his/her career. It also means the ability to command a lot more money on any future films, promotions and sponsorships.

Peppercom has never gotten involved in the Hollywood scene (thank God). A firm really needs to have deep Tinseltown roots to be effective in that city (which is all about who you know versus the substance of one's communications strategy). That just never interested us. But, I have marketing and entertainment friends who are highly networked into this scene. Most agree, that the battle to obtain the Oscar has become an absolute obsession which has forced friendly competitors to become hostile combatants who often take on a "win at all cost" attitude. I've heard that it's not uncommon for campaigns to include "unofficial and casual" lunches or drinks with Academy members, as well as gifts (offered under other auspices) and nasty public relations battles behind the scenes with Hollywood media and other influencers who can help sway both perceptions and decisions. And, of course, in typical Hollywood fashion, malicious and often scandalous rumors about directors and their actors/casts are routinely spread to undermine credibility and their appeal.

I wonder if this one-off penalty will really have any impact on a system that is plagued with ethics problems and has gone completely awry? No doubt, the Oscar founders didn't have this in mind when the platform was created. It seems to me that a complete assessment and then revamping of the rules and principles guiding how the participants "campaign" for the Oscars really needs to be looked at versus this insignificant band aid approach.

Everybody is a “solutions” provider

The other morning, I watched Dow Chemical’s CEO conduct an interesting interview on CNBC about his  company’s business strategy.  Throughout the interview, he repeated over and over again how Dow Chemical is a solutions provider for its clients. He offered up one or two examples that showcased this. But, to be honest, he pretty much lost me after the fifth time the word “solutions” came out of his mouth.

So many companies across countless industries continue to use ambiguous phrases such as “solutions provider” to describe the core benefit provided to clients/customers. The problem with this phrase is that while everyone understands immediately what the word solutions means, ironically it has almost no worth or significance because of its complete overindulgence in today’s business world.

Think about it. What company doesn’t provide solutions to its customers? I’ll go out on a limb here and contend that those companies that really can’t provide solutions won’t be in business very long. So, if a company has been in business for say a year or even two, it’s probably safe to say it is providing at least a solution to customers.

I believe the bottom line effect of using a phrase like this in one’s positioning statement, or at least  as a core message in how a company tries to set itself apart, will have the opposite of the desired result. Most business people hear or read “solutions provider” and their eyes glaze over because they’ve heard that from thousands of other companies. Now, this company (which is trying to set itself apart) has actually become that much more commoditized in the mind of the target audience.

Try using this phrase on a phone call with a reporter while communicating why your client has the greatest company since sliced bread. Oh boy. You’ll never experience someone try to end a conversation quicker. For them, it’s a matter of building credibility about why your client deserves to be interviewed or featured versus the other thousand companies that are pitched to him/her each day. You say solutions provider and the reporter hears blah, blah, blah… It’s an instant turn off and the credibility you were attempting to build is gone.

Over the years, we’ve seen many buzz words come and go. Most don’t have lasting power (which is good) because they become meaningless because everyone tries to own them.  A few phrases that come to mind (mostly from technology companies) include: cutting edge, bleeding edge and scalable. While there is certainly nothing wrong with communicating these phrases internally, we’ve always tried our best to steer clients away from putting them in press releases, on their Web sites and in articles/speeches. Sometimes it worked and many times it didn’t.

For whatever reason, “solutions provider” continues to live long and prosper. (Sorry, I’m a Star Trek fan.) I hope just a few of those companies that continue to cherish this phrase wake up and take notice of what I’m writing. Trust me. You won’t be putting your best foot forward in communicating what your company’s unique story is if “solutions provider” is in the mix.

Why aren't Americans buying the bailout?

This is a great article that is definitely worth reading. The author's premise is that the administration's lackluster communications strategies and tactics are the critical factors why Americans haven't bought into the bailout plan.

She points out a number of critical strategies that good advertising execs stick to when creating really effective TV spots. And, of course, these are just as important in the world of public relations – Make the subject easy to understand, frequently repeat your core message, personalize that story so your audience really feels it, ensure that it’s accurate and my favorite... be specific. We often refer to this last point as specifically “identifying the pain.” Specific to this bailout, it means if your audience fails to act by not supporting this bill, what real, acute pain will they feel?

Agency Pitch Mistake #13

Marketing agency consultant Robb High claims that firms often show "too much stuff" in new business presentations. He focused on this in his 13th email today which highlighted pitch mistakes.

I agree that this is a real industry problem. In fact, a note to Rob: It probably deserves to make the top-5 list.

No one ever wants to lose a piece of new business by offering too few ideas, or too little information. So, all too often, a team will present everything under the sun in the hopes that the prospect will find at least a couple of nuggets of interest. But, what really happens is that the prospect is presented with information overload and the team almost always takes up way too much time monopolizing the meeting (versus letting the prospect speak and a natural dialogue taking place). In the end, when this happens it almost always results in a lost business opportunity because the flow of the meeting runs counter to anything positive that the prospect is looking for.

I know about this. Unfortunately, I've lived (and died) through a number of these presentation debacles. I remember one especially painful instance a few years back when our team had far too many ideas within a Power Point presentation. The problem was that our team leader never organized any time for us to properly rehearse and understand whether the pitch was entirely too long. Making matters worse, the prospect told us we had a hard stop at 90 minutes. He also wanted his team to have at least 20 minutes at the end to ask questions (so, we actually had 70 minutes to present). Of course, since we didn't know how long our ideas would take, it wasn’t all that surprising (looking back) that we were still only 80 percent through the pitch when that 90 minute mark reared its ugly head. I'll never forget that embarrassing moment when the prospect literally interrupted me in mid sentence by saying, "Sorry Ed. But, time is up and we need to abide by the same rules for all agencies in the pitch. Thanks again for flying three hours out here to pitch our business though.”

We lost. And, we lost badly. It was incredibly frustrating.

Believe it or not, that pitch had a silver lining. It actually made us completely reassess (and change) every facet involving new business presentations. And, we took a deep look at how much content should be delivered to any prospect (regardless of how long the meeting is). Now, our teams will always rehearse presentations numerous times, usually chopping away ideas and capabilities that can just as easily be handed out as leave-behinds later on. The critical end goal is to make sure that the presentation always flows well.

Our consultant Darryl Salerno helped us even more over the past year. Now, we rehearse as if we only have 10-15 minutes to present capabilities and ideas to the prospect. I know that might seem a tad unrealistic (although, it did happen to us on one mega Peppercom pitch). More importantly, it truly brings a wonderful sense of calm to the team because it allows for each member to laser focus on only those one or two major (and critical) points that the client HAS to hear for us to win. Once we know that those points can be articulated well, team confidence is sky high because everyone feels assured that their part will flow well and should be compelling.

And, wouldn’t you know it. We recently won a seven figure Fortune 500 account using this methodology.