Brief writing - it's harder than you think

The biggest problem with brief writing is that people think they're easy to write.

Typical Marketing Department:
"We're going to grab a sandwich. Coming?"
"Sure, give me ten minutes. Just need to get a brief to the Agency".


Typical Client Service Department:
"We're going for sushi. Coming?"
"Sure, give me ten minutes. Just need to get a brief into Traffic".

Great briefs take time. 

A great brief needs to be very, very clear what the resultant output should achieve (note: not what it should look or sound like, but what it's intention is). More than that a great brief must inspire, in fact, catapult, the imagination of your creative teams. It needs to immediately conjure up ideas and angles and possibilities and excitement. 

To do that it needs to be a few simple things:

1. Be Clear.

2. Be Concise.

3. Be Clever.

4. Be Creative.
5. Be Collaborative.

I'm going to unpack these in this blog. I've even drawn you a little video in the proposition section. Take a look. 

Be Clear:

Who do you want to do what as a result of this piece of communication?

There's a bunch of choices in there and the catch-all target market definition usually chucked in a brief is a perfect example of lazy thinking, where no choices have been made at all. It's murky and bloated and will undoubtedly lead to obviously murky and inefficient communication output.

To exquisitely illustrate the point, watch this:

Once you've sorted the "who are we talking to" out, then what do you want them to do...as a result of engaging with this piece of communication.

Answering these questions as a "if-then" approach is helpful. Remember, they may be exposed to a whole lot of things that your brand is saying in a whole lot of channels. However - what's this one going to ask the/expect them/persuade them to do?  This is where separating out marketing objectives from communication objectives is so critical. Example, the key job of a banner ad is most likely not to increase brand awareness.

Obviously if the brief is for the BIG IDEA, and you're not down to the individual elements yet, think even more carefully about what the role of the communication will be. What will success look like? Will it (can it) be measured, if so how, and if not - how will you know it worked?

Be Concise:

Doing all of the above thinking - before you write the brief - helps you become focused in your thinking. And so the communication can be focused, and work in an integrated way with all the other bits of communication in your overall plan. If you want to ask your consumers to do ten things, you must realize that not only are you being lazy, but most consumers are. Ask us to do/think/feel/remember one thing, maybe - just maybe - we'll do it. Ten things, or even three? Sorry, what were you saying again?

A creative brief should be no more than two pages. It should tell a story and should read well. Not like a collection of marketing-speak cut and pasted from the brand plan. 

Be Clever:

Find a truly interesting and motivating and deep-seated reason why people do what they do. And find a way of connecting it to what your brand offers. Where the human truth or insight meets your brand truth or insight is where the magic starts happening. This is going to emerge in your brief as the Proposition (see next point).

An example from a campaign that I loved the moment I saw it (Boom! Great insight driven work always does that - connects with a Boom!), is Sanlam's One Rand Man campaign. The insight is - my words not theirs - that because we don't physically pay with cash, our money doesn't seem real. 

Be Creative:

This is the real thorn in the side. Here's why you really can't bang it out before lunch.

The inspirational bit of the brief hinges on the Proposition. Call it what you like. The Platform. The Single Minded Thought. The Elevator Pitch. The thing most likely to convince our consumer to do/think/feel what we want them to do/think/feel. This builds on the brand's Value Proposition.

Source: Tim Williams

Usually, you can't get to a great proposition unless you have a really good Insight. Because what we want to do with the proposition is create a launch pad for ideas. The insight helps because it allows you a real understanding of consumer motivations and beliefs - the why not the what. (Insights are something that must be done, along with the Brand's Positioning Statement way before you sit down to write the brief).

The proposition requires creative writing. And understandably not every marketer or account manager is a creative writer. So this proposition can and should be written in collaboration with the agency. In agencies, account managers should be creative. But if they're not, then they should bring in a strategist or a copywriter to get that sentence. Because once you've got it - you're off. That's the catapult to a big idea and a seamless, integrated campaign.

Propositions need also to help make the brand distinctive. Why can this brand solve the tension in that insight better than anyone else? This is when a truly differentiated and distinctive product concept helps. But honestly, how many of those do we see?

So the proposition links a universal insight or truth with a brand truth with something that makes your brand distinctive from the competition or category. Note I said distinctive not differentiated. Distinctiveness is critical when we get to the communication part of the proposition. It sets us apart, maybe tonality, maybe because of an underlying purpose, maybe because of a bottle shape. 

Read this wonderful examnple from The Economist: https://brandsandhumour.substack.com/p/those-economist-ads-part-1

The best way to get better at this is to practice. There are a number of obvious examples but a powerful one is Dove. The fact that a brand based on a moisturising soap can help you acknowledge your inner saboteur and encourage self-belief and self-confidence in young women, is nothing short of miraculous.

I find a way to write good propositions is to think of them like headlines. In fact great propositions can be headlines and many end up with tiny tweaks to be payoff lines. How would you write the proposition for this ad?

Human truth: Very few women think they're beautiful (4%).
Brand truth: Dove has a range of everyday beauty products.

So, true to the brand: Dove is a real beauty product
Motivating insight: You are probably more beautiful than you think
Distinctive to the competition: Dove believes in real beauty.

Here are some options (and these take time to write, so you have to try them out until you get to one that sounds like it could create ideas).

Proposition ideas:
With Dove, you know your beauty is real.
Dove helps you be comfortable in your skin.
Dove believes your beauty is within.
Dove - real beauty is more than skin deep.
Dove is a real beauty brand that celebrates real beauty.
Dove wants you to feel more beautiful than you think.

Here's what their VP said:

So "Dove wants you to feel more beautiful than you think" feels quite on-brand and quite creatively liberating doesn't it?

That's probably an easy one, because we know what the output is. I took toothpaste (IMHO a massively undifferentiated and non-distinctive category, except for specialist toothpastes) and here's where I got:

Brand truth: Brand X makes your teeth white and your smile beautiful
Insight: I feel happier if someone smiles at me.
Distinctive: A toothpaste brand that believes in the benefit of smiling.

Proposition attempt: 
Brand X, making the world a happier place, one smile at a time.

I've never worked on a toothpaste brand, but Googling this - smiles are everywhere in toothpaste ads, So that's not distinctive. But it seems that "happiness" could carve a distinctive tonality in the category. Is this Coca Cola's territory? It is close. (Ironically). So we may need to keep working on the line to find the right word. But can you start seeing a campaign around Making the World a Happier Place, a hashtag on Instagram, a Pinterest board, some amazing content possibilities, ads? I can. It has "legs". 

The last piece about "Be Creative" is that you should consider your audience for the brief. The creative team. How can you dramatise the proposition? Where should you do the briefing session? In the boardroom? Or In Real Life somewhere?  Wherever, make it inspiring.

Be Collaborative

As I said at the beginning, briefs are hard to get right. The more heads to bounce ideas off, the better. 

But, this is not a committee. You're asking for clarity and inspiring comment, not "oh and can you add in that we now also close later on Fridays"?

Find people in your organisation that are good with words. Those right brain types. 

And, when you have your briefing session, and in discussion someone creative says "what if we said.....", and comes out with the zinger of propositions, please for the love of great communication, punch the air and say YES that's IT! Instead of "it's not what it says on the brief".

If they feel excited and you feel excited, I promise there's a better chance your consumers will too.

_____________________________________________________________________

Adtherapy runs  Exceptional Brief Writing workshops for marketers and agencies.  

The Creative Fitness programme also includes Developing Transformative Insights and other useful tools and techniques to make sure your communication is as good as it should be. 

Email gillian@adtherapy.co.za or call 0832659099 to discuss how we can help you.

Better Client-Agency relationships lead to better Commercial Creativity. And that's a good thing.

Some time back I wrote a blog based on a report called "A is for Alliances", published by the IPA (Institute of Practitioners in Advertising), in the UK. (Images below are from the report. Download it here)

In it, they provide real justification for the age old saying that Clients get the agencies they deserve.

Aprais, a renowned Business Relationship Management Consultancy, reckons that there is as much as a 37% differential in the quality of creative output between poor and good client-agency relationships.

Unless you've been under a rock you know already that better creative is a better business building tool - more effective, more efficient, better ROI. (If you're still unconvinced, please read The Case for Creativity. Again, if need be).

So adding the Apprais research and The Case for Creativity findings together, we get a simple equation:

Good relationship = good work = better results.

Scientifically proven, even!

My mantra when I started Adtherapy ten years ago was similar:

Better skills = better relationships = better results.

How I got to this piece of intuitive brilliance? By working back from the great campaigns I'd been involved with, and realising there was always a strong client-agency partnership behind them. And when I unpacked what was at the root of those partnerships, it was obvious. Skills. Other things too - chemistry, culture compatibility, bravery, fun. But skills meant that each party respected each other and had confidence in each other. That  'trust' thing.

One of my clients told me that she would jump off a mountain, that our Executive Creative Director was like her parachute; that was the extent to which she trusted him (and us). The work we did for her got her death threats and nearly got her fired, but catapulted their business into the stratosphere, so she knew what 'brave' meant.

What drives successful Client-Agency partnerships?

The IPA has come up with 4 basic drivers of good partnerships. They are:

1. Transparent and effective approval processes
2. Mutually agreed and maintained timing plans
3. Honest and open briefings with clear business objectives, budget, timing and brand guidelines
4. Respectful and collaborative behaviours built on shared goals and rewards.

So simple. And yet, and yet, and yet...

• Many briefs are terrible. Lacking in information, too long, no clear thinking, prescriptive, pedantic, clumsy, no insight.
• Many times the business objectives and the brand objectives are muddled and are not clear.
• Consumer understanding is limited and basic or super surface-level.
• These horrible briefs are often emailed; not even presented in person.
• Agency sometimes questions the briefs, but this creates a disharmony - "why are they being so argumentative"?
• Deadlines bear no resemblance to reality - they are imposed from the outside in, because of an internal deadline.
• Then the work that comes back is used as a guide to what the client team doesn't want, doesn't like.
• There are few evaluation skills, few skills that help in giving constructive feedback. B.t.w. - "it makes me want to vomit" is not a good one.
• Approvals become about second guessing the bigger boss, and then the next bigger boss, because many of the corporate marketing teams operate in a culture of fear and 'what would s/he like'?
• And would you believe it, because of all of this to-ing and fro-ing, deadlines are missed.
• And the agency is "useless".

Many of these marketers and agencies willingly submit to relationship audits, every month, twice a year, whatever, to 'measure the relationship'. Issues are raised, concerns are flagged. Until the next audit, when the same issues are raised and concerns are flagged.

What to do? *wrings her hands*

Back to Adtherapy maths formula.

Better skills = better relationships = better results.

What to do? Put the skills in place to make it work. Then, get some Partnership Principles in place. And move forward happily - or don't. You may both be wrong for each other. Acknowledge it and move on instead of perpetuating an unsuccessful relationship.

What are Partnership Principles?

The work done in the IPA exercise highlighted the concept of a Relationship Contract. Agencies and clients have lengthy legal contracts (which are often not signed because they spend so much time bouncing between lawyers) and detailed fee agreements but no real contract on how to work together. An example from Avis and DDB from the 1960's shows us how it's done.

From A is For Alliances, IPA

To get you started, you could consider the advice given by Gotz Ulmer, Executive Creative Director at Germany's best agency, Jung von Matt. He said they have three simple rules for working with clients. They ask:

1. Are we making money?
2. Are we doing great work?
3. Are we having fun?

If they can't answer 'Yes' to at least 2, then it's not the right agency-client partnership for them. 

Then make sure you and your client have the right skills.

What are these magical skills, I hear you cry? Interestingly, I believe the same set of skills is required by both parties at the coalface - namely the agency account manager/strategist team, and the brand/marketing manager. They are the fulcrum of the relationship and need to manage up, manage resources, manage conflict and manage the risk.

Some of the skills are 'hard', some are 'soft'. This is not a complete list, but here are some:

• Hard: Brand strategy, positioning, segmentation, consumer behaviour, real insights, writing exceptional briefs, evaluating creative, integrated media options (including digital), budget management.
• Soft: Giving constructive feedback, being inspiring, managing conflict in a positive way, selling up the organisation, effective communication, body language, building teams, presenting well.

Honestly, if you are managing clients , or are managing an agency relationship without being super skilled in these areas, you are wasting other people's time and money. 

The whole point of having an agency is that they are able to bring to the business a degree of commercial creativity that will drive your business forward. A little like the man with the ladder in this picture:

Work together well, and both your businesses will thrive. Work together badly, and both your businesses will suffer. Or at least not do as well as they could. And you will get the advertising, and the agency, you deserve.
_________________________________________________________________

Adtherapy is premised on helping agencies and marketers work better together to develop better quality creative output, because it is better for business. We have numerous training options from Creative Fitness for marketers to Account Leadership for agencies, to a fully fledged suite of modules for up-skilling marketing teams in our new Business Marketing Academy. And we consult too!  

Browse our offerings on  www.adtherapy.co.za, or www.businessmarketingacademy.guru or email me on gillian@adtherapy.co.za or talk to me on Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook. Or just stop me in the street.

(Ladder man image courtesy of Freedigitalphotos.net by JessaPhorn)

10 Lessons For Agencies & Marketers, From 3 Ad Veterans

I read Wallop recently, the recollections of Bob Rightford, Brian Searle-Tripp and Roger Makin about the ad agency they built: Rightford Searle-Tripp Makin (RSTM). The agency became Ogilvy Mather-RSTM and is now simply called Ogilvy.

Disclaimer - Bob Rightford is my father in law.

In my 25+ years in the ad business, I didn't ever work for the company, either during Bob's tenure or after his retirement. I did however work for a few of their competitors. So reading the book was like peering in through a window. It was fascinating to look inside, from the outside.

What is also fascinating is to use the book as a then and now comparison.

No-one can deny they not only made great creative ads, they also helped their clients build strong brands  and strong businesses. If you go to the Golden Oldies page of the website, it truly is a chronicle of the foundations of some of our biggest and most loved brands.

What? Creative ads that also built business? I cringe when I hear marketers expressing surprise or cynicism in that notion. Firstly, a creative ad is only great if it achieves the objectives set out in the brief. And secondly, there is more than enough evidence (see the research in The Case for Creativity) that creative ads have a far better chance of achieving better commercial results. So it should be a no-brainer for businesses to want the best creative from their agencies. And for agencies to constantly strive to provide groundbreaking ideas.

And yet, at the nub of so many agency-client relationship issues is this notion of the agency not  "adding value", not bringing "thought leadership" nor "business building ideas" to their clients. Many marketers feel that their agencies simply don't understand their business and aren't business focused enough. Bear in mind that CEO's of businesses even feel their CMO's aren't business focused enough! (see this Fournaise research). So the disconnect from CEO to CMO to agency, and ultimately to the creative output and the agency-client relationship, is massive.

What Wallop shows us is that  RSTM managed to connect rather than be disconnected. They formed deep relationships with their clients, many of which persist to this day, long after Bob, Brian and Roger retired. They built a company culture, one which the current Ogilvy team respects and builds upon. They attracted great people. They did great work. The work they did created foundations for brands that grew from strength to strength. And because of all that, and a few other things they got right, their agency grew from strength to strength.

So how did they achieve this holy grail?

I took some lessons out of the book - looking at what they did then, in the light of some of the challenges the industry faces now. Sure, the industry is different and remuneration models are tougher and client structures are harder to crack and people are busier and labour law is more stringent and.... There are loads of reasons why it could be said that it is much harder to succeed in advertising now than it was then. And yet. And yet... There are agencies that are succeeding. And I would hazard a guess that the lessons I gleaned, listed below, will be old hat to them. Different era, same principles.

Here are the lessons, in no particular order, I digested from the book. I think they're important for the industry of today - both marketing side and agency side.

1. Strong connection with the CEO and Marketing Director

The relationship between Bob Rightford and the CEO's of their client's companies, as well as the Marketing Directors, was strong, close and even bordered on brutal honesty. There was no kowtowing and second guessing. The depth of these relationships allowed for difficult conversations, allowed for respect to grow, and allowed for the right work to be produced.

Over the years an insidious culture has crept into the industry that CEO's are too important for marketing issues, and particularly advertising issues. Agency MD's and CEO's bemoan they have lost their seat at the Top Table. So, the relationship has been pushed further down and it lands somewhere at Marketing Manager-Account Director level. This is fine on a functional, timeline, project management basis, but it certainly won't build the kind of business successes that a strong relationship further up, or right at the top, will.

Another odd notion amongst agency account management or MD's that their job is "to keep the client happy", to not rock the boat, in case they lose the business. The irony is if they continue with that approach, they will lose the business anyway.

An agency is not there to keep the client happy. The agency is there to do great work which helps the client company achieve their marketing objectives. Sometimes, because of the subjective nature of creativity and innovation, that requires some boat rocking. And Wallop tells plenty of stories in that regard. All with happy endings.

2. Absolute loyalty to client's products.

Bob Rightford retired in 1995. Twenty years later, to this day, he remains fiercely loyal to his former clients' brands. And this brand loyalty was expected from everyone at RSTM.

Of course, not only is this polite, but it turns agency staff into consumers. The insights gleaned, the selling cycle, the product highs and lows are experienced by the people working on the business. It also takes you further into the clients value chain, into the real understanding of issues  that might affect the consumer. You will seldom get this in a brief. The example in the book about VW's dealers and the campaigns they developed to help them as businesses too, is a great example, particularly as the agency had to fight hard to get it made.

3. A deep understanding of the client's business, on every level and in every channel. No lines.

This follows on from the point above. But it was more than that. A slavish devotion to understanding every aspect of the client, from factory visits to store visits, competitive analyses (actual, on foot, not just Google), speaking to other channels in the selling cycle, like Dealers in the example above.

This built the ability to develop powerful insights. It allows the agency to access insights into the purchase behaviour of consumers that clients may be too close to, to see. Great campaigns usually have a cracker insight at their core. Also out of insight comes proactivity. Insights inspire new product concepts, new angles to address problems, new distribution options. And here's the thing - far from losing the business by forcing your clients to confront unpleasant truths, you not only help build their business, but also build the agency's business. In effect the VW Dealers became a new client, with additional revenue opportunities for the agency.

Too many agencies rely on their clients to give them insights. Too many marketers rely on their "Insights department" to give them insights, which is often just information. Too many of us are using the internet, or big data or third party research to tell us what people are doing. If you as an agency member are actively using, buying, driving, drinking your client's product every day, and making sure you watch others who do too, you'll be certain to stumble across an insight or two, way quicker than from behind your desk.

This deep understanding of the business your client is in, is also so critical in today's multi-channel communications era. No longer is it simply above- or below- the line. Now we have a million more silos. Digital. Social. Experiential. Activation. Shopper. Retail. Online, offline.  Third screen. Fourth Screen. And you know what - the consumer doesn't see it that way. There is no line. Only a consumer wanting, or not, to buy something.

4. Proactivity is not a cute tactical ad. It builds value for the client company. Business value.

The best example of this in the book, and there are many, was the creation by the agency of the Citi Golf concept. Like the VW Dealership campaign, the agency fought for this, based on a real understanding of the market and a nose for opportunity. Asking "What if?" Not only did it build immense value for the client over many years, it again built a new revenue and creative opportunity for the agency. Oh, and created a brand that South Africans adored. Watch how consumers said an emotional goodbye when eventually VW discontinued the Citi Golf,  in the link below.

5. They looked after their most important assets - their people.

Bob says they liked to say that their most important assets went down the elevators and out the front door at night. Wallop tells the story of a company that looked after their people. Were they relentless? Yes. Were they demanding and did they fire people? Sure. But it seems they did a few things right.

One, they created a culture where mavericks wanted to work. They attracted them and then they hired them when no-one else would. Agencies are not "corporates" and despite the best efforts of global holding companies and accountants in trying to turn them into corporately behaved businesses, they can't be, shouldn't be and won't ever be.

More than this they looked after their people - one example was when they fired a big big big Client because the junior marketing person was slowly sucking the life out of the creative department refers. Your people are your assets. And if they're depressed, your asset loses its immense value.

In my Adtherapy work, I see people in agencies dying in the trenches without management support. I see Account Management being mowed down by rude and disrespectful (and unskilled) clients; I see Creatives with hunched shoulders, working till 3am night after night and being expected to be creative the next day. This cannot be. The success of any agency lies in keeping your talented people inspired and motivated (and employed by you not your competitor). Sometimes  this means you have to go to war for them.

RSTM helped their people grow too. They invested in training. They ran successful workshop programmes which not only allowed people to bond and create friendships but also to hone their skills. Sadly in many agencies this is an expense that has been cut. Talk about not doing the cost-benefit analysis properly. Better skills make better business.

Another aspect of looking after their people was building a culture in which every person felt they played a part. An open attitude to where ideas come from. A shared interest in the campaign being sold and working well. Too many agencies use polarising language that put people in siloes. Like Creatives talking to Account Management about "Your Client", and Account Management discussing "Your Work" with Creatives. This book highlights a time and a culture where everyone was invested in the client getting the best work. Everyone cared. So the Clients did too.

6. Strong, focused (and aligned) leadership.

This was an interesting one, because it plays out so well in the agencies that are successful today. Strong leadership is required in order to have the difficult conversations that are so necessary in this business, both internally and with clients, suppliers and others. But aligned leadership is even more important. The leaders at the top being on the same page.

Bob says "we knew the type of work we wanted to do, and worked together to make that happen". It was never about the money, or keeping business, or meeting budgets. It was about the work. And that was across the board. Too many Account Management and MD's in my opinion believe its okay to throw the work under the wheels and rather do what the client wants. "Keep the peace and collect the cash".  Short-term thinking.

7. A company wide commitment to aim higher than you ever thought was possible.

This comes through in the commitment to "the work, the work, the work". It was quite simply all about the work. And the question was asked - is it good enough?  Work was developed, it was crafted, it was made better. Always. And the best suppliers, the best film makers, the most impossible ideas were made possible. Which made them great.

Somehow in this era of time-sheets and budget cuts and reduced margins, this commitment and passion for excellence falls by the way. Work is "okay" enough to leave the building. There's an air of compromise. Suppliers are chosen based on staying in budget. And maybe that's just the way of the world. But funnily enough, big ideas generally make big returns that make up for the expense upfront. Not just in advertising - in business. But it takes courage to motivate for that upfront investment. Lesson: be bold and brave. Be courageous.

8. An ethical compass - politically and personally.

The book starts with how Bob got fired from a previous company for what was deemed to be a 'bribe'. This drove his unwavering enforcement of ethics in the company that he, Brian and Roger sought to build. Their ethics came through in how they treated people, it came through in wanting to do the right thing politically, it came through in ensuring that the agency was above board in everything they did.

What agencies don't always understand is that their clients are distrustful of them anyway. Advertising is expensive. Clients imagine that agencies are crooking the books. Dodgy business practices seek only to weaken the industry and have no place in the relationships that need to be built in order to get great work.

9. Fun, more fun and then more on top of that.

People who have never worked in advertising think it's one long party. In fact I had a rule never ever to hire anyone who started an interview with "I've always wanted to work in advertising". It's a relentless, tough, ego-smashing, challenging, sometimes impossible, sometimes soul destroying, job, and it takes a certain type of person to thrive and excel in that space.

It involves long hours and lots of arguments and tempers and yet there is also lots of laughter. People who work in advertising generally have great senses of humour (thank heavens). Part of RSTM's success was creating an environment where people could have fun. Where they could let their hair down, and laugh or cry and run naked across the rooftop, then dust themselves off for another great day at the office.

10. They made money.

Agencies have a tough time these days in between being told what their hourly rates can be, what deliverables they can and can't charge for, how big the logo should be, in addition to marketing budgets being divided amongst more and more specialist agencies or going in-house. Applying all of the nine points above would be pointless without making enough money to pay your talent well, have decent premises, invest in training and inspirational activities and grow a great business.

What comes through in Wallop is that their mission was never "how do we get rich"? There was never a plan to build a great culture because that would make them money. Instead there was a fanatical obsession with making the very best advertising they could for their clients, and an obsession about helping their clients solve their business challenges. And that, in the end, helped them make money.

Valuable lessons.

So, those are ten thoughts from three veterans who were part of putting South Africa on the international map of advertising, that I feel are useful to ponder. I'm sure there are more.

Read the book, reminisce about ads you (or your parents) might remember on the website. 

But above all, think about the basic principles: 

Agency: Focus on the creative product and look after your people. 

Marketer: Invest in relationships with your ad agency at the top and let them be creative.

Both: Be courageous. 

All else will follow.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Adtherapy's mantra is better skills, better relationships, better results. 
We have a number of ways in which we work with agencies and marketers to make that happen. Read our website www.adtherapy.co.za to see some examples. 
Better yet, mail gillian@adtherapy.co.za or phone 0832659099 to chat about how we can help you.

Bitching about pitches? Here's a new approach.

I recently ran a pitch for a company that was seen as a highly desirable account in the industry because of the calibre of the work they had done. I don't often run pitches, mainly because I hate the standard pitch process. But I told the client that I thought there was an opportunity to do one differently - especially as their brand had a certain cachet, but more importantly because their company culture was refreshingly uncluttered and open, and the partnership with an agency was something they regarded as extremely important.

So the first thing we did was to call it an "Agency Engagement Process", not a Pitch. Semantics yes, but getting engaged, or engaging with someone, just feels like a more appealing prospect than 'pitching" which, let's face it means throwing a ball at someone's face as hard as you can.

image courtesy vectorolie | freedigitalphotos.net

Then we designed a Request for Information (RFI) that was one and a half pages long. No realms of financial information required, no hourly rates per each employee, no names of pets previously owned. Just simple questions, and even an emotional one: what is it about our account that makes you think you would be the right agency to partner with us? We asked whether there were any interesting facts about the Agency that we might not know, and then we asked them to submit the creative work of which they were most proud.

Oh, and when I say 'we' designed, I mean the client was deeply involved in the design and application process. This was no 'cut and paste' tick-box process.

We outlined the process we were planning to follow, and we agreed upfront that we would be transparent and open with all the agencies involved throughout the process. We also agreed the criteria, and the level of importance of each one.

Interestingly the winning agency's MD referred to it as an "empathetic pitch process". Yes it was.

Another feature of this "empathetic" pitch was that we were determined to give each agency detailed feedback, and to answer as many questions as they wanted to ask.

When we had gone through the submissions, we communicated (quickly) with the successful and unsuccessful agencies. The unsuccessful ones who wanted to know why they hadn't made it could ask, and I would tell them. Many of them said it was the best (if not, only) feedback they'd had during a pitch, and it was really useful. Pitches are time consuming and expensive. Why shouldn't agencies be able to use them as a learning process? Even though each client or prospective client and pitch situation is different, there may be some simple things that are screwing up the agency's chances of winning the business. For the work that agencies put in to pitches (usually free, or for a pittance), the absolute bare minimum should be some constructive feedback. IMHO.

After evaluating the RFI's from the long list, we selected five agencies for a short list. They were each invited to a Chemistry Session. The first date.

image courtesy Stuart Miles, freedigitalphotos.net

Before the meeting, we sent the five shortlisted agencies some thought starters in terms of areas they might want to research and have an opinion on. We suggested that they stay away from PowerPoint and bring the people that would work on the business.

The chemistry meetings were illuminating! I'll talk about the 'don't's' below, but overall it gave us an excellent way of discerning who to take into the next round.

After evaluating the agencies against the pre-agreed criteria (and after a rigorous, open and fair debate amongst the key stakeholders), we selected three agencies. There was no "done-deal". Each stakeholder had a different ranking of the 'favourites'. What made this process so unique too was that the key stakeholders in the business, right to the top, were involved in all the debates and meetings, from the beginning to the end, and each had an equal say. The Marketing Director, who was running the process, had a casting vote, if needed.

The brief to the last three agencies was to work towards a Tissue Session, off a detailed brief. We wanted them to suggest a possible "creative platform" that the client could build their next campaign around. We stressed that they were not to develop 'ads', but that this was a test not only of their strategic and creative abilities, it was a test of how they worked with the client in the three weeks leading up to the tissue session.

Why do it this way? 

Because if creative work is presented, the client might buy the right idea on the day, not the right team. And given that most work presented in pitches never sees the light of day (I reckon it's about 99%), and it's done totally in isolation of the marketing team, why choose a team on the pitch work? Beats me.

image courtesy of pakorn freedigitalphotos.net

During this Tissue Session process, the client had many working sessions with each agency, got an inside view of how they worked with their clients, and worked with actual client service people (who are almost invisible in the pitch process, yet so vital in the running of an account). The client also flew to see offices in other cities, and had the opportunity to meet production teams and other support staff. Again, the process was transparent, and questions were asked and answered as they came up.

Finally, the Tissue Session day was upon us. The responses to the brief were different and interesting and gave us all food for thought. It was clear on entering each agency's meeting room, that there was already a relationship between the client team and each agency - it wasn't a case of meeting people for the first time on the pitch day. Even the senior execs in the room had met the agency team at the Chemistry meeting. The meetings felt comfortable even though there was a lot at stake.

In the end, in my opinion, the best fit for the client was the agency that won the business. And funnily enough, the thing that probably swung it was a conversation about the client's business away from the traditional advertising space - the agency had researched all aspects of the business and was able to comment on an activation concept and provide insight that excited the client.

So, why write this post? A number of learnings made themselves clear to me - what the client did right, and what agencies should try not to do in pitches. As I said above, every pitch is different, but hopefully these can help.

Things I think worked well

Image courtesy iosphere freedigitalphotos.net

Care was taken not to waste people's time with the RFI. It was kept short for a reason: why waste agencies' (valuable) time when they might not make it through?

Enough time was allocated to each step - there was plenty of time to complete RFI's, prepare for the Chemistry Sessions, and for the final Tissue Session. Yes some pitches may be urgent, but what can a marketer possibly gain by rushing this process?

The process was open and transparent - most questions asked, were answered. To help the client find time to do his day job, I was given the task of handling these - and was happy to give advice, guidance, and talk people off window ledges. I've been in huge pitches were no contact with the client was allowed between a group briefing, with all the competing agencies in the same room, to the presentation - horrible. And unconstructive.

Detailed feedback was given to both successful and unsuccessful agencies, which I hope (given some of their comments) will help them learn and improve in upcoming pitches.

Evaluation criteria were shared, and feedback was given according to those criteria.

Top management involvement was key - in each and every meeting, even internal debates, from the beginning to the end. The most senior executive expressed amazement that there are pitches in which the CEO doesn't get involved. "Why would they not want to be involved, when it's such an important decision for the business?"

A lot of additional research took place - the client and I spoke to many other people about the agencies - TV directors, other clients, staff, other suppliers.

The incumbent agency was involved and gave advice to other agencies and to client and me. This was a bit weird and probably wouldn't work in the case where a pitch is called because of  a breakdown in relationship between agency and client - but it worked in this case - the best interests of the client were top of mind.

Things I think agencies should bear in mind for their next pitch

Answer the brief (even if it's a brief for a meeting), creatively. The winning agency devised a technique for directing the flow of conversation in the Chemistry Meeting that was clever, simple and creative. The impression created was that if they can think that strategically and creatively for a meeting, then they've got to be good.

Follow the instructions - they are there for a reason! We said 'no PowerPoint", as the client is allergic to PowerPoint's. What happened? Two out the five 'dates', in the Chemistry Sessions - plugged in PowerPoint. I also use PowerPoint, but here's what I learned - it changes the dynamic in the room. It stops people talking to each other as they turn to look at the screen and they listen without engaging with the speaker. Most interesting for me, was that when they plugged a laptop in, it lowered the lights in the room. Then when the PP was done, the discussion took place in a gloomy light. The effect on the 'chemistry' in the room was staggering.

Cartoon courtesy of the remarkable Tom Fishburne @marketoonist

Consider carefully who to bring with. One of the agencies had someone present something (see how discreet I'm being) which somewhat annoyed one of the clients. When I gave them this feedback, the agency said "oh no, but he's leaving anyway'. What would have happened if he was the star of the show, only for the client to find out at the end of the process that he was leaving? Bring the best people,  but make sure if the brief says "bring the people who will work on the business", that's who you bring. If you have to hire to handle the business, say so. Keep the group small. Make sure everyone has a role in the meeting.  But make sure the core team in the meeting will be there for the client afterwards.

Make sure your credentials are relevant to the needs of the Client's business. If you are linked to a global network and have offices in 300 countries and several small planets, consider whether that is in fact relevant, impactful and interesting to the client. I find a lot of agency credentials talk about the agency - yes that's a good thing - but do what you do best. Craft a persuasive message. Define your benefit. Find an insight about your target audience (the prospective client), ask what will encourage them to appoint you. I promise you a standard credentials show ain't going to do it. Bear in mind too, that by the time the client sees you, if he's done his work properly (as was the case in this one), he (or she) knows all that stuff anyway. They've read your submission, they've been on to your website etc. Your job is to answer the WIIFM* question (*What's in it for me?)

Do your research. Introduce some category or brand insights. But and this is a big but. Don't tell them what they already know. Because, worst case, you might get it wrong. If it's about competitors - they probably already know what their competitors are saying and what their positionings are. Add a layer to it that they won't know. Frame it differently. Bring consumer insights that will surprise them, rather than the obvious ones that they may have worked with. I realize this is difficult - because as Donal Rumsfield said "there are things we don't know we don't know". You don't know what they know - but be sensible about it. If you there marketing person of that company, would you know this - or do you think it's an Aha observation?

Find a role for account management. Almost every agency had a 'tag on' account management person, yet the client had rated this is a very important part of the search criteria. Especially in a process like this, the client wanted a sense of how compatible the account management person was with the key members of the team. If the account management person sits in a corner with a mouth full of teeth, that's hard to gauge. And yes Creative Directors, I'm looking at you on this one. Let them play a role - a team role, not a support role. The client wants and needs to see it, because as much as they might love you, they aren't going to be speaking to you 87 times a day.

And - show your soul. The question we asked "what is it about our account that makes you think your agency is the right agency to partner us" gave us some hilarious answers ("because it's nearly awards season"... seriously) but also showed us some incredible insight from agencies that might not have otherwise been  considered. It's an engagement process - be engaging.

And finally...

Make sure that you want the client for the right reasons. Is it right for your business? Does it suit your team's expertise, what you love doing, the type of work you want to do, the categories you know and love. Because if it's just for the money, chances are the whole process is going to have to be redone too soon.

_______________________________________________________________________

Adtherapy is a consulting and advertising skills-building company that is on a quest to #ridtheworldofbadadvertising

Agencies: 

Call me if you want advice on your new business pitch strategy, your credentials presentation, your positioning. Or if you just want to chat.

Marketers: 

Call me if you want to discuss finding a new agency. I'll probably start by asking you if you can make the current relationship work better, and may help you with that. But if you can't, then I'd be happy to work through a process like this with you. Bear in mind though - the success was partly the process, and mostly the involvement from the client. So you'll have to work with me.

Contact details: (+27) (0) 83 2659099

Mail: gillian@adtherapy.co.za

What Do Ad Agencies Actually Sell?

In our workshop on The Business of Advertising, I usually start by explaining the basic principles of business. Any business. 

You are able to produce something, which you think has some value to someone. It is somehow different from what they can currently buy, and so it has some value. The key issues are - what is the value of the thing, how do you sell it, and can you make a profit by selling it at a price that covers the costs and leaves something over for you?

Image by bplanet

Everyone gets that. 

And then I ask: so, what do Agency's sell?

The usual answers?

• Time.
• Ideas.
• Creativity.
• Solutions.
• Ads?

These answers just raise more questions:

• If you sell time, how is your time different from another agency's time?
• How do you decide on the price for an idea/creativity/solutions?
• Is an agency a service business or a product business? 

The correct answer, in my view, is none of these. It was perfectly explained in this blog by The Ignition Consulting Group, called Are you really in the Service Business?

Many agencies lament that they have become “order-takers.”  But why?  Who turned your agency into an order-taker?  You did – not your clients.  You did it by forgetting what it is you’re really selling.  You’re not selling service.  You’re not even selling ads or ideas. You’re selling business results. 

Yes - what agencies sell is the chance for the marketer to realise their marketing objectives. This is the continuum - business strategy, marketing strategy, communication strategy, implementation, results.

Without the agency providing the stimulus materials in the best channels to persuade the target consumer to think, feel or do whatever it is that they want them to think, feel or do, the marketer doesn't get to deliver the results.

Here's more from the article:

The fact is that agencies shouldn’t be regarded as professional service firms, but rather professional knowledge firms.  Clients don’t just hire you for what you do, but rather what you know.

What this change in emphasis does is empowers an Agency's recommendations. They are the ones with the specialist knowledge. Agencies often compare themselves to other 'professional' firms like lawyers. "Those guys are taken seriously, and their recommendations are listened to. Why?" Because their clients assume the lawyer knows more than they do about the law and the application thereof.

If Agencies are simply "servicing" their clients, then where does the specialist knowledge lie? Is the assumption that the Client has the knowledge, and Agencies are simply implementing it?

Research conducted by The Ignition Group underscores this:

Over the many years that Ignition Consulting Group has been conducting surveys of advertising agencies, we have discovered that agencies give themselves the highest ratings in the areas of “Responsive service,” “Listening to clients,” and “Meeting timetables and budgets.”  The lowest-rated areas?  “Developing proactive ideas and delivering marketing leadership to clients.” 

Service is a commodity.  Smart thinking is not.  Clients can get good service anywhere, but proactive marketing leadership is in short supply.  In fact, most surveys that seek to diagnose why clients switch agencies usually produce the same answer: “Because our agency never gave us anything we didn’t ask for.”

I asked delegates in an Account Management workshop to define the role of Account Management. One of the answers was "to keep Clients happy".

Image by Ambro

I would suggest that the happiest a Client is, is when their marketing campaigns deliver better than expected business results. And Agencies can do that only by protecting their expertise so that they get to prove what they can do.

Which is not to "service" clients. It's to delight consumers.



Adtherapy is a training and consulting business which aims to make your bottom line healthier, and your business happier. We specialise in helping Marketers and Agencies get the best out of each other. Read more about what we do here

All images courtesy of freedigitalimages.net

Creative Account Management: the real deal

Account Management is a difficult job and a much maligned role. It is the interface between the marketing client (the fulcrum of all of the client's own internal politics) and the ad agency's system that produces the creative work: traffic, creative teams, strategy, production, implementation.

They are also a human punch-bag.

The client gives them a tough time because they place them in very difficult situations, and expect them to do the impossible, often. Some are downright abusive.

Inside the agency, some of the people they work with think that Account Management are "useless". 

Does your dog bite? Image by cjenjasuwan.

"They just do what the client wants".

"They don't know good work".

"They're more like the client than this client is".

"They don't push back hard enough".

I attended an Eagles breakfast many years ago when the agency CD from Mother London spoke. "We don't have account management", he said to thunderous applause.

Here's how Mother London's Stephen Ledger-Lomas explained it recently: 

"We don't have any account managers. The client can call the designer the creative strategist, they can call the chef if they want. That means there's no hiding places - they are the ones that have to explain their ideas to the client directly. there's no pass the parcel".

Personally - I love that philosophy. Cut down on the layers. Keep it responsive and flexible and accountable. Get the key people close to the client's business. 

But funnily enough, many creatives that I speak to actually don't want to take on that role. They want someone to be the 'buffer'.

So, why the disconnect? Why don't they value this person who's taking the punches for he team?

Because great Account Managers are few.

The person who can be the ideal Account Manager is multi-faceted. They are organised, numerate, diplomatic, have good people skills, are problem solvers, can project manage, are persuasive, are manipulative (in that they have to sometimes get stuff out of people that is almost humanly impossible), are motivational, are good marketers, understand media in all its facets, understand production, understand marketing and consumer behaviour, are strategic, and are creative. They aren't left brained or right brained, they are 'whole brained'.

And that's rare.

Some things have happened to the Account Management role that have worsened their lot. Not just here - globally. 

Ticking boxes isn't everything. Image by Danilo Rizutti

I once asked a colleague from Lowe in London what he thought the problem with Account Management was. He said "People have to stop promoting secretaries". Look, some of my best friends were secretaries, and sometimes that was their only way into the ad business, and they have done well. But often, secretaries get promoted into Account Management because of their organizational skills. Project management. Getting things done. Great. Tick. We need that. 

But that's not all we need.

The vast right brained chunk of what makes a great Account Manager is missing. Enter Strategists.

The strategists became the ones to fill in the gaps between what the project-manager-account-manager could and couldn't do. And great strategists are worth their weight in beluga caviar. But Account Management should not completely outsource this role. As I always say: "strategy is not a person". (As in, "let's call strategy"). It's a way of thinking, and Account Management has to lead, to direct, and contribute to this process, based on their intimate knowledge of the client and the client's business, to which strategists are only exposed every now and then.

So the Account Management role became just a glorious, glorified master of ceremony, bringing in the 'experts' to present to clients, wrapping things up at the end of the meeting and managing the project flow and deliverables.

Because of this, they became detached from the creative work - the real product that they are part of producing. They don't "speak creative". They don't consume great work; they don't read or watch what the creatives are reading or watching. If more Account Managers attended events like the Eagles Breakfast, perhaps there wouldn't be such a divide. The creative output becomes something to meet a deadline or a budget.

Inspire and lead - not manage. Image by KromKrathog

Another part of the problem is in the name. Account Management. It's boring. It says you manage an account. But you don't. You grow it. You inspire it. You inspire those who work on it. You live and breathe the success of it. The term 'Client Service' is even worse, as it implies that you simply service the client, do their bidding. Some clients want, and even demand this.  But, they will never get the best work from their creative resource as a result. 


(Read my analogy of Michael Jackson and his Doctor here to see why a client-agency relationship in which there's no respect for each other's skill-sets is doomed).

Some agencies have experimented with other titles. 'Brand Leader'. 'Communications Director'. And of course the creative eco-system, from which the account manager is banished through their own lack of organic participation, calls them names like 'Client Serpents', 'Client Surplus" or 'Client Serviettes'.

And then, equally polarising, are the terms "Creative Department", and "Creatives". Which means, by inference that other people in the agency are not creative. Which is of course what they should be to work in this business.

Part of the Account Management job is project management, part is marketing, part is strategic, part is creative and part is business, making sure that while the client's business is growing, so is the agency's.

At the end of the day a great Account Manager should live and die by great creative. As Colwyn Elder, head of strategy for Y&R said to me the other day: "it's rugby, not relay". It's as much your work if you're the Account Manager as it is the creative team's. But because the emphasis is on project management, and on handing over the relay baton, so the silos develop and become entrenched. Work, or client relationships get defined in terms like "theirs" or "your".

"My Client doesn't like your work" - accman to creative. Or "Tell creative that there are some changes to their work" - accman to traffic.

 The separateness works both ways: 

"Your client wouldn't know a good idea if it leapt from behind a bush" - creative to accman.

It's not yours, or theirs, or mine. It's ours.

In a fascinating article, Why Conformists are Key to Successful Innovation  in the Harvard Business Review, it shows the impact - good and bad - of too many "conformists" on a team of creative individuals. They are indeed necessary (and helpful) for innovation to be implemented, but they can also be idea killers.

Conformists tend to be the people who know how to get along with others. They know how the system works and they adhere to the rules. They have an eye for which ideas will be accepted by others. 

As you build your team, be careful not to overdo it on detail people, who tend to be risk-averse and uncomfortable with ambiguity. They can squelch nascent ideas. You don’t want the detail people forming a bloc. 

You might get lucky and find creative people who are also conformists. Those people do exist. In our study of 468 people, we found that 7% scored high on two of the three cognitive styles. You might even find creative people who are conformists and detail-oriented. But don’t hold your breath: Just 3% of the people we studied scored high on all three styles. 

And don’t overlook the importance of the people who are “none of the above.” I believe that people who don’t score high on any of the three styles tend to be the ones who form bridges among the creatives, the conformists, and the detail-oriented people. They foster understanding among the different types.

What to do?

An account manager that 'gets it'.
Image by KromKrathog

Seek those rare creatures who are 'whole brained'. Choose Account Managers who are strategically smart and creative and give them project management support. Do this rather than employ project managers, give them strategic support and expect them to go to war for great work. Project managers are always going to be task driven. This is a vitally important skill in an organisation in which the output is time sensitive and money sensitive. But it's not the essence of Account Management. Pure project managers are never going to grow client relationships and contribute to the creative dynamism that inspires brilliance from agencies. Not because they don't want to, they just aren't wired that way.

Find yourself the real deal. The ones that do want to. The ones that consider Creative Account Manager to be the ultimate title.



Adtherapy runs Account Management Workshop and Mentorship programmes for agencies that focus on building leadership capacity in the three most essential areas: Strategic thinking, Creative and Business. Contact Gillian if you need more info on gillian@adtherapy.co.za

All images courtesy www.freedigitalimages.net