There used to be a time when account men actually sold advertising to clients.
The theory was that the best advertising was brave advertising.
Advertising that stood out by breaking the category rules.
Given that the client had spent a long time learning and implementing the category rules, this was not an easy sell.
Every time you broke a rule the client would point out the ‘mistake’.
The client needed someone to help them understand why you were breaking the rules.
Someone to hold their hand.
That was an account man’s job.
I heard it put as follows:
“The client knows what he wants.
The agency knows what he needs.
The account man’s job is to get the client to want what he needs.”
Obviously every agency wants a happy client.
There are two ways to do this.
One: do the best job possible.
Two: do what the client wants.
They are the short-term view, and the long-term view.
In the short term the client will be happy if you do what he wants.
If it doesn’t work, he won’t be happy.
The alternative is you insist on doing what you believe to be right
In the short term the client may be unhappy.
But if it works, he’ll be happy.
So the issue is: happy client in the short term, or the long term.
If you do what the client wants in the short term, and it doesn’t work, you lose the account.
Likewise, if you do what you believe to be right, against the client’s wishes, and it doesn’t work you lose the account.
So, either way, you’re betting the account on what you do working.
In short, you’ll be left carrying the can.
So you might as well bet on the option you think will work.
Not just the easy option.
When I was at BMP I had a conversation with the (then) Head of Planning.
I thought the way we were using research made everyone lazy.
Instead of being a source of useful information, it became a thumbs up or down on whether work got made.
I thought we should use research findings as input, but still take the final decision ourselves.
One of the agencies I admired was Saatchi.
They’d always done disruptive work, long before the term ‘disruption’ was coined.
I thought the difference between them and us was the account men.
It wasn’t that our creatives couldn’t do work as daring as Saatchi, it was that our account men wouldn’t sell it.
I said to the head of panning that I thought ‘selling’ had become a dirty word.
In his heavy Scottish accent he said, “So it should be. We’re not some shyster outfit like Saatchi. We don’t ‘sell’ work to a client.
We lay the true facts of research before him and trust his own good sense and judgement to show him the correct path.”
That’s where we differed.
That’s why I always thought one of the things that made Saatchi a great agency was Tim Bell.
An account man who actually sold work to clients.
That’s also why I thought one of the things that made CDP a great agency was Frank Lowe.
Another account man who actually sold work to clients.
Apparently, CDP once had to present a long expensive commercial to a difficult client.
Frank went into the presentation and sat next to the client.
The account man played the commercial.
Frank and the client watched it together.
After the client had seen it, he said he wasn’t sure about a particular part.
Frank said, “Do you know, that’s exactly what I thought. I think we should see it again. Play it again for us please.”
So the account man played it again.
Frank and the client watched carefully.
After it had finished, Frank patted the client’s arm and said, “No, I think we were wrong. It’s actually okay.”
And the client, reassured, bought it and ran it.
And that’s how important real account men are.
We can have all the great ideas in the world, but if the account man doesn’t get the client to run it, it’ll never happen.
And all we’ve got is a bookful of great roughs.
RSS Feed
Twitter
Email
My thought on account people (at least the ones i have the misfortune to share an office with) is that their job title has one too many C’s and could also lose an A and an O.
thanks Dave
you can learn a lot from a good client
but you can’t reason with the unreasonable.
there’s an analogy in project management (my Dad’s area)
“a consultant is someone who borrows the clients watch so he can tell them the time and then forgets to give it back.”
he was also a record salesman at Xerox in the 70’s where the maxim was
“people buy from people”
I think you’re right - “sales” has become a dirty word because there are so many bad sales people around. Sales is just like any other skill - it’s a pleasure to be sold to by a great salesman.
Morning Dave,
First off, I should say that I totally agree with you. Selling is an art, and any Suits that view their role as deliverymen (or women)are doing themselves and everyone who’s put effort into creating the work they’re carrying an enormous disservice.
Secondly, though, I would be loath to see the role of the Suit reduced to that of salesman - good or otherwise. Yes, a good Suit can make or break a piece of Creative work or a campaign, but a great Suit can make or break an Agency, whether that be through ensuring that everyone is working together to the best of their individual and collective abilities (the Conductor of the Orchestra analogy) or by relentlessly seeking out new business opportunities, both with new and existing Clients (the Truffle Pig analogy).
I obviously have a vested interest - but I wouldn’t do this job (and I certainly wouldn’t care about it as much as I do) if I didn’t believe in its absolute importance in the creation of great work and great agencies.
Yes, Dave.
I miss the days when I looked at work and be impressed.
Not just by the idea.
But how the agency managed to sell it.
I remember first seeing an old Speedo cinema spot.
The idea was simple and based on the tagline “cut to cut through water” - bit punny,yes.
Or Marcantonio’s classic “The BMW 5. Refined. Redefined” spot.
As good as the ideas were, they relied heavily on execution.
And it would have been so easy for a client to say, “I like the idea. But I can’t see/imagine it.”
Maybe that’s why scams are so popular now.
Suits love it because they don’t have to sell the work.
Clients love it because there’s no risk to the brand.
What you think, Guv? Thanks.
Robin - if a Suit doesn’t want to sell work, he or she is really in the wrong job.
Adland Suit.
100% agree with your comment of course.
Top suits are the mortar between the bricks, they hold the whole wall up.
They also provide new business, without which nothing happens.
Usually they are the start for the agency, and the most important person in it.
Check out Nigel Bogle and Robert Senior.
There are creative exceptions of course: Tim Delaney, David Abbott, Robin Wight, Robert Saville.
But these guys are also great suits.
I think we’ve become very wary of the ‘sales’ tag in advertising – which still seems to conjure up cheesy ad men selling brand babble to unwitting clients. It remains a hugely important and highly satisfying part of the job though. Thanks for the acknowledgement Dave!
How interseting, this reminds me of The Basildon Bloggers latest post.
Are you in Advertising to do business or in business to do Advertising?
Rayney Cloons Knutsford Kelly
Set up shop above a deli
Their names engraved on toughened glass
Their rise had been unstoppable and fast
They got their break with a great slogan
Voice over by Sir Terry Wogan
Words slurred and slightly clipped
Into folk lore it effortlessly slipped
Rayney Cloons Knutsford sacked Kelly
Over the presentation to win Pirelli
He was an account man to his core
Client cock sucker and a total bore
See what I mean. I didn’t copy it all but if you wanted to read the complete poembut you don’t have to.
http://thebasildonbloggerstrikesagain.com/
Dave
I knew a head of planning who thought that selling ideas (the agency’s product) to a client was rather vulgar. Whereas selling that client’s product to consumers was perfectly acceptable.
Good ideas would simply sell themselves, somehow. But good products would need the help of the agency.
Bizarre double standards, I thought.
But isn’t this argument/advice redundant nowadays? It doesn’t matter how good the creative is, or the account man, if some bloke from Birmingham in a focus group hasn’t given his seal of approval, then the client’s not interested. That’s why there’s so much shit.
Doing what the client wants is a way of life for alot of agencies these days. It makes sense because, as you said, clients like people doing what they say, it makes the agency’s life easy, it’s cheaper because you don’t have to pay for expensive creatives and good suits. Inevitably you lose the business in the end because the ads will be shit but that doesn’t matter. There will be a steady stream of clients eager to come to your agency because you do what the client wants and because you hire the cheap creatives and suits and get them to come in every weekend you can undercut the more noble agencies with your fee.
Cheap , quick and you do what the client wants. That’s cat nip for clients.
Phil, as a planner I tell you this: never let research make your decisions for you. And try not to make expensive decisions without research.
So now they needed a new Director
So they pinched Angus from Thomas Dowset Silk Hector
Someone crazy blue sky and wild
Although he was no more than a spoilt child
http://thebasildonbloggerstrikesagain.com/
Adland Suit
Guess that’s why the best ads tend to be from London - and by the indie shops.
You’re right that a suit that doesn’t want to sell is not in the right business.
However, these days and especially in holding-company agencies, aren’t suits often discouraged from trying too hard to sell risky work?
On top of their financial problems, last thing most CEOs and MDs want is a suit who pushes the client too hard.
Honestly, when was the last time any of us saw a really brave piece of work?
From an outside perspective as a client, I think that internal agency depts need to recognize a strong account man and their role in not only selling the ads and being the intermediary between agency and client, but also a business manager bringing in the new clients to feed the creatives (as Adland Suit points out) and getting the bills paid.
It is often fairly obvious that suits are held in low regard and in their defense they can help clients buy great advertising and negotiate strong margins for agencies. I guess it is all a question of respect across the different disciplines. Included in this should be the client. They actually do want to make relevant, creative ads that sell stuff. There are some very brave clients out there who will run against the grain and drive a new creative direction selling the ad internally to their senior team. At the end of the day it is all about sales.
Hi Sully,
Your reply made me think.
I started to reply but it turned into another post instead.
Thanks for that.
call me old fashioned, but isn’t a client ‘paying’ their agency to come up with ideas that will work - shouldn’t there be a ‘trust’ - i wouldn’t go into a bakers and say you should have cooked the bread in a different way. i trust the baker as thats his craft. is trust the same as selling?
Interesting point, Nicole.
Do we trust computer makers?
Folks who come up with expensive and flawed products?
Who reason that ‘we know it ain’t perfect but if we don’t launch now, the competitor will beat us to it’.
I paid 1.8k for a digital SLR.
I made the mistake of trusting them.
Because these days, digital cameras last around 5 years.
Mine’s already starting to act up.
So I suspect these days, trust is getting rarer.
Didn’t Mother start out without suits because ‘all suits do is say no or I’ll check’?
Mind, a friend of mine said they kept going to Mother and being told they had the perfect concept for their client, and being given the same idea they’d turned down for someone else a month before.
I’d just like to point out that the word verification thing that you need to put in to make a post right now is ‘one fascist’
@robin
That’s exactly the problem. People can’t trust products anymore. (This is what Umair Haque calls Zombieconomie — innovation vs. unnovation:
http://vimeo.com/3204792 ) That’s why ad people tend to focus on brand instead of product = emotions instead of facts. Of course it’s more difficult to sell emotions. That’s why advertising needs creative account men these days.
_______________________________________________
http://ex-blank-page.blogspot.com/2009/07/in-reply-to-daves-great-posts-56.html
Bentos - or anyone else still on this thread - WCRS also started with a no-suit policy.
Robin (if you’re still here): I always loved (although didn’t really agree with) Neil French’s comment - “Why would I need suits when I have motorcycle couriers?”
Nicole, I’m not sure that your analogy is a fair one.
If you buy a cake from a baker for yourself and you don’t like it, at the most you’ve wasted say $15. But let’s say you bought this cake for a very special occasion - your parents’ golden anniversary or something, your emotional investment at least is far higher - and I’m betting that you will be a LOT more demanding and anxious to ensure that this cake is the best. You won’t just take their word for it.
With an advertising campaign a lot more is at stake. (Not least the client’s job!) So you can hardly blame them for wanting everything to be ‘perfect’ and avoiding perceived ‘risks’. So they will question everything and call upon research to show them the best direction to take. And, if they have to choose between a brave new direction and a tried and tested one, guess which one they will most likely choose?
Personally I think many creatives are too cavalier about screwing things up - because at least they were trying to do ’something different’. After all, it’s only advertising and you can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs, right? This is great when it’s other people’s money they are spending. I just wonder how daring they would be if it were their own?
You are quite right in stating that trust is paramount - and that’s why Frank Lowe is deservedly an account service legend. Dave’s story illustrated this perfectly. And trust is something that takes years to earn but can be lost in a split second.
Trust between client and agency is sorely lacking these days. And agencies only have themselves to blame.
It’s partly down to the increasing importance of money over creativity.
Whereas selling great work was the best thing for the agency, now its too often about selling any work and keeping the client onside.
absolutely, trust takes time to build - and in this day and age i’m guessing the average time an a/c man or marketing director are in the same job would be 18 months - 2 years. probably not enough time to build trust and understanding…….
Hey Dave,
This post is quite telling. It’s quite sad I find for the advertising industry of today, that in your blog post(s), you recall great agencies of the past - CDP, Saatchi (all from their hey days). I feel there are no real stand out agencies at the moment, not sure if you agree but that’s not really the point, which is, do you think you’re references are based on a time when account handlers were more confident, clients more willingly naive and times just generally more geared to experimentation? (What I mean by experimentation is that there have been so many campaigns since those days that all have very similar strategies and as a result clients prefer a strategy they’re familiar with. Could this mean or could it be, we’re now at a point where clients sell us work?