COMMENTS
Extremely well said, Patrick!
Collaborating from day one (way before the sale is made) is key!
Agencies who are still pitching blind are still wasting most of their time. I was on a call the other day with a lady who said she spends 70% of her time writing proposals. When I asked some clarifying questions and offered some advice, she resisted and said, "I'm a really good salesperson".
I think she needs to read this one.
And from Peter's webinars, he states this right up front with passion. When I see web design companies incorporating tactics (such as blogging, SM, etc.) it is hard not to roll my eyes.
You cannot achieve desired results pitching and selling without it.
Good post Peter, going to use some of this in about 20 minutes.
thanks,
Good post but isn't it stating the "obvious".
However the reality is that;
1/ Not all agency senior people are able to drive their teams and clients to this collaborative mode.
2/ There are still many clients who keep their agency at arm's length (these one are the most prone to complaining ...)
@Olivier
Stating the obvious? Maybe to you. Not to most, I think.
It is obvious to some. But, I'd say that most agencies don't get it and don't do it right, whether they are big or small.
Re: #1, Shouldn't they be fired if they are ineffective leaders?
Also, re: #2, If a client keeps an agency at arms length and stands in the way of letting the agency help them be as successful as they want/need to be, shouldn't the client either be a) fired or b) talked to? Shouldn't the onus of making this happen be on the agency? If the client is complaining persistently, isn't that the agencies fault? There's a rule I follow in sales or account management: when it goes bad and stays bad, it's always the seller's (ie agency's) fault for not anticipating, addressing, fixing or fire-ing. Isn't anything else just excuse making?
What do you think?
Hi Peter,
I like your reaction (no irony in this)! I had written obvious between brackets which meant that it should be obvious but, often, it isn't.
I fundamentally agree with the essence of your article: if you want to achieve results, you need to work as one team. The agency side needs to bring a broad view on what is feasible and the client side needs to bring the deep knowledge of the company’s business and context. Only the combination of the two can bring sustainable results.
Yes senior people on the agency side must lead their team to be proactive and manage all the aspects of a complex relationship. This makes the job fascinating.
On the client side, the key skill is to be able to partner, with the agency team but also with colleagues. A long career on both sides has shown me that you often come across with people or team who present alarming weaknesses compared to their level of responsibility, even in companies with big names.
All in all, this is a people business combined with complex business parameters. This makes the beauty of it.
Hope this help
Olivier
Yes, agencies should collaborate with clients to learn the ins and outs. On that same note, clients have to collaborate with their agencies.
Seems like once an agency is selected or a partner in the online marketing efforts, the input could dry up. Input on the impact on the bottom line, changes in the industry and in the business itself are key components to any successful content partnership.
@REbecca,
This is why we recommend that agencies set up closed loop marketing analytics (CLMA). CLMA helps agencies and their clients determine which marketing activities are producing how much traffic, leads and sales. It also helps the client's sales team to prioritize their time on the best leads and connect with them at the right times.
Patrick,
Please expand on your comments about self imposed exclusivity for an agency in a given industry.
Should agencies state up front that they will not be backed into an exclusive relationship that effectively limits their ability to attract new clients in an industry they will now have some expertise in?
Or should agencies agree not to go after competitors of clients because they would in effect be working to accomplish the same things in the same space as the original client?
We find this to be a tight line to walk in many cases. We have agreed in writing not to work for competitors of clients - with an increase in fee/retainer commensurate with the trade off.
In other cases it is assumed by the client that we would not solicit business from a direct competitor.
Are you saying that in order for an agency not to be hamstrung they should go after competitors of clients because the agency now 'knows' the industry.
Collaboration is key - great post!
Patrick-
Good post. I'd like to bump Todd's question, which could lead to a whole separate post. What type of exclusivity do most agencies assume, expect, infer, etc. I think that by allowing us, the front-line troops, to collaborate on this subject could provide a great benefit to all. I feel the exclusivity is a good thing, but I've only signed one actual, hard-copy agreement. I've never had anyone else ask...but I've seen an eyebrow or two raised. What do you think is the best practice in reference to client exclusivity? After all, it can potentially be very limiting. Do you agree with granting industry exclusivity for certain spending dollar amounts?
Thanks!
-R