Opinion: Why arguing with clients can be ok.
The legal profession runs on a principle called the adversarial system. Put simply, the idea is to have the lawyers representing each party go hard at it, in the belief that justice is best served by having two parties trying in earnest to win the argument. If the prosecution lawyer is rubbish, the crook gets off. The defense lawyer may know his/her client is guilty, but their job is to defend, not judge. This system is something I think about often in the way creative businesses deal with and manage their clients.
Often I’ve come across agencies where there is a palpable hatred of the client, a desire to ‘educate them’ (lie) or ‘sell it in’ (again, usually lie) or simply avoid speaking to them at all. I’ve come across the other end of the spectrum, too. Places where the client is a sort of demigod, never to be questioned, challenged or disobeyed. I’m intensely skeptical of both these approaches.
I’ve observed a type of client that jumps from one agency or studio to the next, roughly every 24 months. They are attracted to a supplier who promises everything, and delivers. Client service people who always say yes, Creatives who “love feedback”. And yet they never seem to get traction in their marketing activities and end up going somewhere else after the predictable 24 months. Perhaps they stay longer if the client service person takes them out for dinner often enough.
I’m convinced another approach is warranted. But it’s an approach not many clients would be attracted to. The ones who did find it interesting, could perhaps be clients for life. The approach is based upon starting the conversation with clients this way:
Let’s be honest: I don’t give a shit about anything except producing good work.
And on the client side, they too need to be honest. A few (admittedly not many) times I’ve read in client side briefs “we want something creative, something that would win awards”. So here’s how I want the client to start out the process:
Here’s some honesty back at you: I don’t give a shit about originality, creativity, authenticity or making the world a better place. I want to sell more. Period.
So what would client meetings look like? Instead of a Creative coming in with long winded presentations explaining why XYZ solution is effortlessly aligned with business objectives, both sides would articulate their hopes and goals for a program of works clearly.
Sure, there’d be differences; the client would have business objectives. The creative would have creative objectives. This may sound obvious, but almost every creative agency website I see these days talks a lot about “growing our client’s business” or “meet or exceed expectations” or my favorite “work that works”.
When did creative businesses become so shy about saying “we’re really good at what we do, and that’s what we focus on, so you don’t have to”? As far as I am concerned, growing a business, increasing it’s sales and market share are the responsibilities of executives with titles like CEO, CMO or VP of Sales. Our role as creative service organizations, is to produce fantastic creative.
The conversation should be more like a debate. A vigorous, respectful debate between both sides, who are open and honest about having competing priorities. The compromise, the middle ground found between these competing priorities would be the ‘sweet spot’. It would be the place where the most creative work a client can tolerate would be.
Authenticity is something we are told consumers crave. They want to know the messages they receive are real and trustworthy, not deceptive or misleading. I think the first step to realizing that out in the market is for creative organizations and their clients to be authentic with each other. For once, this is a sin I feel the clients are less guilty of than we are.
