Let’s say you have a client who’s not taken your advice. At least, not properly. They’ve commenced PR or marketing activity that is, at best, a half-hearted attempt at what you originally recommended and the reality is a shadow of the grand idea that you proposed. Unsurprising to you, it doesn’t deliver. Then it comes to review time. What do you do: do you skirt around the issue and encourage the client that it’s something to build on? Do you throw yourself under the bus and accept blame? Or do you lay it on the line and tell them exactly why it crashed and burned, recapping your original recommendations?
I’m sure every single consultant reading this has been in this situation, and I’m equally sure that every single consultant reading this is thinking “I tell them the truth”. But I’m also convinced that isn’t the case. Ideas get scaled back all the time due to budgets or resourcing or sometimes a disbelief that ALL of the proposed activity is necessary. More often than not, these water down the impact of a campaign, but not pointing this out to clients largely keeps them on-side and happy. A lot of people in PR hate review meetings: the truth is they’d rather not have them at all. But what we hate even more than review meetings is unhappy clients. ‘Keep ‘em happy’ is the name of the game. And if you tell clients the truth about some of the nonsensical decisions they make, you risk turning a happy (if ignorant) client into an unhappy client. After all the customer is always right, isn't he?
The nature of spin
Like This Post? Subscribe to TheSocialWeb
I’m sure every single consultant reading this has been in this situation, and I’m equally sure that every single consultant reading this is thinking “I tell them the truth”. But I’m also convinced that isn’t the case. Ideas get scaled back all the time due to budgets or resourcing or sometimes a disbelief that ALL of the proposed activity is necessary. More often than not, these water down the impact of a campaign, but not pointing this out to clients largely keeps them on-side and happy. A lot of people in PR hate review meetings: the truth is they’d rather not have them at all. But what we hate even more than review meetings is unhappy clients. ‘Keep ‘em happy’ is the name of the game. And if you tell clients the truth about some of the nonsensical decisions they make, you risk turning a happy (if ignorant) client into an unhappy client. After all the customer is always right, isn't he?
The nature of spin
In PR, we’re very good at what’s become termed as ‘spin’. The word spin has extremely negative connotations: it implies dishonesty and duplicity, and makes you think of Max Clifford and The News of the World newspaper. And PR really is not about spin in that sense. But what it is about is managing reputation, and that implies – no, necessitates – being able to put a positive sheen on events, people, products, services and companies. PR consultants need to be able to ‘polish a turd’. And so when it comes to reviewing activities, it’s second nature to get out the Mr Sheen.
Personally, however, I like to believe (maybe naively) that people aren’t stupid, that they know when something’s not lived up to expectations, and that they’d rather their PR consultants told them the truth to help them to understand and to stop them making the same mistake again. Yes, it might hack them off and yes, you may lose the odd one or two clients as a result. But as a rule, surely the majority would have more respect for a PR consultant who said (politely) if we’d have done X, Y and Z as we initially recommended, we may have seen a better result. Right?
Or maybe not. Sean Fleming, an experienced consultant, says he thinks there’s a bit of a Catch 22 in play: “Most clients will tell you they want you to be honest with them. But they don't mean it. Those clients who do mean it are - probably - the ones you need to do less sugar-coating for. Why? Because they are the more engaged and involved, in my experience. Consequently not only do they already know if something is working or not but they probably have a good idea why. They know what is expected of them in order to make things work and they'll know when they've let the side down. The ones that you have to have the frank conversations with - and again this is my personal perspective - are those that don't get fully involved, treat you like a supplier rather than a consultant, and all too often simply don't get it.”
Is sugar-coating necessary?
Personally, however, I like to believe (maybe naively) that people aren’t stupid, that they know when something’s not lived up to expectations, and that they’d rather their PR consultants told them the truth to help them to understand and to stop them making the same mistake again. Yes, it might hack them off and yes, you may lose the odd one or two clients as a result. But as a rule, surely the majority would have more respect for a PR consultant who said (politely) if we’d have done X, Y and Z as we initially recommended, we may have seen a better result. Right?
Or maybe not. Sean Fleming, an experienced consultant, says he thinks there’s a bit of a Catch 22 in play: “Most clients will tell you they want you to be honest with them. But they don't mean it. Those clients who do mean it are - probably - the ones you need to do less sugar-coating for. Why? Because they are the more engaged and involved, in my experience. Consequently not only do they already know if something is working or not but they probably have a good idea why. They know what is expected of them in order to make things work and they'll know when they've let the side down. The ones that you have to have the frank conversations with - and again this is my personal perspective - are those that don't get fully involved, treat you like a supplier rather than a consultant, and all too often simply don't get it.”
Is sugar-coating necessary?
So does this mean that I’m personally in a small minority of people who are genuinely prepared to take the ‘truth’ gamble? Maybe it’s my advancing years (middle age is not only knocking on the door, it’s half way through it), the experience that goes along with that and the fact that I’m well passed playing the turd polishing game, or maybe I’m just naive and stupid...and don’t actually own a company and have to pay salaries even if it loses a client. But I’m starting to wonder whether many PR people are so blinded by the ‘spin’ of everyday life that the thought of telling a client the stone-cold truth and potentially upsetting them actually sends them into a tailspin of blind panic, leading them to sugar-coat things that really shouldn’t be delivered with such a sweet taste.
Sean also has a take on this. He says: “There are two motives for sugar-coating. One is that there are some people in PR who are pathologically incapable of dealing with bad news or being honest in the face of failure, and fear losing a client at all costs. The other is the realisation that the person you are talking to will not - no matter how carefully you explain things to them - accept that there are going to be times when things fail because of their lack of involvement, or their over-involvement. They will constantly seek to point the finger of blame at you. Consequently, you have a choice to make - do you risk a confrontation with someone who will never treat you like an equal, or do you suck it up, dress it up and sugar-coat the pill?”
The customer is not always right
Sean also has a take on this. He says: “There are two motives for sugar-coating. One is that there are some people in PR who are pathologically incapable of dealing with bad news or being honest in the face of failure, and fear losing a client at all costs. The other is the realisation that the person you are talking to will not - no matter how carefully you explain things to them - accept that there are going to be times when things fail because of their lack of involvement, or their over-involvement. They will constantly seek to point the finger of blame at you. Consequently, you have a choice to make - do you risk a confrontation with someone who will never treat you like an equal, or do you suck it up, dress it up and sugar-coat the pill?”
The customer is not always right
Darika Ahrens, another equally successful and experienced consultant, has a different take on things, however. “This is not a ‘customer is always right’ scenario”, she says. “When I worked (many years ago) on a makeup counter it didn’t matter if the client left the store with the blue eye shadow and red lipstick I’d counselled against if it made them happy. Agency work is, however, consultative and involves a lot of time and money. Brand reputations are often at stake. Yet time and time again agencies let their clients head to the ball looking like an extra from Dynasty. If a client doesn’t listen to advice I’d suggest a serious re-examination of your abilities to communicate ideas or even build trusted relationships. If, hand on heart, the client really just refuses to take your recommendations then the relationship has broken down past the point of serving either party. Resign the account. Any agency who bills a client for a half-arsed idea then defends themselves after it’s failed with a weak spirited “I told you so” should plain get out the game.”
But what about you: when it comes to client relationships, what’s honestly more important to you? Is it keeping a client happy and paying the bill, or pointing out when they make decisions that minimise the impact of campaigns? Leave a comment anonymously if you feel more comfortable. And if you work client-side, what’s your take?
But what about you: when it comes to client relationships, what’s honestly more important to you? Is it keeping a client happy and paying the bill, or pointing out when they make decisions that minimise the impact of campaigns? Leave a comment anonymously if you feel more comfortable. And if you work client-side, what’s your take?
Like This Post? Subscribe to TheSocialWeb
0 comments:
Post a Comment