Talkback: Playing blame game when passion dies

If marketers and their agency partners are focused on business growth through strong customer connections, why is it they often fail to build strong, productive and lasting connections with each other?

Why is the client-marketing partner divorce rate so high and the length of relationship typically less than five years?

Is it related to the churn of senior marketers and/or their bosses? Do we need to take a good, hard look at ourselves before we point the gun at our agency or other partners?

Like marriages, client-agency relationships usually start well, full of optimism around working together and producing great results.

The changes that lead to the parting of ways are gradual and, when examined, are generally attributed to:

* Relationships. Quite simply, key people in the partnership aren't getting along, can't resolve their differences and this severely inhibits the productivity of the partnership.

* Outputs. The outputs of the agency don't meet expectations leading to delays, arguments and budget blow-outs.

* Results. Ultimately, marketers and their teams are held accountable for results. When they don't deliver the results expected then the pressure goes on to make changes.

Maybe disenchantment with the agency is a little bit like the gradual moderation of passions in the marital bed. And often, the problems that plagued the first relationship re-emerge in the new one.

I'd like to suggest that we are sometimes too quick to make our supplier-partners the scapegoat for some of our own shortcomings.

Take a look at the pitches for some of the big accounts. Didn't they just pitch last year or the year before?

If the real problem was an agency one then surely it was remedied with the last change? Will we see these same accounts up for grabs in a year or so?

Is it conceivable that the problems could have been internal with inexperienced or over-stretched marketers, ineffective strategy or lousy briefs? Have those problems been decisively dealt with?

We all know that appointing a new agency is a quick way to generate "profile" and some instant new energy. Fixing internal problems, personnel, strategy, briefing and delivering market connection is harder and takes longer.

Maybe we're too quick to start talking divorce and slow to grapple with the real issues. Maybe clients and agencies need to seek external help before thinking about moving on.

Maybe they should be getting help at the start of a new relationship so they can analyse the beliefs, attitudes and habitual behaviours that led to the last breakdown and ensure they don't carry them over into the new one.

For an agency perspective, I called Tom Davidson at Publicis Mojo. His advice to clients experiencing difficulties is: "Get a fix on all the issues the business faces; internal culture, products, innovation and communication before you fire the agency. A small investment upfront often avoids an expensive (and possibly counter-productive) agency review down the line."

Before you start thinking about parting ways, you might want to consider:

* Is your problem an advertising problem or is it more fundamental than that?

* Would you say that your people, strategy and subsequent briefings are first rate?

* Would your agency and other partners agree with you?

* How good is the work your agency is doing for its other clients?

* You want a great agency. Are you great client?

Your agency problems might reflect deeper ailments in your organisation that are affecting performance in several areas, so spend some quality time in addressing those problems first.

Get help if you feel you could benefit with someone objective in the mix. Then when you eventually do raise your concerns with your agency, you'll be on firmer ground and you might find you can solve the problem and save all parties a lot of grief and expense.

* Robert Bree, of Viso Cognito, is a growth solutions consultant. He can be contacted at: visocognito@xtra.co.nz