I’ve been lucky enough to pitch business on both sides of the Atlantic. While I was no Ty Cobb or Sir Donald Bradman I’ve certainly participated in enough to have formed an opinion. I can certainly remember when every account persons dream was to be included in New Business. It sounded sexy. It got you exposure and visibility. It gave you a credible reason to not do your time-sheets or update the BCR.

In the past New Business was a coveted jewel. I wonder if it isn’t career Kryponite today?

In recent weeks I’ve seen increasing evidence that the entire “pitch culture” has devolved into a bit of a circus. For those readers beyond the reaches of North American TV you’ve been spared a reality-TV show on AMC called “The Pitch”. Old friend Phil Johnston at PJA Advertising wrote this superb article for AdAge which eloquently captures all that is wrong with the show. Comments on that blog post highlight how widely held his opinion is.

Two other high-profile items also caught my attention. The return of Dell to the WPP-fold after 15 months at Canadian hot-shop Sid Lee.  Forget nationalism for a second. 15 months?? On a global business? There’s no way Dell has even analyzed sales results against Sid Lee’s work in that time. And back to the place that spawned Enfatico? Tell me this isn’t some cruel satire?

Then in other high-tech news is the HP pitch. Better analogy might be eight weeks of casual flirtations outside of their roster before concluding that BBDO really does have the chops to handle the business after all. To torture an old metaphor did the girlfriend really think the husband was gonna leave the wife?

Okay enough bitching. Why do I find this all so nonsensical?

Well, it all smacks of desperation. At the client. At the agency. Desperate times calling for desperate measures?

IMHO willingly appearing on “The Pitch” is the business equivalent of starring on “The Biggest Loser”, other than close family, it is unlikely anyone is genuinely cheering for you to succeed. Similarly, behind the PR release double-dutch jargon of restructuring, operational efficiencies and new corporate priorities blah, blah both HP and Dell come off looking like floundering ships in the dark. Was no-one at HP aware that divisions were going to be merged before calling the pitch? Did the guys doing the merging consider chatting to the guys looking to hire an agency for a soon-to-be-defunct division? Is HP really that siloed? Could Sid Lee realistically be expected to turn around a fundamentally broken business model in less time than it takes a Texas debutante to plan her wedding?

Business has become faster, more complex and certainly less forgiving of the slightest mistake. However the flailing around exhibited in all these examples exacerbates that sense. I’ve written previously about tenets of the client and agency relationship that I think are often lost in the adrenaline-fuelled quest for new business “do or die”.

I wistfully remember New Business being where agencies could look to flourish and grow. Today New Business feels more like corporate Agent Orange. Applied indiscriminately, marginally successful in the short-term but ultimately deadly to everyone it touches.

Chime in folks. Am I missing the wood from the forest here?

In recent weeks I’ve become a freelance consultant. A decision which necessitated a degree of soul-searching and genuine introspection about what unique and compelling value I deliver. Simply put, defining how to be the guy who gets chosen more often.

In the midst of this prolonged review of my navel I’ve been watching events unravel around Scott Thompson and Yahoo…and on the exact opposite extreme come across this fabulous little book about how business people are unable to speak like human beings.

Any epiphanies?

Not really. More of a list of brand guidelines (god that sounds hideously cold and sterile)….better, some questions to reflect on.

1. Can you commit to speak plainly at every opportunity? Jargon be damned.
2. Can you readily admit when you don’t have the answer…even if your audience wouldn’t know the difference if you skirted the truth?
3. Will you resist the urge to embellish even a teensy-weensy bit? Mr Thompson has become the latest poster boy for this folly.
4. Will you place a premium on telling the bald, open truth even if it might cost you business?
5. Can you deliver that open truth in a way that doesn’t belittle, denigrate or embarrass the recipient?
6. Can you genuinely celebrate the wins of your competitors, only because they force you to raise your game the next time out?
7. Will you remember that all business is about people first and to never forget your humanity when dealing with colleagues, clients and competitors?
8. Do you remember those who helped you when you were starting out? Use your experience and pay that debt forward by helping others beginning their journey.
9. Can you ensure that your opinion delivers value each and every time you state it?
10. Will you remember that any business that requires compromising anything on this list likely isn’t business you want?

Pretty exacting list. Can’t say I don’t feel a little daunted by it.

Regardless, consistency, as we all know, is what makes any brand great. How consistently are you delivering against your own brand standards?

I may live to regret putting this list down on paper. Call it a yardstick for potential clients and colleagues on this distribution list. Call me on it. Of course, if you want to call me about multi-million dollar strategic engagements too, then here’s the fastest way to make that happen.  

In an earlier post I outlined several key questions to answer before dashing off and investing in a mobile app strategy.

Assuming your answer is a resounding YES, how might you approach developing an app that actually has traction? One that wont join the legion of “me too” applications on the App Store. One that your target consumer would never consider deleting from their phone?

A quick checklist then…

Design for the device. Seems obvious but too many applications begin as web experiences ported over. Please don’t do that. Use the native functionality of the device to augment the experience. What could SLIDE, PINCH, DRAG do that point & click can’t.

Design for one key audience. If you’re building for a mechanic, design in ways that are intuitive for a mechanic, not a school teacher. Don’t use off-the-shelf code from your last application thinking it will save time – unless, of course, your last application was for designed for Mechanics.

Design for interconnectivity. Stand-alone applications are fun but one’s that connect to other devices, networks or objects are better. More fun, more utility = less chance they’ll be deleted. Consider how WiFi improve your application? Bluetooth? Could it use mobile wallet in some fresh way?

Design for all. Okay, this contradicts #2 but the thought here is design for those who don’t speak English, have limited sight, are hard of hearing, have arthritis and aren’t as dexterous. All those groups are potential markets for your application – don’t forget them.

Design to make a difference. Use your application to improve something. It needn’t cure cancer but think of use cases where your application can make a laborious experience faster, a cubersome one smoother, have less friction, reduce stress, enhance an experience. Heaven knows if your app shaves 2 minutes off the line-up at Starbucks Monday morning that’s huge.

Design for Now. Consumers will very quickly cotton on to the fact your application utilizes outdated OS. New functionality is evangalized so quickly that if your app doesn’t use it, consumers WILL notice and your app is toast. Additionally if you’re using the latest OS your app will run faster and lighter…and who doesn’t want that?

Design at least one surprise. I mentioned “me too” earlier and its true, there are a host of copycats on the App Store. However, if you can create just one unique feature or function in your application, that can often be enough to differentiate your app. There’s a 100 applications for prospective Homeowners out there, I think this one is pretty friggin neat.

Design for longevity. Perhaps not applicable for all apps as I pointed out previously, but you should proactively design for content refreshes, functionality enhancements and product upgrades. Aim to stay ahead of the fickle nature of your audience by providing new enhancements before they get bored and push DELETE.

Certainly not an exhaustive list. More like a number of guardrails as you start your application design.

Have I missed any key ones? What would you add to this checklist?

I’ve written several blog posts on “Strategy Killers”. Elements or actions I believe hobble a marketing plan before it starts. Previously I cautioned about Speed which compels us to rush into executing without considering options. In another I talked about briefs which include everything but the kitchen sink. Successful marketing, as we all know, must remain single-minded, kitchen sink briefs don’t allow that.

Recently I’ve seen another Strategy Killer which friends in the pure-play digital arena likely endure the most. That is the dreaded BSO Syndrome or Bright Shiny Object strategy.

Raise your hand if any of these sound familiar;

“We’re a retail chain so we absolutely must have FourSquare”

“Women account for 56% of our sales so I’m expecting to see Pinterest on the plan”

“Our target is young, mobile and often uses public transit. We gotta plaster high-traffic areas with QR codes and digital OOH to get them to pay attention.”

“Peer recommendations drive our category. I want guests to be able to tell all their friends via Facebook what a great meal they just had. Better yet, can we create an app that lets them photograph their meal and upload that.”

“We merely need to activate folks with a decent Klout score. Do that and our job is done.”

None of these tactics are inherently wrong. Unfortunately, that doesn’t make them right either.

The volume of noise (and widely distributed Infographics) that surrounds each new platform is deafening. Each PR release evokes language synonymous with the Second Coming. Yet our job must be to judiciously examine if the latest new platform/tool/device actually satisfies a genuine customer need…and if that need actually intersects a legitimate business challenge we have. At Organic we spoke of Business Empathy meeting Customer Empathy.  If your new platform genuinely exists at that intersection, awesome!! If not, you might be suffering from BSO.

I can’t deny that there are incredible new platforms out there. Some that are solving business and consumer problems in remarkable and fresh ways. Personally I’ve become a fan of Pinterest and the traction it has quickly gained. Conversely I’m concerned about all the discussion of copyright infringements and lawsuits that circle it too. There’s a classic case of weighing up the options versus blindly rushing in.

Don’t get me wrong, I love the energy, exhuberance and “what if” that surrounds a new platform. I  placed bets on FourSquare over Instagram so that shows just how credible my opinion is. The point being is we all need to avoid the BSO Syndrome. Diligence and discipline must be the order of the day. Personally I’ve not seen a drop-off in my emails or statement stuffers. That must mean even those lowly tactics still have a place in our new world. Don’t let Bright and Shiny blind you to the due diligence required Dear Reader.

What’s your favourite BSO moment? Any particular time you found yourself chasing the latest fad? I’d love to hear about it.

I consider myself incredibly fortunate to have a great network of infinitely smarter friends. One of those, Deb Hall, founder of Toronto-based web2mobile, an all-round mobile maestro and whip-smart marketer.

We recently got talking about mobile apps. The post below is directly influenced by her insight.

It seems like each week I see another article on the rags-2-riches story of Rovio, the Angry Birds developers. In equal doses, I read alarming figures about the rise of the “download and delete” generation of mobile and tablet apps.

So for brands entering into the mobile application space, how do they emulate our Finnish friends Rovio and how do they avoid joining the growing dustbin of mobile apps?

Most brand marketers start this process by musing two questions.

“What’s the optimal way I can distribute this?”

“What can I charge for this application?”

The former question is relatively simple because the channels of distribution aren’t infinite.

The latter question is definitely more knotty. Here’s why. It’s not just a case of what you’re going to charge – more important to ask IMHO  “why the heck am I building an app in the 1^st place?”

Let’s establish some context, shall we?

Application sticker shock

I think there remains an ignorance in many companies have about what it actually costs to build, and sustain, an app. Applications are still a relatively new phenomenon and there remains a palpable sense of “sticker shock” when you present that first estimate for an app. In fairness most brand marketers have a mental yardstick when you tell them a TV commercial will cost $2,000,000 – that means a great spot but no Ridley Scott, Jessica Alba or James Cameron “Avatar” stuff. A $2,000,000 website has a similar level of general understanding – limited ecommerce, pretty decent CMS, no deep KM or CRM integration and so on.

In App-land if you present a $2,000,000 application development cost the first reaction is typically “WTF, I only wanted an App”

However when you consider expectations for what the app is intended to achieve, $2,000,000 can often be a bargain.

Application lifecycle

Is your application intended to support a tactical short-term marketing initiative or do you anticipate it will be live – and relevant – for longer? Do you know?

The former has a narrower production expectation, lower requirements for a roadmap of new releases and features, lower requirements for content refreshes. Lower overall budget perhaps. But you are going to have to consider a migration plan for all those customers who have downloaded the app. If you’ve got loyal fans, what’s your plan to manage their expectations? When do you retire the app and stop supporting it? Even the simplest app deployment warrants these questions.

The latter is a significantly larger undertaking. Keeping an application relevant (ie being used) over the long haul requires detailed planning and an expectation of investment to support it. Questions like “What’s the content roadmap?”, “What level of maintenance should I devote to this?”, “What’s my plan for loyalists and leveraging their love for this product?”, “Will I need to continue advertising this app or will it reach a momentum of its own?” Thanks to my daughters, I currently have four different versions of Angry Birds on my phone. Do you have a similar roadmap thought through?

Again, without understanding how long you actually want the application to remain live for, there is no way you can begin to benchmark your total investment. In my experience you’d be surprised how many companies launch applications with a “let’s just see how it goes first” mentality. That is a huge mistake.

Cost-neutral or Revenue-positive?

After the sticker shock has worn off, the real question becomes do you want this application to be cost-neutral or revenue-positive. In the former, you’re merely trying to minimize or totally off-set your CAPEX and OPEX for the application. The latter is about making a buck or two. For certain categories, like Games and Media, applications are a crucial revenue stream so finding out the appropriate price point for an app is critical.

Ultimately revenue-positive or cost-neutral is only about trying to ascertain how many application downloads you need to hit to break-even. Again, have you worked out which one of these camps is your app going to fit in? Is that perspective shared by your boss?

Now, who are you going to charge for this little app! That’s where it gets really interesting folks.

In part 2 I’ll be discussing fun topics like value exchange and revenue models.  Do come back for that.

Having two young daughters means I spend a fair bit of quality time watching Disney movies. Princesses, dragons, handsome princes riding in on white horses, wicked stepmothers. You know the drill.

As a marketing strategist I also spend a fair amount of time in brand positioning workshops. Listening to clients and colleagues talk with equal passion about paradigm changing, out of the box thinking and esoteric conversations about evolution, Darwin and some number dot 0.

Sometimes I’m not sure which scenario is more fantasy. The one I spend with my daughters or the one spent debating paradigm shifting and Dunbar’s number.

Here’s a simplistic rationale for my confusion. It stems from a fundamental of positioning; “Is this offering credible for your brand?”

Yet, often brand managers rail against me innocently asking this question. As close as they are to the coal-face they’ve lost objectivity. Or, increasingly, the desperation to make quarterly numbers dictates some desperate Hail Mary act.

Let me be clear. I’m not saying brands can’t evolve, improve, get better. Heaven knows social media is making it happen. What I’m saying is you need to be objective. A colleague who flies so frequently she’d be better off getting her Pilots license recently lost her baggage on a United flight. 3 days later she’d not even received word from the Customer Care group.  Makes a bit of a mockery of their customer-centric global citizenship ethos. Canadian readers will not be surprised by this little Telco story and the classic caveat emptor attitude adopted by Rogers. Again it makes it harder for me to believe Rogers communications telling me how special I am to them.

Why is this so critical for marketers?

You mean besides our credibility?

Our ability to motivate behaviour is toast if we have no credibility. If we’re writing cheques that other parts of the organization have to cash, let’s ensure they’re willing to honour that commitment. As fragile is the trust between marketer and consumer, the trust between sales/legal/operations and marketing is just as tenuous. We want a seat at the big table yet we create Pollyanna advertising that paints an inaccurate sense of what our brand really does. Avis is celebrated for their “We Try Harder” positioning because it had more than a grain of truth in it folks.

So what solution am I offering?

Next meeting you’re in and you hear “We want to be the next Amazon, eBay, LuluLemon, Virgin” or the ever popular “We want to be the next Apple”, politely raise your hand and call Bullshit. As glorious as the Steve Jobs biography is, it has unfortunately created a bunch of robotic Steve Jobs-wannabes who believe their category or service can magically transform if they merely “lead like Steve”. This wonderful article from Strategy&Business highlights that lunacy and should be distributed as pre-reading to any management off-site from now on.

Marketers, it might be hard to acknowledge that your brand isn’t market leader, rolling off the tongue of consumers or has retailers salivating to stock it. Deal with it. That situation aint gonna change if you don’t start by being credible. Then you can ride in on your big white horse and save the day.

Of all the brand conversations I have on this blog, the one I don’t discuss often enough is Brand You. The one brand, I’d argue, that you have more control over than any other.

It is unlikely you’ll lose your personal brand in a worldwide realignment or that the CMO of Brand You will suddenly be fired. So now that I’ve tortured that metaphor, let me put this out there – each day I’m confronted by folks who have recklessly abandoned their most prized asset – their personal brand. Abandoned in a market, despite what Washington or Ottawa says, that has millions of competing “personal brands” vying for attention. Abandoned in a very public, highly visible and very unforgiving way.

I’m talking, of course, about how you market your brand on LinkedIn. The place where “over 150 million professionals exchange information, ideas and opportunities”.

Play a little game with me called “Would I buy Brand You?” – warning more tortured metaphors ahead.

Can I identify this brand? – simple stuff but so many professionals chose inappropriate photographs for their LinkedIn profile. Photos best kept for Facebook or Pinterest. Even worse, many don’t have a photograph at all. We all know images convey a strong impression of you and your brand. No photograph sends the same signal to me as Unilever stocking shelves in the detergent aisle with blank white cardboard boxes.

Am I intrigued by this brand? – if your profile is merely a list of titles, companies and dates you’re telling me precious little about why I should buy Brand You. Again I see a wealth of profiles that make no attempt to explain their personal value proposition, articulate their point of differentiation, establish a functional or emotional connection with the buyer. It’s pathetic. Could you credibly launch any brand without that positioning stuff? Would you expect it to flourish?

Does this brand have any cachet or is it generic? – LinkedIn gives you a multitude of features to create a holistic impression of your brand. Links to your blog, a menu of expertises that are SEO-rich, groups to connect like-minded individuals and much more. All of these features add dimension to your brand offering and separate you. Why then do so few folks leverage them?

How satisfied are former buyers of this brand? – satisfied buyers are a cornerstone of any successful brand. Why would it be any different for Brand You? Potential buyers unable to peruse a list of Recommendations are going to be left with two impressions. One, you’re too junior to have any meaningful experience or Two, you’ve not made an impression on any of the folks you’ve worked with before. Sound like a Brand you’d want to purchase? Didn’t think so.

I don’t deny I’m a LinkedIn super-freak. As a freelance Strategy Planner I have to be, because networking is pivotal to paying my mortgage. I also readily accept that LinkedIn may not be everyone’s cup of tea, but here’s the rub. Many of us seem to ignore the basic principles of marketing when it comes to nurturing our own personal brands. This, despite understanding the inherent benefits of building a strong brand – increased loyalty, the ability to charge a premium and so on. Ironic no?

If you think the automotive, detergent, airline, retail or QSR categories are competitive, consider just how competitive the market for talent is. LinkedIn is increasingly the global marketplace for that talent. Will your brand flourish or die there?

As a passionate brand marketer is there anything sadder than the demise of a once-storied brand? I’m sure you could probably name five brands from your childhood that haven’t survived the bloodbath of consumerism and globalization.

I get it. Nothing lasts forever. Some brands were never going to survive (Pop Rocks anyone?) but to that I call “Bullshit”

I  read recently that of the 25 brands leading their categories in 1923, twenty are still category leaders today. Twenty! That means that building iconic, immortal even, brands is possible.

So with some sadness I read the Sony article in this weekend’s New York Times? Wanna talk iconic brand. Or the much storied decline of Eastman-Kodak? Brands that once epitomized innovation, defined categories, reinvented consumer behaviour and yet, with the inevitability of an ice cream cone on a summer’s day, have become a dripping, sticky mess of frustration and tears. Mainly the tears of shareholders.

The reasons excuses cited are too numerous to mention. Internal silos. Failure to anticipate the impact of the Internet. Bloated divisions with no incentive to cut under-performing products. Generally excuses and pretty poor ones at that.

Granted I’m no Howard Stringer but how do companies like this get caught flat-footed?

Ego and hubris? Sure, but why aren’t these companies better able to determine the future? The democratization unlocked by the internet, the rise of low-cost manufacturing hubs like India and China, Korea moving from white label manufacturing to creating renowned brands. None of these were overnight events. Yet they seem to have caught Sony, Kodak, Nokia et al asleep at the wheel.

Enter scenario planning.  I’ve written about scenario planning previously in the context of agency planning but its application, and potential, is way broader. In essence scenario planning forces strategists to consider and plan for alternate scenarios before they happen. Seems logical right?

Folks like the Department of Defense use scenario planning to determine alternate outcomes to war games. While your day to day job as Category Manager X might have just a little less at stake, there’s no reason why the same discipline and rigour shouldn’t apply to your work.

Consider this scenario;

“We’ve taste tested this formula called New Coke and consumers overwhelmingly like it. Let’s launch it. After all, what could possibly go wrong?”

Shouldn’t scenario planning really be the first step you commit to every year in your brand planning? Doesn’t you boss expect you to have an alternative in case that much lauded line extension doesn’t go according to plan?

Don’t you think folks holding shares in EK, NOK, RIM and SNE would be sleeping better knowing some scenario planning had occurred? That someone had been thoughtful enough to create a “Plan B” or “Plan C” just in case “Plan A” went pear-shaped?

What say you? Is scenario planning underutilized as a strategic tool or is it an extravagance?

Regular readers of this blog (I know you exist) will know I’m a huge fan of Challenger brands, how they are born, operate and flourish. I’ve previously written several posts on the subject .

Recently an old friend opened a Challenger Brand Consultancy in Singapore and, over the course of a few emails, we started discussing why there still remains so few real examples of true Challenger brands.

My supposition is, that for many, attaching the moniker “Challenger Brand” to a memo is often seen as commitment enough to the Challenger cause. That extolling your agency to create Challenger brand advertising is your free pass to the Challenger Brand Hall of Fame.

Between us, we devised a quick “BS filter”, a number of simple statements to ask yourself (your client, your Marketing Manager whomever) to see if you’re genuinely committed to being or living the Challenger ethos or you’re merely hiding behind some cool, provocative language.

We’re not #1 in our category, we must be a Challenger brand: Nope. You’re #2, #5, #20 for any number of reasons. Brand neglect. Irrelevant advertising. Poor sales, pricing, distribution. Challenger brands are an attitude, a go-to-market POV – not a rank on the category sales chart. Red Bull owns their category yet retains a Challenger ethos.

We let Marketing handle this Challenger Brand stuff: Really? This is not a Marketing-centric task folks. It’s a whole organization ethos. That’s as misguided as saying the call center are the only folks we let talk to customers. If you think Marketing alone bears accountability for Challenger brand thinking then you’re doomed already. The tenets of Challenger brand thinking need to be internalized, understood and actioned at every point in the organization or forget it.

We’re going to drop this Challenger Brand stuff when we get to category leadership: Okie-dokie. Challenger brand thinking is not some tactical wand you wave to get you a requisite bump in sales or NPS. You want that? Take some pricing activity, have a summer promotion. Challenger brand thinking isn’t a short-term commitment, it aint a seasonal headspace. If it isn’t a principle way you’re operating then forget it. Think of it tactically and you may as well polish up your resume with your free time; it will fail.

We’ll give it a try on this one brand in the portfolio as a kinda trial: Grey area here. As a purist I’d say it’s impossible to launch Tide with Bleach (hypothetically) as a Challenger when all the other 40 SKU’s of Tide continue to act, market, behave as mainstream brands. Could the Atlanta teams behind Diet Coke act as a Challenger to Coca-Cola living under the same roof? I’d suggest it might be more likely to succeed – for the consumer, for management – if the “challenging” brand didn’t have the same mark, distribution, pricing, pipeline.

Anyway, it was a fun discussion. Challenger brand thinking is incredibly powerful when done right and consistently. When it is abundantly obvious it is a Marketing dalliance or a desperate attempt to infuse meaning (without substance) into a brand, its laughable.

So, are you hiding, or are you really committed?

In our industry fewer subjects attract more debate, or blog ink, that the one of agency and client relationships. It is a hoary old chestnut that justifiably gets pulled out often. Gauging by the amount of ink about the resignation and review of business, or the tenures of CMO’s, it remains more akin to summer romances than life-long marriages. But, if wedded bliss is your aspiration it is not unheard of. My alma mater Ogilvy has retained IBM and American Express for decades. It’s not impossible, it has just gotten harder.

I came across this great article from Mark Reed-Edwards. While, in broad strokes, I can’t fault Mark’s opinion there are a few additions I might make to round this out. My appreciation to Mark for catalyzing these thoughts. Call this an “Agency Response” to the points he outlined.

Be an Honest Broker: Be candid about the reasons for the pitch. In fact, be brutally honest why you’re looking. If your current agency is under-delivering say why. If your organization is under-delivering in their obligations to the agency, be honest and tell them how you’re fixing them. I’ve no easy answer for this but certain reviews are based on legal stipulations (Government particularly) rather than a genuine desire to find a new partner. In all these scenarios you owe the new batch of fresh faces honesty up-front.

 Make the Newcomer welcome: Few companies have only one agency. In fact, most operate more of a harem model based on expertise. That’s fine but you need to do everything to ensure the latest addition to your harem roster is properly introduced, briefed and on-boarded within the group. It is a sad but natural fact that agencies get territorial. It is your responsibility to ensure rules of engagement are crystal-clear and that the penalties for broaching them are well-understood. In my experience there are too often rules but no penalties which, as any parent will tell you, is pointless.

Accept your Accountability too: Mark is right about early/frequent check-ins and relationship status discussions. This is a two-way street. Ask for the same candour back. Understand you’ve a responsibility to make them successful too. Are your briefs crap? Are your people inaccessible? Is your approval process convoluted and poorly understood? Acknowledge those issues lie with you – not the agency – so actively seek out their opinion and counsel (it’s unlikely you’re their only client with these issues). And don’t just listen, act on the feedback. Make it a mandate that the agency rate you on how you’re improving over time too. These particular documents are not used nearly enough in my opinion.

Acknowledge the Inevitable: Statistically chances are your romance will end. Sad but true. People, and organizational needs, change. And we all know that nothing upsets the dynamic more than key personnel changes on either side. While it is unlikely you can prevent those changes, how you chose to conduct yourself before that happens – that’s entirely on you.

This subject will likely come up again in my blog. It is just too critical a discussion not to have, and keep having.

Again, my thanks to Mark and his recent post. Your feedback is most welcome.

Better yet – your ideas on other things that Mark and I may have missed would be even more invaluable.