For years, agencies have been sprouting up like mushrooms, trying to outdo each other with the amount of awards they have won. On the corporate side, too, you often find highly trained marketers and experts who live and love their brand. However, where there is always friction, despite all the bundled communications expertise, is in the actual collaboration between agency and company. So how can these be avoided? And is the customer always king, or is a gentle nudge in the right direction the duty of good consultants? A critical self-analysis.
When things turn out differently than planned, it helps to think outside the box
Before joining ORCA van Loon, I spent several years on the "other" side: on the client side. Projects had to be implemented quickly and offers had to be as cost-effective as possible without exception. Admittedly, I was often not a good customer and our agencies could probably wallpaper themselves with my apologies for last-minute changes. But the decisive reason why we were nevertheless able to realize excellent projects together time and again without any problems (and they didn't block my number in spite of everything) was the always understanding and humane way we dealt with each other's situation:
Fickleness and offers rejected at short notice from the company side are not only unprofessional, but do a great disservice to mutual trust. After all, anyone who expects reliability from his agency should also show it himself. Nevertheless, due to unclarified internal circumstances or objectives, a supposedly positive offer is rejected again and again. In some cases, projects that have already been accepted have to be postponed at short notice. It is understandable that this is not only annoying but also frustrating for agencies. However, it is precisely then that a good agency stands out due to its fair behavior in a spirit of partnership, even if this partnership will perhaps only bear fruit (again) in the future. After all, behind every rejection by a PR boss or board member there is often no poor performance on the part of the agency, but rather a person who has to share the decision of other people. In addition to the purely monetary aspects, this always involves the overall reputation of the company and - not to be underestimated - often internal politics. However, if a rejection is acknowledged with composure and respect, at best even with understanding, an agency proves to be a real partner at eye level and therefore awakens potential for future projects - or further recommendations to other companies.
Customers rarely know how agencies work and how much effort they put in. "Transparency" is the magic word here.
Basically, mutual respect is the absolute foundation for a trusting collaboration. An agency is not "just" a service provider, nor is a client "just" a financier. Good agencies see it as part of their own self-image to generate maximum success for their clients. However, it is equally important to communicate the background and working methods to clients in a transparent manner. The basis of good consulting is therefore to recognize and speak the language of the client. This also includes explaining agency-specific work processes and mechanisms to them, which may seem completely self-evident to the consultants. Explaining the actual cost of individual jobs in a bite-sized way has also sharpened mutual understanding.
I have often asked our graphic designer for a supposedly "minimal" change, whose implementation, however, took days. Silently and increasingly impatiently, I waited for the implementation and appeased my own team, only to finally receive the answer that he would need a few hours for such a change, which he did not currently have. An explanation of the effort that might have been behind my request due to technical peculiarities would have clarified things from the start in this case. In the end, we still successfully completed all projects and were able to enjoy the results together. But one or two gray hairs could possibly have been saved - on both sides.
A partnership needs rules: Clear conditions from the start prevent differences
The only thing that can help here is clear conditions at the beginning and thorough documentation of the entire process: Without clearly defined tasks and a concrete goal, frustration and disappointment are inevitable. Some goals may seem clear to some clients at first ("We want to be perceived more positively by the public"), but they immediately raise questions among consultants. Is the target even achievable with the available resources? Does it correspond to the corporate values - also in the future? Through a timely, sometimes critical exchange, sand can already be removed here that could otherwise grate in the gears in the future. Absolute honesty is required here - and this is not a one-way street.
Not every piece of advice is a set back: consulting is an exchange at eye level.
Joseph-Louis de Lagrange, in his day a mathematician and astronomer of the 18th century, describes (unfortunately) very accurately the expectations of many customers with his sentence "Whoever asks for advice is almost always looking for an accomplice". The agency is supposed to solve the existing problem, taking into account all challenges, at the most favorable conditions, at best with the least possible input of its own. It goes without saying that this cannot work. At least on the agency side.
As a client, however, I had a similar expectation at the beginning. Often because of many other projects of my own, which also had to be implemented at the same time and as quickly as possible. The agency acted more as my extended arm than my partner. That's why I'm all the more grateful today that my consultant at the time broadened my horizons. Instead of the usual concise and fact-heavy briefing, he insisted on a joint brainstorming session on site, face to face. For a few hours, we threw keywords, snippets of thoughts and new target groups at each other and, working together, one of our best projects emerged - even if it was initially set out quite differently. Moreover, with the thorough involvement in all subsequent project processes, I always had the feeling that I was being taken seriously and knew that my agency was getting the most out of the project. Even if that may have meant that I had to rethink my initial approaches.
What I learned from this was one thing above all: communication does not follow a concept, but a dynamic. There is no universal recipe for successful PR, but there are good consultants who know the right ingredients. Without a basis of partnership and a successful exchange, however, this leads to the same result as baking without an oven: to porridge without any form.
Nils-Peter Hey describes in his book "Wie ich lernte, meinen Berater zu lieben" (How I learned to love my consultant) which ingredients can contribute to the best possible result on both the consultant's and the client's side. However, really good consulting always depends on an individual relationship, which can and should be structured differently from client to client.
The good client (following Nils-Peter Hey, "How I learned to love my consultant"):
- ... gives the consultant a sufficiently well outlined assignment with defined tasks and goals.
- ... trusts his consultant and his opinion and is aware that the responsibility for the success of the project does not lie solely with the consultant.
- ... provides the necessary resources and participates in the project process.
- ... appreciates the performance of the agency and shows understanding in case of inquiries.
- ... communicates change requests in time and allows (new) suggestions.
The good agency (according to Nils-Peter Hey, "How I learned to love my consultant"):
- ... has sufficient employees with extensive expertise.
- ... is interested in the project and also works thoroughly on new topics.
- ... acts transparently and reliably.
- ... is impartial and unbiased. Personal interests do not play a role in the course of the project.
- ... is empathetic and values a partnership at eye level.
English (UK) 
Deutsch 