The five second writing test

One of the beauties of creative writing is that authors have the opportunity to deliberately reveal plot and subject matter at a pace that suits their writing style. Unfortunately, the business world doesn't provide the same luxury.

I heard once that Lee Iacocca gave any presentation (verbal or written) five seconds to pique his interest before he moved on to the item on his agenda. Think about that...someone's passion, countless hours of work, potential career-changing opportunities, all squeezed into a five-second litmus test.

Most people will give you (at least a little) more than five seconds to capture their attention, but you should approach business writing in the same fashion of immediately grabbing attention. I can't tell you how many times I've seen a beautifully written proposal, POV or brief be rejected for one simple reason - the writer failed to summarize the key points/recommendations in the first paragraph of the document, and the reader didn't have the time to comb through and get the pertinent details.

Good business writers should always provide a one-paragraph executive summary clearly stating the issue, recommendation (including cost) and anticipated result. Approach your writing to the highest common denominator in the sense that the most important person to read your memo likely has the least amount of time to give it undivided attention. If she or he were to only read the first paragraph, could they stop and provide a go-no go? If not, you need to revisit what you've written.

At the very least, your reader will have enough information to formulate an initial reaction. At the best, your client will be intrigued by your recommendation and will read through the rest of your document where you can explain issues in further detail.

Ironically, as different as the styles are, good writers (both creative and business) need a good hook to draw the reader. Instead of "It was the best of times. It was the worst of times," your memo may start with "this memo recommends." Not so romantic, but potentially as effective.

Work with people who enjoy the journey

So I'm not a big Lakers fan. At all. I was dismayed by seeing them raise yet another championship banner, their 15th. I do, however, have a great deal of respect for Phil Jackson. As a coach, he now holds 10 championship rings, more than any coach in NBA history.

When speaking to the press after the championship-clinching game, he could have easily first reflected on the accomplishments themselves. What they achieved, what was earned, the marks in history that had been made. While he eventually touched on that, his first comments were about the journeys his teams had made to get where they were, and how enjoyable it was. There's a critical lesson there for leaders in most any industry, and certainly in the ad business.

Most agencies remain great because they are hungry, and are only at their best when they are working on the next challenge. Their work-in-progress is their passion. They don't gloat much on what they've done in the past, and truly believe it has no bearing on the work they are doing today.

What might seem strange to some is that if they followed formulas of what was successfully done before, chances are the results would be good. But that's the easy way out, and it makes solving today's challenges less of an adventure. As stressful as tackling every client's challenge in an entirely new light can be, great agencies wouldn't have it any other way. The insights gained, the camaraderie established, and the work produced are what make their efforts more than worth the emotional, physical and financial investment.

That type of attitude and approach is infectious to those who are driven by continuous success, which is the barometer for any great agency. And it's a direct result of the type of leadership you have. Phil Jackson is already thinking (if he decides to return) about next year's journey and what will have to happen to make it back to the top. As leaders of your agencies, you should be doing the same for existing clients as well as new ones. Your team will take their queues from you.

Online conversation levels the playing field

I consider myself fortunate to have started my career before the online conversation really got going. While I would have been better equipped to operate in this environment had I been baptized in a digital fount, I think those of us a bit long in the tooth can better appreciate the perspective online social tools have brought.

Prior to Twitter, Facebook and the like, most clients (outside of P&G and a few select others) had no way of knowing what the public thought about their brand outside of sales and quant/qual research that was more often than not contrived to deliver a desired response. Beyond safe broad stroke assumptions, it was often difficult to ascertain what customers really cared about...what bothered them...what made them so loyal to a particular brand...or if they cared at all.

The challenge for many agencies was that their clients didn't have the resources to truly validate assumptions about customer insights and all were left to make educated guesses. More often than not, that led to the wrong answers, which subsequently got a lot of agencies fired.

Social media (more specifically online conversation and feedback) has truly leveled the playing field for so many smaller agencies and brands whose budgets still don't merit large research initiatives. Most importantly, it's brought into focus what customers truly care about...what kind of service, products, product features really matter in the customer's mind. No more guesswork.

With commitment and resourcefulness (not re$ource$), there's not much you can't discover online about any brand in any category. From there, it's a matter of how well agencies and brands filter insights, draw conclusions and create resulting strategies and executions. Equal footing where everyone has access to the same information and is judged by the quality of the resulting recommendations.

Everyone working in our business today should feel much more empowered to do his or her job, provided you know your way around the social media space. Any agency worth their salt has some level of competency in terms of social media's functionality. That's a given. What separates many though, are those (regardless of "official" discipline) with the desire and savvy to navigate and discover information that can lead to account-winning or saving insights.

Who on your team should sweat the details?

Details are the difference in our (or any) business. A simple punctuation in a copy line can ruin it or make it sing. A string of code incorrectly written on a website can turn disastrous. An incorrect phone number in an ad can get your agency fired. A simple change in daypart mix can make your media buy more (or less) effective.

Not getting the small details right is without a doubt what keeps managers up at night. You've got so much that could go wrong. Your fears and anxieties about missed details have a direct effect on the type of people you hire and the way you lead your team.

I've learned two key lessons about leading teams and details:
1) You personally can't possibly check all of the details
2) Make sure your team collectively will

There are elements you will always remember to check for to ensure quality control. There will invariably be things you don't think to check for. That's where hiring people who you trust to do their jobs and take initiative to sweat details is so critical.

Everyone should sweat their own details, and someone else should know another's job well enough to double check for them. Individually, nobody is going to remember everything. Collectively, no detail should be left to chance.

A good exercise to foster intra-agency collaboration

A sports analogy for you...a lot of good wide receivers in college and pro football used to play quarterback. Obviously innate talent has something to do with how good they are, but what also contributes is their understanding of the QB's perspective. They know how he approaches his job and what he needs from his receivers to be successful. Thinking about this brought up an exercise I recommend trying within your agency.

As someone on the account side, it's your job to (at the very least) have a basic understanding of what someone from the creative, planning, media or interactive disciplines needs to do their jobs. At the end of one of your briefings, everyone has the specific information they need to move forward. If your agency's goal is improved integration, why not give a few instances where a creative briefs the media team about the project, or a media member briefs the creative team about a project (and so on)?

By compiling a project brief, gaining unique perspective of what other departments need not only helps them do their jobs better within their own discipline, it will provide different jumping off points for brainstorming, concept development, media planning, or simply finding different approaches to solving age-old marketing challenges. As an account person, you can make sure things are steered in the right direction, but make sure whoever is doing the briefing takes the time to complete the brief with some help from you, but with a lot of collaborative conversation.

Just a thought. I'm curious to hear yours...

Eating at the Agency Big Kids Table (when you're "little")

I loved reading Malcolm Gladwell's New Yorker column detailing the frequency in which we see David vs. Goliath stories in history, and how we can predict potentially success outcomes in these situations.

Having been at a large agency (and now at a small one), I can appreciate his insights. When it applies to new business pitches, you don't often see smaller agencies getting the chance to pitch against the big boys. Most client reviews include agencies of relatively similar size and capabilities, as they give their search consultants specific criteria upfront. Occasionally, you do see other agencies get in on the pitch, but it normally happens through unique circumstances (Current Network's RFP via Twitter is a good example).

For those with smaller agencies, some key points for you to remember as an account executive when pitching new business against larger agencies....

-Understand what got you in the review in the first place. The client included you in the RFP for a specific reason, and it wasn't because of how much you had in billings the prior year or how many hundreds of people you have on staff. Whether it's talking to the search consultant or the client themselves, understand what it was about your agency that attracted them to you and leverage the hell out of it in your pitch.

-Understand how your agency fits the operational requirements to service the account. For example, if the pitch is for a packaged goods branding assignment, operations would be fairly simple. If the pitch is for national branding and local execution for a QSR client, the needs change dramatically. The greater the operational demand, the more challenges you're going to face in the eyes of your client vs. larger agencies who have greater built-in resources to handle the business.

-Good ideas can come from anywhere, but execution is the result of detail-oriented people and organized process. Big agencies can throw more bodies in to solve execution problems (especially related to volume). Small agencies don't have that luxury...and that's a positive. You aren't constrained by existing structure or obsolete process...you can much more easily tailor a process that gets your executional needs with little waster. Don't forget to point that out.

-Take a risk...you "aren't supposed to be" in these kinds of pitches...don't waste the chance by playing it safe. What's the most unique (but still appropriate) way you can communicate your most compelling reason to be hired?

-Act like you belong. Don't embellish the idea that it's so great the prospect is giving a smaller agency a chance. It looks defensive and unconfident.

- If you don't have the chops,...get out. don't set yourself up for failure and embarassment for your agency that would tarnish your reputation in the marketplace.

-Above all, approach the challenge differently than your larger competitors would. Trying to play on their level (big agency solutions) is going to get you beat almost every time. Your chances for winning go up significantly when you redefine the terms and fight the battle on your level. Take general assumptions about the way things have to work and challenge them...innovation only comes through being forced to find other options.

I'd be curious to hear thoughts from others on how a smaller agency can successfully approach pitches against the big boys.

Value-Based Compensation - Things to Check for

I was very interested to read Coca-Cola's plan to implement value-based compensation agreements with its agency partners.

On the one hand, there's a lot of merit to paying agencies relative to the success of their campaigns. Most other industries are compensated on the efficacy and efficiency of their work (think construction projects), and the fee or commission based agreements can sometimes (especially with the wrong kind of agency leadership) lead to a false sense of contentment, security and a lack of motivation to do the best work possible.

From an agency perspective, here's some things to look for and analyze when asked by the client to engage in a value-based agreement

•Trust. Be convinced of your client's trust in your agency and its abilities. The reason is that, just as some ideas will succeed, others won't. In a retainer system, failures don't have the same kind of financial impact. While sometimes inefficient, a fixed fee can also give you comfort in taking risks. Beyond reduced compensation, make sure you aren't penalized in your client's mind for taking educated, mutually agreed-upon risks. The last thing you want for your agency is to be walking on egg shells, trying to play it safe to make sure you meet minimal profit goals. That doesn't do anything except ensure that another agency will take a bigger, educated risk which will pay big dividends for your client, and, ultimately, them. If your client trusts your abilities, you'll jump right back into the mix with the same approach you had before.

•Understand the variables. Value-based compensation agreements can be very complicated when discussing what the agency can control vs. what the client can control. For example, if your agency delivers a campaign for a shoe store designed to increase floor traffic, only to have the store's poor customer service levels drive sales down, you shouldn't be held responsible. Even then, what happens to your compensation? The point is to make sure that key performance indicators on the client's part are at mutually agreed upon levels. Once you have those nailed down, you are left to your work being judged on its own merits.

As far as I'm concerned, there's no better way for your agency's work to be judged.