Ignore the man behind the curtain . . .

Do you trust your branding agency?

I've debated about writing this particular blog for some time, mainly because it involves some unsavory secrets of my industry.

Regardless, after more than 30 years in the business of branding and design, I'm drawn to highlight an unpleasant nuance of the profession that I've encountered on many occasions. I suppose the best way to describe it would be . . . duplicity. I offer this as fair warning to all the CMO's, marketing VP's or directors, and any other company liaisons that work directly with design agencies.

Rather than ramble on with further preamble, allow me to share a couple of episodes from personal experience that demonstrate:

Episode 1: "We can't show this. It's exactly what they want."

The most common sort of manipulation I'm referring to takes the form of what might be described as curatorial duplicity.

When a major brand development is underway within an agency's walls, all hands are on deck. After a flurry of ideation (where you never have enough time), designers dutifully submit their concepts at an internal pin-up for creative directors and principals to critique before showing the client. In these meetings, directors identify selects for further refinement. They also single out options for elimination.

I have seen the following scenario so many times, I've lost count. In the midst of an internal crit, creative directors and principals approach a particular design solution to discuss its viability. In this context, these actual words are spoken: "We can't show this one. It's exactly what they want. They'll pick it for sure."

The reasoning here is that, while the solution at hand might meet the client's criteria on the nose, it is not avant-garde enough, not edgy enough, not Bohemian enough to win the accolades of fellow designers. The solution will not win any laurels or recognition in design periodicals or branding industry associations. It might be perfectly tailored according to the client's purpose, but it does not sufficiently satisfy the agency's. An audience of designers (and design academics) would be blasé.

To be fair, it is possible to serve both masters and balance these two priorities – with the client's objective taking primacy. But too many times, I have seen them reversed – where the agency's desire to stand out among a peer audience of other designers becomes Priority #1.

The client never even sees the solution that most directly aligns with their objectives. Instead, they must choose from a curated potpourri of ivory tower designer dreams that will land the agency a seat at the next AIGA awards banquet. It's an unpleasant reality of the design business. In these cases, the agency forgets who the target audience is.

But wait. There's more.

Episode 2: Data on the down low

Another episode from my own history that comes to mind demonstrates a different sort of slight-of-hand:

A new brand initiative awarded to a former employer included the performance of a series of interviews, targeting an assortment of key stakeholders and potential end users. The objective of these interviews was to identify and catalog a consensus, or at least a majority opinion, regarding a particular course of action. This consensus would inform the direction we would then take in developing a final brand strategy.

As fate would have it, the principals of the firm did not like the conclusions that the interview research yielded. They felt the stakeholder consensus pointed in the wrong direction, and would handicap the firm's efforts towards developing a distinctive solution. Distinctive, that is, for an audience of brand designers.

But this was not the real offense. It's fine to disagree and offer a heterodox opinion. It's what collaboration is all about. The principals could have presented their findings, and then made a powerful case for setting it aside. But that's not what happened.

Instead, the findings were 'tailored' in order to align with the outcome the principals favored. The amended (fictional) conclusions were presented to stakeholders, and the agency-preferred direction was approved.

I wish I could tell you that the doctored direction proved to be exemplary, and the agency principals' covert action was vindicated in the end. But to be honest, I don't remember the details. That being said, the direction was taken, a brand and campaign were developed, and the results were launched. The irony is that, two years into the campaign, new stakeholders entered the scene and completely changed direction, eschewing all of the original creative.

Admittedly, that's a very vague recounting. I'm trying to avoid any identifying information. But the act of falsifying data research is not uncommon. This article by Marisa Thomas, CMO at Good-Loop, belabors the point.

Thomas admonishes her peers by declaring "Be honest marketers, we've all made up metrics before." She admits that marketing developers routinely falsify data research in order to bolster the performance report on favored ads and campaigns.

Her take is that the deception is based more on fear than hubris: "measurement is a business built on fear – fear of not knowing if something worked that turns into fear of losing your budget that turns into fear of getting discovered as an imposter that turns into fear of losing your job, client, or life."

Thomas then attempts to provide some guidelines. She's unwilling to embrace outright prohibition, but wags her finger at a few beyond-the-pail thresholds. Even among those, she includes "Don't tell. People will pretend they've never done it and you'll get sacked for being honest."

Fear, arrogance, laziness – whatever the reason, I'm fairly sure I would take offense if on the receiving end.

The Client Call-To-Action vs. The Prestige Puff-Up

So what fuels this tendency towards slight-of-hand in the design context?

Agencies, both large and small, juggle multiple variables when managing the work of their clients. As with any service business, there are several competing priorities. First and foremost – at least, one would hope – is solving the specific challenge(s) presented by the client. It is the raison d'être – the reason for being for anyone in the branding industry. We're here to help the client address his or her challenges in a thoughtful, engaging way that advances the brand. It's why they give us their hard earned money.

Let's call this The Prime Directive, for all the Trekkie fans out there. Actually, let me edit my inner nerd and go with "The Client's Call-To-Action." (Star Trek captains ignored the Prime Directive all the time anyway). It seems a forgone conclusion that this client focus would take primacy over any other concern. However, as the examples above show, you'd be surprised.

Another priority, less visible to the client but certainly legitimate, is to gain recognition, reputation, and acclaim within the branding and design industries. Let's call this "The Prestige Puff-Up." On its face, this second priority is not necessarily contradictory when juxtaposed with The Client's Call-To-Action. It's natural and appropriate to strive for notoriety among peers and be recognized as exceptional in your profession. Ideally, it drives one towards excellence and ultimately benefits both the agency and its clients. Everybody is supposed to win.

However, what happens when they conflict? In reality, these objectives can apply to two very different audiences. I have seen The Prestige Puff-Up overshadow – if not overrule – The Client's CTA on many occasions. Suffice it to say, it made me uncomfortable every time.

Again, I should emphasize that my point is NOT to say that these two aspirations can't co-exist. But the first should ALWAYS always take primacy over the second in the event of conflict, without exception.

When an agency overrules serving The Client's CTA in favor of Prestige Puff-Up, its principals rarely think that's what's actually happening. In a milieu of hubris or even ignorance, they think that the first priority can be met THEIR way, serving their own interests as well. They are the smartest people in the room. And to be fair, there are plenty of occasions when that's true. But in my experience, there are just as many when it's not. The decision makers lose sight of the true audience.

So, the question is, have you ever encountered or suspected this as someone who works with design and branding agencies? If so, were the priorities balanced, or self-serving to the agency? How do you feel, knowing this is a reality? Do you trust your agency? I'm curious to know.