Madhukar Sabnavis' Blog

I was sharing the podium with a famous film director at an induction session of a mass media course in a Mumbai college recently. The filmmaker spoke first and he spoke of the famous ‘Friday’ fear that most of his fraternity have when their films release. The director waits with bated breathe for the audience verdict. As most film makers tend to make at best one film a year, they go through the pangs once a year. Speaking after him, I unconsciously said in advertising, we have many more such Fridays every year -and it’s so true. Every time a campaign breaks, we don’t know whether it’s a hit or a miss – whether the campaign will jingle or bungle. As individual reputations are not made or broken, it isn’t as high profile as in filmdom; but every campaign does its bit of adding to or subtracting from a relationship the agency builds with the client.

When I joined advertising in the 80s, I believed clients are buying ideas – and good ideas sell themselves. In fact, the concept of relationship building was looked down upon. It conjured up pictures of ‘wining and dining’ and ‘supplicating yourself to a client’ for business. We believed that the need was to earn the respect of clients; love will follow. However, over the last two decades I have learnt that clients don’t buy ideas or solutions alone – they buy trust. Deep down, most clients know that every campaign is a ‘gamble’. How much ever research you do- pre or post, exploratory or evaluative, you will never know for sure how a campaign performs until it hits the market place. An idea presented by a junior doesn’t sound as great as the same one presented by a senior who has had years of successful campaigns behind him. At a superficial level, it might sound as client buying people rather than work- but digging deeper it’s about client buying the faith that the campaign could work because of the ‘authority’ of experience telling him so.

In our brahminical society where knowledge and ideas are kings, it’s not surprising that relationship management is seen as a menial task. There is glory in creation and stimulation but not in the softer skill part of pursuation and selling. However, selling in advertising is not just about helping someone see value in an idea but to make him feel comfortable with it – to hold his hand and guide him to implement it. I remember an occasion when a client approved a script- a daring one. While I was returning from the client’s office, he called back and spoke to me for over fifteen minutes to be reassured he was doing the right thing- it was a right ‘risk’ to take. My creative partner, who was with me in the car, wondered ‘why is he so nervous, he has just to do it’. It hit me that often in release of ideas, client’s risks are much higher than an agency’s. It’s the individual client’s career on the block; it’s the more nebulous reputation of an organization called agency that’s at stake at the same time. We need to remember that clients live with an idea much less time than an agency and a client’s appetite for risk and uncertainty is less than an agency’s.

In today’s world, relationships are built on both respect and love. It’s important to to earn both if one is to win the trust and faith of clients. For this, it’s important to understand that relationships are built between people and not between organizations. Think of the clients you work on, they tend to be organizations.  Think of your best clients and they often tend to be individuals- where individual relationships have been struck. Relationships don’t happen just like that. Just as great ideas and solutions are built on the back of some really hard work and knowledge, relationships too are built on a lot of hard work and understanding. Assuming relationships will grow on the back of continuous good work is a leaving it to both chance and time. Working on building the relationship is smarter.  For that, the people in the game are as important as the challenges the business is facing, the frameworks that exist to solve them and the solution that is delivered.  Relationship building needs the same painstaking craftsmanship as is needed to create a brand or generate an idea. It’s about sweat, blood and tears- not so much about knowledge and brilliance but about understanding the people we are interacting with and forging a bond that builds trust and faith. Like in a marriage, six Cs are critical- Commitment, Counsel, Compromise, Companionship, Compassion and Chemistry. The last- Chemistry- is the magic that happens between individuals. Interestingly, ‘Counsel’ is only C that is hard skill driven; the rest are softer skills.

The role of good client servicing partners, in this context, is important. If creative skills are in magic and ideation; and planning skills are in empathy and consumer knowledge; client servicing skills are in people and relationships. This does not mean that they don’t understand business or consumers or ideas- the knowledge is essential to provide the ‘counsel’ in the relationship- but they also need have the softer skills of relationship building. Good client servicing people are able to suffer the pain a client goes through, are able to provide companionship in tough times, are able to smartly ‘give and take’ to provide a platform to sell a good idea and are seen as committed to both the business and individual. They are able to see the client organization needs as well as the individual client’s goals and are able to manage and balance them intelligently.

While we are in the ideas business, it’s important to recognize that ideas need to be sold and that becomes easier if one has good client servicing parters who have mastered the art of managing relationships. Their trust provides the confidence to clients to buy daring work. If creative people are over indexed on imagination and planners are over indexed on curiosity of human nature; client servicing people are over indexed on sensitivity. It’s the combination of these three skills that makes magic- great ideas- see the light of day. It’s time to recognize the value of these skills and celebrate them. And accept that this too is specialized. Relationship building in our business is as important as knowledge and ideas.

Something worth thinking about.

Views expressed are personal. Contact at madhukar.sabnavis@ogilvy.com

We are not in the ‘service’ business- we are in the ‘manufacturing’ business- the business of ‘producing’ ideas.  Our products are ‘intangible’ unlike ‘widgets’ produced in a factory. Production of ideas cannot be judged by ‘time and motion’ studies like the manufacturing of ‘widgets’. Manufacturing of physical goods can be timed and monitored for efficiency. But intellectual ideas can’t. Some ideas can come in a flash; others can come from days or weeks of toil- for the same minds. ‘Idea creation’ is neither time bound nor process driven.  There is a process of ‘immersion’- getting to understand all the issues related to the business and brand. This can be kind of scientifically timed and planned. And then there is the process of ‘emergence’ when the idea comes through some ‘magical’ thought process- when the mind makes the unusual connections to arrive at a solution. Then the ‘idea’ needs to be executed. Even the execution of an idea is not a linear, ‘time and motion’ study worthy process. Execution of an idea is also ‘added value’ in itself- as the idea is being crafted and brought to life, new elements are being experimented with and being added to give it final shape. There is a lot of magic that happens from script to film; from print layout to final photography. In that context, are time sheets the best way to cost for an agency’s contribution to a brand and client?

This story maybe apocryphal but it’s quite instructive. Picasso was once sketching in a park when a fan walked up and asked him to do a sketch of her. He did it with a single stroke. The fan was impressed and asked ‘how much do I owe you?’ Picasso said ‘Five thousand dollars’. She was shocked that he was demanding so much for a second of work- Picasso replied with smile ‘It took me a lifetime of learning and practice’. That’s perhaps more indicative of how to cost for creative mind power to generate an idea. The current compensation for creative minds- the basis of time cost management- is not a fair representation of what it has taken him or her to get to the solution.

Payment by results is a step forward yet does it capture the whole picture of what ideas actually do for clients and brands? Implicit in the PBR system is current sales but ‘ideas’ do more than just that. Marketing and alongside it advertising is an investment rather than an expense. It delivers more than immediate value- it builds long term brand equity and with it, life time customer value. And there needs to be a measure of this factored in to determine value of what the agency is delivering to the brand. This gets particularly highlighted in cases of mergers and acquisitions.  Companies are paid premiums for the brands they own. And some (if not much) of that value is driven by ideas co-created with the agency. Does the agency get compensated for that- get a share of the value it has created? Giving agency shares (or asking them to own shares in the client organization) is not a solution as share prices are not always reflective of brand value. And to wait for a merger or acquisition to hit a bonanza is not again the fairest compensation for ongoing value being created.

‘Royalty’ for value of usage of an ongoing idea is another good way out. Celebrities, who believe they are delivering extra to a brand because of their aura in their ‘other’ world, demand and get a hefty price. In many cases, celebrity fee for a couple of years is more than the fee paid to the agency to create an idea around him or her. The personality gets more than the idea creator- and that doesn’t sound too fair.

And, of course, there is a case of perception management. Management consultancies are seen to be providers of life changing wisdom and ideas for corporate change or evolution. We, in advertising, do no less for brands. They have a process that helps them to charge hefty premiums; creating a scientific process for ourselves is a way out; but it could be a smokescreen and not a long term solution. After all, there is a part of our solution generation that is non-scientific- it comes from a ‘magical, emergence’ process. We need to sensitize clients to the long term value we are delivering through our ideas.

There is no quick fix solution or formula to arrive at a fair agency compensation. The current system works well for clients- as it keeps costs low; gets them to, at best, pay more if they perform well in the short term and yet get high quality thinking and ideas that make an unmeasured difference to their business. The need for change is at all levels- for us to get the notion out of our minds that we are in the service business; for us to believe that our ‘ideas’ are making a real difference to brands in the short and long term by building equity (the way celebrities operate) and for us to consciously sensitize clients that we are more than just ‘creative’ suppliers and that the idea creation is not the same as making a ‘widget’ in the factory. Clients need to understand that there is lot of painstaking learning and education of the past that goes behind our generating ideas in a seemingly short time (the way Picasso explained to his young fan). To my mind, clients are deep down aware of it; it’s just that they don’t have the right perspective on it.

Something worth thinking about.

Views expressed are personal. Contact at madhukar.sabnavis@ogilvy.com

When I joined advertising in 1985, it was the rainbow, glamorous industry. Few from management schools still joined it but it was seen as a fast track profession, where you started low but grew fast. I was in the bottom five percentile as a trainee but I think I hit the top ten percentile by 1988, in three years. Today, the industry lags behind in compensation and the moan is ‘no money, no people’.

Goafest and Abby are around the corner. And we are sure to again have discussions and controversies. Scam ads. Ads made for awards. Ads done by large agencies for small, never before heard of clients. Ads premiered on the day of the awards night. Ads that challenge eyesight and open up opportunities to have a ‘guess the client or brand’ contest. (If a cricket committee was running the show, they would have seen an opportunity to get an optician or ophthalmologist sponsor for that part of the event including ground activation). And then arguments and discussions around whether the judging protocol was fair and whether the judges appointed was fair and this can go on and on. Finally, is the Grand Prix bigger or is the number of metals more important? Any competition raises such questions.

We need to appreciate and understand that the perfect judging protocol is a fantasy…just like the perfect brief. It never exists. If we want to believe examination procedures we are exposed to from childhood or recruitment interviews that happen in organizations are perfect, we are living in illusion. And in a country like India, given the ‘jugad’ culture any system will be beaten.Think of all the ‘Kunjis’ (guideline question booklets) that float around for examinations. Read them and you can beat the system. And no group can evolve the perfect framework for any evaluation. I remember at the Institute when students questioned the selection criteria, set down by the faculty, for a particular course. The concerned professor gathered all interested students into a room, post dinner, and shut the door. He then quite dramatically tore off the list of students selected by him and asked the group of, I remember 120, to either give him an agreed list of 70 students or an agreed criteria. The only clause- every one of the 120 had to agree with it. Only then would the room be opened. We spent over 4 hours discussing and many times the only solution that emerged acceptable to everyone was the faculty decision.Out came a photocopied list of students and again it got torn when students rejected it. Finally post mid-night everyone agreed the faculty list was the best possible solution! So, the only requirement is trust…a belief that a body, administering it, is doing its best to get the best and then move on. Winners will humbly ‘gloat’, losers will whine. How many cricket teams that lose ‘badly’ today don’t blame umpires or pitches or injuries as excuses? And this when, often,most competitions make little difference as there are so many today- cricket is more like a soap opera- Kricket with a K!

Should we have competitive awards then? Well, creative juices flow best in competitive scenarios. With all its deficiencies, competition does push people psychologically further.There is no denying that. And it does add excitement to the show. It’s much like watching the premiere show of a Rajnikanth movie. The movie is as much a joy as seeing fans reacting to it.(I know of many Rajnikanth aficionados who travel to Tamil Nadu to watch the ‘first day, first show’ there only for the double bonanza!). The energy and exhilaration is worth going through the discussions and controversies. I’d like to believe that the administrating bodies comprise representatives of diverse interests and somewhere, like in a typical democracy, a fairness and best practice emerges.

To me, award shows are like fashion shows. The ones in Milan, Paris or Santiago. Much of the clothes on display are unwearable. Just imagine people walking down the streets in many of the collections. They will be viewed as weirdos! Imagine anyone walking down the road as fashion models walk down the ramp strutting their wear. Yet, these fashion shows set the standards of creativity and let mass marketers borrow ideas and adapt them for more practical everyday use. The displays set the benchmarks of how much the human mind can stretch; the new ideas they can generate- and new frontiers that can be explored. They provide the inspiration for what many other amateurs and professionals want to emulate. The temporary fads, the classics and the new emerging trends are all ultimately identified and determined by the market- by the mass marketers and the fashion fans. However, the fodder for this is provided by the creative minds at such shows. Much of this is true about advertising awards. They benchmark where creativity is going- what agencies and clients need to go after. I have seen transformation of clients after they visit Cannes and see the international benchmarks. They often end feeling that we can better them and work more openly with their agencies to generate the next generation of creativity.

The focus for me should be the work. While the awards and winners do give sizzle, appreciation of creativity and discussions around that will always help to raise the overall standards. It’s important to stir debate on where the ideas came from, how they were crafted and what partnerships forged the creation of such work. It will open eyes to the power of collaboration. And the value of cross learning- particularly today in a world that is getting more complex. It will provide a pathway for the younger generation. And provide learning to the older ones on how fresher minds think and generate. Creativity, and definitely advertising, is afield where experience is not necessarily an advantage- there is much that both age groups can learn from each other.

While agencies and creative honchos will continue to be driven by the medal tally and results and that debate has its own value; it’s important not to lose sight of the fact that such ceremonies are actually a celebration of the work as much as the creators. We, as a community, need to focus a bit more on the work and talk more about it. Enjoy the work and learn from it. And this applies to not only the agencies but also clients and the media involved in it and excited by it.

Something worth thinking about.

Views expressed are personal. madhukar.sabnavis@ogilvy.com