OK – first point: not everyone is doing Social Media, but the numbers are large and getting larger. According to PRSA, 91% of Inc 500 companies are using social media (good article here: http://tinyurl.com/yce36ka ).

As for Sales, I want to officially go on record that I LOVE sales people (good ones, anyway); without them, forget the whole thing. I believe a good sales team is fully integrated into the Venn diagram of People, Systems and Brand.

Generally, sales efforts will adhere to some kind of system (documented or not) and must be aligned with company brand for true success. To that end, everyone in the company is really an extension of sales, whether they know it, like it, or not. Sales people are on the front line of brand and require the support of the entire business to engage, convince and land customers.

I would have liked your thoughts on where sales fits into this to. Or are we just the couple of fat pigs?

This post was mentioned on Twitter by Kevin Moran: from @richgoidel http://bit.ly/1ayH59, beyond just integrated mktg, but where are all the rocket scientists?…

But for now, assume we are talking about the most black-and-white, bottom-line, profits-driven corporation. My point above was that it is difficult to measure the loss or costs of not retaining staff. That is a game of “what-if?” What is clear and easy to document is the amount of money saved on payroll by reducing the headcount. Regardless of the motivations that drive a business, my point was that some organizations will lose out on opportunities for growth or even retaining existing customers by cutting staff in hard times.

The sole objective of a corporation = maximizing profit, and for a very limited few. This is achieved, to use Madison’s phrase, by “protecting the minority of the opulent from the majority.” In other words, a very limited few among the wealthier class of business leaders shall always and perpetually reap the majority of all capital and financial benefits — no matter what. This has been true since corporations were originally devised and formed and it has remained a fairly stable system within industrial capitalism over the last 200 years, and it has been increasing recently.

A corporation is a bully, a tyrranical organization. It has limited or no liability yet all the “rights” of individuals, and a staff of lawyers for warding off and minimizing any legislative and public actions which in any way threaten its objectives (see above). Massive amounts of (tax-free) contrived PR and advertising serve to effectively manage the public mind and perception. We live in a business run society.

Personal relationships, service, institutional memory, customers, employees, benefits, retirement plans….none of these matter in the least unless they can be definitively and factually shown (on a spreadsheet) to serve and grow one thing: corporate profit and its perpetuation. Otherwise, these issues remain unimportant to its objectives, and are more often viewed as obstructing the flow of profits to the top.

Mainly what I’m trying to get to is this: many companies think they can almost magically return to profitability by cutting overhead. This tactic certainly has an immediate impact on the numbers, but without a true plan for long-term recovery, solvency is a real issue.

I would be interested in a study that investigated the effect on employee productivity, customer satisfaction and the business bottom line as a result of employee cutbacks. I think those drive more directly at the question of solvency.

That being said, having a plan is always the right way to go. The perception of the market is important to manage, even if only because it forces you to plan better.

I found this Will Wright (game designer) – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Wright_%28game_designer%29 quote on a blog that I follow:

Will Wright said he’s learned the most from games that seemed appealing on paper, but were failures in the marketplace. “I actually ask people when hiring how many failures they’ve worked on,” he said, “and I’m actually more likely to hire someone based on how many failures they’ve experienced. I think it’s the best learning system.”

well said!

When an agency is asked to present their qualifications to a company, what then becomes the single mission of that agency?

To win the business. Period. There is no other mission at hand but to win. They win by winning the trust and confidence of that client in the short time provided.

Few if any clients give a shit whether agencies have principles, especially those which ultimately limit client access to business abilities that serve their needs. They give a shit about results. No lawsuits, but results — based on an increasingly tight ROI lens.

How will you deliver on that mission, effectively and consistently? And; what’s the cost of losing pirtches — and who pays? Or, how can agencies reduce the expense, time and energy of client acqusition costs, and maximize both their portfolio of clients and a better pitch-win-ratio?

Agencies win pitches by clearly, passionaltely and compellingly articulating how they’ll help, define and realize the prospective company’s needs, goals and objectives. Agencies do NOT win by defending their own mighty principles. (“We don’t give our ideas and creative away for free! Harrumph!”) Who cares? Not clients.

What’re the ways and means all agencies have to manifest a win, for which they have full-time staff? A well-orchestrated combination of what clients need and demand every day, but don’t often get: Creative ideas (specific to THEM and their business). Marketing savvy. Media knowledge. Customer insight. And (even more critically) technology interconnectivity and IT backbone.

Leave out creative ideas specific to the company at hand and that agency no longer looks like they value or can produce specific, targeted creative – the very thing they insist they get paid for and argue is critical to success. They then appear to be hedging and defying their own principles.

If agencies insist on ONLY showing ‘work we did for other people’, the very criticism that agencies only swap, regurgitate and steal other people’s ideas and work without their original creative marketing insights suddenly appears suspiciously evident. Then, count on any puffed-up agency staff bios to showcase not your impassioned marketing rock stars but instead a
weary confederacy of pirates who lack bandwidth and brain power for anything new, challenging. Truth revealed.

As in any test situation, it’s important to attempt to understand, as best as possible and in advance, how the client selection committee thinks and what issues weigh most heavily with the members. So to patently argue against and avoid doing spec creative usually reveals generalized weakness and timidness, not strength and boldness of the agency’s idea-making machine.

If I’m seeking a deck-builder to come and give me a quote to build a deck off my house in my yard, and that builder comes excitedly with specific ideas, options, and costs, I’ll be more likely to hire them than the guy who when asked, “what do you think?”, answers: I don’t give ideas and services for free. The hell he doesn’t. We all do. In every successful profession on the planet.

This is the mission: to get hired. To get a long-term contract for supporting mutual business interests, Period, Whatever helps achieve that covalent mission within the given agency’s reach should be orchestrated

Under fire and against relentless competition that are willing and able, rigidly holding to unproven principled arguments fails to achieve consistent results. For agencies and for their clients. And clients are sick of hearing this argument. Ask them.