I have written many times
that the agency fee system has put clients in charge of their own
agencies. This story shows how true it
can be.
Not too long ago, I was
given a fee paid search to find a senior executive to run a major DTC pharma
account at a major, network-owned ad agency.
The job would be for an EVP at $300k+. It was a big, important job for
the agency because it was running one of its largest and most visible accounts.
The search took several
months. When the president of the agency narrowed
its search to four candidates, they then extensively interviewed with the senior
agency management. Two made the cut.
they were both my candidates. At the client’s request, they went to meet the client. The agency knew that this was more than just a courtesy and that it was doubtful that the client would leave the final hiring decision to the agency. After all, if the agency had a preference, but if the client, for whatever reasons, chose the other candidate, they would be required to hire their second choice.
they were both my candidates. At the client’s request, they went to meet the client. The agency knew that this was more than just a courtesy and that it was doubtful that the client would leave the final hiring decision to the agency. After all, if the agency had a preference, but if the client, for whatever reasons, chose the other candidate, they would be required to hire their second choice.
This is the inherent danger
in having the client meet candidates.
Well, the client met the
two candidates. Both were enthusiastic
about the job, the client and the brand.
Their interviewing lasted several hours and they met most of the senior
client marketing management people. Both
candidates commented that the interviews went well and they would be happy
working with this client.
When I called the next day
to get feedback, you could have pushed me over with a feather when I heard the
client’s reaction. The client loved both
people, but decided that their advertising business did not require the
seniority or expertise of these candidates (this was an account that spent tens of millions of dollars to advertise the brand).
Instead, they wanted someone making considerably less, with commensurate lesser
qualifications, to run their business.
They felt that instead of an
EVP, a Senior Vice President would be sufficient. And of course with a less senior candidate, they could cut the agency fee somewhat.
EVP, a Senior Vice President would be sufficient. And of course with a less senior candidate, they could cut the agency fee somewhat.
This is what happens when the client is the final word in hiring. Once upon a time, long before fees, ad agencies chose their hires based on all the agency's needs. Of course candidates were chosen to handle specific businesses, but they were hired to suit the agency's needs.
End of story. Thank goodness I was paid for the
search. The agency asked me to do the
search again, this time for a lower level executive. I told them I would do it at a discounted
rate since it had now become a completely different search. Another two months went by before the client
approved a candidate.
The irony is that about a
year later, the agency lost the business.
The new agency actually hired one of the two rejected candidates to run
the business. Go figure.
I couldn't agree more. Agencies need to trust their own leadership to make hiring decisions. Clients don't have adequate insight into "how" agencies operate and the talent required to achieve their goals. If they did, they wouldn't need an agency at all. In my opinion, it's better to leave clients out of hiring decisions.
ReplyDeleteThAnks, Beth. That is a perfect explanation.
Delete