July 2003

Beyond "Kicking the Tires" During a PR Agency Review

There's something about the end of the calendar year that brings many PR agency/client relationships to a crashing halt.

My vote for the No. 1 reason goes to the proverbial "bad chemistry." No doubt, today's tough economic conditions and the mantra of "doing more with less" can push poor relationships into the "bad chemistry" quadrant.

The phrase seems to be a catchall when the client wants an out without going down that seemingly torturous road of explaining the nitty-gritty specifics. After all, "bad chemistry" can happen. Plus, everyone understands "bad chemistry" as code for one or more of the following: Agency doesn't "get" our business; agency has revolving door of account people; agency can't meet a deadline; agency doesn't produce results; client is tired of the "dog-ate-the-backgrounder" excuse.

Regardless of the reason, there are ways a company can go about selecting its next PR agency that increases the likelihood of long-term success. I'm going to address a few areas that can be quite revealing, but are often missed or bastardized in the agency review process.

For starters, it's amazing to me how many companies take the attitude, "Hey, we're the potential customer. The agencies should schlep to our office."

It's not about saving time. It's about making a better decision by seeing the agency in its own environment.

Go to the agency's office. Hear its pitch in its environment. Take a stroll through the office with an agency chaperone. Randomly ask an account person about the tools at her/his disposal for media relations. How does information get shared across the account team?

At the risk of sounding a bit cosmic, feel the energy. Is there a buzz? Does the physical environment seem like a fit with your company? If you see a preponderance of lava lamps, and your own offices show off mahogany and oriental rugs, you've got another data point to add to the mix.

Regarding the actual presentation, make a point of asking that every member of the proposed agency account team -- down to the account coordinator -- have a role in the presentation. This way you can gauge the chemistry of the proposed agency team. How do they interact and play off of each other? Seeing the team in action gives you a good look at the younger professionals on the account team who would handle the bulk of the day-to-day program implementation.

Such an approach prevents the agency from stacking its presentation team with the "silver foxes" who are absolutely wonderful presenters. Heck, I know a few who could pinch-hit for David Letterman or Dr. Phil. But once the review ends and the real work begins, they disappear into the woodwork, off to bag more prey.

I know a large company -- need to withhold the name to protect the guilty -- that picked an agency last year without even meeting the account team. Now that makes a lot of sense. I wish my kids made such leaps of faith at my requests.

Back to the presentation, ask the agency person positioned as the senior lead on the proposed account team how much time she or he intends to devote to your business. Then follow up with a question about what accounts currently fall under her/his domain. The cynical side of me says that it's not a bad idea to call those accounts and find out the person's true engagement on these businesses. In short, is the senior lead truly adding value to the program?

I also want to touch on budget, specifically the coyness often associated with talking budget during an agency review. A simplified version of the dialogue typically goes like this:
Agency: This conversation has been excellent. What a terrific opportunity. Just one more question: Can you give us some sense of the budget you've allocated to public relations? (A softer version of "What's your budget?")

Company: We don't want to put any restrictions on your creativity. Instead we'd like you to come back to us and tell us what we should be doing in a perfect world.

Not good.

The last time I looked, it's not a perfect world. Not providing at least a ballpark budget forces the agency to waste time that otherwise could be put forth effectively on the specific brief.
If your budget falls on the modest side, you can still get a sense of an agency's pure creative juices by providing budget parameters as well as asking for additional ideas outside this budget.

While the actual review process can be set up a number of ways, we consistently find one critical element missing. The company does not define what constitutes PR success at the front end. In fact, one could argue that this element, more than anything else, helps ensure a long-term relationship with the PR agency of choice.

I can also understand why companies don't go through this exercise. It's not for the squeamish. It requires an introspective look at where your PR program currently stands, what's important, what's not important and how does PR best align with future business objectives. And that's the easy part.

Next, you need to quantify measurements for defining PR success in black and white terms -- gaining the buy-in of the internal PR team as well as the senior executive who provides the funding for the PR function.

But if you go through the time and effort to establish this definition of success, it sets the entire tone for the agency review process. After all, every step is about finding the PR agency that's going to best deliver on these PR measurements. And agencies appreciate the approach because it establishes a clear picture on how they'll be judged.

One of my favorite movie lines comes from "Cool Hand Luke," when the warden turns to Paul Newman and says in his Southern drawl, "What we have here is a failure to communicate." All the ideas mentioned above essentially allow for better communications between the company and the PR agencies during the review process.

Which I would contend ultimately makes for a better selection and a healthier agency/client relationship.

Back to top