Advertising agencies and their clients

By Simon Longstaff

A version of this article was first published: B&T Weekly - August 2002

Some ten years have passed since I first became interested in the nature of the relationship between advertising agencies and their clients. In that time I have been perplexed (and I admit, troubled) by the steady 'devaluation' of what should be a relationship built on a foundation of trust and respect for the independent status of client and agency.

Of course, there are many wonderful partnerships – leading to the production of great advertising and rewarding outcomes. At their best, the relationship between client and agency often models the best kind of professional partnership. However, at their worst, the relationships can be truly awful – even degrading. At their worst, some clients expect agencies to be their lap-dogs, ready to roll over whenever the master whistles. At their worst, some agencies feel compelled to comply; forced to gobble up whatever scraps are thrown from their master's table.

It's a pretty insulting image, isn't it? Yet, there are some, in the wider industry, who would vigorously assert that agencies should know their proper place as the compliant servants of their clients. I regret to say that this view has even found its way into elements of the industry's leadership. Although the relationship between the Advertising Federation of Australia (AFA) and the Australian Association of National Advertisers (AANA) is now quite cordial, powerful figures within the AANA have often assumed that agencies should surrender any right to form an independent judgement – about anything! Indeed, feelings are so tender that the mere mention of past bullying causes the AFA to blanch – lest uttering the truth of the matter invoke the ire of the 'chief bully' and disturb the new peace.

This peace is the product of new thinking, from new heads, concerned to find positions of common interest based on mutual respect. co-operation of this kind should, in general, be welcomed. However, the AFA and AANA need to ensure that their passion to preserve harmony does not undermine the capacity of each for independent judgement. People can be captured by the siren call of 'fruitful dialogue' as easily as they can be cowed by the bully's threat of retribution. However, if ever there was a time when bodies like the AFA and its members needed to demonstrate their independence, then it is now.

It is crunch time for professional advisers around the world. In case anyone in ad-land has not noticed, in the wake of Enron, WoldCom, HIH, OneTel etc., lawyers and accountants are being forced to establish a proper degree of independence from their clients. Billions of dollars have been lost, lives brought close to ruin, brand reputations are in tatters because advisers didn't have the dignity and moral courage to speak their minds and give independent advice.

Shackled by golden chains and sated with rich fare, those who might have cried a note of warning slept at their posts. Nobody other than the na've and gormless thinks it a good idea that key advisers be muzzled! And are advertising agencies key advisers? You bet they are – entrusted with nothing less than the world's great store of commercial value, brands. No company director should rest easy if his company is using a 'captive' agency that has lost the capacity to think for itself and challenge the prevailing orthodoxies of marketing directors.

The courts have certainly made their position clear on this matter. In a recent case involving the respected agency, John Bevins, Justice Hill declared that although he accepted that in relation to John Bevins, “none intended to mislead or deceive the public”, the agency is none the less liable for doing so. Justice Hill stressed that agencies may not rely on or defer to the judgement of others – such as clients and oversight bodies like FACTS. The judge says of agencies that, “they are the gatekeepers” – not servants, not 'guns for hire". Agencies therefore need to develop the courage to stand up for what they believe is in the best interests of the client – and not merely pander to their wants. Gatekeepers also need to have in mind broad issues of public (rather than strictly private) interests.

With all of this in mind, it will be interesting to monitor the unfolding debate about advertising to children – especially in relation to increasing rates of obesity, amongst children, in developed countries like Australia. The central issues are contentious and will divide opinion. As the arguments unfold, it will be interesting to watch how the AANA and AFA respond. Will they present themselves as committed allies marching in lockstep or offer distinct (although complementary) points of view? The answer to this question will reveal much about the likelihood of agencies taking up the challenge of acting as gatekeepers rather than guns for hire – and the response of bodies, like the AANA, to this possibility.