For maintaining a client-centric business approach, the time-worn adage “The customer is always right” may make sense, but agencies that treat it as a hard-and-fast rule may be doing a significant disservice their clients or themselves.
For maintaining a client-centric business approach, the time-worn adage “The customer is always right” may make sense, but agencies that treat it as a hard-and-fast rule may be doing a significant disservice their clients or themselves.
Consider first that clients hire agencies because they have capabilities that the client does not. As a result, agencies can leverage their significant experience on behalf of clients, including the invaluable insights they’ve gained into what it takes to deliver winning outcomes.
Thus, blindly agreeing to every client request or contention, especially when the agency sees an alternative solution or path, is contrary to the reason the agency was hired in the first place.
Alternatively, agencies cannot fight the client any time they aren’t 100% aligned. Managing differences in opinion requires nuanced reasoning and a deft touch.
So how do you determine whether to defer to the client, challenge them or simply walk away?
The underlying rationale in the following examples, based on a strategic design agency, can be extended to any agency, regardless of the type (legal, architecture, advertising, etc.).
It can be challenging for strategic design agencies to defer to clients, given that they’ve helped so many different brands successfully go to market. Agencies may feel they know what strategy is best for a given client’s brands—and this may be contrary to what the client thinks.
This can be particularly difficult when an agency is hired to execute a client’s strategy rather than to develop the strategy. The client knows their brand best, however, and if an agency accepts an assignment under these circumstances, they should respect the client’s brand knowledge and focus on bringing the strategy to life. This makes it crucial that agencies clearly understand the scope of the assignment before they agree to do the work.
It may be appropriate to challenge the client when facing factors that may be negotiable, such as timelines, that could hinder or undermine results. The design process takes time. Time to fully understand the design brief, to get inspiration, to develop preliminary concepts and then to iterate to refine concepts.
Anxious clients may want to rush to get to the end result, or they may alter or update the design brief after the work has begun. Both factors put stress on the process and minimize the amount of time and focus agencies have to deliver an excellent outcome.
Since this can put both the client’s brand and the agency’s reputation at risk, agencies must push back to get the time they need. The key is clarifying the process and understanding timing up front, including the client’s role in all of it. If project parameters are agreed upon and problems persist, then pushing back is completely reasonable.
While agencies enter into client partnerships with the best of intentions, they may find that there is simply not a match as the partnership evolves, due to any number of reasons, including:
The faster a mismatch can be identified, the better. Continuing to force an unsuitable partnership to work is futile for both parties. Going your separate ways when this is the case removes your agency from an untenable situation and allows the client to find a more suitable partner.
While agencies are there to serve clients, blindly believing “the client is always right” may lead to unfavorable results for both parties. Clarifying expectations and processes up front can help ensure a good fit for both parties and produce the highest frequency of good outcomes over time. When it’s clear there simply isn’t a match, walking away quickly may be the best solution.