If accounts can go up for review, why can’t our relationships?
Advertising is a trillion dollar business. The science of separating suckers from their hard-earned income is a cornerstone of capitalism, and New York City boasts some of the most successful advertising agencies on Earth. The client-agency relationship is a tenuous beast at best, as cut-throat competition vies for multi-million dollar accounts. Having spent no less than ten years mingling with media mavens, the process by which high profile clientele is acquired and retained is pertinent to today’s discussion.
Typically there are three phases in the life of the agency/client relationship. It goes something like this:
First up is the pitch. This is the part where you convince a perspective client that no one can represent their interests better than you. You do research, present a list detailing the wealth of your resources, the skill of your craftsmen, along with awards and testimonials from other satisfied clients. This can take months, and no effort or expense is spared.
If you’re fortunate enough to be awarded the account, you pop a bottle of champagne, because you’re about to be hugely compensated. The bubbly serves as the precursor to settling into the actual day to day work. This is what you asked for, and it can be taxing. The work doesn’t stop with the win, it’s just beginning. Clients can be hard to interpret, they may not know what they want, they may have difficulty articulating their desires, they may ask for one thing and then change their minds at any time for any reason. This part of the relationship requires maintenance, as you’re constantly trying to better understand and please the client. During this stage there is usually lots of bitching, and all of the pretty promises made during the pitch stage are long forgotten.
At least, until the account comes up for review. Contracts have a preset expiration date, at which point a client will analyze how well you interpreted and actualized their needs. They examine quantifiable growth, and the nature of your communication. ‘Here’s what you did right, here’s where you fell short, here is what we were hoping to see from you, and here is the direction we’d like to take.’ It is bluntly set before you: now that our original agreement is coming to a close, persuade us why we should continue to reward you with our business. Other agencies are willing to bend over backwards to prove they can represent our interests better than you. Please, present evidence that you are deserving of being awarded this account, again.
Relationships should work with such ruthless efficiency.
We’ve all seen this game play out in our love lives. During the ‘pitch’ stage, many people will say or do anything to convince you they are ‘the one’ for you. They will leap tall buildings, promise to bring democracy to Cuba, nationalized healthcare to America, and an NBA championship to the New York Knicks. No effort or expense is spared, every ounce of charisma is expended, and grandiose dramatic gestures are made. If successful, the compensation package is significant: you get a friend, a confidant, a companion, a lover.
Once you’ve ‘won’ the business, the real work begins. Anytime you try to meld two lives into one, you’re facing significant challenges. Men and women bring their heritage, their relationship history, their sexual predilections and their idiosyncrasies into relationships. Communicating needs and desires isn’t always clear, and fulfilling them requires honesty, dedication and commitment. This is usually about the part where all the bitching comes in.
But what would happen if you knew your account was coming up for review? What if partners could sit each other down and say “you went out of your way to persuade me to be with you. Now, you are failing to live up to expectations. There are others who–pointing to heart and/or crotch–desire this, and are willing to do anything, to get what I give to you. I’m putting your account up for review. Please, convince me why I should continue to reward you with my attention, my affection, my love, my sex.”
Okay maybe that’s a bit draconian. The client/agency dynamic tends to be one-sided, and few people respond well to being scrutinized. In a healthy, functional relationship, the desire to continually please each other is based on love, not fear. Complacency however, kills relationships. Often once people become involved, they either cease doing the things that attracted a partner in the beginning, or they become unresponsive to change. If I learned anything from watching my parents, it’s this: the second you stop dating a woman, your relationship begins to end. Open, honest communication is required to keep a relationship vibrant, to make sure your needs and those of your partner are being met.
An agency who fails to correctly interpret the needs of a client will have their account terminated. A lover who fails to adore you for who you are, who is unable to present evidence they are deserving of your time, your affection, your love, your sex, should be summarily dismissed. One person’s inability to appreciate you does not diminish you, and—pointing to heart and/or crotch—there will always be another willing to go to the ends of the Earth to demonstrate they are deserving of being rewarded with the gift of you.
—Photo Rajib Ghosh/Flickr
Lets continue the metaphor shall we
If your advertising example worked like a relationship/marriage.
When the client reviews your performance and finds they don’t want you as their advertiser of choice anymore, here is what would happen if it were like a marriage. They would take half the assets in your business and you would have to pay them a fee each month but they would not have to provide anything to you in compensation.
A better fit might be a “merger” that scales of quantities and scope, as well as vertical integration. The merger integration clause can be modified to appear more romantic, though the critical components are well laid out in a sample clause below: “This Agreement, along with any exhibits, appendices, addendums, schedules, and amendments hereto, encompasses the entire agreement of the parties, and supersedes all previous understandings and agreements between the parties, whether oral or written. The parties hereby acknowledge and represent, by affixing their hands and seals hereto, that said parties have not relied on any representation, assertion, guarantee, warranty,… Read more »
Really client agency dynamic is a very good model for relationship due to following reasons:
1) You can pitch for the account of several clients at any time and other clients would not mind it.
2) You can drop the account after the contract ends if it does not seem to be real profitable and clients are too pesky.
3) Its nothing personal, only business.
“3) Its nothing personal, only business.”
What is the point of a personal relationship if you turn it into something that isn’t personal?
That is making personal relationships a little less personal and only caring how to extract maximum from the client with as little effort as possible.
Yeah and I’m saying, personal relationships are supposed to be personal. What’s the point if you take the personal aspect out of it?
Do not invest emotionally in supposed personal relations and keep it business like.
Rapses I understand what you are saying. I’m asking you why you would have a relationship that isnt personal.
Just for fun.
Good thing I have absolutely zero experience with relationships!
There is a better way to do this, just don’t marry in the first place. Since dating is, for many, a pre-marital review stage, keep it that way permanently.
There are certain benefits to getting married, particularly when kids are involved.
I think back to my father’s death, and how screwed we would have been were he not married to my mother. Her ability to collect Social Security survivor benefits and his pension, along with retaining joint property without going through probate — all of these would have been considerably more complicated if not impossible.
I can understand only in the case of children but this article encourages a “looking out for number one” mentality with regard to marriage. If marriage is evolving/devolving into a strictly contractual obligation for goods and services then an agency review makes sense and each spouse is just a vendor but lets not fool men into pretending it’s still marriage. Typically men are the pursuers and I notice that this article frames the scenario as the pursuer selling his goods and services and being judged on his performance at his review. I’m assuming this is just an oversight and the… Read more »
Actually the article never mentions marriage.
The article begins with a picture of an engagement ring. Are you purposely trying to be misleading?
The author of the article doesn’t necessarily pick out the photo that goes with it.
I read the post as both parties should review each other’s performances regularly.
The peruser / pursued baggage is yours, and you are projecting…
I like the 2/7 plan.
In Mexico City, legislators proposed a two-year marriage contract that simply ended at the conclusion of the term, unless renewed by the participants. No messy divorce or custody battles – the contract would specify all of that up front.
After that I would suggest renewal terms of seven years. Again, at renegotiation time you would specify how property and kids are split (hopefully not as King Solomon proposed) at the end of the contract term.
Actually I really like that plan too! Although I imagine it might be difficult getting that legislation passed in the US, as a tremendous amount of revenue is generated through messy complicated divorces.
As for Solomon? Guy had 1,000 wives and 1,000 concubines. Not someone I’d go to for relationship advice.
JFB
I imagine something like that would never get passed in the U.S. Heck, we’re having enough trouble trying to include same-sex marriages…imagine if we tried to actually redefine it so it wasn’t a lifelong contract? People’d get so pissed off.
Even people opposed to legalizing polygamy and same-sex marriage are fine with legal divorce; so, why would they have a problem with the concept of renewal? It would be worth a try.
Joanna, ten years might be too large an interval! By then you could have kids, a mortgage, even a family cell phone plan! I find minor course corrections along the way help to avoid major gaps in communication. You and hubby seem to be doing a MAHvelous job of this!
JFB
I firmly believe that marriage would be better were we to have the understanding that all marriages will be reviewed after ten years… At ten years, you can renew or not. If not.
My husband doesn’t agree, hahaha!
Relationships require maintenance. Changing your car’s oil on a regular basis might seem tedious, but it’s necessary for its continued function. Demonstration of affection is the lubrication which keeps the gears of relationships from grinding against each other. Obviously this goes both ways; the conclusions you draw are your own.
” Obviously this goes both ways; the conclusions you draw are your own.”
I’m afraid that it doesn’t read as going both ways in your original article. Not with the statement that men must ‘date’ their woman throughout the entirety of the relationship or risk losing it.
But, seriously, my interpretation is mostly meaningless.
What did you mean by that?
“During the ‘pitch’ stage, many people will say or do anything to convince you they are ‘the one’ for you.” “Men and women bring their heritage, their relationship history, their sexual predilections and their idiosyncrasies into relationships. ” There are others who–pointing to heart and/or crotch–desire this, and are willing to do anything, to get what I give to you. “The desire to continually please each other is based on love, not fear.” “A lover who fails to adore you for who you are, who is unable to present evidence they are deserving of your time, your affection, your love,… Read more »
“Despite this being a site which addresses issues of masculinity, the language used is decidedly non-gender specific,”
Except for:
“If I learned anything from watching my parents, it’s this: the second you stop dating a woman, your relationship begins to end.”
Let me approach this differently.
Do you believe that the second a woman stops ‘wooing’ (ie. dating) a man, the relationship begins to end?
“A lover who fails to adore you for who you are, who is unable to present evidence they are deserving of your time, your affection, your love, your sex, should be summarily dismissed.”
This applies equally to either gender, but as this is a men’s site, is directed pointedly towards men.
“This applies equally to either gender, but as this is a men’s site, is directed pointedly towards men.”
So you believe that men need to get the message that they need to ‘woo’ women more then men need to get the message that they should find women who ‘woo’ them?
Typhoon, I think you’re reading into this a little more than need be. I personally think his message was very gender neutral. And I don’t think that when Jackie said ‘date’ that he meant that ONLY MEN absolutely NEED omg to take their womenz out on fancy dinners and buy them expensive jewelry and fulfill their every whim like spoiled little brats, (or “goddesses” as some like to call it). I think he means like treat them with the same kind of excitement and curiosity as you did in the very beginning. To adore the other person like you do… Read more »
” If I learned anything from watching my parents, it’s this: the second you stop dating a woman, your relationship begins to end.” Sounds tedious. “A lover who fails to adore you for who you are, who is unable to present evidence they are deserving of your time, your affection, your love, your sex, should be summarily dismissed.” From your previous statement I deduce that you mean this ‘one way’. Otherwise why would a man have to continuously ‘date’ his female partner if she’s also supposed to adore him for who he is, present evidence that she’s deserving of his… Read more »