Every now and then I run across companies with agency relationships. Every now and then those companies "review" their representation, as is their prerogative. Sometimes, those reviews are prompted by normal and healthy function reviews; other times it's something else.
Those something elses are usually the wrong things, in my experience. I had a discussion recently with an agency friend who was talking about the perceptions clients have of their agencies when the relationship reaches a certain point. Companies often re-think whether or not (in their minds) the agency can cut it. In reality, sometimes they can, sometimes not. Unfortunately, those thoughts are often driven by myths, which I would like to debunk and invite others to confirm, refute or otherwise debate.
Myth 1: We need an agency that's in the same city as we are.
I can think of several reasons why that's wrong. The practical comes to mind: If you have a niched expert -- someone, for example, who is practicing PR and has a long history in your industry, it doesn't matter where she is. I know agencies that represent Oregon companies that are based in DC. I know a very talented practitioner who lives in the mountains of northern Italy who represents several US companies to the US media. Waggener Edstrom built its entire business in Portland as it represented Microsoft in Redmond. No, the talent is where it is. Find it and use it.
Myth 2: We need a New York/San Francisco/Chicago/Wherever firm
Usually when companies reach a certain level of achievement and they want more attention and think there's talent only in the major US cities. See above about where the talent is. Not to knock those cities -- as a general rule, the cities do attract concentrations of talent. But that doesn't necessarily mean you're going to get better representation.
Myth 3: You have to have vertical press relationships before you can work for us.
This one has a little merit, but I don't buy it as a hard and fast rule. It helps if you can pick up the phone and shoot the shit with a reporter with whom you've built a great relationship, but here's the better rule: What really helps, more than anything, is whether or not your client has something to share that's of real value. If that's the case, the relationship takes a deserved back seat to the presentation of the idea. I might not know the reporter that covers your technology, but I will get you a briefing if your technology is the real thing.
Myth 4: We need more press releases
You need more press releases like you need another hole in the head. Holy cow, the times I've had a client say: "I want a release a week." Is that what you want? Good for you. No one else -- and I mean no one, not your customers, not the press, not anyone -- wants that. If you want to pay me for writing them and casting them out into the ether, I might consider it (though if I do, I'm just as foolish as you because the reporters will learn to ignore me as an amateur), but you're wasting your money, effort and sanity. And soon you'll be operating under Myth 2 as above.
Please share thoughts.
Mason:
I don't know ... there's something to the "rolling thunder" idea of news releases, especially if the client is signing new customers, partners, etc. and the news is real.
The idea that visibility helps build credibility seems to have some value. If you're out there and visible, people sense that "something is happening" even if they don't care so much about the individual pieces of news.
Posted by: John Wagner | October 05, 2006 at 08:40 AM
Good point, John. I agree fully, so long as -- and you said it well -- the news is real. My gripe is with clients who just want their names out there for no real reason.
Posted by: Mason Cole | October 05, 2006 at 09:32 AM