1. You say things like, “I’m the client, you’re the agency.” or “I’m not paying you to think, just do it.” 
2. You do not read the recommendations or points of view sent over & ask stupid questions (the answers for which are contained within).
3. You make bold statements or ask questions about things you thought were not delivered.  But, alas they were & have been sitting in your inbox for over a day.
4. You consistently change established goals & wonder why your agency fees continue to rise. 
5. You heinously consistently miss deadlines & expect your agency to make up the difference.
6. You give unclear direction & are upset when the deliverable is not something for which you were looking.
7. You do not do the necessary leg work internally to pass along information vital to the current & future success of your campaigns.
8. You allow your offline agency to do things online that do not continue or build upon your current interactive efforts.
9. You sacrifice long-term goals for short-term success.
10. You do not pay your agency or media fees promptly.

The funny (or maybe sick) thing is; having experienced all of this, I still love what I do.  And, at the end of the day, we still love our clients & working with them.  We know most of this is not always your fault.

Related Posts

• Help Us, Help You – Getting Yourself Connected
• Help Us, Help You
• Retailer Nexus & The Advertising Tax

If the goal is to quell suspicions regarding the desire to cut agencies out of the picture, put the theory to practice. Call me a skeptic, but wouldn’t it make sense for Google to publicly announce it does not wish to disintermediate agencies? In terms of online innovation, Google is a leader & needs only to add a strategic component to its account management to become a direct competitor to interactive agencies.

While I agree that their acquisition of DoubleClick will lead to much-needed innovation in the interactive advertising industry, & should be good for everyone, I can’t help but wonder what else is behind Mr. Armstrong’s presentation. It seems part damage control, part pre-emptive.

Without agencies involved, Google has an opportunity to exert more influence. There is a lot more to gain, monetarily, without an agency as the intermediary.

I have seen, first-hand, instances of Google attempting to deal directly with clients. Generally, I do not have a problem with this; as long as the agency is brought into the contact loop at the beginning, clients & vendors can talk as often as they like…as long as goals are clear. What piques my curiosity is why they do not initially contact the agency. I would assume they have client & agency databases with specific info linking an agency’s billing, contact info, & client list. Account managers & reps who are in contact with a client or agency at least somewhat regularly…I know these guys & gals exist. Yes, clients play a roll in this, too, but I understand their position which most of the time is them, in water, with their head just above it.

At the end of the day, this is nothing new; vendors have always been trying to deal directly with clients. Yet it seems a bit more sensitive when a big, successful company like Google is the aggressor. Are we over-sensitive or appropriately acknowledging a rising competitor?

Related Posts

• Ten Ways to Piss Off Your Interactive Agency