On April 20th, I participated as a judge in the interactive portion of the National Advertising Awards. Joined by a crew of seasoned interactive veterans, we evaluate 15 submissions. While I can’t share what ideas won (you’ll need to wait until May the 12th to find out), I can let you in on one of the biggest points of contention between the judges – do you follow or challenge a brief when you get one?
I’m sure you’ve been put in the situation before. An RFP or a project arrives on your desk that just doesn’t feel right. Maybe it doesn’t take into account fundamental human behaviours. Maybe it ignores market realities. Or maybe it’s just trying to solve a tactical problem rather than dealing with what really needs to be solved. Either way, it creates an uncomfortable situation – are you a going to tell the client they’re wrong, or are you going to do what’s asked.
The NAA Interactive Briefing
In the interactive division of the National Advertising Awards, entrants were asked to submit an innovative creative solution to the the following business problem for Sympatico.ca:
“Drive adoption of Sympatico.ca’s various assets by convincing our target audience to make Sympatico.ca or one of its sister sites, like Best Health or Auto, their homepage. The site is currently competing with U.S. and international sites like MSN and Yahoo.” (for more details, download the full briefing here)
Of the teams that responded to the challenge, half developed creative advertising campaigns consisting of a mix of traditional and social media forms. Some came up with clever campaign concepts that successfully focused on strong calls to action that supported the stated business objectives.
And the other half of the entrants told us the portal model is dead.
Dear Client, You are Wrong.
Now I don’t want this to turn into a debate around whether portal models like Sympatico.ca are dead. What I do want to ask is, if you’re put into a situation where you don’t believe that a brief is responding to the right thing for a client’s business, do you follow it?
In the past, I’ve been on both sides of the coin before. Perhaps it comes down to the difference between taking client work to get paid and taking client work to make a difference. Here’s a quick summary of your likely outcomes:
Partners Vs. Working for Approvals
A lot of agencies don’t break the brief. The hope is that once the ability to execute is proven, there will be the opportunity to show strategic worth on something else. In my opinion, this is the wrong approach to design. This is working for approvals instead of working to achieve a result.
The benefits of not working at an agency is you’re not boxed into agency scenarios. As a strategic innovation and experience design firm, clients come to us with a recognition (and expectation) that in order to strategically differentiate, you may need to go outside your comfort zone. Questioning long-standing assumptions is part of our value proposition, and as such, every brief gets broken to some extent. If your job is to solve problems, then articulating the right problem is step number one. It’s the difference between a partnership and a paycheck.
Now obviously not everybody has the opportunity to work like we do. So what do you do when the brief is wrong?
Posted by:
M
Apr 21, 2010 at 11:15 am
It’s especially difficult in this situation because you can’t talk through your submission ideas for change in great detail – you simply submit and wait. Also for this competition, no mention was made that the client was open to changing their product. The challenge of the brief was to develop a creative answer within the constraints of the real world. I think you have to stick with the creative that answered the brief within the constrains.
… I mean we could all sell more widgets if only the client would listen to our vision for their product/service right?
Posted by:
Barry
Apr 21, 2010 at 12:51 pm
Your clients are never wrong
Posted by:
Bruce
Apr 22, 2010 at 12:50 pm
Forgive me for my speculation, but it seems obvious to me that you disagreed with the chosen winner. It also seems obvious to me that the judges HAD to chose a winner that answered the brief versus one that didn’t for the sole reason that Sympatico sponsored the show and probably paid for the shitty sandwiches that you ate while arguing.
My condolences to the mis-guided soles that were brave enough to challenge the brief. Being right is not always the best way to win. If you can’t speak directly to the client to challenge the brief and set a new strategy then you’re left with little choice but to work from their brief.
Posted by:
Patrick Glinski
Apr 22, 2010 at 1:09 pm
Actually, we had Chinese food
I recognize that the “process” from a competition isn’t necessarily a reflection of more traditional client interactions, but when responding to an RFP, it’s pretty easy to be put in this same situation.
In this case, there were actually three options: 1. Follow the brief, 2. Break the brief, or 3. Run away. 15 total submissions in the competition, but it kind of makes you wonder how many people bounced after they looked through the brief.
I’m in the 2 or 3 camp myself (depending on the situation). There is no way a project will be successful if the team working on it doesn’t believe in what they’re doing, and there is no benefit for anyone in doing work that is being set up for failure.
Posted by:
jill atkinson
Apr 27, 2010 at 5:42 am
I can’t answer the competition part of this question – and it seems client or competition brief are both being asked here – but I do have an opinion regarding client briefs. If my agency team doesn’t have a trusted, quality relationship with the client, and isn’t able to go back to them to discuss discrepancies, research, best practices, changing paradigms etc. then I would have to say the client is working with the wrong agency. And any agency that would allow themselves to be set up for failure deserves to lose the account, because they are not doing their jobs as marketing partners.
Trackbacks (0)
May 3, 2010 at 4:49 am
Post a comment
Contributor
Patrick Glinski
22 posts
A specialist in digital strategy, planning and play-based facilitation, Patrick is the Head of Social Innovation at Idea Couture. Patrick is proud to have "seen the light" and discover design...
See Profile
View all contributors

Become a contributor
Related Posts
Recent Posts from this contributor
April 27th, 2010
April 7th, 2010
December 2nd, 2009
October 14th, 2009
October 13th, 2009
Noodleplay delivers.
Select from the menu below:
Bowls of Noodles Eaten This Year
95,785,467,461
Countries Eating Noodles
195
Copyright 2008-2010 by Idea Couture Inc. All rights reserved.