The Master/Slave Mentality
February 10th, 2006
It happens time and time again – especially in the advertising/marketing/identity world. Companies agree to cut their costs and still provide their full services just to get in the door with a client. And while it may seem like a good idea at the time, nine times out of ten it ultimately is a disaster waiting to happen. Why? Because from the very beginning of the relationship, you have put one company higher (and thus more valuable) than the other, so one is in the seat of power and the other is playing the submissive role. It’s already setting the expectation that the agency will bow to them.
And it happens on the creative delivery front as well. If an equal relationship and rules of engagement aren’t put in place from the beginning, then the client thinks that they can tweak umpteen-million times or call to have you place an ad the day it’s due. And it’s not their fault. It’s yours.
The master/slave mentality runs rampant in the creative services industry. But only because agencies let it. It’s easy to moan and whine about “difficult clients” who are “too demanding.” But in all reality, when agencies set up that master/slave relationship instead of a mutual-respecting partnership, what do they really expect?
Other posts by Spike.
Olivier Blanchard says:
There’s nothing wrong with creating a little ‘trial and error’ comfort zone for new clients, but yeah, once the ball gets rolling, there’s really no reason to keep it up.
February 21st, 2006 at 10:56 amBilly says:
I absolutely agree. There is a fine line between “making the client happy” and “making the client great.” Being belligerent and proud of your work is wrong for everyone, but being restless and genuine (and proud) is sometimes rewarded with trust. I think it more-often-times-than-not comes down to the whole “kindred spirits” working relationship. Respect breeds trust breeds great work breeds more respect breeds trust…
February 21st, 2006 at 10:57 amOlivier Blanchard says:
Wow. Billy nails it. Awesome.
February 21st, 2006 at 10:57 amHigh Jive says:
i know this will be taken the wrong way, but… it’s interesting to make a master/slave analogy for an industry that has such poor minority representation. also, if you think most agencies take a slave mentality, try working in a minority shop for an extended period.
February 21st, 2006 at 10:57 amSpike Jones says:
HighJive, I believe you took my post out of context, but I appreciate your views on it. The ad industry (and remember folks, we aren’t an ad agency) has been struggling with your points for decades as you more than know. I don’t have the answers, but we’re listening and willing to do what it takes to move in the right direction. Thanks again for your input.
February 21st, 2006 at 10:58 amFarai says:
HighJive, are you implying only minorities are mistreated? Are you implying that all minority run agencies are immediately slaves in this analogy? Why must everyone be a victim?
February 21st, 2006 at 10:58 amHigh Jive says:
Farai, I’m not implying that at all. My original remark was mostly just going off on a tangent regarding the choice of phrases. Additionally, I don’t designate automatic victims in any scenario. In many professional cases, “victims” are often enablers — at least on certain levels. But while we’re on the tangent, I believe that minority agencies are given minority status by clients and the industry in general. It falls on the individual agencies to work their way out of the situation and alter perceptions. But again, I’ve probably taken Mr. Jones’ post out of context. And maybe your comments too. All the best.
February 21st, 2006 at 10:58 am