In the general public, it's called "caveat emptor" and it does not mean "Seize the Day," but rather "Buyer Beware!" In terms of agencies, caveats are what we put into proposals to try and mitigate scope creep on projects and more fully explain the estimate of fees. Also, since agencies do not fit under the implied warranty of fitness, it's a wide open playing field for an industrious account exec looking to make a name for themselves in the agency.
And this is the point where, after years and years in the industry, I'm still baffled by it. It used to be a well connected account exec that "knew a guy." As in: " you need something that my firm doesn't have expertise in? Don't worry, I know a guy that can do that for you." But now it's moved beyond that. Now it's simply: "We can do that." Even if they can't. And that's where I'm troubled by this trend. Let's look at just 2 ways this is put into practice:
1. The infallible agency. It doesn't matter what the request is, the answer is "we can do that." And if there is no one in the agency that can, they will either a) hire freelancers with the particular skill or b) ask one of their employees to literally "learn on the job." The issue here is that these scenarios hurt more than just the client. For obvious reasons, the situation in (b) is just wrong. Why wouldn't the company, then, send one of it's employees to training and learn on the job themselves? And in the case of (a), again, why would the company not just hire freelancers themselves? The answer that a rational person would give is that they are expecting the agency to bring a level of expertise and experience that can't simply be "learned on the job" or taught in a class.
Yet, this part is not taken into account when the agency accepts (and bids on!) the assignment. There is no value add. And that gives every agency a black eye. I'd even be OK if the agency had a competency in project management that allowed for the freelance option to work. However, more often than not, this is not the case. And so, when one agency does this and fails, companies begin to place us all in the same category--as snake oil salesmen that will tell you anything to get the deal.
2. Put this "in a pill." The other area that fits the category of buyer beware is this next scenario. Once an agency successfully does a project for a client, they realize they can now sell this "solution" to additional clients. All that is standing in the way is a well-written marketing slick that talks about how this offering is a dedicated practice in the firm and that they bring a wealth of experience to the table. This is tricky, since some agencies have actually done this for several clients and can legitimately claim this. And that is smart marketing. I wonder how those agencies who put in the time and effort to hone these particular offerings, or went through the time and expense to merge with or acquire the talent feel about the agencies who claim the same offering with just a few well-written paragraphs and the notion that they can fall back on #1 above if they actually sell something?
This is not a lecture on ethics or fairness of competition. This is not complaining that the other guy is using steroids, only to justify your own use. This is a piece on buyer beware. And if possible, a chance to turn the conversation into "Caveat venditor" (or let the seller beware). With informed companies making hiring decisions of agencies, if they know what to look for, they may begin to spot these trends. And that puts the agencies other work at risk. If the agency is doing a good job in one area and begins to exaggerate their skills in another area, does that put the entire relationship at risk? It is our hope that it does. Let the seller beware.
