When do clients go bad?

• Do agencies have a moral responsibility to the public as well as their clients
• Which comes first: client loyalty, or the public interest?
• Where and when should agencies draw the line and “fire” client
• What do you think?

Just this week, these questions have arisen in a surprisingly understated way during an otherwise high-profile case in London.

To the shock of the UK public, the 84-year-old children’s television personality, Rolf Harris, was found guilty on Monday (30 June) of multiple counts of sexual assault on young girls, in incidents dating back decades. He will be sentenced on Friday (4 July).

The Guardian, The Independent and The London Evening Standard newspapers, among others, included in their reports the detail that the PR and communications agency, Bell Pottinger, had been employed by Harris and his defence team, for media representation and media monitoring.

Following the verdict, this fact makes for quite uncomfortable reading from a PR and marketing professional’s point of view, and raises some equally uncomfortable questions:

• Did Bell Pottinger know all the facts of Harris’s defence prior to the trial, and were they convinced of his innocence when they took on their task?
• Or did doubts about Harris’s innocence exist, and did they take on the task anyway?
• Did Bell Pottinger only become aware of Harris’s guilt during the proceedings, and did they have an option to pull out of the task?
• Were there any members of the Bell Pottinger PR team on the Harris account who had reservations about it, and were they able to articulate them, and choose not to work on it, as details emerged?

I don’t know the answer to these, and it would be wrong to speculate, but they show that sometimes clients’ conduct can raise difficult issues for agencies, and it makes me wonder whether agencies should make the difficult decision to stand a client down.

With the benefit of hindsight it would be easy to express disquiet at Bell Pottinger’s involvement, but that would be a wrong and lazy judgement. Until the verdict was handed down, Harris was innocent until proven guilty. No agency of any kind has the qualifications or the right to hand down a legal judgement of their own. That is the court’s imperative. Innocence must be presumed, and so arguably, from a company perspective, they have been working for an innocent man. This being the case, there is no moral double-standard.

Besides, this is simply an extreme example of the type of potential conundrum that agencies face all the time.

Agencies across the globe are employed at great expense (for clients, and at huge profit for the agencies) by businesses that others find morally distasteful for a variety of reasons. Campaigners against big pharmaceutical companies argue that they manipulate the market and manufacture demand for their drugs, and their agencies help them achieve this. The fast food industry is accused of encouraging our children to eat junk and of threatening the health of nations. Food and drink companies are berated for pushing us a harmful diet of fats and sugars. The spotlight is turned on big retailers for exploitative employment practices. International clothes manufacturers are taken to task for using slave labour in developing countries. Even the tobacco companies employ their lobbyists, PR and advertising people. The list goes on, and in all cases, opponents of these companies can accuse agencies of being complicit with them. Just watch the movies “Thank You for Smoking” or “Fast Food Nation” for a couple of great examples.

But the companies themselves have counter-arguments. They are meeting a demand. They have corporate social responsibility policies and manifestos. They create jobs. Their list also goes on. They believe that they are providing customers and consumers with benefits (many people would say the tobacco industry is an exception to this), and they employ agencies to communicate these benefits.

Having worked in a number of agencies, I feel sure that any agency worth its salt does not knowingly and wilfully take on a client whose business practices are questionable. But standards change, laws change, suppliers and practices change, and what was once acceptable or ignored can become unacceptable and contentious.

In these cases, is it the agency’s role to encourage the client to change?

What if the client refuses and a line is crossed?

When do clients go bad, and what should agencies do when it happens?

Battered Brand: Suarez, Blatter and the face of football

As the fiesta of football that is the 2014 Brazil World Cup sambas into its second scintillating week, it's a good time to reflect on what has been a roller-coaster for the sport.

From a PR and branding perspective, FIFA is presenting us with some fascinating lessons, and the two most obvious controversies offer us delicious food for thought.

While our minds are fixed on an eating analogy, let's consider firstly the Luis Suarez biting incident, or "Bitegate" as I'll call it for short. 

Well, judging by the global reporting and commentary on Bitegate, it seems obvious to everybody outside of Uruguay that our hungry adopted Scouse superstar has brought himself and the game into disrepute. 

What was notable was the speed in which FIFA responded with an expulsion from the tournament, a lengthy ban from the game and a fine. Although the fine was risible when we consider how much Premier League footballers get paid, the swiftness and severity of the expulsion and the ban suggest that the footballing authorities have learned some lessons.

In the past, both national and international footballing federations have proved ponderous in making such decisions, and their lack of decisiveness has damaged the game's reputation. So this fast turnaround is welcome. If some reports are to be believed, the judgement will be contested. That as the case may be, it was understood that if something wasn't done quickly, football's reputation would  have a chunk taken out of it, as well as Chiellini's shoulder.

In this particular case, the product and brand, namely football and FIFA, have been protected from the dissatisfaction and cynicism that consumers (in this case the global football audience, except for Uruguayans) feel when their favoured product and brand demonstrates inaction in a crisis situation. That is what proves unsatisfactory.

Conversely, the ongoing controversy concerning Sepp Blatter, the decision to award Qatar the World Cup competition, and his decision to stand yet again as FIFA president, is threatening to drag football into the mire. Mumblings about self-interest and avarice are fast becoming a chorus of disapproval.

Mr.Blatter seems to be making some serious mistakes for a number of reasons. Firstly, awarding Qatar a summer tournament in the heat of the Arabian desert seems to be wildly impractical, and probably dangerous for players and supporters alike. Secondly, allegations of shocking conditions for the workers building the facilities leave an appalling taste in the mouth, as do allegations of bribery and underhand negotations. Each of these alone would call into question the judgement of a CEO of a normal corporation. Yet Mr.Blatter stubbornly insists on not vacating his throne. It does not inspire confidence, so much so that even Michel Platini at UEFA, himself a master of politicking in the halls of footballing power, has publicly withdrawn his support for Mr.Blatter.

As for the forthcoming leadership vote, it has been widely reported that Mr.Blatter had planned to stand down after his latest tenure, but he has since gone back on his word. So now, many might argue that his word as well as his judgement apparently can't be trusted. Mr.Blatter has begun to resemble a fading monarch or president, clinging to his elevated position without a mandate. This is hugely damaging for FIFA the brand, and for football, the product.

It is understandable that a leader who has enjoyed a long and successful tenure might feel a personal sense of loss at the thought of ending his career, but his recent moves and his insistence on remaining in situ can no longer be considered for the good of the brand and the product.  The lesson here is that when the rot sets in for a leader's reputation, it is tough to stop the rot, and arguably it must be time for a change. It will be fascinating to see whether this will happen, and what the implications will be for FIFA and for football.

What has perhaps saved the situation from worsening is the World Cup competition itself, which has proved so far to be the most open, exciting and absorbing for quite some time. It demonstrates that fundamentally, football the product, is good. It remains to be seen whether the actions of its mandarins will help it on hinder it in the near future.

Meanwhile, on a lighter note, some bright sparks across the world in ad-land have been using the goings-on in Brazil to great effect for their companies and clients.

The fast folk at McDonald's Uruguay didn't mess around after Luis Suarez chomped on Chiellini. It took only a matter of minutes for them to post this on their Twitter feed:

It's a friendly invitation: "Hi Luis Suarez. If you feel hungry, come to take a bit of a BigMac."

Similarly, South African global brand Nando's, make a similar kind invitation.

  

 And in the UK, Mars confectionery didn't miss a trick with their Snickers brand Twitter Feed: 

Proving that with nimble thinking, every crisis for someone can have a positive outcome for someone else. Good work by these brands.