It's par for the course these days for account wins and
realignments to be accompanied by news of an existing account being
dropped because of client conflict issues. Ogilvy & Mather Hong Kong is
the most recent example. It will be parting ways with a company that's
been a client for longer than the agency can remember because of
competitive issues. That's simply the done thing as far as agency-client
relationships go. But does it make sense today when the whole gamut of
marketing services partners - PR, direct, interactive and ad agencies -
are siblings in large networks?
As far as media agencies are concerned, the answer has to be "no". By
asking for the best prices, talent, huge amounts of insights and
knowledge and the technology to help them make faster and smarter
decisions, clients are in effect demanding that markets should have a
smaller number of media specialists in operation? Otherwise, how else
will a media agency acquire the clout to leverage the best rates in an
overly-fragmented market?
But the situation is not as clear cut for creative agencies. Creative
notions of conflict are quite different from media notions of
conflict.
Uppermost on clients' minds is that the competitive edge companies now
enjoy in being first to market has been truncated to a couple of months,
at most, these days. Which makes the idea of competitors sharing
advertising agencies simply too abhorrent for many. Admittedly these
concerns are very real, but are agencies missing a trick in convincing
clients that they can handle conflicting accounts?
O&M has taken some far-sighted steps, including employing a security
consultancy and conducting security audits, to assure clients about the
safety measures it employs to keep conflicting accounts quite
separate.
Its actions are to be applauded and may well be the first step in the
long road towards convincing clients that conflicting accounts can be
handled professionally by separate teams under one agency.
