Shift happens

Account management is a term much more preferred than client service, as the latter reeks of the glorified messenger role most client service people had to endure during the '80s - although word has it that this perception is still rife even in today's so-called ‘evolved' workplace.

Two arguments

There are essentially two arguments at play here:

1. The first one argues that good strategists are born once they have been in account management for an extended period of time because

   • (a) They would have learnt about the client's business and its day-to-day operational realities;
     
   • (b) They would have been exposed to the workings of all departments within an agency that would enable them to properly grasp how a brief travels and how brand communication is planned and executed - they therefore have real insight into the macro- as well as micro-realities of the brand;
     
   • (c) One cannot possibly let some junior loose on a client's brand- and communication strategies! That could be potentially disastrous;

2. The second argument reads that if one has qualified yourself in a field (eg strategic planning, which one can now do at schools such as Vega School of Brand Innovation and The Red and Yellow School), why would one have to start in another department that, although it has some relevance, is still another department and essentially requires a different skills set?

   Is it not tantamount to studying medicine and being employed as a nurse for a number of years until you can start practicing as a doctor? Surely one will learn a lot about the world of medicine during those years as a nurse, but why not then rather study nursing? Or, closer to home, is it not like studying art direction and being placed in the DTP department for a few years?

   If this argument is accurate, surely we need to implement this across the board - copywriting graduates should become proofreaders first and art directors and designers should be DTP operators, etc. I'm sure you're catching my perplexed drift here.

So, what about 1 (c) above (letting a junior lose on the client's brand and communication strategies)?

I would love anyone working in an agency to prove to me that a junior copywriter or art director or designer has never touched their clients' brands. How else would they gain experience? But this is planning, I hear you say - very serious business indeed. Of course it is, and should be treated as such, but have you never been treated by a junior doctor, etc? (You will probably not even know if you had.)

Yes, it is very serious, but surely a junior reports to his/her boss? Surely there are internal checks and balances in place to avoid major disasters? (At least there should be.)

My contention is not that strategic planning is superior to that of Account Management, but rather that the two are complementary but separate disciplines and should be treated as such. Of course, the ideal is to have strategic account management staff, but then rather train the account management staff on strategy to add to their management (and hopefully) leadership skills, instead of forcing qualified strategic planners into a secondary, albeit complementary, discipline.

When a strategic planner receives a brief, surely he/she will investigate the matter in-depth and engage with all stakeholders to ensure that he/she understands to inner-workings of the category, brand and consumer that the brief pertains to? (Any relatively good one would.)

General lack of understanding

There seems to be a general lack of understanding in the industry of what a strategic planner/account planner actually does or is expected to do and how they can and should add value to clients' brands. They are not glorified researchers, nor are they ‘intellectual' account management staff. Essentially, planners have to marry the needs of commerce and the needs of creativity. But they need room to do so.

The process in which this is achieved often sits closer to the creative process than that of account management. Account management is process-driven, and appeals to an essentially different skill set to that of the strategic planner, who in essence is often less process-driven and needs time to think and plan on a specific brief.

This does not mean that the two are mutually exclusive, but merely that although cross-pollination between the two disciplines should be encouraged; they should be treated and respected as two different areas of specialisation that assist in building and adding value to a client's brand.

Planners who are forced into account management often don't reach their full potential because they are too busy running the account, and in the long run the brand suffers, because they often get watered-down solutions. Added to this, the industry is slow on innovative thinking and planning ahead, so people in leadership positions are often too busy dousing fires, which leaves little time for inspiring, leading and up-skilling junior staff members.

Begs the question

This then begs the question: is it really fair to place someone with, for example an Honours degree in brand leadership (strategic planning) in a junior account executive position, or worse, in the traffic department of an agency? Should we not rather be fairer and reward young people for their efforts in trying to gain specialised skills?

My point is this: these graduates are skilled and ready for bigger and more specific challenges, and should be afforded such opportunities. Of course their time spent in account management will not be a complete waste of time, but they can be put to better use from day one.

If we want this industry to gain more respect, respecting our own more would be a good start. Imagine someone graduating as a chartered accountant and being made an accountant for a number of years with the vague promise of one day becoming a real CA. Yes, accounting, medicine and law graduates have to complete learnerships/articles, but these programmes are often well-structured and the graduates know that at the end of their term, they will become recognised professionals.

The same, unfortunately, cannot be said for our industry. Is it then any surprise that the industry is not as respected as it could be?

“What's the solution?”

“It's easy to criticise, Mr Smart Alec, but what do you know about the industry?” I hear you ask, and “What's the solution?”

First and foremost, yours truly did his time in the industry (as account manager and planner) and still consults to the industry. Secondly, let's open up a constructive discussion and discuss best practice examples and solutions. For example; one possible solution could be formalised, well-managed, time-bound and accredited learnerships where planning graduates get the opportunity to work in different departments to gain a solid understanding of each department's (preferably agency and client) workings, say, for six months, where after they start as junior planners (my friends in the recruitment industry tell me that there sadly isn't really something by that name in the industry) and are promoted as they grow.

This will require a bit of effort and a slight shift in the way things are done but could go a long way in ensuring that strategic skills remain within an agency instead of being lost to strategic consultancies (which are increasingly being seen by clients as the preferred strategic partners, essentially ‘down-grading' agencies to creative hot shops with no say in the strategic direction of a brand). Some industry-focused schools build internships into their curricula and students get evaluated on this, but this should only be the start of their careers as planners. Sadly that often seems to be the end.

The following quote from Wayne Dyer seems apt at this stage: "If you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change."

Which begs the question: how many bright graduates will eventually leave the industry because they got tired of empty promises and of not maximising their core competencies before we change the way we look at (and do) things?