What Client Service Really Means - Part 2

In yesterday's post What Client Service Really Means, I highlighted a post from AdPulp about David Wieden's speech that advocated placing the work over the client relationship.

Wieden makes a practical point here, but I wonder if we're talking about valuing the work over the client relationship or challenging the client and the agency to keep the work separate from the relationship.

Selling new work to a client is a negotiation; Roger Fisher and William Ury, authors of Getting To Yes - Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In say:

"Dealing with a substantive problem (the work) and a maintaining good working relationship need not be conflicting goals if the parties are committed and psychologically prepared to treat each separately on its own legitimate merits. Base the relationship on accurate perceptions, clear communication, appropriate emotions, and a forward-looking, purposive outlook. Deal with people problems directly; don't try to solve them with substantive concessions."

Assuming you've chosen your clients well, I believe this is the stronger way to look at it. A commenter yesterday remarked that a good relationship involves the client trusting the agency. I would only add that a great relationship is when they trust each other. Clients who believe you place them or the relationship second are often the same clients who accuse agencies of not listening and being arrogant.

I would advocate keeping the relationship separate from the work, but not second to it. What do you say?

What Client Service Really Means

What "Client Service" Really Means is the title of a recent post by David Burn on the blog AdPulp. Burn recounts the remarks from a speech given by David Wieden of Wieden + Kennedy about the importance of the work coming first - before the client relationship. Wieden said:

"In big agencies, the client/agency relationship is the most sacred thing. The difficulty seems to be that the work then serves the relationship, and everything becomes political. And when things get political, the work suffers. And when the work suffers, the business suffers, then the client agency relationship suffers, and you suffer.

"And when we say the client/agency relationship is second to the work, that doesn’t mean it isn’t important. Because the work is a direct reflection of the quality of that relationship. If it is strained, the work shows it. If people are having fun, it shows. If people are bleeding, it shows. If people are just trying to turn other people on, it shows."

This line of thinking squares with what Roger Fisher and William Ury describe in their book Getting To Yes - Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. They note: "Every negotiator has two kinds of interests: In the substance and in the relationship." Often times, the closer the relationship, the more that parties are likely to compromise, which can often lead to results that are not completely satisfying to either side.

Wieden says putting the work first is the only practical solution. Is he right? Or is there another way?