Chapter 13
Benchmarking Customer Satisfaction

The Emotional Triggers That Saved 20 Million Dollars

The most important thing in communication is to hear what isn’t being said.

—Peter F. Drucker

Now and then, everyone finds themselves between a rock and a hard place. Although it’s never comfortable to be in that situation, at least most of us recognize when it’s happening. We personally know one senior executive who didn’t. This is the story about a successful marketing agency with smart leadership that almost lost a 20-million dollar account they didn’t even realize was at risk. At a crucial juncture, emotional-trigger research exposed critical insights top management needed to save the contract and continue the association.

LESSON #10

Personal dynamics do not equal a solid business relationship.

Edward’s Story

The executive, let’s call him “Edward,” headed the largest office of a leading international agency known for specialty marketing and, ironically, customer relationship management. His branch represented more than two-thirds of the division’s entire income. The agency, in turn, was part of a highly regarded holding company with an extensive portfolio of global communications businesses in a number of interrelated disciplines.

This agency was thriving. Revenue had grown by double digits for almost a decade. Their biggest accounts billed more each year, and new accounts were continually added to the roster. Although the picture was rosy, top management understood this rate of growth wasn’t sustainable. There was a limit to how much additional revenue current accounts would generate, and, if for no other reason than potential conflicts of interest, the rate of customer acquisition would inevitably slow down as well. They were in the process of transitioning from an early-stage growth business to one confronting the challenges of a larger and more mature operation. It was a transition that required great care, because they had to meet the demands of larger, long-term accounts, while simultaneously satisfying expectations of their more recent clients. Success depended upon a combination of insight and finesse.

Edward wanted impartial, third-party assessments of client satisfaction among all levels of management at their largest Fortune 500 accounts. He wanted to know how clients evaluated his agency’s job performance. Were their needs and expectations being met? How did they characterize the agency’s quality of work, client support, and, strategic expertise? What, if anything, was changing inside his clients’ organizations and how might those changes affect the relationship dynamics? The plan was to conduct emotionaltrigger research interviews with senior and middle management executives at each of the targeted companies.

Perception Versus Reality

For eight years, Edward boarded a plane once a month and flew several hours, so he could personally meet with the agency’s largest client. He routinely participated in many of their planning, creative, and strategy sessions. During his visits he met with both top management and others throughout the marketing division. He believed the association to be especially strong at every level. Given his assumption, he suggested this company serve as the benchmark, against which all other agency accounts would be judged. But from the start, these interviews revealed a serious disconnect between Edward’s perception and the client reality. Even as the interviews were taking place, the client was undergoing a new agency review. If this was the benchmark against which all other relationships were to be judged, Edward was in real trouble.

Everyone at the account admitted Edward had no idea a review was underway. Senior executives, as well as more junior staff, all described Edward in glowing terms. They said he was extremely smart. Both his creative and strategic skills were praised. He was considered a genuinely nice and sincere person whose integrity was beyond reproach. And, to top it off, he was liked by one and all. Something didn’t add up. When this was pointed out during the interviews, the respondents looked away. They fidgeted, they squirmed, and they extracted promises that whatever they said would not be attributed back to them.

We Got to Have It: Just a Little Respect

Slowly the truth trickled out. Yes, Edward was nice. He was more than nice. He was really nice. That was the problem. It’s one thing to be accommodating to your client, but they faulted him for being too nice when it came to running his own operation. They felt he repeatedly acquiesced to his staff. He empowered them to the detriment of agency accounts.

When the creative team met with the client, they were given specific objectives and directions. Too often, they ignored the client’s wishes. Approval was never sought before embarking on a different approach; they just went their own way. In the process, they invariably submitted work that was not on message, went over budget, and missed important deadlines. To make matters worse, Edward let them get away with it; he didn’t rein in the creative staff because he didn’t want to demoralize them. He was so big on “empowerment,” that in his effort not to rock the boat, he almost sank the ship! The client felt they were the victims of excessive accommodation to agency egos. All and all, it was infuriating, and they’d had enough.

When associates at the company started to discuss why they were undertaking a new agency search, they offered rational and objective reasons. The creative recommendations failed to reflect their priorities. The agency often disregarded the parameters they were given. Frequently work was over-budget or submitted late. By any measure, these were perfectly logical and acceptable reasons to look elsewhere. Everything they said was accurate, but it wasn’t real. There was more to the story. Reasons are one thing, emotional triggers are quite another.

“What finally put a 20-million dollar account at risk?”

What was the emotional trigger? What finally put a 20-million dollar account at risk? The client resented feeling “dismissed.” It was insulting, an arrogant display of disrespect. They said egos were running amok. And, most galling of all, it seemed to be okay. What the client said didn’t seem to matter. Who was working for whom?

Edward Kept in the Dark

This apparent lack of regard hit a raw nerve and triggered a decision to look for another agency, but a piece of the puzzle was still missing. The client may have been angry with the creative staff, but they were glowing when it came to Edward. So how was it possible the relationship had deteriorated so badly, and he remained clueless? Inevitably, during each of the interviews, the obvious question was asked. Had they shared their concerns with Edward? They had not. No one wanted to broach the subject; senior executives were the most uncomfortable. The executive vice president was especially ill at ease. After skirting the issue he finally blurted out, “How do you tell someone you like, who you’ve worked with for eight years, that you don’t approve of the way he manages his business?” He preferred to hide behind more palatable reasons, rather than risk offending Edward.

He wasn’t alone. No one wanted to criticize Edward, at least not to his face. They worried about hurting his feelings. From their perspective, criticism of his management style was tantamount to expressing a lack of confidence in him, but that’s exactly what they ended up doing. By deciding to look for another agency, they tacitly assumed Edward was incapable of fixing the problem. Without the emotional-trigger research, he would never have had the chance to salvage the business, because he wouldn’t have known it was in jeopardy.

Conflicting Emotional Triggers

The widespread resentment at feeling dismissed existed at all levels within the client’s organization. Then there was the misguided sense of loyalty to Edward that placed his “feelings” above his “interests.” Finally, the idea of directly criticizing him made the client very uneasy; they wanted to avoid such an exchange at all costs. Outrage at the creative team, combined with genuine affection for Edward and a desire to preserve that amicable relationship, was a dangerous combination of conflicting emotions.

No one suggested Edward would be defensive or indifferent. The hesitancy to confront him really wasn’t about Edward. It was about how they’d feel having to criticize and potentially hurt him. No one wanted to be the one to do it.

Much later, after they’d replaced his agency, he’d be given an explanation that wasn’t too disagreeable, but he would never have known the truth. He’d have the facts but he’d still lack genuine insight. Perhaps the incident would have prodded him to tinker around the edges of the real problem, only for it to surface again later with another client. And he still would never know why.

The Danger of “Inside Out” Thinking

It’s unlikely the creative team was unaware of the resentment their behavior provoked. It was equally unlikely they were going to share this information with Edward. Critical insights he needed to manage the business were in conflict with their own self interest. Who would voluntarily announce to their boss a major account was routinely displeased with them? No one without a sizeable trust fund! Instead, they depicted the client as unreasonable, demanding, and devoid of strategic vision. The creative team wasn’t the problem. The problem was a difficult client. No matter how hard they tried, nothing pleased them.

Edward made the same mistake that afflicts many organizations. He got sucked into the trap of “inside out” thinking. He was surrounded by employees who reinforced a singular point of view, so he chose to believe what he heard. He was overly supportive. His passivity, combined with a willingness to accept an insular and skewed perspective, nearly cost him the agency’s largest account.

Let’s examine the crucial emotional triggers that provoked a new agency search.

Success!

Fortunately, emotional-trigger research provided Edward with crucial input he wouldn’t have otherwise received. The client wasn’t going to tell him. Members of the account management team, who had more than a passing inkling into the problem, were also reluctant to tell him. They didn’t want to point fingers at the creative department. And clearly the creative team was keeping quiet.

Once he learned the truth about the underlying emotional triggers that drove the decision to replace his agency, Edward took action. Armed with very specific insight, he turned the situation around. First he re-engineered the strategic and creative planning process. Specific metrics relative to deadlines, costs, timetables, and client input at various stages of the job were put in place. Both the account management and creative teams were held accountable for compliance. It was a non-negotiable issue.

Edward became more directly involved. Instead of acting as a benevolent patron, he became the manager. He participated in regularly scheduled meetings at key intervals to ensure work met the agency’s creative and strategic standards. He was adamant it be on time, on specification, and on budget. “No surprises” became the new mantra. If potential problems were identified in advance, he worked with his team to solve them. But if commitments weren’t honored and he was caught unaware, the offender would be terminated. This sense of discipline affected every aspect of how the agency interacted with clients. It also demanded improved coordination and planning within and between all internal departments. Finally, he spearheaded an agency-wide “attitude readjustment,” by emphasizing what was expected of employees in a service business.

The client was impressed with the openness and speed with which Edward tackled the problem. After several months, the client, appreciative that their concerns had been taken seriously, was thrilled with the agency’s newfound responsiveness. The search for a new agency was suspended. Instead, Edward’s agency was rewarded with a two-year renewal contract.

SUMMING UP
BENCHMARKING CUSTOMER SATISFACTION

Situation

A leading international specialty marketing agency was transitioning from an early stage growth business to a larger and more mature operation. Edward, the head of the largest branch office, wanted to assess client satisfaction and commissioned an independent third party to conduct emotionaltrigger research. For eight years, he visited monthly with his largest Fortune 500 account and believed this relationship to be particularly strong. Despite their frequency, the interviews revealed the client had actually initiated a new agency search without first notifying Edward. Although they were extremely positive about him personally, they felt the creative team was out of control. Instead of following directions, they dismissed the client’s requests when they disagreed and, without ever discussing it, took a different approach. The problem was seen as Edward’s management style; he empowered his team to the client’s detriment. Although the creative team was aware of the problem, they didn’t intend to enlighten Edward. Meanwhile, the client, in a misguided attempt to spare Edward’s feelings, made things worse. They preferred to switch agencies, rather than offend him or engage in an unpleasant confrontation.

The Client’s Emotional Triggers

The client felt outrage at being dismissed by the creative team, yet they felt a personal need to preserve their friendship with Edward. They were uncomfortable criticizing his management style or engaging in a frank dialogue that might hurt his feelings.

Genuine Insight

“Operational problems” was the comfortable answer for undergoing a new agency search. It was factual, but it wasn’t the hidden reason. What really tipped the scales was that the client felt dismissed by the agency’s creative team. Rather than being treated with respect, they were put on the defensive, and they intensely resented that feeling.

Solution

For the first time, Edward came to recognize how he had inadvertently put his agency at risk. Instead of operating as the senior manager, he had assumed the role of a benevolent patron. The solution was a complete re-engineering of the agency’s strategic and creative planning process. Edward instituted new internal performance metrics that were strictly enforced. He put the “service” back into his service business. As a result, rather than losing the account, they signed a two year renewal agreement worth 20 million dollars.