Open Book Management

Open Book Management

Blair gets David to admit that he was kind of wrong about open book management being just a fad when he originally wrote about it almost two decades ago, and David offers ways that it can actually benefit both employees and clients when used appropriately.

Links

Financial Management of a Marketing Firm by David C. Baker

TRANSCRIPT

BLAIR ENNS: David, today we're going to talk about open book management. How does that sound to you?

DAVID C. BAKER: Sounds like you think you're in charge. Why don't you say, "Can we talk about that?"

BLAIR: Well, let me assert control. David, would it be okay with you if we talked about open book management?

DAVID: Great idea. I like that idea. Let's do that.

BLAIR: Okay, fantastic. I just happen to have an article here that you wrote. I've actually just pulled it out of your book, Financial Management of a Marketing Firm. We don't talk about that. We should do some podcasts on that book, because that's a book that every principal of a creative firm should have on their desk or their bookshelf. And the reason I had it out is, I was just on a call with the owner of a small creative firm who wants to raise his level of business acumen, and we don't have the training program that he's looking for. Ours is too specific to business development. So I said, "You need to buy this book." And then, as I was leafing through the book, I saw you had the stuff on open book management. We'd already agreed that we were going to talk about open book management. But I want to read something from this that's in the book.

BLAIR: It says, "OBM, open book management, is clearly a fad. That doesn't make it wrong, just suspect!" Exclamation mark. "Open space layouts are also a fad, and time will tell how they catch on. Though there's already strong anecdotal evidence, if that's possible, that people jumped on the bandwagon and only later asked where it was headed."

DAVID: So you want me to pull stuff out of here to embarrass you, as well? Or not?

BLAIR: "In my opinion, open book management is a fad that will not catch on with the masses." When did you write this?

DAVID: Last month. No, the first time I took a stab at writing about open book management was in 2000, so you gotta give me a little bit of slack. I was kind of wrong about that. I'm still going to be right about open plan offices, but it's going to take another decade for the world to figure out that I'm right about that.

BLAIR: Really?

DAVID: Yeah.

BLAIR: Yeah, you think we're going to go back or away from open plan offices?

DAVID: You know, one of the key components was that the principal or leader or whatever should be out with all the rest of the folks, and that blew up in everybody's faces, so we've already walked away from one of the key tenets of it, and we've also walked away from other things like, now we have places for people to go off and work if they want to, and we're not making everybody sit in what looks like a call center and be all disturbed by everybody's nonsense. So, yeah, I do think it's going to be another ten years, but we'll figure that out, too.

BLAIR: Okay.

DAVID: But I was wrong on this one, for sure.

BLAIR: Well, let's just pick up from there. What did you think was going to happen, and what's the state of the nation right now when it comes to open book management?

DAVID: Well, people are more open to it for sure, and one of the things that occurred to me as I was looking back over my first foray into this is that I wrote it at a particular time in history, so this is right during a difficult economic environment, and that's typically when principals move towards more open book environment.

BLAIR: Yeah, "look, I'm not making any money."

DAVID: Yeah, right, so quit your whining. It's like, I'm not making any money, why do you keep asking me for more money? That's very common, like people go to open book management when things aren't going all that well, and then they're not quite as enthused about it when things are going great. But, we've matured in so many ways around that, and it think that the current approach to open book management is really good. I'm very much in favor of it, to a certain degree.

DAVID: I asked a bunch of principals not too long ago, just a couple months ago, about their perspective on open book management, and you and I talked about this poll. It's really, what did you find interesting about that poll? Tell people about the results of it first.

BLAIR: Yeah, so the Twitter poll that you did. You said, "As the principal of a marketing firm, my perspective on open book management is: A, everything is fair game; B, all is open but salaries; C, we share the big picture; D, financials are not shared. And the number one response, 38% people said, everything is fair game.

DAVID: Yeah.

BLAIR: And then 24% was the next, B, all is open but salaries. So 62% of the people you polled are in favor of open book management at one level or another.

DAVID: Right, that surprised me. It surprised you, as well, I think, right?

BLAIR: Yeah. I mean, I was shocked at 38% said everything is fair game, because the distinction really is pointed out in the next response, which is all is open but salaries. So people are saying, yeah, what the principal earns, what the highest earners earn, what the lowest, everything, shared, or who gets bonuses on what, commissions, etc.

DAVID: Right. And I came across something just last week that I found even more interesting than that, and it kind of pegged those results into a better, more I guess, an anchored context. And this was something that Katherine Vasile had done on CNN.com, and she discovered that the big difference in how we approach open book management is a generational one. So, 30% of workers between 18 and 36 have shared what they make with a colleague. So a third of younger workers tell their colleagues what they make. Compare that with older people, like you, not me, but older people, only 8% of those people share what they make. And then flip that around to what do they share about what they make to family members, and 60% of millennials will tell a family member, whereas only 48% of older folks. So there's something about, maybe it's transparency. I'm not sure I completely understand that, but that's the difference. It seems like it's a little bit generational.

DAVID: And since these younger folks are running firms, they're taking their personal perspective to how they want to run the firm. I think it's great. I think it's fantastic.

BLAIR: I probably should have done this at the beginning, is the one interviewing you. We should probably define open book management. Do you want to back up and do that?

DAVID: Sure. So, it's being more transparent about what is happening in the business, and if we back this train up 20 years, it was pretty common to find agencies who didn't even show employees ... they didn't know what the hourly rate was, really wild, bizarre, and they never got to see the proposals that clients were accepting, which I also found incredibly bizarre. And then, so , what the hourly rate is might be the first step. Next would be seeing proposals, what clients are paying for what they're getting. A deeper step might be, what are the top-line numbers. What are our top-line financials. Not the net, not all of our expenses, but what, like, we're a $4 million firm or something like that.

DAVID: Next step down would be looking at more detail in the income statement. So, you subtract all the expenses, what's the net. And then the deepest you could go would probably be sharing what everybody else is making individually. I would stop short of that for a couple of reasons, but that's the progression for open book management. So it's not like you're either open book management or you aren't, it's more a matter of degree, probably.

BLAIR: So is it all financial when we're talking about open book, or are we talking about The Books, the accounting books?

DAVID: Generally it is, yes. There are some other things that people aren't nervous at all about sharing, like the purpose of the firm, the future of the firm, what the principal's timeline is, what we're thinking about in terms of maybe opening another office, maybe changing our perspective about certain service offerings. I don't see anybody ever thinking about pulling back from that. Universally, people are open about that. So yeah, it really does come down tot he financial side. And when you think about the classic term, open book management, that's always around financial stuff.

BLAIR: So, it seems, looking at this article from 17 years ago now ... Wow, I can't believe we've been doing this this long ... to where you are now, you just said you think this is great, the openness, the trend towards openness, so clearly it's not a fad. It's stuck around. It seems to be gaining some traction. You're pointing out that it seems to be a cultural thing, as the younger people live in a more open and transparent society where everything is out there on social media, etc., there's less inclination to hide things. So, your assessment is this is a good thing and we should all be embracing it. Is that correct?

DAVID: It is. Up to the salary side. Maybe that'll change too. I don't have a history of predicting this very reliably, so I'm hesitant to do it again. Maybe that'll change, but I do think that we tend to judge people too quickly based on how much money they make. So we tend to assign a human value that's tied to what they make, and I think that's a massive mistake. Because it really is more about, it's really a positioning question, like how easily replaceable is somebody's labor, and it has nothing to do with how valuable they are as a person, and we can't separate those two things in our minds. So I don't think sharing salaries is good. I think sharing the whole bucket of salaries, like this is what everybody makes together, and that should be less than 45% of AGI, that's fine. But I do think it's really good if we stop at that particular point.

DAVID: I wish that our transparency just extended to actually with our clients, as well. I would welcome a little bit more transparency about the financials of agencies, so that clients could actually see them too.

BLAIR: Well, that's interesting.

DAVID: And clients are demanding it, right? You've seen some requests for that. Some of that is just intrusive, asking a lot of those stupid questions. But I think clients do have a right to know whether your agency is financially viable. They don't have a right to know what your people make and all those other intrusive questions. They're asking because they can, as you're famous for saying, but that doesn't mean it's right. Bu I am in favor of more transparency around financials.

BLAIR: So, let's come back to clients for a minute. I just want to go back to the idea of sharing salaries, what people on the team make. When I think back to some of the stories around professional sports ... as a Canadian, I'm going to use NHL hockey as an example. And for many years, quite famously, the salaries of players were kept artificially low by the fact that it was either a written agreement or it was some sort of "gentleman's understanding," in quotes, that players wouldn't share with each other what each other was making. And Gordie Howe was this player who was kind of famously responsible for ... He was privately told he was the highest-paid player in the league, and there's a culture in the league of players not talking to each other about what each other was making. And the NHL ownership was famous for being successful on that level. And then at some point, somebody pointed out to Gordie Howe, made this comment in the room, "No, I'm the highest-paid player in the league," and some junior guy said, "No, no, he makes more than you, he makes more than you, he makes ..."

BLAIR: And that was the beginning of kind of a slow move towards like full disclosure, and as everybody became aware of what everybody else made, then the salaries just started to go up and up and up. So that's what happens in professional sports, and I can imagine that in the average firm, if, especially as you get larger firms, and I've worked in some large firms where it's a very kind of competitive culture, like not to an unhealthy degree, but when you get into a firm of hundreds of people, you look at some of your colleagues, and you see them as direct competitors for the job that's the next level up. And I cam think of a couple places where I worked where that was rife. And again, not necessarily a bad thing, if you're a competitive person, but just the salaries, I can imagine, in a firm like that, large firm, multiple competing for the next promotion, everybody's measuring themselves against each other. That would have to drive salaries way up, would it not?

DAVID: It would, right. And that's why I think it's healthy to publish a salary range, and maybe not publish it on your website, but talk about it when you're hiring somebody, so that somebody knows that you are going to move around within this salary range, and that won't change unless you take on additional responsibility, or the firm grows, in which case, that range for that particular role might rise a little bit, otherwise you're going to end up overpaying people.

DAVID: One of the things I've noticed is that the people that tend to get overpaid or paid too much are the ones that have been with you for a long time, or the ones who know what other people are making. So you give a bump in pay to somebody, the only other person who knows about that, besides the person, is the CFO. And so, as all of these little raises are going out, the CFO or the bookkeeper, the accountant, full charge bookkeeper, whoever that happens to be at your firm, knows about this, and you feel duty bound to sort of send them some bumps along the way. Those are the two people that tend to get overpaid.

DAVID: But there's a dynamic that's changing out there. LinkedIn did a fascinating study, and this certainly applies to agencies as well. People don't make more money by just staying at one place longer. They make more money by changing jobs, right? And so they pick up that bump in pay at the intersection, when they cross the boundary and go to work for another firm. And so you don't have quite that pressure of paying people a lot, because they stay for a long time.

DAVID: The other things that's interesting to me, and there's a pretty strong argument that the unequal pay between male and female has come about largely because of the secrecy around what people make. And so, if I think of one particular factor that might tip this in favor of more transparency, it might be this notion, not notion, it's true, it's real, that females are not getting paid as well as males are for the same work. So that might be enough to tip the balance towards more transparency, so that we can erase some of that wrong in the marketplace.

BLAIR: Are you aware of any information studies that have done, either of yourself or anybody else, that shows the benefits, either financial or in any other form, of moving to open book management?

DAVID: Yes, there is an organization, the organization that basically founded the whole ESOP movement, which stands for Employee Stock Ownership Plan. I think it was 40, 35-40 years ago, and this is an organization that is self-interested. In other words, they have a strong incentive to say that open book management really benefits the companies that practice it. And even with that bias, they could not come up with any demonstrable proof beyond about 1-2% gain. So in other words, open book management is not something you do primarily to boost your firm's performance. And that mirrors what I've found in the marketplace. It has virtually an unmeasurable effect on the firm's performance. That is not why you do it. You don't do it to help people self-manage or to say, "Let's align everybody's activities with some goal that will benefit them individually and the group." It just simply doesn't work. That's not why you do it. There are good reasons to do it, but that's not one of them.

BLAIR: You mentioned in this article from 2000 that there's a really bad reason to move to open book management. You just touched on it, and you said the bad reason is this idea that open book management will lead to a self-managing culture.

DAVID: Right. So it's usually instituted by principals who don't particularly enjoy management, and therefore they're maybe not that great at it, and so they're searching for ways to have employees self-manage the environment. You see this in environments where they have this owner's manual, that's kind of what I say, it's really more of an employee manual, but I think of it as an owner's manual, that's 300 pages long, and no matter what the circumstance, all they have to do is just point to this page, and that's what will fix the situation, or you see them with this very convoluted compensation structure for especially the sales people but also other people as well, so that they don't have to make decisions.

DAVID: Principals cannot insulate themselves from making decisions. They are responsible for the profit that the firm turns over. Setting those priorities, having the right people in place. As you talk a lot about thinking about future value, that's their job. And no open book management plan or anything else is going to relieve them of that responsibility. That's why it's really dangerous to put open book management in place if you're doing it for the wrong reasons. It's just simply going to disappoint you.

BLAIR: Does the size of the company make a difference on whether or not you should consider open book management or the level to which you should exercise it?

DAVID: Well, if you have a three person firm and you're publishing the aggregate salary number, then it's going to be a little bit easier to figure out what somebody else makes, but I don't necessarily see any difference there. You know, here's something interesting. I have a client, about a 40 person firm, and twice a year is they do this employee retreat. Instead of running all the employees through the same sort of disclosure about say the future marketing plan, and about our facility, and about our financial performance, and our clients, and maybe a survey we did. You know, instead of running everybody through that, they set up stations instead. They set up six stations. One of them was financial performance. One was our marketing play. One was our survey with clients, those kinds of things. And they let their employees decide what they wanted to learn about.

DAVID: And what they found consistently over the years is that very, very few people actually went to the financial station. Not that many people were interested in it. The ones who were interested were very interested, but it wasn't that interesting to most people. And that also mirrors what I've found. If you're going to talk about financial stuff, then make sure people are interested in it, and I feel like it should always be married with financial literacy. So like, explaining to folks, "what does this really mean?" Because some of your people have run businesses and are very astute, other haven't. They run their own personal finances, but it's different. So, coupling any information with financial literacy training would be useful as well, but I think we overestimate how interested people are in this stuff beyond the top level open book management.

BLAIR: Yeah, I wonder, and you probably know the answer to this, how many people in the typical creative firm are actually able to read an income statement or a balance sheet.

DAVID: Not many people. Not many principals can, honestly. And when you talk with CFOs and controllers and so on, and they're frustrated because they cannot get their principals to understand the basics of a financial statement. And every principal is very different about how they want to process this information. They want to see I ton one page, they want charts, they don't want the detail. They usually want to see a stack of detail, but they don't want to have to dive into it. They just want to know that somebody has done all the detail work, but they don't really want to look at it themselves. And I think that mirrors what most employees are interested in, as well. They almost want access to it, but as long as they have access to it, they're probably not going to dig all that deeply into it.

BLAIR: Yeah, interesting. Anything else you want to add on this before I circle back to the doorway you opened earlier, and that's the idea of more financial transparency with clients. But, anything on the employee front?

DAVID: I think I see this changing still over time. I think more and more of this transparency will surface, and I think that's a good thing, as millennials and so on and folks who are more driven by transparency and openness as they take over more and more firms, I think this is going to be a movement that continues contrary to my prediction 17 years ago.

BLAIR: And you think that principals should embrace it?

DAVID: I do, absolutely, think it's great.

BLAIR: Yeah, okay. So again, back to the idea of aversion of open book management or at least financial transparency with clients, there are some kind of well known examples out there in either the design profession or the advertising profession of large clients running arduous, elaborate pitch processes where part of the process is they demand to see profit level and they want to see employee salaries. And I've always been quite vocal on the fact that that is none of their business. But I do identify with what you said, the idea of, you know, a client does have a right, I think, and I think that's what you said, to know that you are financially stable. What's the level of transparency that's appropriate to clients or prospective new clients?

DAVID: I agree with you on that front, that that level of disclosure that they're asking for is not only stupid but it's also dangerous, but it does seem to me like we could develop a policy that explains to prospects, and maybe even to employees who seem to be interested in the financial viability of the firms they're beginning to work for, and there's more and more I guess concern on their part about whether the firm is worth taking a flyer on. But, we could develop this policy that talks about what our perspective on business, like the solidness of business. Like, how do we view the role of profit? And how do clients fit into that? And what are our principles about maintaining debt levels below X amount? And where we let our net profitability float between X and X, and how much of our income we reinvest in innovation, which is, as you pointed out several times, is the enemy of profit. How do we make choices there to throw profit away and invest it in innovation?

DAVID: So like having a sort of a ten part manifesto around our perspective for money, and make that very visible on our website. I think that would be a very healthy thing to do. I've never seen anybody do that, but I would be very in favor of it.

BLAIR: That's an interesting idea. I mean, to publish that, you would have had to have thought through these idea first, right? And how many firms have?

DAVID: Right. And that's the biggest advantage, right?

BLAIR: Yeah.

DAVID: This forces you to think through it before you publish it.

BLAIR: So that would be publicly available to clients and to employees, and to prospective employees, to prospective clients?

DAVID: Right, yeah.

BLAIR: Gee, that's not a bad idea. Where would you put the cap on the profit?

DAVID: Well, it's like I would say, maybe ten to 30%, that's probably what I would say, and also explain that the economy is notorious for sneaking up on us, and when that happens, we want to have enough padding that we can still pay our people fairly and still exist for our clients. And so, we recognize that some years are going to be lean, and those will be offset by the better years, and so we have a commitment to that. And if we fell like we're consistently making more than 30% profit, then we're probably overcharging clients or we're underpaying ourselves, and we have to bring that back into balance. That's the level of disclosure I would be in favor of.

BLAIR: That's fantastic. Do you have a name for this document of financial disclosure? What do you call this manifesto?

DAVID: I don't know. I haven't written it yet, but maybe that's something we should do together. Wouldn't that be interesting?

BLAIR: That'd be very cool. Alright, this has been fascinating, David. Thank you so much for this.

DAVID: Thank you, Blair. It was a fun discussion.

Episoder(220)

Collaborating with Competitors

Collaborating with Competitors

David and Blair compare each other's competitiveness, and then offer some specific ways principals can actually collaborate with their competitors as a part of building beneficial business relationships.   TRANSCRIPT BLAIR: David, today we're going to talk about how to crush your competition, is that right? DAVID: Instantly I got very excited about the concept, that's really not what we're going to talk about, but I love that idea. Oh my God, I'm just too competitive, but that's actually the opposite of what we're going to talk about I think, unless you want to switch it at the last minute. BLAIR: No, I was with a bunch of guys the other night, and had this little men's night retreat thing, and maybe more than half of them were entrepreneurs. One guy was winding down a business, and he was saying, "I'm not sure if I'm competitive enough to be in business." I didn't say anything, but I thought, I suppose that's vital for you to be competitive in your nature to succeed in business, would you agree with that? DAVID: Yes, I would, but there's something wrapped around competitiveness that is just as important to me, and that's risk-taking. BLAIR: Yeah. DAVID: It does seem like the two of those are related, that's why I quit doing a few things outside of work, because I realized I was not as competitive as some of the young fools that were willing to sacrifice their body, and I wasn't. It's not that my body is so precious, it shouldn't be sacrificed, it was more I was allergic to the pain. Yeah, there's something about competitiveness and risk-taking yeah, for sure. I'm competitive, do you think of yourself as competitive? BLAIR: I've measured my competitiveness and your competitiveness, and you're more competitive than I am. I'm as competitive as the average person, but the makeup of that competitiveness is a little bit skewed. You can break down competitiveness into different forms, so I think of myself as average competitiveness. DAVID: Okay, this is more about how do we tame or tamp down some of our competitiveness for our advantage, and for the advantage of the world really. BLAIR: You really want to talk about this idea of collaborating with your competitors, is that correct? DAVID: Right, yeah, and it's something I've learned in my own business life, but I've also tried to coach my clients to do it as well. It's been really interesting, it's a concept that strikes us like, did he really just say you should be more collaborative with your competitors, or did I mishear him? No, that's really what I mean. BLAIR: Okay, so we think of being in business just like my friend said the other night, we think of it as business is highly competitive, and we need to be cutthroat, and we need to always have an eye on our competition. We're trying to best them, I'm fond of saying that positioning is an act of relativity. You position relative to your competition, and in endeavoring to position your firm against your competition, you're trying to kill them. BLAIR: Now that's an overstatement, but that's the prevailing view, right? The competitors are there, people that ... It's your job to beat, it's your job to win against them, and you want to fly in the face of that a little bit, so where did this idea come from? DAVID: Well it's been rooted really in 20 plus years. I did something a little crazy back in the late 90s. I wanted to start an event, and that was obvious to me, I wanted to start an event. Okay, so what kind of an event would it be? Well it needs to be an event that's going to attract a lot of people. How do we do that? Well, the content has to be fantastic, it's like okay, then I just stopped in my tracks, because I'm thinking, well if the content's going to be great, then I've got to invite a lot of my competitors there. DAVID: We don't see eye to eye on everything, but I need to have them there, because they're very smart. People are going to come and want to hear from them as well, like what kind of a stupid conference would it be where I'm the only one speaking? That's not a conference, that's like your own personal platform. I was faced with a decision, do I really want to give my competitors a platform? DAVID: I was nervous about it, other people were a lot more nervous about it than I was, they thought I was crazy to be doing that. I thought, this is a worthwhile experiment, and maybe there's some value in being the person who organizes the conference, and does the programming for it. There turned out to be that value, but it was a wonderful experience. It opened up my eyes entirely to the fact that I don't have to make somebody else lose in order for me to win. DAVID: That I can let my guard down, and it actually translated into the way I run events now. People come to an event for the first time, and they're surprised that within about an hour, an hour and a half of the start of the event, people are starting to share stuff that they would not have thought they'd see themselves sharing at the beginning. They're much more transparent about it, and it's just sort of that style that I like to have, it fits with this notion of competitors. DAVID: Recently what struck me, and then I'll shut up for a minute, because I know I'm taking a long time to answer your question. I was listening to the Dan Patrick daily talk radio sports show, and he was talking about interviewing Kobe Bryant one time. They were talking about how do you get yourself up for a game that doesn't really matter? In other words, maybe you're out of the playoffs already, or you know you're going to beat this team, because they're not good. DAVID: What Kobe Bryant said, was at the end of the game, I want my competitor to question why they even got into the sports game. I want them to question why they even became a basketball player, right? I thought, well that's kind of funny, but it's really not the kind of spirit I want as a collaborator. BLAIR: Even when he's playing in a game that they're almost certain to win in, he's still thinking about crushing the spirit of his competitors. DAVID: Right, yeah, what's the point of that? BLAIR: Do you still have a page on your website that lists your competitors? DAVID: I do, right? I do. BLAIR: Am I on there? DAVID: I don't know, I know you don't want to be, so let's just say you're not. BLAIR: Yeah, I think you had me on there, and I called you out, I said, get me off that list. DAVID: Right. BLAIR: I don't know why that is, okay, so you conceived of this idea, this event, and you had a partner in this event, can we name the event? DAVID: Yeah, it's MYOB, Mind Your Own Business. BLAIR: Yeah. DAVID: The how people, were the financial partners and the marketing partners, and I did the programming. BLAIR: That's where you and I first met in 2003. I reached out to you when I started my business somewhere in 2002, and you invited me to speak at this thing. DAVID: Yeah, and look at how much good has come from that, right? BLAIR: Yeah. DAVID: You and I have become friends, we do a podcast together, we share a lot of clients. Here's the biggest thing, I learned so much by having you there. I mean the very first time I heard you speak, I learned so much. It made me such a better advisor, and the same could be said of the other folks, not everybody, but most of the other folks that I invited. It's like, oh wow, it made me a much better advisor by listening to them in that kind of a setting. BLAIR: Let's walk through how somebody can, once they get their head around this idea, how they can put it into practice. First, I can imagine what the objections are, right? When you're talking to somebody about this idea of be more open to your competitors and collaborative with them, what's the first thing that comes up objection wise? DAVID: Well it comes up a lot too, and it's like, "Oh, that's a good idea, but I can't put that on my website, because what if my competitor's see it?" It may be something like our new focus, that's usually not as big an issue, but things like client criteria, or some unique way we have of going about solving problems for clients, or a case study, or something like that. They envision these competitors in the wee hours of the morning sneaking onto their website and furiously copping things down and grabbing screenshots, and then reinventing their own firm, as if they're really doing that. DAVID: That's the objection, I don't want my competitors to see that. I don't want them to copy me. Do you hear that, or do you see it in other ways? I'm curious if it's just my clients. BLAIR: I'm not sure if I hear it a lot, but I sense it a lot, and I've experienced it myself too. My own experience has been, if you're really carving out a path of leadership in something, it means you're constantly, by the reinventing your business, or coming up with new IP, with new ideas, and by the time somebody's adopted something that you've ... Let's call it stolen, stolen something that you've put on your website and made it their own, you should be somewhere else, right? You should be off into the distance. DAVID: Right, and that's part of your practice, part of my practice, part of what we urge clients to do is to reinvent themselves frequently every couple of years maybe. While this may work beautifully for you now, it's not going to be the thing that you're doing down the road, reinventing. Let's talk about the whole positioning thing, how many competitors does Win Without Pitching have? BLAIR: It really depends on how you frame the question. If you look at sales training for creative professionals, I don't actually know of any other organization that frames their value proposition, the discipline in the market, the combination of discipline in the market that way. That would be ridiculous for me to say there's no direct competitor, so that's at the very narrowest, who else says we just do sales training for creative professionals? DAVID: Right. BLAIR: Our real competition is any new business consultant to the creative professions. DAVID: Right. BLAIR: Anybody who's selling sales training. Most sales trainers aren't specific to a market, so anybody in the sales training business, any new business consultant. DAVID: If somebody popped up, let's say you just heard through a client of yours or something, and they said, "Hey, have you seen [inaudible 00:09:14], it looks a lot like yours?" Pretend that you have this conversation with them, and you look at the website. It is the same positioning, sales training for creative professionals, or creative entrepreneurs, what would your reaction be? BLAIR: My reaction would be, I would gird myself for a fight in the most positive sort of way. I love a challenge, if somebody was using that same language, I would just steel myself and whip my team into a frenzy, and run out into the battlefield. DAVID: I'm picturing this movie scene, yelling to this guy. BLAIR: Yeah, Braveheart. DAVID: Right. BLAIR: Somebody would have to be using very specific language, very specific to me. One of the things that I've seen over the last few years, is when I started my business back in 2002, when I was a new business consultant, there were very few new business consultants. Whoever was out there, the Internet was still a relatively new thing, right? Web browsers were about seven or eight years old in 2002. BLAIR: If there was a lot of competitors out there, I wasn't aware of them, I was really aware of two or three. Nowadays there's rarely a week or a two week period that goes by where I'm not made aware of a new business consultant. I made this conscious decision a couple of years ago to just quit thinking about them as competitors, and just to think about them as my future distribution network. BLAIR: I recently put out a call on LinkedIn saying I want to forge a closer relationship with the world's best new business consultants. I know I met a lot of consultants out there who say, "I give your book, the Win Without Pitching Manifesto to all of my clients." What I said in this post on LinkedIn, I had about 30 inquiries from it, is if you're already preaching the principles, and if you're already teaching the Win Without Pitching way, and you're interested in formalizing the relationship, then reach out to me. BLAIR: I had to see somebody else doing that, and somebody else talk about the benefit of it just the way that you're doing it now. DAVID: Yeah. BLAIR: For me to just have this switch in my mind. You've been very good at this, and you've been a very good role model for me in this, in being a generous competitor, and it hasn't been in my nature. I'm the person who loves a fight, so something has shifted in me in the last couple of years, and I look around at the people I know in business, and some people that you and I both compete with. They are such open, generous, sharing people, even though we are fairly direct competitors. DAVID: Right. BLAIR: I've just decided that these are going to be my role models in that front too. Now, I'm mellowing in my old age or something, because something's definitely changed. DAVID: Yeah, it is really interesting to see. I'm doing an event shortly, and I've invited ... You'll be speaking there, it's really important to me that you speak there to address the whole sales training process. I'm just unqualified to even speak to it, but I feel like the people coming need to hear that. Then, I think four of my competitors will be there. They won't have a platform, but I will introduce them, they're coming for free. DAVID: I invited them, and I plan to put in the work. We're going to split up into groups, and we're going to try to apply these positioning principles to the individual firms. These competitors know what they're doing, and so the evil side of somebody might hear that and say, "Well, wouldn't someone just hire one of these." It's like, well that's fine, because in my mind feeling like you have all these competitors is really misunderstanding the fact that it's not just about what you do, but it's about how you do it. DAVID: I have a very specific style, and whenever I try to cross the line and be somebody that I'm not to a client, like more of a coach or something like that, I am doing a disservice to them, and I'm doing a disservice to me. I find it really wonderful to have these other folks who are very good at what they do, who have a more appropriate style for a certain client. When I think about living in a world where I couldn't recommend other options for my clients, it's a little bit sadder to me, because I do want my clients to get help, even if it's not with me. DAVID: Now what's interesting though, is we have different approaches to this when we're not as busy. BLAIR: Yeah. DAVID: We tend to be a little bit less generous when our businesses aren't run well, when we don't have a steady stream of opportunity. That's just another argument of 100 arguments to run your firm well, so that you're not paralyzed by not enough work, or thinner margins, or something like that.   BLAIR: I was going to play devils advocate here a little bit, and push back and say, well it's easy for you to be magnanimous this way, you're the worldwide leader in your field. You've got all the work you want, I think most people from the outside looking in would see that, so it's easy for you to just say, "Well there's plenty for everyone." If you're running an independent creative firm, you've got a dozen people, you're not seen as meaningfully different, do you think the principle still applies? DAVID: No, I don't, and I think the solution there is to have a positioning where it's so much clearer to you and to your prospects where you're a perfect fit. If you haven't nailed that positioning equation yet for your firm, then I think this is a very dangerous thing to do, right? Now you could still be generous in some other ways, like you could be generous in sharing contractors with other agencies, or even some employees. In terms of clients, I think that would be a dangerous thing to do, if you haven't ... DAVID: Well, a couple of things, not just positioning, but also having this lead generation process in place. You and I have talked quite a bit about this, how we have a simplified plan that's driven by discipline, so if you don't have the positioning and lead generation in place, then it's a pretty dangerous thing to be this magnanimous. The way to fix that is not to be selfish, the way to fix this is to fix your positioning and lead generation. BLAIR: Do you find that your generosity towards your competitors is returned? Are you referred business or other similar invitations from these competitors? DAVID: In some cases I am for sure. I think about Tim Williams for instance who I think does really good work. I've sent work his way, he's sent work my way for sure. I think about Carl Sachs, I think about the folks at Newfangled. I think about Philip at the Consulting Pipeline podcast. I think about Drew McClellan, I hate mentioning names, because there's going to be a bunch of names I've left off, but in general yes, absolutely. DAVID: Even at the beginning where they're taken aback by the generosity, they'll soften up over a few years, and discover that it's real. I'm really trying to help them, I'm not trying to hurt them. That started years ago, like you write a new book, or you have a new program, tell all your competitors about it in a gracious, respectful way. Hey, this is where I'm headed, just want to let you know, and oh by the way, here's a copy of the book, hope you're doing well. DAVID: You see an article that's really helpful that would benefit them, you send it to them. I tell you, a big one is speaking engagements. BLAIR: Yeah. DAVID: If I've been on the platform somewhere, and I talk with the program person, I say, "Listen, this was fantastic, I loved this event. I appreciate you inviting me, do you want a couple of suggestions for people who are also would be a really good fit for this?" That's a perfect opportunity to extend that graciousness to one of your competitors. I find that you're not hurting yourself in any way, you're simply helping everybody in the process. DAVID: I've found that to be very effective, and I've had a lot of my competitors do the same for me, where they've introduced me to a speaking opportunity, and it's been very, very much appreciated. BLAIR: A guy I know who does over a million dollars a year in speaking fees said to me, the number one lead source for speaking engagements is other speakers, right? They get approached and say, "Well, I can't do it, but you might want to think of this other person." He said it's important for you to cultivate relationships with these other speakers, and that means you start referring speaking opportunities to them. DAVID: That's interesting. BLAIR: Two weeks later I was invited to speak in Dubai when I was in another part of the world, and I referred to my new friend. DAVID: Yeah, because you didn't want that long travel, yeah, absolutely. BLAIR: Let's talk about some specific ways agency principals can collaborate with their competitors. I think I've got a list here of some things that you've identified. At the top of the list you've got learn how to run your firm from each other. Do you want to unpack ... Oh, I just said the word unpack, do you want to peal that apart? DAVID: That even sounds more pretentious than unpack. BLAIR: Like an orange. DAVID: Let's just say unpack, okay? BLAIR: Yeah. DAVID: Yeah, what's the possible benefit in not helping another principal run their firm well? Hoping that they'll fail? Well, that seems pretty evil, right? The one area where it seems like there's the most benefit for everybody, is to learn how to run your business well. You've learned some principles about key metrics you want to look at, or how to hire the right person, or how to run a meeting better, or how to have the best relationship with your bank, or there's 100 things we could list there. DAVID: Those are the kinds of things that I would put at the top the list, because nobody enters this field with the business management training that would really benefit them. They're all starting from some other skill path, not a role path, and so they come into the business, and they have to learn everything either from somebody that they worked for, and often that's the best place to learn it. DAVID: A great example of a principal that you worked for before you started off on your own, or they learn it from maybe an advisor, like a paid advisor, or maybe they learn it from another principal. That would be the first area I would suggest collaboration, it could be informal or formal. I find that most principals have three or four people that they're friendly with, they can just shoot them an email, or get on the phone and say, "Hey, I'm facing this noncompete situation, what have you learned? Can you introduce me to a lawyer?" Something like that. BLAIR: Oh, that's great, including on here help find good employees. I was thinking about there's an agency principal in Australia you and I both know him. I've done a bunch of work with him. He's told me some stories of when he's had to fire people, they don't say fire in Australia or UK, they sack them, which always sounds extra harsh to us in North America. He's told me stories of he'd bring somebody in who isn't working out, and says, "You're not working out, I'm letting you go, but I think you've got great skills in these other areas, so I've lined up two interviews for you today." DAVID: Wow. BLAIR: Yeah, so he's ruthless when it comes to correcting hiring decisions, but he's very kind in how he goes about it, and he recognizes that everybody's got strengths, and he's got good relationships with his competitors. He's very clear about why he's letting that person go, and why he thinks his competitors should think about bringing that person on, and usually in a different role. DAVID: Right, yeah I think that's great, like if it's for the right reasons, there could be something about the style of this firm that wouldn't be true of another firm. It's not like they're a bad person, they're just not a good fit for this particular role. BLAIR: Is there a line that there's the danger of crossing? The first word I wrote down when you sent me notes on this was collusion. DAVID: Yeah. BLAIR: At some point can you get too close to your competitors? Does it cause some sort of problem, or the perception of problems maybe among clients, or maybe even regulators? DAVID: Yeah, well in the US that would fall under the jurisdiction of the FTC, Federal Trade Commission. Where collusion is very clear, and you can get your hand slapped pretty quickly would be around pricing. BLAIR: Yeah. DAVID: Not so much which opportunities to pursue, although you could get in trouble there, like hey, if I don't pursue this one, can you not pursue that one, that would be collusion. The main area would be on pricing, like how about what's your price on this? There have been some specific lawsuits, the handbook of pricing and ethical guidelines was one example that had to get rewritten, because of a lawsuit as I understand it. DAVID: That strikes me as evil, and I don't think we're talking about that so much. It's more like here's an example, so let's say you're going to respond to an RFP, okay? I know, don't shriek on me here Blair. You're going to respond to an RFP, and you know that another agency has been through an RFP process with them. You might just call them up and say, "Hey, what was that like? Is this even worth it?" Most of the time it's not going to be worth it, but that would not be collusion, that would just be simply sharing public information. BLAIR: I hadn't heard the story around pricing, I was doing a talk on pricing about 18 months ago to an industry group slightly tangential to the creative professions. There was a lawyer in the room, and he kept warning about collusion, he did not like the idea that the competitors were in the same room talking about pricing. I thought he was being ridiculous. DAVID: I think he was being ridiculous, where it can be collusion, is if we're talking about a specific instance. It's not about for instance, the labor law allows you to band together against a common enemy so to speak, that's not collusion. Collusion would be a specific instance related to pricing usually. BLAIR: Gotcha, all right, so let's say somebody's listening to this, and they're warming up to the idea of being more collaborative with their competitors, but they don't currently have relationships with those competitors. How do they go about it? Where do they find these people? Maybe they're so highly specialized, or poorly specialized, they're just not sure who their competitors are, how do you go about it? DAVID: Yeah, if you're poorly positioned, most of your competitors are the ones in your locale geographically. You know those, because they're there, and you share employees, and so on. If you're well-positioned, your competitors are more known to you, even though they're not close to you geographically. These are the names that keep coming up when you are competing for work and so on. DAVID: That would be one way to identify them, obviously Google's our friend here. Another way to identify them, is going to trade conferences. Trade conferences are almost always vertical, or they could be more demographic oriented conferences, horizontal conferences, where you keep seeing the same people there, not so much exhibiting, but you just see them there, they're speaking and so on. DAVID: You notice that these are the folks whose articles are appearing in the same places that yours are, so just connecting with them through your contacts, within a particular focus would be a good way to connect with them. Another might be a common mentor, I get this question a lot, like do you know of somebody that's doing this that I could talk with and so on? I don't connect people who aren't clients of mine, but if they are clients of mine, then I'll try to find somebody to connect them with. DAVID: I actually put round tables together, which are specific attempts to do this, that's not really the subject of this podcast, but that's an example of what a paid advisor might do. Sometimes a common mentor, so like if you're getting advice from an older woman or gentleman in your town who's coaching you on running a good creative business, because they've been in that field, and they've slowed down a little bit, they usually are going to know somebody else that would be a good fit for you. DAVID: I am talking about cooperating with folks who are definitely otherwise competitors of yours. I'm not talking about people that you might meet in a YEO, or YO kind of a context, I'm talking about people that you'd compete with normally. BLAIR: Okay, are there instances where this can go wrong? Obviously, I wouldn't ask you to name names, but I'm sure there has to be situations where you started being magnanimous towards a competitor, and then at some point realized this is a one-way relationship where this person is taking and not giving, and your idea about them ended up changing. DAVID: For sure, yeah, I can think of an attorney actually in New York that I was referring lots of work too, and it turned out that not only did they never share generously, but they kept asking, kept asking, and it became annoying. I just basically shut them down, they still do good work, so I haven't done anything to hurt them at all. If somebody is actually out to hurt me, then we come into the Kobe Bryant crush them phase, which is actually the evil side of this, and it's kind of fun. DAVID: You have to do that once or twice a year, right? Otherwise, I was just wondering if people are still listening at this point. Otherwise, it just doesn't happen, because who are the people that are going to hear the worst things about me as an advisor? It's going to be my competitors, right? If my competitors hear about me, but their experience in working with me is not at all matching, they're going to pause the conversation and say, even just to themselves, you must not be a good client, because that's not how I've experienced him. There's so many advantages here to make this work well. BLAIR: Yeah, it strikes me as this is going sound a bit corny, it's a bit like love though, right? The more you give, the more you get, and the more open you are, and more gracious you are with your competitors, the more likely you are to get back. Even if it's not a full reciprocation, there's still that feeling of you helping others, of yourself worth, etc., it's got to escalate. DAVID: Yeah, for sure, and there are many times when somebody does great work, and you've sent them lots of work, but they're not sending you work. That's okay, because they might be at a different place on the referral chain. In other words, by the time they hear of a client, they're past their need for you, whatever you happen to do along that chain. DAVID: It can't be a tit-for-tat thing, it's really just about surrounding yourself with people who are generous in life in many ways. I find that, that's a very satisfying experience, almost regardless of the outcome. BLAIR: Well, you've convinced me, I'm going to start thinking about maybe referring a piece of business to you. DAVID: Yeah, it's about damn time honestly. BLAIR: Thanks David, this has been great. DAVID: Bye Blair.

20 Jun 201827min

Four Segments of New Business

Four Segments of New Business

Blair and David come up with descriptive words that help clarify each of the four parts of what David calls the "pantheon" for new business: positioning, lead generation, sales, and pricing. Pricing Creativity: A Guide to Profit Beyond the Billable Hour Mastering the Value Conversation podcast episode

6 Jun 201827min

Using Assessment Instruments in Your Firm

Using Assessment Instruments in Your Firm

David and Blair explore the big topic of personality assessment tools that can help firms “get the right people on the bus.” Not Your Typical Personality Types →

16 Mai 201833min

Thoughts on Partnership

Thoughts on Partnership

Blair and David dive into a discussion on ownership structures, looking at the results of a survey that David did recently about partnerships.

2 Mai 201834min

What Good Clients Are Really Looking For

What Good Clients Are Really Looking For

Listeners on Twitter wanted to know what clients actually want from creative firms, so David makes a list based on his experience of what good clients want, while Blair's reaction is "who cares what clients want... all they wanted was a 'faster horse.'"

18 Apr 201834min

Mastering the Value Conversation

Mastering the Value Conversation

David gets Blair to expound on his statement that “the value conversation is where value pricing theory goes to die,” and how crucial that conversation is within the sales framework he lays out in his new book, "Pricing Creativity: A Guide to Profit Beyond the Billable Hour."

4 Apr 201835min

Defining Success for Creatives

Defining Success for Creatives

David and Blair take a stab at answering the complicated question of what success looks like for each of them personally, as well as what it means for their clients.

21 Mar 201830min

Words That Make Us Wince

Words That Make Us Wince

Blair and David try to wind each other up by going through a list of phrases they hear from their clients way too often.

7 Mar 201833min

Populært innen Business og økonomi

stopp-verden
dine-penger-pengeradet
e24-podden
rss-penger-polser-og-politikk
rss-borsmorgen-okonominyhetene
tid-er-penger-en-podcast-med-peter-warren
finansredaksjonen
pengepodden-2
utbytte
morgenkaffen-med-finansavisen
rss-sunn-okonomi
livet-pa-veien-med-jan-erik-larssen
aksjesladder
stormkast-med-valebrokk-stordalen
stinn-av-gryn
lederpodden
pengesnakk
okonomiamatorene
aksjepodden
rss-impressions-2