Comments for THEM!

Comment on Lessons of youth, passion and following your soul by Leslie Campisi

Leslie Campisi — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 21:51:21 +0000

Amazing post! Agree. And thanks for the shout-out

Comment on Renegade Rollergirls Roll Again! by THEM!

THEM! — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 19:21:46 +0000

This event was awesome! Thank you to all that came out. Full house and a great bout!

Comment on Thursday animation inspiration by THEM!

THEM! — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:01:26 +0000

Thanks for the kind words Dana! We LOVE great creative.

Comment on Thursday animation inspiration by Dana

Dana — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:34:55 +0000

Sick beyond words!!! I was having a chat with Jesse over @ Rise Up about a t-shirt we’re proposing on making for his non-profit. “Rebuilding America” — all propaganda style, but with a cool edge. We were struggling with inspiration for it (there’s tons of Soviet Propaganda stuff out there, but it’s all been played to-death) — and then we saw this link you posted.

AWE — SOME! Just what we were looking for. It’s sexy. It’s street. It has a retro propaganda feel.

Inspiration found.

Comment on Creativity as a commodity by Stan Roach

Stan Roach — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 00:23:23 +0000

I agree with the premise that the pay for performance concept can work to everyone’s benefit. I have yet to successfully execute this model with clients for reasons I can explain but that’s another story.

There are tasks that are developmental such as creating strategies, business plans and creative work. These tasks are more about the “what” than the “how”. Clients are use to paying for development services. Hourly or project based compensation is the norm.

There are tasks that are executable or tactical such as managing the sales process, hiring staff, buying media, measuring success, adjusting tactics. These are the “how” tasks. This is the tricky part. The reason it’s tricky is that the clent will need to “partner” closely with my agency and I will want to be sure that the development work integrates perfectly with the tactical work. That means I will need to have some control over how it all gets done. Companies resist this.

Bottom line is that if I say “I will guarantee results” then it is up to me to determine under what circumstances I wiil actually make that gaurantee.

So my model goes like this:
If the client wants development work they pay for the deliverables. Could be a reduced rate if performance based compensation is a component.
If the client wants a guarantee for performance (results) they pay for that at some negotiated rate (percentage of increase and/or equity in the company and/or a residual).

Also there will need to be at least 2–3 people from my agency invloved. A principal to oversee the relationship, an account manager to manage the client/project as the primary contact and an administrative assistant. The client will need to dedicate people with similar responsibilites from thier staff. Everyone must be held accountable to each other.

So it’s very doable under the right circumstances and will require a high level of trust and collaboration to be successful.

Comment on Friday music and cool animation by aileen

aileen — Fri, 22 May 2009 20:08:22 +0000

Very cool! Thanks for sharing.… your wit shows!

Comment on Creativity as a commodity by Bob Shaw

Bob Shaw — Tue, 05 May 2009 12:28:57 +0000

Great discussion of a critical issue. I believe that in practice, many of us who take pride in our work love the theory of pay for performance, but it never seems to work for the reasons you mentioned and some others:
a) Clients tend to be more schizophrenic than Agencies. Rules, goals and priorities change mid-year or sometimes monthly. Maybe for legitimate reasons, but it still mucks up the model.
b) The Client has the right to ignore your advice and “make the damn logo bigger”, but is it fair to penalize an Agency whe their advice is ignored.
c) The big game changing moves come from strategic decisions. Agencies have ceded this ground — many clients don’t want them there. Fringe tactical decisions don’t change the key metrics.
d) Since Creative IS subjective and since everyone wants to keep agency costs down — there is built in disincentive to judge subjective matters A+ when it’s going to cost you another $100,000. Mediatiation — yuck?

I deal often with brands that discuss this concept at the beginning of the engagement, we embrace it, but it never seems to happen for a lot of reasons and most clients seem as confused on it, if not more so.

Comment on “Small is the new big. Sustainable is the new growth. Trust is the new competitive advantage.” by DanaMac

DanaMac — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 20:33:17 +0000

Personal is the key. Having a 1-on-1 relationship with a creative team is something that people NEED in these trying times. When someone's last penny may be on the line, and everything thrown into a great idea -- people need to know that the final execution will be be spot-on, and that they have the ability to be a part of the process. It's easier to voice you concern to a group of 3 people vs. being the odd-man-out in a boardroom of 20. "We've been doing this for 30 years -- so don't tell us what you want, that's our job!" <--- that's sooooo 2005. "We're so happy to have your business and to use our past experience to facilitate your needs. How can we help you?" <----- the year 2009.