Would you criticize a brand you covet as a client?

It is a very valid concern for sure and one that I think about all the time when I write about brands, but at the same time I think you and I share the same conclusion. Anytime I'm complaining about a brand online I'm doing so in the hopes that it can be made better. I'm always quick to point out that it could be better and that I hope it is. When I speak about Passion I always point out that if someone is passionate enough to complain about a brand then they will be just as passionate to praise them if you can fix the problem. Yet, you see SO little of this happening. You have to think long term about anything you say, but you also shouldn't completely censor yourself. It's a balance that isn't always maintained. .-= C.C. Chapman´s last blog ..The Power of One Little Tweet =-.

Interesting question, I have direct experience. I once was approached by a recruiter for a position with Heavy.com. It didn't work out, I was not a right fit for them from my understanding. I liked the idea of Heavy.com. I liked that the old CEO was a native of my hometown, Westport CT. After looking at them closely, I found that they we're not an honest company with how they collect traffic, and what they sell as an audience to advertisers. I let it go, and figured I was better off for not having to fix their traffic problem. A year later I read an article from Beet.tv, by Andy Plesser. The article was essentially a PR hit for Heavy.com, stating that they were one of the 10 fastest growing websites according to ComScore. I smelled a fish. With little effort, I uncovered that they were in-fact still faking their numbers, washing their traffic through bogus sites and essentially committing arbitrage. This discovery drove me nuts. One, I read it from what I had considered to be a credible source. Two, I had already gone down this road. My reaction was to immediately post a blog calling out the clear lie, and presenting the essential elements for someone to go and identify this themselves. After criticizing them, so publicly and boldly, I would still feel comfortable working for them. I would not of changed my behavior, and I stand by my actions. Why? I think their are enough people who placate brands, bosses and bureaucrats. While it is always good to use tact, which I clearly did not, it is just as important to be authentic. You know, corporations are usually so bland and boring because people conform. You can tell when an agency conforms for a brand, and does not challenge them. The ads and campaigns are just as bland and boring as the culture that is created by not challenging and asking for change. Essentially, if you cannot provoke, challenge and to some extent question, then why would you even want to work with them? I get it, your job is to bring them in. By 'your', I mean that Execs must bow to the dollar. You need to make friends and all the like. That known, do you want to work for every brand? So, tangents been had, I say this. Be honest, don't fake the funk, and Heavy.com, when you're tired of bullshitting the Adworld, give me a call. Thanks, B

Tobe: Agree we should all think before we post. Just as long as our default position isn't one of fear or unwillingness to speak our minds.

I had an uncle who says to my aunt, "Think before you speak." I'll extrapolate this to, "Think before you type." Postings are forever and so is the memory of the people you write about.

I guess I'm old fashioned. It's in poor taste to 'byte' the hand that feeds you. Carol Phillips @carol_phillips .-= Carol Phillips´s last blog ..What Mad Men Tells Us About Why Millennials Feel Special =-.

Here's a take from the client side. It's a lot tougher than it looks to deliver great products day in and day out. And it's even tougher for companies to make decisions that please everybody. Occasionally, we're going to make a dumb mistake. If you don't like something, we offer a kabillion ways for you to give us feedback privately. Including this thing called the Interwebs. Trust me when I say at my company we take that feedback VERY seriously. We review it in team meetings. We're hugely grateful when a consumer points out a genuine problem that we can address. As nutty as this may sound, no company WANTS to suck. Every brand wants to be loved. To borrow Edward's analogy of sending a meal back at a restaurant, there are a couple of different ways of doing that. You can kick over your table and shout at the top of your lungs "Luigi's Ristorante SUCKS!" Or, you can quietly let your server know you're disappointed. If the restaurant is smart they'll do everything they can so that you can leave the restaurant happy. Personally, I wouldn't reject an agency forever because a staffer crapped on my brand publicly once or twice. But if he or she made it a crusade that would be a different story. There are too many talented people out there to pick somebody who's a knucklehead. Social Media offers consumers a lot of power. But shouldn't power also imply a responsibility to use it carefully? .-= Tom Cunniff´s last blog ..Is Social Media Too Big For Its Own Good? =-.

Edward - I keep reading over and over your statement: "It’s in everyone’s interest to express that criticism as long as it has some constructive aspect to it. Most brands, if only a little enlightened, will appreciate it. Or should. It’s the same reason you send back a bad wine, or an overcooked dish. It’s not simply about getting out your complaint or receiving your money’s worth, it’s a chance to help a company or service you might want or need in your life to get better." I agree with you, but I wonder if comparing criticisms directed to a brand to the reason for sending back a bad wine or overcooked fish may be over-simplifying. Consumers rarely have long-term connections with brands. There are exceptions, of course. Consumers of Apple products are one exception. Consumers of many high end products (BMW, Mercedes, Patek Philippe, Gucci) are also exceptions. But as I think about the interactions of those brand loyalists - they rarely criticize the brands they love. Those in position to receive business from brands stand at an interesting cross-roads. They are consumers, but they also are potential consultants to those brands. Does that mean they should simply stay silent as consumers whenever they are mistreated, sold a bad product, or provided a poor service? And if they don't stay silent, do they have the obligation, when speaking up, to provide not just a response, but a constructive response that helps the brands see their mistakes? Here's where things get interesting. Because social media amplifies the conversation - brands are more sensitive to things that are said by people who have a bit more visibility. Ben Kunz writing something about Starbucks in a popular blog is more visible than if some others wrote the same thing. Ben was speaking as a consumer, no doubt, but the conversation is more interesting because Ben isn't merely a consumer. And he didn't simply mumble in frustration in the Starbucks store - he posted a Tweet and then a blog post about it. I suspect Ben has a long-term outlook about a possible relationship with Starbucks. He provided some feedback - as a consumer. His feedback carries a some value - both as a a consumer and as someone who successfully advises other brands. If Starbucks can't appreciate the context and the message, they might hold a grudge. Smart brands don't hold grudges. They hire people who aren't afraid to speak their mind. .-= Ross Kimbarovsky´s last blog ..crowdSPRING Welcomes The World =-.

This post by http://twitter.com/sethsimonds is great. Check it out. Also, here is the comment I left on Seth's blog. Seth: Damn you’re a hard guy to disagree with. Good thing I didn’t post an opinion about Starbucks and chose only to serve up the question about whether or not to criticize. I take it we’re in agreement. You suggest that criticism is fair if it comes with advice, suggestions, rationale, etc. Though to be honest, it is a little harsh. Inherent in Ben’s post is not merely the Starbucks decision, but the hypothesis of how decisions get made and why. Short term decisions to squeeze a few bucks out of margins. His post actually offered up other perspectives and questions. How should a brand make decisions, what kind of advice should counselors give them, is money the only deciding factor, what are the short term and long term tradeoffs. Granted some of these you got from reading between the lines, but they were there. And finally, kudos, seriously, to you for taking the contrary view and presenting it skillfully. You did this equally well with the United guitar fiasco and again here. One thing both Ben and I could learn from you is the “take a deep breath” approach to thinking about what we post, and be as harshly critical of our own content as we might be of someone else's.

I was sitting in a Board meeting Thursday night for a technology association and we were discussing advocacy efforts when people began to talk about whether we would be prepared to take a stand that might conflict with out larger members. Reading this, I see the same concerns, and have the same thoughts. In politics and marketing, there is no worse stand to take than the one "in the middle." If you are not prepared to hold a controversial position, you do not belong in the upper echelon. Being honest about a negative opinion, provided it has some basis in fact and is more than an emotional rant, should make you more attractive to a brand that is thinking "real" in today's social-media infused marketplace. Chances are if Ben did not express himself, someone else would have. If he does his expression cogently, the brand should respect him. If they don't perhaps they may not be a client to aspire to have...

I think if the criticism is thought provoking and constructive, it might actually lead to a meeting with your coveted client. If it's just hating on the brand, not sure how that helps. I was thinking of blogging about ads I think are pretty bad, but got scared I would alienate potential employers. In my case, I'm not sure of the upside except but can envision the downside so chose not too. Was I a chicken or prudent?

Didn't notice the RT, thought the original post was yours. Sorry for the DM. Anyone who's worked at a good ad agency vs a bad one already knows that the most valuable ones are the ones in which "tough love" is shared in both directions. "Love" being the key word. But how do you know when the criticism is made "in love?" In the context of a long-term client relationship, there are all these dinners and meetings and laughter and shared insights that build trust and make you aware of peoples' intentions. It's much harder when you lack that familiarity. I interviewed a very senior creative recently (I'll call her "Karla") who had worked in some of the best agencies in America. She had some nice work. On paper, she would have been a great find for us. She chose to use her job interview to tell us how much she planned to criticize and shake up what we were doing. My partners and I don't mind being challenged; in fact we welcome it. But the consensus among senior management was that this woman's motives were in question. It didn't seem like her criticisms were based upon making "us" great, in growing "us" together, but rather, in shaping our company to fit her needs. We decided to pass. As with so many things in communications, it's all in the delivery.

In a word, yes. We have no problem calling out brands we think are off-strategy, and work we think won't deliver the goods. I'm a big believer in the old maxim that "In the long run, clients get the work they deserve." That means to do great work you need great clients. And in 2009, a great client is someone not afraid to deal with authenticity, both in the way they communicate with the "consumers" who hold their brand dear, and in accepting the response from those same people. Agencies that aspires to do great work need to learn to tell the truth. That's what we're trying to do, anyway. We'll see how it turns out. .-= Michael Troiano (@miketrap)´s last blog ..Breaking Down The Walls of Our Agency =-.

Thanks for the thoughtful and rapido commentary. Didn't I just see Ben's post a nanosecond ago? I don't have a clear and consistent answer on this but it's an issue I think about all the time. And it extends beyond prospective client assignments to potential employers, marketing partners, media outlets, journalists and more. I appreciate your pov and agree that candid and constructive criticism is the winning approach in all areas of life. But is expressing criticism in a public forum really the best way to help a company/person improve? Sometimes. But are we also exhausting other less public and more measured options? I always enjoy your take on issues and look forward to more on this topic.

I have made many ethical mistakes in my career, but there is one moment when somehow I did the right thing. A client called -- CEO of a finance company -- after weeks of hashing through a campaign structure. Something didn't feel right, so he picked up the phone and asked my opinion. Before I could filter myself, I said, "You know, you're right. It isn't going to work. There is flaw X, which gives us a big risk Y." So he canceled the campaign. Damn! Our media buying agency is paid on commission, so we only make money if campaigns are implemented. Months went by. No action. No money. I had just shot us in the foot. But eventually, we relaunched, with more thought, a better approach, and it worked. The campaign went out the door with the flaws identified and removed. I now have that CEO's loyalty. I can't claim to have done the right thing at every moment in my career, and I am ashamed of the many times I was not courageous enough to call out BS when I should have. But that one call taught me something. Honesty is the best policy, even if it means being rewarded tomorrow instead of today. It's better to help someone with the truth than to stroke their ego. .-= Ben Kunz´s last blog ..Why we called Starbucks stupid, and why you lie too much =-.