Government business ‘dehumanising’ for agencies
Agency chiefs have accused the Government for having “no concept of how communications works”, treating their marketing communications agencies as commoditised suppliers.
Speaking at yesterday’s Mumbrella Question Time, Hill & Knowlton CEO Michelle Hutton said her agency shied away from Government business because it was “demoralising”.
“The model hasn’t changed, it’s an unprofitable business, the pitch process is demoralising and the same agencies always get the business, so why bother?”
Peter McDonald, MD of pitch consultancy Agency Register added that he has been trying to “straighten them [the Government] out” for the past five years and modernise its approach and “dehumanising” process.
“They have no concept of how communications works today and they work on a very old model,” he said. “The research people are still the judge and jury. They over research and I think it’s a mess.”
Craig Davis, co-chairman and creative of Publicis Mojo added that often the problem in government communications is that “it’s not about doing something, but being seen to be doing something”.
While Aegis Media regional CEO Lee Stephens suggested that the Government probably puts out the same tender as it did in the 1960s, he said that Tourism Australia – which is government-funded and a client of the Aegis-owned media agency Carat – has evolved from being “very prescriptive” to a more open approach.
He likened the tourism body’s process of inviting its rostered agencies to present ideas to them as a similar process to what aspiring entrepreneurs do on the TV programme Dragon’s Den.
McDonald agreed that Tourism Australia was a separate case and did not reflect the same approach as the Government.
Tim Burrowes founded Mumbrella in 2008. He worked on Mumbrella until 2021. At various points he was editor, content director and editor-at-large.
Linkedin
“Tourism Australia has evolved from being “very prescriptive” to a more open approach.” Hahahahaha…
User ID not verified.
Interesting comments by Michelle on H&K not winning Govt work in Australia.
I didn’t attend this event so I’m not sure if Tim pressed Michelle on why this is the case, but maybe there is another story here? Perhaps you could follow up for us Tim?
I recall a presentation in Sydney some years ago (2001 maybe?) by Paul Taffe, the global CEO of H&K, who said that H&K would probably not win certain clients/business because of the clients they already had (and I think he said that H&K were representing a few dictators, had represented the Kuwait Government in exile etc, a tobacco company, a Big Oil client etc). Paul also made a comment about pitching for work with the Russian Government, who I assume would have some tricky issues but would be a very valuable account for H&K’s cash-flow.
So, maybe some potential clients object to the current/past H&K global client list, rather than objecting to H&K Australia’s talented PR people – and, as I’m sure any smart CEO is aware, a prospective client isn’t going to tell you that, are they? (and may I add a disclosure here that many talented H&K Australia PR people have spoken at Frocomm conferences)
User ID not verified.