The professionalism equation: cut crap, rate yourself, reap rewards
I do a lot of those ‘standing up the front, waving my arms around with slide presentation’ things. People are generally quite nice and give you a little clap at the end and then you get cheese and wine. It’s all very pleasant. However, my sensibilities were a little bit shaken the other day when a well-meaning smug suit stood up at the end of my presentation, addressed the audience and said: “Everything Courtney said is just a suggestion. There’s no best way really.” How very post-modern. And undermining. Punk.
I certainly don’t expect a round of Obama fistbumps every time I open my mouth, but where does this leave our profession and craft? If everyone is an expert then there’s no reason for the industry to exist.
No wonder marketing and communications people hit their head at general manager of marketing and will never get any higher into the executive suite or boardroom in most big New Zealand companies. No wonder a lot of company executives still think the marketing industry is made of bullshit artists in black rimmed glasses and Chuck Taylors.
The standard Friday night moan of marcomms folk is that people expect them to do a lot of work for free. It’s true but only because we’re stupid enough to let it happen. How many times have you been to a lawyer or accountant without getting a bill afterwards? An hour of selling you an accounting package for $2,000 and then an itemised invoice for every six minutes of ‘professional advice’. It’s the same undercurrent that fuels the ‘expert from out of town’ mentality of New Zealand communications agencies.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for a bit of Fight Club and expert crowns shouldn’t be dished out like Fairplay awards. It’s business and I’m the first to crack skulls. Set the expectation. Cut the crap, rate yourself as a professional and people will learn to pay for it.
If we don’t take ourselves seriously as a profession then how can we expect other people to?
- For more of Lambert’s marketing musings and other miscellaneousness, venture here.
Jason Kemp
August 16, 2010
Ben it looking like you are quoting CJ here but a little unclear. Im using a phone to view so maybe the quotes formatting & attribution link is not quite right.
The debate is certainly one worth having & media have been trading on this for years.
If i had a $1 for every time a media service asked me for a column or more for little or no fee id have a tidy pile.
Many times we do the “spot” because there are often other ways to get paid but eventually this burns these people out.
Getting 50cents for a word is a luxury but it shouldn’t be. Same goes for all the other types of services out there.
So a debate worth having & it cuts both ways.
Find smarter ways to get contributions & if you
dont have the budgets get a longer term plan to get one & make that clear.
courtney lambert @cjlambert
August 16, 2010
words are all mine. Ben can actually write and stuff :)
Jason Kemp
August 16, 2010
Re attribution & author that is a slight mobile version glitch.
I have sent in a screenshot FYI :)
Simon
August 17, 2010
Love the attitude, Courtney, but I hardly think the legal profession is anything to aspire to. They have successfully incentivised themselves to work longer, while incentivising clients to try to short cut their work. Hourly billing is generally a lose-lose deal and a poor approximation of value. Still, it's something and works as a stopgap until we can define our value better – but only as a stop gap.
So what I'm really saying is… oh dear. "There's really no best way!" Postmodern bastard that I am ;)
ian
August 17, 2010
Good point. Fascinating who and what is considered worth paying for. Often technical skill or services get paid and creative gets asked to discount their work.
courtney lambert @cjlambert
August 17, 2010
@simon yes true but how else do we do it in a way that makes sense, is palatable and ensures people don't live on 2 minute noodles? I'm not into smoke and mirrors pitches. Maybe consulting services such as Beca..still hourly rate based?
Jason Kemp
August 17, 2010
Paul GRaham has a good essay on some of this called Ramen Profitable
http://paulgraham.com/ramenprofitable.html
To quote from him
"Is there a downside to ramen profitability? Probably the biggest danger is that it might turn you into a consulting firm. Startups have to be product companies, in the sense of making a single thing that everyone uses. The defining quality of startups is that they grow fast, and consulting just can't scale the way a product can. [3] But it's pretty easy to make $3000 a month consulting; in fact, that would be a low rate for contract programming. So there could be a temptation to slide into consulting, and telling yourselves you're a ramen profitable startup, when in fact you're not a startup at all.
It's ok to do a little consulting-type work at first. Startups usually have to do something weird at first. But remember that ramen profitability is not the destination. A startup's destination is to grow really big; ramen profitability is a trick for not dying en route."
courtney lambert @cjlambert
August 17, 2010
Yes agree Jason scale is the key but the benefit of consulting is often lower overhead and lead time. In the current world of limited credit lines and nervous clients we need to keep gas in the tank through professional advice.
Simon
August 17, 2010
Have bookmarked the ramen article.
I think there is a need for services of all kinds to move to value based pricing. Trouble is, a lot of headshift needed there. The more I learn about it, the more I know I don't know. But it totally makes sense in the long haul – tie your fee to the value that you create.
courtney lambert @cjlambert
August 18, 2010
There are huge structural problems to deal with. Some of the best work I've seen on this is by Chris Volmer @BoozAllen through strategy-business dot com. In the meantime..I need to pay for my groceries :)
Simon
August 18, 2010
True about the damn structural problems :( … Chris Volmer, will check out. Thanks!