A Tale of Two Teams

Troy Polamalu is one of the most versatile safeties in pro football. A deeply humble and religious man, he's just as likely to pray for his opponent's health as he is to knock the snot out of them or return an interception for a touchdown -- and attribute it to "luck." Historically, he has played more like a linebacker with the range of a safety, but this year, he's played more like a safety who can hit like a linebacker. When asked if he prefers playing this way more than he enjoys playing as he did in previous seasons, in what can only be described as vintage Polamalu, the Pittsburgh Steelers all-pro safety said, "I prefer winning."

The result? Partly as a result of Polamalu's 40-yard interception return for a touchdown in the AFC Championship game against the stout Baltimore Ravens, the 14-4 AFC north and conference champion Pittsburgh Steelers are heading for their 7th Super Bowl, and their 2nd in 4 years.

A Texas Ranger throws a tantrum

Michael Young is a gifted baseball player for the Texas Rangers. He's also well-paid. He makes over $6 million per year.

I don't watch baseball, but I've heard on ESPN Radio that he was a phenomenal 2nd baseman who acquiesced to being moved to shortstop, where he also played very well.

But when the Rangers asked he move to 3rd base, to make room for an up-and-coming shortstop team management might help the team win, Young had enough. He asked to be traded rather than move to a position he didn't think he could thrive in.

In what I doubt is a coincidence, the Rangers finished the 2008 season with more losses than wins. Young reluctantly agreed to move, but reports say he isn't happy about it.

Are you Michael Young or Troy Polamalu?

Are you married to your tactics, or would you rather you (or your clients) simply win? 

There is no panacea of marketing. A lot of marketers in this space -- who read this and other blogs in our blogroll -- believe in what they do. They look at the landscape of traditional marketing and witness  account executives and brand creatives who go on exotic "business" trips on the client's dime and put out tv ads (sometimes even entertaining, award-winning work) that simply don't solve the client's problems.

They resist pushing the client over to another tactic or medium because that's not what they do. That is handled by a different department, and pushing it off will mean fewer exotic business trips, or less money for their team's expense account.

Maybe the right solution is being handled by a different agency altogether, and they're too worried about their own survival to countenance the loss of revenue to a rival agency.

The same can be said of more "progressive" marketers, too -- those who so fanatically believe in Internet advertising or social media and modern Internet technologies that they eschew all traditional methods of communication.

The right solution is the one that helps your company and your clients succeed. If you haven't considered alternatives to the tactics you offer simply because you don't offer them, then hire someone who can. You can decide what to do about it later.

Your clients will appreciate (and reward) your dedication to their well-being. - Cam Beck

Comments

[Eric Brown]

This is an excellent post, and we will see much more of the divide in 2009, which will hinder the overall adaptation of Social Media in the workplace.

While many of the SM strategies and tactics employed will be solid, they will be pierced by the Michael Young thinkers

[Todd]

Passing on work should be left to those agencies that live in a Zen status. They have their place, but the rest of us actually have to live in a world where top and bottom lines rule, and not performing means a swift removal of employment status.

Unless you are principle of an agency, dont waste a second of your work day even contemplating this idea, and never - ever bring it up.

And for the sports analogy, Young is a significant talent. And clients will always be attracted to talent.

Also, if the Texans had 8 more Michael Youngs, then I guess all they would have is 900 RBIs, 9 All Stars, and nine finalists for MVP every year.

[Cam Beck]

Eric and Todd - Thank you. I'm sure we'll see what we always see -- a string of failures and successes in the coming year.

I just hope we have our priorities in order when we approach the problem so we're addressing our clients' needs first, rather than our own.

In the right culture, this can uncover new opportunities that reveal something that those just worried about their employment status would probably miss.

It doesn't necessarily mean passing on business, but rather cementing a spot at the table because your input proved critical to improving performance and therefore your client's bottom line. I would argue that they care about that than the "talent."

As for the sports analogy, I suppose you could argue the point that raw talent alone wins championships, but I see your 9 MVP-finalists and raise you one Dallas Cowboys team, who sent 6 players to the Pro Bowl but missed the playoffs partly due to, many say, team chemistry issues and general selfishness.

More specifically to your point, if Texas had 8 more Michael Youngs, they'd have 9 guys who wouldn't want to play anything but 2nd base and shortstop. Not exactly a winning formula.

[Todd]

But no one would hit anything up the middle, that has to count for something.

[Cam Beck]

LOL!

Thanks, Todd! :)

[Drew McLellan]

Cam,

This applies to all businesses, not just agencies, I think.

We can either try to be everything to everyone, which results in being "okay" at most things or we can stay in our sweet spot and recognize we earn a long-term relationship by actually caring that the client get the best XY or Z, even if we aren't the ones who sell it to them.

That's how we get to keep our seat at the big table.

Drew

[Michael Molinar]

Cam,

Great post, but I'd like to play devil's advocate for a second.

Now, I think it is easy to draw the parallels between Young versus Polamalu and agencies that either do or do not adapt to changes that may be necessary to succeed or even maintain their standards. But consider this case. Young was a talented enough 2nd baseman to warrant the Rangers to pay him substantially more than the average amount of money for what he does. This reaffirms his belief in his ability, as well as the team's belief in him to do so. By moving him into another (and still another) position though, the Rangers are taking advantage of his utility in the hopes of filling gaps in an untested "rising tide lifts all boats" scenario.

Perhaps the learning curve and/or skill set is not as specialized as in baseball than the NFL or in marketing/advertising, but would you ask Polamalu to switch from strong safety to weak safety and then to linebacker in consecutive seasons, and still expect the same level of results? Would you expect the whiz at media directing to always seamlessly make the switch to creative directing or account planning? And if they don't succeed, do they still merit staying on at the same salary level or a return to their old position? Is that the best solution for the client? And ultimately, what does it say about the management that sees all of its employees' skills as interchangable? Are they truly looking for what is in the best interest of the clients they serve or are the looking to get by with the least bad from what they have?

Believe me though when I say that there is absolute value in utility people. However, in the end, when you look at the Rangers' recent run of futility and agencies who shuffle for financial reasons or otherwise, you might think that sometimes, you get what you're not paying for.

[Cam Beck]

Hi Michael - Thank you for the comment. There is a lot of merit in what you say. I especially enjoyed this snippet:

"do they still merit staying on at the same salary level or a return to their old position?"

I think that depends on what value you put on utility, and how reliant the company is on utility to help it succeed.

Of course, the point isn't as much that marketing companies should be swapping employees' positions as much as it is about having a sincere interest in their clients' prosperity... above and beyond individual achievements.

But as for the other point... Would I move Troy Polamalu around? Not sure it's needed, but for precedent, let's look back to the 1995 Steelers, the year that (Hall of Fame candidate) cornerback Rod Woodson tore his ACL and looked to be out for the season.

The strong safety at the time was Carnell Lake. The Steelers felt, at the time, that Lake gave them the best chance to succeed Woodson at the corner position. Plus, they had a competent Myron Bell to replace Lake at the strong safety position.

Lake made the switch and played admirably. So well, in fact that the Steelers made it to the Super Bowl, where they lost to Dallas, who were undoubtedly grateful for not one, not two, but three passes thrown their way by the Steelers quarterback.

Lake played 3 more seasons for the Steelers, switching between safety and one of the two starting corner positions.

And Woodson? His considerable speed slightly hampered by his injury, he switched to free safety a few years later and was part of the Baltimore Ravens defense that won a Super Bowl in 2001.