#agency-life
Sponsored by Campaign Monitor :partying_face: Many thanks to the CM for helping us keep this community free! CM was founded by two agency founders looking for a better email solution. It was engineered for agencies from day one (way back in 2004).
Thread
I'm curious if anyone here has thoughts/experience dealing with agency white label... cascades? I have no idea what the term would truly be, but I'm referring to the experience of:
Agency A 🤝 Client
Agency A contracts Agency B to do 64% of the project
Agency B contracts Agency C to do 50% of their portion of the project
Meanwhile, agencies B&C all have to operate AS IF they are part of Agency A, even though they are not.
I have no problem with some straightforward white-labeling, although I try to limit who we work with like this to agencies I really trust.
But when you start to get 2+ steps removed from the original agency, it just doesn't seem right somehow. I can't put my finger on it but it feels... dishonest? But again, it's just a feeling and I'm not sure if it's totally normal and expected.
Is this normal? acceptable? Is there a right way to approach these relationships?
Ah, the ol' subsubsub-contracting issue.
The main issue for me is in account mgmt efficiency. Every new layer introduces more intermediaries, and therefore wastage.
Issue 2: The game of telephone also gets longer, possibly chipping away at the actual work itself.
In most multi-agency situations I've been in, the Client has a direct connection to all players. If a situation is complex enough to warrant 5 different shops, then they should all be collaborating vs passing the bucket back and forth down a chain.
That leads to issue 3: single points of failure. In a sub-sub-sub contracting chain, if something goes wrong along the chain, the whole project can grind to a halt (not to mention the number of blameable parties increases).
IMO, any subcontracting should either go to actual contractors or highly specialized shops. At least, if I were the Client I'd create these restrictions in the contract to avoid the issues mentioned.
There may be some areas where you can be a little more loose with this. Content could be one... where the output is fairly standardized and flows through a good process:
Client hires Agency A to do "marketing"
A hires B to do "digital"
B hires C to do "written content"
C farms out content across X firms and contractors
If C has a smooth editorial process, then B is shielded from any drama in the subsubsubsub contracting hooplah. The WHOLE process needs to minimize decision makers though. If every exec in Client, A, B and C has an opinion and editorial input, nothing (good) will get done.
More on the white label side of things:
When Agency A starts insisting that everyone down the chain uses a email address I agree that you start to sail in a morally sketchy area.
I also don't often see the point, besides trying to sound/look bigger than you maybe actually are. I've definitely come across attempts by a one-person "agency" trying to give the impression that they're some kind of global powerhouse (reality: one sales-minded founder and gaggle of poorly incentivized freelancers).
There's a case for "fake it til you make it." But also a limit.
Generally, I prefer situations where results and quality product or service speak for themselves. Where clients aren't concerned about the proverbial making of the sausage and won't judge you based on the size of your team.
I honestly think I agree with 100% of what you said. The agreement I'm considering right now essentially states up front that we act as if we are at that company with an email address, etc. and that we will have NO direct contact with the client. That felt like a đźš©to me
I’ve done tons of work for private equity and VC firms on behalf of them and have no direct contact with anybody they’re working with outside of my work.
But I agree that when they start trying to pretend you work there, that is a red flagđźš©
@Brendan Hufford Okay, that's so good to know! I wondered if I was being crazy but it rubbed me SO wrong.
I work regularly with 3 other specialised individuals/mini-agencies, and we all reference each other on our website as preferred partners. I might pitch for a project under my own name, but introduce the other partners depending on the needs, and no I don’t ask them to pretend they are part of my company!
@Jenny Cahill-Jones Yeah that TOTALLY makes sense to me! I don't mind having partner agencies or even white labeling a portion of a project that I hire another partner agency for, but getting into the pretending to work for someone else is just SUPER messy.
Also, it feels a little weird that I'm so far removed that if we do an AMAZING job, someone else will get 100% of the credit and literally never share my name. I hope that's not too vain, but reputation matters.
I understand where you’re coming from. When I was just starting out I worked a couple of times with other people who then took all the credit for the work, and it didn’t feel good as I had no client contact and they basically didn’t know I existed. I still got paid, but as soon as I was able I moved out of that scenario!
We do this kind of thing a lot, as the subcontractee. My favorite setup is where I introduce myself as "on the Agency A team" but use my own actual email address. It feels the most honest - yes, Agency A brought me in to help, and also I'm not their employee. We have been asked to use other agencies' email addresses sometimes, but really we try to avoid it.
@Michaela Cavallaro Okay, so that’s really interesting! I like that idea and would greatly prefer that immensely to the whole “pretend you work for Agency A” deal.
Yeah, we have run into some trouble w/ the latter approach -- as when you end up working for the same end client, on different projects, through multiple agencies. #awkward