Jody Sutter

When talking about their capabilities, advertising agencies fall prey to using broadly descriptive terms like "the relentless pursuit of ROI" or "a passion for creative excellence" in an effort to paint a positive and impressive picture.

Instead of over-used words and phrases that are devoid of meaning, point to actual examples - successful client case studies, industry benchmarks or testimonials - that paint a more accurate, authentic image of your agency. If you can't back up your statements, then they're probably not true, and that will hurt you in the long run.

It's hard to sound fresh in a crowded and competitive market. But take some time to step back and look at your achievements. Or ask an outsider for a fresh perspective (you can always call me).

In the meantime, here are some words that I would gladly ban from all agency pitches and RFP responses:

• Relentless
• Passionate
• Superlative
• Driven
• State-of-the-art
• Proven
• Renowned
• Nimble
• Thrive (as in "we thrive on a relentless and passionate pursuit of...")

Any others that you would prefer to see never used again?

When the first Fiat 500 hit the street, I was smitten. It appealed to me on multiple fronts: my sense of whimsy, my need for practicality, and my enjoyment of coming out of sharp corners with speed. I figured I must be Fiat’s ideal customer.

Yet nothing about Fiat’s current ad campaign from Doner Detroit speaks to me. It’s filled with luscious Italian women, young nerdy men and Charlie Sheen. Huh?

So it wasn’t surprising to read in Businessweek that Fiat sales have been disappointing. If you ask me, Chrysler is barking up the wrong trees.

As the article states, the U.S. version of the Fiat 500 was to have been Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne’s answer to the BMW Mini. And that made perfect sense to me. The Fiat has been the only car to distract me from my Mini fixation. And I’d argue that the brilliant advertising for Mini was successful largely because it crossed demographic lines.

But Fiat seems to have placed a narrow bet on a younger, male audience – kind of a real-life version of a character out of a Judd Apatow movie. It’s left little room for someone like me: a forty-ish female professional with expendable income and a youthful streak.

The current ad campaign is probably not enough to scratch Fiat off my short-list, but if I become a Fiat customer, it will be despite the advertising, not because of it.

I tend to root for the incumbent agency. Even in rare cases where I've lost to the incumbent, there's always a part of me that's glad to hear they've prevailed. That's because having to defend the good work you've done as the incumbent agency is hard! There are no two ways about it.

Earlier this week, Adweek reported that Merkley + Partners declined to participate in the O'Charley's review rather than defend as the incumbent. It was a bold decisioin and one that I respect. Too often, agencies don't exercise their right to turn down the opportunity to put in hours of grueling work to try to win back a client they've probably already lost (incumbents usually have the odds stacked against them). Declining to pitch shouldn't correlate directly to losing the account. Rather than disrupting the usual flow of business, Merkley's team may have decided that they can do more for O'Charley's by, as the article states, "redoubling their efforts". I'm rooting for them.

Here's the thing: agencies assume that just because you've won the pitch, you've won the business. I'd argue that the fight for that business actually starts the day the contract is signed.

As I launch my new consulting firm, The Sutter Company, I've been working with a talented designer, a friend of mine named Lauren Hammond (http://laurenhammond.weebly.com/), who is creating a graphic identity for me.

In the process, I'm getting a chance to play a new role, "The Client".

Those of us who have only worked on the agency side of the client-agency relationship have a tendency to wonder what life is like on the other side of the equation. It's been fun to be a client, but it has also revealed my shortcoming and has required me to learn a whole new set of communication and management skills. Here's what I've learned:

1. Learn to articulate your point of view - Language can be remarkably limiting when it comes to something as subjective as design. On one of the first passes of the logo, Lauren tried something a bit edgy that I didn't feel was right but I couldn't articulate why. I took some time and showed it to some other people whose opinion I respected. One of them was an art director who is professionally equipped with the skills to provide this type of feedback. He summarized in a very rational way exactly how I felt and I was able to borrow that language to articlate my feedback in a constructive and responsible way.
2. It's business, not personal - Too often I've been on the receiving end of insufficient criticism so that my team doesn't have enough info to go on to adapt to the client's needs. I've often felt that the reason is that the client doesn't want to be the bad guy. The irony, however, is that this behavior ends up causing delay, misunderstanding and frustration. Finding myself in this new role, I was surprised at how difficult it was not to get hung up on the fact that this was one of my best friends. How could I tell her I didn't adore everything she did? I had to consciously remind myself that I have a professional responsibility to communicate my point of view to keep us as a team moving in the right direction.
3. Do your homework - Your gut reaction should probably not be ignored, but a hasty response is not usually constructive. A good client respects her agency by making an investment in time and thoughtful consideration and understands that the right answer doesn't happen in a vacuum.

In the end, it's been a great experience and I am extraordinarily lucky to be working with someone who is experienced and who I know, like and trust. And, it's given me a greater understanding about what makes a great client.

To start with, a caveat: I fully understand that it's always easier to find a way to improve a good idea than to come up with that good idea. But indulge me with a little Monday morning QB'g.

I spent some time this weekend watching online the PBS documentary, America in Primetime. Originally aired in the fall of 2011, it's a four-part series that gives you an inside look at how some of TV's best-known characters and archetypes have been developed over the years, being influenced by current events and the zeitgeist at the time. While it's supposed to be inclusive of the entire history of television, I found that it focuses more on the last 15-20 years. But no matter, that's not what this post is about.

Dove soap was the sole sponsor. It was the perfect match because the Dove creative focused on Dove's role as an advertiser from its first television ads to the present day and especially the evolution of the brand's postioning into an enabler of beauty that is much more than skin deep. Kudos to whoever came up with it (and I'd love to know whether it was Dove, it's media agency or PBS).

So, as the sponsorship message rolled prior to the start of the first episode, I found myself rooting for Dove and actually looking forward to the next ad in the series. Now that's integration. Unfortunately, I was to be disappointed when the next ad pod came around showing the same content. I quickly went from being happily engaged to being resentful about watching the same ad again. By the time it was repeated a third time, I think I simply stepped away or checked email or something, reverting back to my broadcast TV habits.

It was somewhat reassuring to see that, on the second episode of the documentary, it started with a different ad for Dove. But, again, that one ad was repeated three or four times in the space of a 53 minute program.

The big missed opportunity here was the story that Dove was in a position to tell but didn't. Storytelling, as all know, has to follow a narrative. (Ironically, this was a principle that was even emphasized in the documentary.) Wouldn't it have been better to have had three or four different spots within one episode that all tell a story? And, since it's never unpleasant to hear a good story repeated, Dove would have been in a much better position if it told that same story during each episode. Given the amount of creative that was produced, I don't think it would have required them to spend a lot more on content production.

One of the most exciting things about our media landscape today is seeing new content platforms emerge, develop and get embraced (or not) by consumers. So I applaud Dove, or any advertiser, for taking the chance, especially in such a thoughtful way. It was so close to being perfect. Unfortunately, it flaws were disproportionately obvious to its merits.

If you want to see the advertising integration, here's a link:

http://www.pbs.org/america-in-primetime/watch-video/watch-full-episodes/