Well, there ya go. Another casualty of the wide misunderstanding of what branding really is. In business, nobody is indispensable. And if this guy's leaving cripples the company, it's the company's fault for not having a brand strategy of their own.
I really love your comparison to big name coaches at universities, Adam. In those cases, as I'd guess with Armano, the brand name coach builds his or her name with organization support, but it all comes down to winning. I would guess that Armano gave Critical Mass many "wins" - both in PR and in new business.
So what's the solution? Maybe companies should treat their brand-name employees like pro football coaches and lock them in to long-term contracts with various incentives for "winning". The closest thing I've seen to this in the ad agency world is a non-compete that you're forced to sign! Another option is to accept that you're going to lose your stars eventually and be sure to also promote some lesser-known people into key roles with hopes of them rising up to replace the big egos that eventually depart.
David Armano
· 8 months ago
Adam,
good thoughts. here are a few of my own:
Critical Mass provided me with awesome opportunities to do what I was best at, this is true. What's also true is that some of my speaking engagements were paid for by conference organizers not CM. Another truth is that I only went to conferences if I spoke. In many companies including CM, employees attend conferences fairly regularly especially in emerging spaces to learn new things. CM didn't get a bad deal here. Neither did I.
Also, you are assuming it's a more lucrative position. In the long run if we succeed, it could be. For now, it's not. Gotta be careful about making assumptions like that, even as a blogger.
Also, the assumption that CM is worse off without me is a bit spotty. They have respectable blog with employees who can continue, new business with adidas that will continue, a Twitter account now handed over to Len Kendell with over 2k followers and access to any press contacts I had. My departure will not affect their bottom line or business model.
While I understand the sentiment and perceived mix, the reality is the both CM and myself benefited from each other. If people want to split hairs about who benefited more, that's their choice. I did my best to promote the company. I have no book to sell, I had no side business and I always but their name before mine.
However it's also true that I got approached for all kinds of visibailty opportunities not because of CM but because of what I've done myself on the blog etc. Prior to Twitter, the blog was popular when I worked at Digitas. In fact, my most popular concept (influence ripples) was done while I worked for Digitas.
This is a good thoughtful piece, but it's really not all that new. Last the very highly visible CEO of agency Organic (Mark Kingdon) left the agency to go to work for second life. Now that's something that had an impact on Organic. Mine only feels like it because of the visibility within a specific space. CM will be fine. I hope I will be, because this move isn't the easy path.
Adam Kmiec
· 8 months ago
@Bob
Good question. I'm not sure I have the answer. Here's what I think I think :)
1. The concept of a mutual exchange between organizations and employees is rarely in place. The company seems to forget that they need to invest in, nurture, and empower an employee. The employee seems to forget who gave them the opportunity ;) happens in sports all the time.
2. Julie Roehm said it best when she described that clients aren't buying agencies, they're buying people. Clients will choose 1 agency over another because of people/talent. When that talent leaves clients have and do leave as well. It's for this reason that I think Critical Mass faired worse.
I don't think anything was done maliciously, nor do I think that this was part of David's plan from the beginning. But, I do believe CM funded and enabled him to get to the place he is today. Basically Critical Mass created the situation they are in now. This isn't unlike a sports team drafting a player, promoting him, teaching him, and funding his growth only to see him bolt for the Yankees.
Adam Kmiec
· 8 months ago
@David-
You're assuming that lucrative = money :). Check out my post on the TPRP model for employee value. Money isn't the end all.
Your departure hurts Critical Mass because good talent is hard to find. It took Fallon nearly 5 years to overcome the loss of Lubars and Flatt.
When I left DRAFT a certain piece of business was transferred to another agency. The impact of employees leaving is always felt - even when the employee is the janitor.
I'm sure CM knew the risk of allowing you to attend the events and publish. If they didn't that's a bigger problem. Like you said in the adweek comments there wasn't anything they could do to keep you - it was about the evolution of you; that's why I know it's not just about money :). But would you be ready for this evolution - more importantly would others think you're ready if CM hadn't invested in you?
Brian Morrissey
· 8 months ago
It's an interesting debate. What you're seeing, I think, is a rebalancing of the employee-employer relationship in some cases. Previously, the organization had much, much more leverage. It legitimized the employee. What we're seeing with a small subset of people is a revesal of that through a lot of these social media tools. David build up a well-earned reputation and following through hard work and, yes, writing and saying intelligent stuff. CM benefited greatly from that work. But at the end of the day, David build up a great deal of personal brand equity that is his, not CM's. There's nothing wrong with that. A lot of the carping is just bitter ad people who lash out in the best of times and absoltely revel in it now that they're beset by so much uncertainty.
Adam Kmiec
· 8 months ago
@Brian
Totally agree on the rebalance. I posted a similar sentimen on Peter Kim's blog in response to the P&G Tide Hack Night situation.
Both benefited from the relationship. But if we were looking at a scorecard I'd see David ahead. At a tactical level I'm assuming he'll continue to write for Adweek. If he does Critical Mass loses a major chip, no?
Rotkapchen
· 8 months ago
1. David was able to do what others cannot in many situations: BE who they are. CM is obviously a culture that allows for individuals to grow to their full potential. The fact that David could do what he did in their culture speaks volumes -- only a positive reflection on them.
2. As is the case with Jerimiah Owyang, due to the nature of his 'role' David has been limited to the 'customer' side of design. As far as I'm concerned there is far more potential and far more need for the sake of the GDP to have great design resources on the Enterprise side (with a focus on employees and their ability to do their work better). 3) Because of 1) I'm sure CM is aware of David's need to stretch his legs a bit more and capitalize on 2).
All Comments
You may want to visit http://www.robfrankelblog.com to get the latest on what personal branding is - and is not.
So what's the solution? Maybe companies should treat their brand-name employees like pro football coaches and lock them in to long-term contracts with various incentives for "winning". The closest thing I've seen to this in the ad agency world is a non-compete that you're forced to sign! Another option is to accept that you're going to lose your stars eventually and be sure to also promote some lesser-known people into key roles with hopes of them rising up to replace the big egos that eventually depart.
good thoughts. here are a few of my own:
Critical Mass provided me with awesome opportunities to do what I was best at, this is true. What's also true is that some of my speaking engagements were paid for by conference organizers not CM. Another truth is that I only went to conferences if I spoke. In many companies including CM, employees attend conferences fairly regularly especially in emerging spaces to learn new things. CM didn't get a bad deal here. Neither did I.
Also, you are assuming it's a more lucrative position. In the long run if we succeed, it could be. For now, it's not. Gotta be careful about making assumptions like that, even as a blogger.
Also, the assumption that CM is worse off without me is a bit spotty. They have respectable blog with employees who can continue, new business with adidas that will continue, a Twitter account now handed over to Len Kendell with over 2k followers and access to any press contacts I had. My departure will not affect their bottom line or business model.
While I understand the sentiment and perceived mix, the reality is the both CM and myself benefited from each other. If people want to split hairs about who benefited more, that's their choice. I did my best to promote the company. I have no book to sell, I had no side business and I always but their name before mine.
However it's also true that I got approached for all kinds of visibailty opportunities not because of CM but because of what I've done myself on the blog etc. Prior to Twitter, the blog was popular when I worked at Digitas. In fact, my most popular concept (influence ripples) was done while I worked for Digitas.
This is a good thoughtful piece, but it's really not all that new. Last the very highly visible CEO of agency Organic (Mark Kingdon) left the agency to go to work for second life. Now that's something that had an impact on Organic. Mine only feels like it because of the visibility within a specific space. CM will be fine. I hope I will be, because this move isn't the easy path.
Good question. I'm not sure I have the answer. Here's what I think I think :)
1. The concept of a mutual exchange between organizations and employees is rarely in place. The company seems to forget that they need to invest in, nurture, and empower an employee. The employee seems to forget who gave them the opportunity ;) happens in sports all the time.
2. Julie Roehm said it best when she described that clients aren't buying agencies, they're buying people. Clients will choose 1 agency over another because of people/talent. When that talent leaves clients have and do leave as well. It's for this reason that I think Critical Mass faired worse.
I don't think anything was done maliciously, nor do I
think that this was part of David's plan from the beginning. But, I do believe CM funded and enabled him to get to the place he is today. Basically Critical Mass created the situation they are in now. This isn't unlike a sports team drafting a player, promoting him, teaching him, and funding his growth only to see him bolt for the Yankees.
You're assuming that lucrative = money :). Check out my post on the TPRP model for employee value. Money isn't the end all.
Your departure hurts Critical Mass because good talent is hard to find. It took Fallon nearly 5 years to overcome the loss of Lubars and Flatt.
When I left DRAFT a certain piece of business was transferred to another agency. The impact of employees leaving is always felt - even when the employee is the janitor.
I'm sure CM knew the risk of allowing you to attend the events and publish. If they didn't that's a bigger problem. Like you said in the adweek comments there wasn't anything they could do to keep you - it was about the evolution of you; that's why I know it's not just about money :). But would you be ready for this evolution - more importantly would others think you're ready if CM hadn't invested in you?
Totally agree on the rebalance. I posted a similar sentimen on Peter Kim's blog in response to the P&G Tide Hack Night situation.
Both benefited from the relationship. But if we were looking at a scorecard I'd see David ahead. At a tactical level I'm assuming he'll continue to write for Adweek. If he does Critical Mass loses a major chip, no?
2. As is the case with Jerimiah Owyang, due to the nature of his 'role' David has been limited to the 'customer' side of design. As far as I'm concerned there is far more potential and far more need for the sake of the GDP to have great design resources on the Enterprise side (with a focus on employees and their ability to do their work better).
3) Because of 1) I'm sure CM is aware of David's need to stretch his legs a bit more and capitalize on 2).