The Vital Presence of Mediators in 360-degree Performance Evaluations
As many of you may have heard, the ANA conducted a survey in July of this year regarding formal agency performance evaluations conducted by marketers. An ANA news article posted on September 14th titled, “Majority of Marketers Conduct Formal Agency Performance Evaluations According to New ANA Survey” regarding the survey discusses the benefits of these evaluations. The two top benefits are identifying and improving under-performing agency relationships and identifying and recognizing the high-performing ones. A full report of the survey results will be presented at the ANA Agency/Client Forum on September 24th in New York City.
One aspect of the survey we found to be of particular interest is that the rising majority of firms are conducting 360-degree evaluations where the agency also evaluates the client. According to the ANA article, when conducted with a “trusted, neutral point person,” or third party, the performance evaluation is able to remain focused on real results like objectives and metrics instead of contesting personalities.
The 360-degree evaluations are vital to ensuring continuing performance on both sides of the relationship and the presence of a neutral mediator is vital to the success of the evaluation. It is important for the agency’s team is able to be open and honest about the input and direction they are receiving from the client without the fear of dire consequence and repercussion. The fear is understandable; who wants to bite the hand that feeds?
The presence of a mediator should naturally alleviate that fear by providing an unbiased view of the input and direction coming from the client and the resulting performance of the agency. This process provides viable solutions to existing problems instead of wasting time and resources to switch agencies, only to risk discovering the same problems again because the poor agency performance may have been a result of poor input and direction.
Performance relies on the quality of work delivered by both parties. The presence of a mediator can determine which party is ultimately responsible for the success or failure. Sometimes it’s the client, sometimes it’s the agency, and sometimes it’s both.
If you would like to read more on the ANA Survey, take a look at Jack Neff’s September 14th article titled, “ANA Survey: Agency-Performance Reviews Are Now Business as Usual” posted on AdAge.
Of course, at Jones&Bonevac we have a particular stake in this subject. We are, after all, consulting with a few very large brands on the subject of agency engagement. Not so surprisingly, we agree with the majority on this one. What do you think?
