Last night’s episode of Mad Men was fantastic as usual.  One of the interesting topics of focus during the episode was Draper’s lack of a signed contract.  All the major players at the agency (Sterling, Cooper, etc.) have multi-year contracts.  Draper has NEVER had a contract.  This had always been an issue, but it really became a sticking point as the agency was trying to shore up the Hilton Hotels business.

It’s amazing to see how far we’ve come as an industry.  Rarely do you see formal contracts that outline guaranteed salary, benefits, and other perks in the ad biz these days.  It just doesn’t really happen anymore.  But, this got me thinking are we better off without contracts?  Contracts are funny things.  They essentially demonstrate a pledge between two or more entities.  In its most basic format, a contract says i’ll pledge to give you great performance and you’ll pledge to pay me this amount.  Fair enough and certainly easy to understand.  We often see this type of a contract in the sports world, where so and so signed for 3 years at $5 million per year.  How often though does a player actually live up to his contract?  How often does the owner/team provide what’s necessary for the player to succeed?

Contracts protect both parties; the player and the team.  Well, at least they’re supposed to do that.  On some level they are a safety net.  But, if there’s mutual trust between both parties, do you really need a contract?  Isn’t a contract simply a way of forcing someone to stay?  Would you really want to keep someone that didn’t want to work for you?  I wouldn’t.

One of the best pieces of advice I ever got was from a more senior colleague at Leo Burnett.  He told me that if someone walks into your office and wants to resign, let them.  If they walk into your office and want to discuss their “job,” lean in and listen well.  The person who wants to discuss the job wants to stay for love of the company.  The person who walks in wanting to resign wants to stay for love of the dollar.  Good advice, if you ask me.

The closest real world example of this is marriage.  They say marriage is a contract between two people.  No it’s not.  A prenup is a contract between two people.  When you decide to get married you put your trust in one another with the intention that things will work out in the long run.  This is the reason, so many people balk at the idea of a prenup.  To consider getting a prenup is to consider the fact the marriage will not work.  No one wants to hear that from the person they want to be with forever.  However, when you consider that the divorce rate is over 50%, wouldn’t signing a contract be prudent?  Sure it would, but it also indicates a lack of trust.

So the real question we need to ask is, do we need a contract if you have trust?  Certainly something to ponder.

So David Kenny of Digitas thinks that you should, “When an ad campaign starts with media at its center, he said, marketers can focus on a particular media outlet and how consumers use it, then plan a creative appeal that works well in that venue.” This is what kills me about so called experts from large agencies. David is basing his logic on the concept that we should buy based on where “know” the consumer is. The problem with today’s fragmented media landscape and shift toward consumer empowerment is that you can’t but media based on where we think the consumer is. Consumers are now looking for content. Don’t believe me? Well you explain YouTube Consumers want to be wowed by great content.

If you buy your media first, the creative will need to be tailored to the media outlet. That’s a huge mistake, because you’ll ultimately have to water down and/or retrofit the creative idea to meet the specs of a specific, network, site, or ad-unit.

I’m floored that he get’s paid in the hi-hi 6 figures (if not 7 figures), as the CEO of Digitas and still can’t get the fact that people want to consumer media when and where they WANT to. Buying the property first makes the assumption that the person will be engaged enough to look at your now watered down ad.

Now, not everything he says in this article is complete bull shit. You have to get the media planning folks more involved with the creative team. When the two disciplines are working together really well, media can drive creative and vice versa. That’s when you get things like the Simpson’s Kwikee Mart 7-Eleven take over campaign or the McDonald’s Sun Dial concept from Leo Burnett.

Actually, let’s disect the Sun Dial campaign. If we had taken Kenny’s direction, media would have bought some outdoor advertising first. Then Leo comes up with this awesome Sun Dial advertising execution. They bring the idea to media and media says, “Shit, sorry, I don’t think it’s going to work, because while we bought some billboards they aren’t in the right location to make your sun dial work the right way. Bummer, maybe next time.” Now the flip side of that is media recommends outdoor and creative knows that outdoor is on the table. However, before media actually buys the placements, they check in with creative and it’s a good thing they do. Why? Because creative has a fantastic sun dial concept and needs media to work some magic. Media, now knows exactly where to buy the real estate, and you get a fantastic execution.

I’m sure David is really smart; well I hope he is if he’s the CEO of Digitas, if not Publicis stock holders should be pissed. However, from my perspective, he’s in the wrong.