On Agency-Side Professional Loyalties: Some Questions.

  By Jeremy Meyers | July 8, 2010 - 12:22 pm | Comm

Is our job to provide clients what would best and most cost-effectively address their needs, or what we think we can get them to pay for that may also address them?

Are we loyal to efficient, effective work or to increasing our percentage of billable hours?

Is it ever good business to say “no, this website already exists, we don’t need to build you a new one”?

Who do we ultimately answer to?  The gods of our bottom line or the gods of what we know to be right?

When they are in conflict, which side carries more weight? Which side should carry more weight?

Where does integrity lie?

Jeremy Meyers is an Engagement Strategist at Waggener Edstrom and also blogs at JeremyMeyers.com. He does not have answers, only questions.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

About Jeremy Meyers

Jeremy Meyers is the founder and lead producer of Deeper Context, a non-fiction story development outfit that reveals and explores the human themes within brands for the benefit of those who honor us with their attention. He blogs about this, podcasts, music, life and other random geekery at JeremyMeyers.com.
Bookmark the permalink.

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention On Agency-Side Professional Loyalties: Some Questions. -- Topsy.com

  • http://www.air-jordan-19.com air jordan 19

    Here elaborates the matter not only extensively but also detailly .I support the
    write's unique point.It is useful and benefit to your daily life.You can go those
    sits to know more relate things.They are air force shoes strongly recommended by friends.Personally
    I feel quite well.

  • http://twitter.com/dj_justjay Jason Arican

    Whoa… good question.

    One could say that your loyalty is to the client; that once they sign the contract (both literally and figuratively), you owe it to them to provide the most efficient and effective solutions possible.

    The hope is that your good work will earn you more work in the future.

    This is, of course, painfully idealistic.