Who Would You Rather Work For?

Who would you rather work for, a talented jerk or a sweetheart hack?

I saw this posting on Facebook over the weekend. Apparently, I'm not the only one who dislikes assholes. Almost immediately, folks ranging from CEOs and professors to newbies and retired stars were joining in to criticize obnoxious leaders. No one, it seems, enjoys working for nasty people.

So it's unanimous: No one wants to work for a jerk, under any circumstances. That's settled. Right? Well, hold on. Not so fast. After getting such emphatic responses, I asked a question: "Would you rather work for a talented asshole, or a sweetheart hack?" And this is where it started getting interesting. Of the dozens of ensuing comments, the response was startlingly clear: When forced to choose, the talented asshole wins. Nothing, it seems, is worse than working for a hack -- even a sweet one.

Why? Comments ranged from "respect" and "better opportunity to grow," "higher quality of work," but the main sentiment was the one expressed by freelancer Robert Manley: "Talent trumps nice."

Helayne Spivak, exec VP-chief creative officer of Saatchi & Saatchi Wellness, pointed out, "Sweetheart hacks? I don't want to sound heartless, but ... can we afford nice people who aren't good at their jobs? How's this: We pair every talented asshole with a sweetheart hack who just walks around all day apologizing for the asshole's behavior. Problem solved."

What's so bad about being a sweetheart hack? Most cited either weak leadership, or inability to create and support great ideas. Sam Harrison, speaker and author of "IdeaSelling," remarked, "Looking back on my career, I've loved the pats on the back. But I've grown most from the people who were willing to look me in the eye and say, 'You're a good person, but your work needs work.'" Bart Cleveland, creative director of McKee Wallwork Cleveland, weighed in: "Both are equally dangerous and helpful to one's career. ... You may learn something from the jerk. A sweetheart always erodes potential."

This need to learn from genuine talent became a recurring theme, especially when I asked the question on Twitter. Copywriter Jenn Totten tweeted, "As a young person in the biz I'd rather work for a talented asshole than a hack ... but if you're a talented sweetheart, I'll work even harder." Anthony Kalamut, professor and program chair of creative advertising at Seneca College in Toronto, asserted that the "biggest killer of young fresh talent is 'the sweetheart hack.'" Deborah Morrison, a professor of advertising at University of Oregon, wrote, "Transparency is a beautiful thing. ... There's probably a blog and Twitter feed on 'here's an asshole' updates." Hacks, the group surmised, are not only untalented, but also insecure.

The most dreaded combination, it seems, are the leaders who are both hacks and assholes. Nasty behavior can become part of the culture in some marketing departments and ad agencies, as mercurial behavior seems to get confused with genius.

If we can all agree that nasty leaders are bad, then why do they so frequently seem to rise into management positions? In this environment, a less forceful personality can unfortunately be perceived as less charismatic, or even weak. Kathy Hepinstall, former creative director at TBWA Chiat Day, wrote, "The sad fact is, assholes break through. They're colorful. They are spoken of. Like sound over water, assholism travels far."

Do some bosses unfairly earn this reputation? Talented leaders must make tough choices, fight for innovative ideas, advocate for their team, and refuse to settle for average. They're unafraid to ask questions, and don't pander to the committee. They push everyone around them to work harder and go outside the comfort zone, and along the way, they'll occasionally step on toes. (Do you think Apple's Steve Jobs is a sweetheart?)

The most dominant or polarizing brands -- a.k.a. the talented assholes -- tend to overuse certain traits. They gorge on the power, alarm and vice triggers, taking these traits to an extreme. Sweetheart hacks, on the other hand, become so hyper-reliant on the consistency of the trust trigger that their creativity and passion takes a back seat.

As a result, the asshole/hack debate is highly subjective. What appears to be brilliant leadership to some people might feel like power-mongering or ego-run-amok to others.

True talents can do great work and support others. Cathy Austin, president at Loop9 Marketing, advised, "The talent lies in being able to tell someone (honestly) their work sucks and it serving as inspiration, not condemnation." The best leaders keep their focus on the organization, rather than making it personal. Mark Trueblood, copywriter at Turkel, says, "Being a leader means serving something greater than yourself. This requires a firm hand and an open heart."

In a tough economy, pressures run higher, tempers are shorter, budgets are smaller and deadlines more unreasonable. Stress and insecurity run high, and intolerance for jerks runs low. Larry Tolpin, chief creative officer of Y and former chief creative officer at BBDO and JWT Worldwide, adds, "The same goes for hiring people ... don't settle."

Bob Kuperman, former president-CEO DDB Worldwide, New York, quoted the ultimate source, Bill Bernbach: "We have two requisites for people working at Doyle Dane Bernbach. Number one, they have to be nice people. And number two, they have to have a lot of talent. I'm sorry for the nice guy who doesn't have talent, but that's bad for my business. And I don't give a damn how much talent the son-of-a-bitch has. I don't want him. Life is too short."

Next week, we'll continue on the debate with a closer look at asshole brands, hack brands and the pursuit of the talented sweethearts. In the meantime, if you're curious to know which triggers you're using to persuade others, check out the F Score personality test in my book.

Agency Reviews for the sake of having them...

Patron Spirits Co. has launched a fast-moving search for a new creative agency to handle its premium tequila brand's $40 million to $50 million ad account, according to people familiar with the situation.

The incumbent agency, Richards Group, Dallas, is not expected to participate in the review. The shop doesn't defend accounts that go into review unless they are periodically scheduled or government mandated. An agency spokeswoman referred calls to Patron; a request for comment to the marketer wasn't immediately returned.

The review seems to be moving at a clip. The Las Vegas-based marketer is in the process of compiling a shortlist of shops to pitch the account, and presentations are expected to take place next month, people familiar with the situation said.

The review is a bit curious as data published by the national Distilled Spirits Council earlier this month suggest Americans have been trading down to cheaper liquor brands during the recession in every category -- with the exception of top-shelf tequila brands.

Privately held Patron doesn't release sales information, but last week, its chief operating officer, John McDonnell, told MarketWatch that Patron was up 6% last year on a hike in its ad budget of 10% as "every other major spirits company cut their ads by 10%, 20%, 30%."

At the same time, people familiar with the review note that Patron -- the first tequila brand to enter the ultrapremium-spirit set -- might be having a tough time keeping market share as it faces competition from newer brands.

The current campaign from Richards focuses on making the bottle the hero of ads and avoids showing people. It carries the tagline "Simply Perfect," and the executions, which have been largely outdoor, print and online, have copy noting that the alcohol is made by hand using 100% blue agave plants.

Between January and November of 2009, Patron spent $40 million on domestic measured media, according to Kantar Media figures. The full-year figure when available will probably be slightly down from 2008; it spent about $52 million in 2008 on measured media. More than half of the total has been devoted in the last two years to ma

Innovative Marketing by Advertisers, not their "Creative" Agencies

Hopefully this will be the start of something different in the restaurant industry. The buzz alone is something very special. This is something that advertisers should do MORE of....

Smith & Wollensky in Steak-for-Stock Deal

Fat-Cat Bankers Low on Cash Can Still Get a Suitable Lunch

You know things are bad when bankers start bartering. But Smith & Wollensky put out a proposition in a full-page New York Times ad today: You can use blue chips to pay for your black-and-blue. The chain, which does a significant chunk of its business with financial professionals and for corporate lunches, is keenly aware of its clientele's evolving cash flow status -- and its trickle-down effect on the service industry.

The ad, from agency Walrus, New York, puts it to the suits in appropriate tongue-in-cheek fashion: "This bonus season has taken an unexpected turn, with the large banks paying out their bonuses not in cash, but in company stock. Its effects on the local economy could be catastrophic, leaving large tracts of land in the Hamptons and Martha's Vineyard undeveloped, legions of real estate brokers, personal shoppers and pet psychiatrists unemployed and massive amounts of steak and lobster uneaten."

Alan Stillman, founder of Smith & Wollensky and Fourth Wall Restaurants, said the response has been "over the top." He's already taped TV interviews with major networks and spoken with reporters representing "thousands of newspapers." Mr. Stillman said the idea came to him last week. "I got a little bit annoyed that business will be a little off at restaurants, not due to anything but politics," he said of Wall Street's revised bonus strategy. "I don't mind being off [because of] the economy -- that's part of the business, but this one bothered me because it's more or less politics, and it's bothering everybody and wasn't helping anybody." Of course, the promotion is about business, not making a political statement.

But the company is serious. The ad is accompanied by an appropriate amount of legalese. For instance, the stock's registered owner must be present, and must surrender the original certificate and a separate stock power with a medallion signature guarantee. At the moment, this offer only pertains to the chain's New York City location.

A company spokeswoman said the restaurant has been flooded with inquiries to make sure the offer is legit, but participation isn't the point. "Even if people don't come in with stock, we've created enough of a buzz that we'll get people coming in that would normally have come in and that's what it's all about," Mr. Stillman said.

And a promotion so closely tied to news that's deeply meaningful to the restaurant's core customers was sure to generate interest. "Don't forget, restaurant advertising is not very cutting-edge; I think that's something that's lacking for the entire genre," Mr. Stillman said. "When we do our advertising, we consider the fact that if you can get it to be cutting-edge, then you're doing something different from everybody else, and you don't have to worry about people copying your advertising." It's important to note that Mr. Stillman is a legend in the restaurant industry. He founded TGI Friday's in the 1970s with a $5,000 loan from his mother.

Deacon Webster, chief creative at Walrus, said that client Fourth Wall Restaurants, which owns Smith & Wollensky, brought the idea to the agency last week. He noted that the timing couldn't have been better and added that the agency is hoping the restaurant will create faxable menus that adjust based on stock prices, so, for instance "you can see what you can get for 10 Citi shares."

Mr. Webster's agency represents all of the Fourth Wall brands, including Park Avenue restaurant, which changes its décor every season, and Maloney & Porcelli, which got its own tidal wave of press last year with the "Expense a Steak" effort. Walrus built a tool on the chain's website for consumers to enter a dollar amount, and they were then able to print out fake receipts for the requisite figure.