By: Wally Snyder

Living with the penalties. Pages 169 – 172  By Ahmad Abuljobain

I am the slipper child of an old-school Iraqi mother. She threw that damned thing with the painful accuracy of a sniper at every alleged indiscretion. A raised voice, a retort, a partially eaten dinner, a door unopened for a lady, a less than glorious report card, a displeased elder, and so on. By the time I had to earn a living, I was sufficiently conditioned to imagine a slip-on whizzing by at anything remotely questionable. When I joined the advertising industry, I pictured quite a bit of footwear.

Tim’s experience juggling the newly-merged agency’s revenue priorities with an existing client’s need-to-know would certainly qualify as a “slipper moment.” His inner struggle will resonate with many in the Arab world’s advertising ranks; and probably cause a few frowns among those decrying his naiveté. There is, after all, a world of difference between the reality of business and the idealism of good conscience; and if finding the right balance, the right rules, was easy, we wouldn’t have Volkswagen, Enron, or Arthur Andersen debacles; and Sarbanes-Oxley would be more effective. Agencies would be fairly paid, would not fear sudden loss of income, and they’d know how to charge clients without risking lawsuits, settlements and embarrassing headlines.

I was managing director of Leo Burnett’s digital operations in the Middle East when SOX came out. I recall the reverberations, and consequent late nights complying with new guidelines. I also remember debating with our Finance Director the effectiveness of such stringent procedures without what should have been concomitant regulation of client behavior. By that time, I had already spent around a decade in advertising, having left behind the more mundane world of think tanks. My first few years in the business felt like a surreal “loss of innocence” from Lord of the Flies or To Kill a Mockingbird.

I was sometimes told to do things I didn’t feel were right; and yet not everything was so obviously wrong. Tim correctly notes one’s personal barometer, his or her integrity, defines that person’s standard of ethics. The challenge comes when the values of our upbringing are put to the test in an opaque world.

Transparency, as Tim advised, is desirable. It can also be good for business – when the client demonstrates equally honorable principles. Such was the case when, for a few years, Tim and I worked at the same agency – albeit me as a lowly account manager in Dubai (then New York) and he running the global show for P&G at D’Arcy (before yet another merger into BCom3 then Publicis). Procterians tend to be rigid about their standards; and I enjoyed the simplicity of working on that complex business: Difficult and challenging but always straightforward and crystal clear. I cannot ever recall facing an ethics issue working on P&G brands.

Perhaps it was the system, the procedures, the people or all the above. Even when they decide to move accounts, the process is a meticulous quantitative and qualitative evaluation. Yet what do you do if transparency is treated as leverage or drives a knee-jerk decision to fire you for the mere possibility of an infidelity? The ramifications can be severe. When a client abruptly goes, so does the revenue that pays for staff and overhead. So when a client might go without much ado, it can be difficult for a manger to do the right thing. This reality is far more common than the egalitarian one.

Yet Tim’s unclean feelings didn’t come about due merely to the issue of transparency; but rather how the whole matter of conflict was so brazenly considered. The issues Tim raised were not limited to clarity. The factors to consider were insubordination – a staffer publicly undermining a director; intimidation – an executive berating, even belittling, a colleague; presumption – guessing what clients may infer, want or do, allowing conjecture to influence tactics; and size – limited agency accounts and clients morphed into a Cerberus taking on Medusa or Hydra. The combination made for an emotional roller-coaster, leading to an emotionally-charged result – one that hadn’t considered the implications (a distraught assistant, prematurely fired staff, loss of income).

Nevertheless, when the dust settled, it is clear that Tim made peace with his choice. He did not, however, emerge unscathed. Tim’s conclusions underlie a painful memory, one where he bore the brunt of his decision largely alone – and which is presumably the point of his piece: “The penalty of ethics is the significant derision and self-doubt...the toll it takes on your definition of yourself...[and] facing the innuendo communicated by those who cannot understand your ethics.” He points out a truism that “[n]o one else can see ethical situations exactly the same way you do.”

I am therefore reluctant to evaluate the merits or errors of the unfortunate series of events that led to his resolve. (Particularly since, in my culture, critiquing an elder may result in a slipper to the head). But I can say with certainty that the unenviable position he found himself in is universal. Throughout my advertising career, I saw managers struggle with the same dilemma. In the Middle East, the challenges are greater because client commitment to agencies is fundamentally fickle.

True, there are a good many decent, honest people in the business; yet fear of loss or lost opportunities is palpable whichever door you walk through. There are hundreds of agencies spread across 22 Arab nations serving a population similar in size to that of the United States; yet adspend is a drop in the ocean in comparison to North American budgets. The competition is ruthless and the regulations are limited. Agencies that serve multinational clients are subject to global alignments; and big, regional accounts are few.

The International Advertising Association has a voluntary code of ethics, particularly focused on the pitch process. The subject has been debated by industry leaders for decades because clients small and large often have no qualms about inviting dozens of firms to pitch simply to hear ideas or rattle the incumbent. Once you win an account, it is common to suffer delayed receivables for months on end until you figure out if the problem is administrative or someone vying for an inducement. Some clients unilaterally decide to reduce invoice values (this happened following the global crisis of 2008).

Large agencies with well-trained talent are often undercut by cheaper, less qualified operations which even big clients will choose based on price not skill; so they face a choice of compromising proposed rates in favor of padded production invoices and retained volume rebates. The list goes on; and the higher up the management ladder you go, the greater the pressure to massage your values to conform. That is why to work in advertising can sometimes feel like being in the Light Brigade, famously eulogized in Alfred Tennyson’s verse: “Theirs not to make reply, Theirs not to reason why, Theirs but to do and die....” And this path, I believe, is the one Tim did not want to walk – that of blind obedience to a tactician who didn’t realize the gravity of a dubious move. Making a decision to break rank will always attract some form of derision. Tim’s choice was a brave one; but when you hold on to standards that others deem archaic or impractical, there is no avoiding the pain that will come with ensuing recrimination. Such choices will not jolt others into revising their views.

If anything, it will make them more committed to them; and some will even find reason to tarnish you for holding on to values they deemed malleable. Still, living with the penalties of remaining true to your ethics will always be a short term discomfort. I would much rather suffer the righteous slap of mother’s slipper than the questionable tread of a boss’ boot any day of the week.

About Ahmad Abuljobain:

Ahmad Abuljobain is a senior executive with 25 years operational, commercial, communication and publishing experience in advertising, digital marketing, and real estate. He has worked extensively throughout the United States of America and the Arabian Gulf. He was the Chief Marketing Officer of the Tiger Group’s brokerage business unit in Dubai; and before that, he was CMO at Tameer Holding Investments, a property developer. Prior to 2005, Ahmad worked with Leo Burnett, first as Managing Director of its digital division, iLeo then as M.D. of Leo Burnett Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. He also worked for DMB&B (later rebranded D’Arcy) and Grey.

While in advertising, Ahmad served multinational and local brands such as Procter & Gamble’s Always and Crest, General Motors, Nokia, MasterFoods (Galaxy, Twix, Snickers, etc.), Saudi Telecom, Banque Saudi Fransi, NCCI, and others. He has also been asked to judge advertising and media effectiveness, serving on the Campaign Awards panel two years in a row.

[i] “The Scale of the Stupidity at Leo Burnett.” CBS MoneyWatch, January 8, 2009: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-scale-of-the-stupidity-at-leo-burnett/