Conflicts There is a convention that agencies should not serve more than one client in any category. When we do the advertising for Blogg’s Shoe Polish, we are not supposed to take on Mogg’s Shoe Polish. Some clients are fiercely jealous when their agencies violate this convention, to the point of firing them. It sounds simple, but it is a minefield. Suppose the agency has a shoe polish account, and another of its clients decides to go into the shoe polish business. What do we do? Suppose we have a shoe polish account in our Vienna office, and our Kuala Lumpur office is offered another shoe polish. What do we do? Some clients extend the definition of conflict to include any product which might indirectly reduce their sales. Suppose we have a shoe polish account and are offered a sandal account – wooden sandals, which don’t require polish. What do we do? Such conflicts as these bedevil agencies. Says Marvin Bower of McKinsey: ‘If a company rests its policy of not letting its agencies serve competitors on the need for security of information, it does not have a very solid base. As a matter of realism, the interests of competing clients would not be harmed by an almost complete exchange of information among the people serving the two competing companies. Of course, no responsible personal service firm would do that – and indeed they go to great lengths to avoid even inadvertent exchanges. Nevertheless, as one who has been a repository of confidential information over many years, I am convinced that the history, makeup, ways of doing business, attitudes of people, operating philosophy and procedures of even directly competing companies are ordinarily so different that information could be exchanged between them with no harm to either’ If I were you, I would think twice about firing my agency when it committed bigamy; another agency might not give you such good advertising. Amour propre can be an expensive luxury.