DraftFCB and Wal-Mart Firing

Originally I was just going to tag this and have it auto-post to my site, but I decided against it because I think it needs a few comments.  The Chicago Tribune posted this article called Draft finds no wrongs in Wal-Mart ad pitch and I think DraftFCB is missing a point in the firing.  The question is not whether the sales team violated Draft's or Interpublic's policy but whether they met Wal-Mart's strict vendor rules.  Here's the quote in the article I'm referring to:

As of this morning," he wrote [Howard Draft], "we have completed this investigation, which has not uncovered any instances in which we violated either [DraftFCB or Interpublic] policy. It is important for you to know that--and equally important that our clients know that."

If you know your client doesn't want you to even buy them a cup of coffee, than shouldn't that be your policy?  If something like that is put in the RFP or you know that based on signs posted in their offices, than shouldn't that be part of the agency review process?  I know some of you are thinking that an agency shouldn't police their client, but you should have some responsibility, no? Especially if you know that is the rule going in?  Maybe DraftFCB was mislead or maybe the relationship was doomed from the start, but what I'd like to know is did they violate Wal-Mart's policy of vendor's not giving gifts to their employees.

PardonMyFrench,

Eric

Comments

[Curt Mercadante]

Hi Eric:

We've shut down "Elect Prosperity" and opened up a new blog at www.m-sblog.com (name will change soon.) Our company is growing - and the name will be changing soon. In the meantime, we'll keep you on our blogroll for as long as we can imagine.

Thanks,

Curt