I was emailing back and forth with an associate recently discussing a marketing strategy for a client of ours. This particular client was pretty adamant about maintaining a course of action that I was sure would be neither cost effective or the most pragmatic way to promote their presence on the web.

My position was that it was our job duty to do the best we can to achieve maximum results even if that means having to go out of our way to educate the client on why we are suggesting a change in strategy. The other side of the discussion was largely based on the: “the client wants what the client wants” argument.

In the end, it wasn’t my call. We stayed with the clients wishes. Our job was to make them happy….to do the best we can within the parameters we were given. My parting shot was this:

I don’t like the idea of [unsound strategy here]. But if it makes them happy I will comply. I just think it’s like letting your kids eat a bunch of candy just because it makes them happy…even though you know it is not good for their health.

 
On the other hand, if my kids were paying all my bills then I would probably let them make their own decisions about eating candy.

 
[Client] is paying the bills…….so let them eat candy. 

To be fair, there were some valid points to the counter-argument. And the strategy we’re taking isn’t bad, it’s just not the most efficient or pragmatic.

But the conversation got me thinking about some pretty interesting questions:

• How far should a hired gun push to implement a strategy?
• When do you allow the client to implement bad decisions?
• Who really knows what’s best for the brand?
  • The client/business owner/offline merchant?
  • The experienced online marketer?
• Is there an ethical responsibility here?
• When do you dig in and stand your ground?
• When do you let them eat candy?

Interesting stuff. Thoughts?