What makes a great meeting? Or is ‘great meeting’ an oxymoron? (You could be forgiven for thinking, watching the Apprentice, or The Office, that meetings in British business have to involve flip-charts, bullshit, bravado and the despair you feel as you remove the cellophane from the biscuit plate in conference room 14c in a business park in  Runcorn while you wait for someone to set up an interminable powerpoint presentation.) I started thinking about this after a meeting I attended this morning. It was a great meeting.

We’re pitching for the Guardian at the moment. As part of that process, we were invited to one of their editorial meetings. Which was fascinating for a number of reasons. Partly the content of the meeting – the people and what they discussed – and partly the style in which the meeting was conducted. Anyone from the Guardian is welcome to attend these open meetings, at which that day’s paper is reviewed and the next day’s stories are discussed. There’s a big team of people – about 30 – and they all seem incredibly well-prepared, smart, focused and switched on. No-one shuffles in a few minutes late because they slept in or missed the bus – they all assemble promptly and come ready to contribute. No-one makes excuses for not having had time to prepare. The mood is positive, supportive, but quite high-pressure. They cover a lot of stuff at some speed, as you would expect for an organisation that has to turn out in 24 hours, every day,  something that will be read by millions and scrutinised by the country’s opinion formers and leaders. It was inspiring to watch the passion and good humour with which they approach this. At the end of the meeting there’s no hnaging around chatting; everyone disappears at once to get on with things. It made me think a couple of things about our business:

– we’re lousy at running meetings productively and efficiently. There must be ways in which we can make them both more effective and more inspiring.

– people in communications talk about the pressure and stress of the deadlines we face and the high expectations of our clients. We have it pretty easy in both these respects compared to putting together the Guardian.

People sometimes ask, ‘So why is there a perception of advertising as a generally badly-run business with slack management  living off outdated service and remuneration systems?’

Gee, I don’t know. Could it be anything to do with stories like this one in Ad Age?

Ad Age reports that, while IPG has lost $2 billion over the last 5 years, its top 5 executives were paid $124 million over this period. $2 billion. That’s a big loss. Shareholders might have been better off putting the money into something less risky than advertising, like Nigerian get-rich-quick schemes. Interpublic said, "The large difference between the potential and realized value of past awards reflects the company’s performance and is both appropriate and in keeping with the intent of incentive compensation." So, they’re saying, the fact that execs only trousered $124 million (an average of $2.8 million p.a. each), not the $232 million they would have made if they achieved targets, is an indication that their performance-related compensation scheme works. Must have been tough to forego those extra few millions that can make all the difference.

No wonder client procurement people give us a tough time in fee negotiations. They may get the impression that all agencies are run in this way. Must go – I have to catch the helicopter back to my trout farm.