#82 Avoid Blacklisting from Design Agencies

Okay, let's uh let's unpack this. We've all heard the phrase difficult client, right? But today we're diving into something a bit more hidden, kind of a quiet industry secret. How huge financial institutions, we're talking big banks needing innovation, can silently get themselves put on a private blacklist by the very top tier design and strategy agencies they're actually trying to hire. >> Yeah, it's a it's a real thing, but it's very much an internal mechanism. You won't see this published anywhere. It's really a survival tactic for these premium agencies. They use it to protect their most valuable assets, you know, their time, their team culture, and crucially, their best creative talent. >> Makes sense. >> If an agency keeps getting tangled up with a client whose behavior just drains energy, demoralizes the team, well, they start failing their other clients and their reputation takes a hit. So, they quietly step back. >> But what does being on this uh quiet list actually cost the bank? Because I mean presumably they can always find someone to hire. >> Oh, absolutely they can. There's always an agency willing to take the work. But the real cost, it's quality attrition. Get this. When that bank puts out a request for a proposal, an RFP, the top five, maybe 10 agencies, they see the name and internally flag it as, let's call it, toxic revenue. >> Ouch. Toxic revenue. >> Yeah. So, they just don't bid, they pass. So instead of getting proposals from the agencies with the really visionary designers, the sharpest strategists, the bank ends up sifting through bids from the B teams, maybe even the C teams. >> Ah, so they might pay a premium price thinking they're getting top talent because of the agency brand maybe, but the actual team and output, >> yeah, >> it's subpar. >> Exactly. They get okay work, maybe often delivered by a team that's already exhausted or maybe less experienced, it's not the agame they thought they were buying. >> Okay, that really puts the stakes into perspective. So, our mission today for you listening is pretty clear. We're going to dissect the 10 most common behaviors, these red flags that lead banks down this path. And importantly, these are often driven by internal fear, right? Not necessarily bad intentions. >> That's a crucial point. Very often, it's not malice. It's a symptom of massive institutional pressure. Maybe fear of regulatory slipups or just complex internal politics that you find in big banks. Recognizing the fear behind the behavior is honestly the first step towards fixing it. >> And we want to show how to flip these patterns, turn these red flags into uh green lights for better partnerships. >> Exactly. From problematic to productive. >> All right, let's start where it often breaks down first. >> Respect. Red flag number one is devaluation of work. This is that classic situation where the bank gets some strategic output concepts, research findings, wireframes, and questions if it's really worth the price. >> Yeah. and the agency reads that immediately as deep mistrust. It signals a problem right away. Often the root cause is the bank's internal um fear of admitting we don't know. >> They find it hard to actually define what good looks like for them internally. >> So they can't give a clear brief. >> Well, they might give a brief, but it's vague. So they end up treating the agency's work like a test. It's like, okay, we'll pay you, but you need to somehow guess what we really want and prove your value against our fuzzy internal yard stick. >> But hang on. If the bank is paying for expertise, for insights, >> Mhm. >> why would they be so afraid to admit they don't know something? Isn't that the whole point of bringing in experts? >> You'd think so logically, but in many large hierarchical risk averse organizations, admitting uncertainty can feel like showing weakness. It can be a career risk internally. So the consequences they make the agency responsible for guessing the bank's unspoken needs their internal political landscape. The agency feels set up to fail because the project wasn't defined collaboratively. It was more like a performance review from the start. >> Okay. So if a bank team recognizes this pattern, they're treating the agency like a vendor to be tested, not a partner to trust. What's the immediate actionable green light? How do they shift? >> They need to change their whole posture. Literally shift how they approach it. So instead of that slightly adversarial stance of we know best, prove you're good enough for us, the language needs to become something like look, we're open to learning here. Help us figure out the best way forward together. >> If the goals are unclear, you actually say that. You admit it proactively >> and you bring the agency into shaping the problem itself. Turn that uncertainty into a shared billable discovery phase. >> That makes a lot of sense. Turn vulnerability into collaboration. But then that leads us to red flag two. undermining expertise. This is when they actively ignore the advice they've paid for. Maybe overriding user research findings with internal opinions or just copying a competitor without understanding the context, like, "My nephew likes this feature on another app. Put that in." >> Uh-huh. This one is often about ego or control. The bank's fear here might be feeling manipulated, like the agency is pushing for unnecessary work or maybe just appearing less competent internally if they defer too much. So when internal opinions maybe from a senior exec get prioritized over solid evidence-based recommendations from the agency like weeks of user testing data well innovation just grinds to a halt. >> And what's the actual cost to the bank there? They've spent maybe millions on gathering insights and then they just >> go with a gut feeling. >> The cost is huge. It means delays going back to the drawing board. Or worse, launching something that's fundamentally flawed because it's built on internal assumptions, not how users actually behave. It's like you've paid for a blueprint for a skyscraper and then decided to build a shed using half of it. The shift we advise is moving from we know what's right to asking genuinely. Help us understand why your approach gets better results. Let the evidence lead, not internal hierarchy or ego. >> Right? Okay. Let's shift gears. The next set of red flags, they seem to directly hit the project plan, the schedule, the agency's finances. Starting with red flag three, scope creeping via small changes. Ah, yes, the death by a thousand paper cuts. It's incredibly common. It's when requirements just keep expanding through that little phrase, could you just? Or it's just a little more. asking for a few quick extra screens after sign off, for example, or expecting the agency to just absorb the time cost of the bank's own internal indecision or delays. >> So, it's presented as a tiny tweak, but it adds up. >> Exactly. It's hidden expansion, right? >> And it chews to the agency's margin, throws off timelines, and honestly, it kills the team's focus because they're constantly switching context. >> So, the agency's project manager is watching the budget evaporate, and they know the quality is probably dipping because the team stretched thin. >> Yeah. >> How do you manage that constructively? What's the green light? You need structure and discipline. The shift is implementing and using a clear change request process, a visible change log. So instead of the client contact just saying, "Hey, can you squeeze this in?" The responsible client proactively asks, "Okay, this is new. How does this impact the timeline and the budget? Let's figure out how to fit it in responsibly." Okay, real partnership means acknowledging that changes have real costs in time and money. Okay, but what happens when the agency does push back on that scope creep using the change process, you know, protecting the project? They often hit red flag four, emotional manipulation, start hearing things like, "Well, you're not really acting like a partner or hints that loyalty means doing free work or rushing things." >> Uh, yes, this tactic is really toxic because it tries to use guilt or morality instead of logic. Framing a perfectly reasonable professional boundary like sticking to the agreed scope as some kind of betrayal. It's often based on the assumption that the agency values the relationship, maybe because the bank is a big name, more than they value their own financial health or their team's well-being. It's basically leveraging status. >> That must feel incredibly unfair. You're penalized for doing your job, for protecting the project success. >> It is. And the counter move for the client, the green light thinking, is realizing that true partnership actually needs boundaries to function. So shift away from the emotional blackmail of if you really cared, you'd just do this for us towards understanding that protecting the agreed plan is real partnership. >> Keep the focus on the shared goals, not on making the bank's internal team feel good by getting freebies. >> Right? Then there's the very direct issue, red flag five, payment pressure. Things like refusing any upfront payment, demanding 100% payment only after everything's delivered, or just crying delays on invoices with flimsy excuses. Yeah, the classic finance is processing it line week after week. Now, for a massive bank, delaying a payment might seem like small potatoes may be managing cash flow, but for the agency, especially smaller or midsized ones, it shifts all the financial risk on to them. But here's the critical insight to a premium agency. This doesn't just signal tight budgeting. It signals a fundamental mismatch in how value and risk are perceived. >> How so? They see a client who doesn't seem to respect or maybe even understand the basic financial stability required to keep top tier strategic talent on their project. It signals instability and frankly a lack of trust. >> And even if the agency can handle the cash flow hit, it creates stress. And the best agencies, they probably have plenty of other clients who pay on time, right? They just won't put up with it. >> Precisely. They have options. So the green light shift here is about reliability. Signal that you're a dependable partner. Use clear milestone-based payment schedules. Honor the contracts. Pay on time. It sounds basic, but it builds immense trust. >> Okay, last one in this section. Red flag six. Time pressure tactics. Forcing unrealistic urgency because the bank's own internal processes were slow, expecting the agency team to work nights and weekends as standard practice or just arbitrarily crunching timelines. >> This often comes from a real place of fear for the bank team. like they're genuinely scared of missing a crucial board meeting or a regulatory deadline. That pressure is real. But the toxic behavior is when they externalize all of that stress onto the agency. They demand miracles without offering any serious trade-offs in scope or features, >> which just leads to burnout and rushed lower quality work. >> Guaranteed. It sets the agency team up for burnout and compromises the final product. >> But what if there is a genuine unavoidable urgent situation? Say a sudden regulatory change means a feature has to launch sooner. How should the bank handle that constructively? >> Openness and vulnerability are key. Share the constraints honestly. Instead of just demanding the impossible timeline, they should ask something like, "Okay, look, this deadline just moved up unexpectedly. Given that, what's realistically achievable? What features do we need to cut or simplify to make this happen?" The constructive shift is about negotiation. It's about agreeing on what's actually possible without breaking the team or sacrificing essential quality. accepting trade-offs. >> Okay, now we move into the really damaging stuff, the final category. Authority-driven habits often rooted in control and again fear, especially fear of blame. Red flag 7 sounds pretty bad. Threats and blackmail. >> Yeah, this is where it gets ugly. This is about winning through intimidation. things like threatening to escalate issues unreasonably high up the chain, threatening to cancel the whole project midstream, or constantly dangling the prospect of future work as leverage to get the agency to agree to unreasonable demands. Now, >> that sounds purely adversarial. >> It is. And for any decent agency, especially the premium ones we're talking about, this is often the express lane straight onto that quiet blacklist. Non-negotiable. Trust evaporates instantly. the relationship becomes purely transactional, maybe adversarial if it even continues at all. >> It sounds less like fear at this point and maybe more like institutional arrogance. Are you saying even outright threats might stem from some kind of insecurity within the bank's management team? >> Surprisingly often, yes. It can come from the specific team managing the project feeling terrified of losing control, especially control over an external vendor. In a highly regulated industry, perceived loss of control can feel like a huge career risk. So if they feel they can't control the scope or the budget anymore, sometimes they resort to trying to control the people through force or fear. The green light shift. Replace the ultimatums with dialogue. Approach it as, "Look, we're genuinely worried about X. Let's figure out how to resolve this together. Keep the focus on the shared project objective, not on winning a power struggle." >> Okay, let's talk about a slightly less overt form of control. Red flag eight, excessive control. This is micromanagement, right? Yeah. demanding constant updates, endless slack channels, buzzing 247, late night calls for things that aren't really urgent. >> Absolutely. It's anxiety manifesting as hyper management. The bank team is likely afraid of losing visibility, of things going off track without them knowing instantly. But the result is that the agency team's ability to focus, to do deep, creative, or strategic work just collapses. They end up spending more time documenting every little thing and responding to endless status pings than actually doing the high value work they were hired for. >> So the bank thinks control equals safety, but it actually creates noise and kills productivity. >> Precisely. It's counterproductive. The constructive approach is to define clear communication protocols and boundaries right at the start. Shift from the feeling of I need constant updates to feel secure towards building trust in the agreed upon process and reporting structure. The mindset should be clear structure, agreed check-ins, and ethical collaboration give us the reassurance we need without creating chaos. Define what urgent actually means and respect people's time. >> Right. Red flag nine. This one must cause a lot of friction. Shifting blame. This is when the bank holds the agency responsible for the bank's own internal issues like they missed an internal deadline for approvals or an executive changed their mind late in the game and then they somehow try to make it the agency's fault. Mhm. Using the agency as a scapegoat, the bank team involved is basically prioritizing their own internal self-preservation over the partnership. They're afraid of getting blamed internally for delays or misalignment. So, the external partner becomes the convenient fall guy. This obviously destroys the trust you need for any complex innovative work. >> So, let's say the bank did cause a two-e delay because their legal team sat on something. How does the green light client handle that moment without falling to the blame trap? >> They own it openly and transparently. They tell the agency immediately, "Hey, this delay was on our end. Legal got backed up. Let's figure out how this impacts the timeline and reset expectations together." The crucial shift is acknowledging shared responsibility. We both play a role in this project's success. Let's adjust together when things change. Accountability has to be mutual. >> Okay, final one. Red flag 10. Guilt induction. but this time leveraging status or size, demanding special treatment. You know, we're your biggest client, you need to prioritize us. Or maybe even offering exposure instead of actual payment for extra work. >> Ah, the exposure offer. Yes, this comes from a place of entitlement often baked into the culture of very large prestigious institutions. They genuinely believe their size or name justifies getting free work or jumping the queue ahead of other clients with existing agreements. agencies, particularly the good ones, see this as manipulative. It shows a fundamental lack of respect for their business, their other clients, and the agreements they have in place. >> So, if a bank does have a genuine, sudden market driven need for priority, something truly urgent came up, how should they ask for that responsibly? >> They need to lean on the relationship they've hopefully built through fairness and reliability up to that point. They should refer back to their service level agreements, SLAs's. Offer fair compensation for the disruption and the expedited work and ask, not demand. They earn priority through consistent good partnership. They shouldn't expect it just because of their logo. The key shift in thinking is we gain far more long-term by building trust through fairness and respect than by trying to leverage our status. >> Wow. Okay, that's all 10 patterns. And the thread running through almost all of them seems to be this constant tension, doesn't it? Between the bank's internal fears, fear of risk, fear of failure, fear of blame, and the external need for trust and collaboration to actually get innovative work done. >> That's exactly it. These destructive behaviors, these red flags, they're usually symptoms, not the root cause. They're institutional fear manifesting as bad habits. The bank isn't typically setting out to be difficult. They're often just acting out the pressures they feel internally. The solution really requires the bank to look inward to recognize these patterns when they happen and to consciously choose clarity, fairness, and partnership over defaulting to control or fear. >> And for you listening to this, whether you're at an agency or maybe you're that internal champion inside the bank trying to make these partnerships work better, the takeaway here is pretty significant. Banks that manage to show some constructive vulnerability, that genuinely invite collaboration, that trust the process and their partners, they don't just avoid ending up on that quiet blacklist. They actually become the clients that the best agencies want to work with. They fight to get on those projects. >> Absolutely. When you shift from being a client that needs to be managed to a partner who collaborates, you're getting so much more than just billable hours. you unlock the AY's discretionary effort, their proactive ideas, their unwavering commitment, stuff that money alone just can't buy. And maybe the most valuable outcome of building these green light partnerships isn't just avoiding the negative of the blacklist. It's gaining that positive edge. Getting the AY's absolute best a team passionately invested in your success. And in today's world, that's probably the only real competitive advantage for the future. You get their brilliance, not their burnout.