Quote:
Originally Posted by flere-imsaho
The better (maybe best) run businesses for which I've worked tended to have a good procurement & contracting process that ensured you got the best work at the best price with a minimum of favoritism. An outside firm who had performed good work before got a boost on the scoring, but that was above-board.
However, and to your point, this is very much the exception, not the rule.
I'm not sure it's all bad. As you point out, if people consistently do good work for you, you keep hiring them. I'm sure that's how most of us do it in our personal lives.
But campaign consulting? It's the last, biggest racket there is.
|
I don't disagree with you about it being a bit of a racket. Political consulting is, IMO, similar to my own line of work: part art, part science. Where it seems to differ is in the degree of volatility. You can duplicate every effort, hit every metric, essentially do everything "right" and still end up with vastly different results. The "universe" you're targeting with the message(s) can shift so much from one election cycle to the next these days that it's a perpetually moving target, a much higher rate of change than standard advertising faces.
edit to add: I hit return too quickly. The quality aspect is critical to making "playing favorites" a good idea. I've got people that I personally like that I wouldn't let near a project of mine for one reason or another. I've got people I can barely stand personally that I'll still hire. But in cases where you both know/trust the work AND you like them, well for a private entity that just seems like the easiest call ever.