There seems to be something in the wind. Maybe I’m over-analyzing this, maybe not.
Several of my clients have seen something along these lines over the last couple of years. They’ve had a relationship with a customer or client sometimes going back 50 years. Suddenly, they’re out. No warning. No hints. It’s not that they screwed up or that the customer or client doesn’t need the product or service or that the customer or client is suffering.
In one notable case my client was informed by their client that, after more than 50 years, their services would no longer be required and they’d been replaced. I continue to be (erroneously) on some distribution lists and the new service provider is apparently running into serious problems. Based on what I’m seeing I would be surprised if they, too, weren’t out in short order.
It may be a generational thing. Longstanding relationships and understandings disappear as people retire or die. I think there’s a difference in attitude. People are more radical these days. I don’t mean that in a political or ideological sense although those things may go hand in hand.
The difference between a radical and a moderate is that when a radical doesn’t know what a switch does he or she throws it to see what happens. When a moderate doesn’t know what a switch does, he or she figures out what it does before throwing it.
That may be part of the reason that our economy is so slow to recover. Not the fundamental reason but a contributing reason. People have been throwing a lot of switches without knowing what they’ll do.
The “we must do something now!!!” mentality. Don’t worry if it actually makes the situation worse.
I dunno, Dave. We (our firm) is probably loyal to a fault. We deal with almost all of the same third party vendors we did two decades ago. The major exception is Deloitte, who basicaly fired us after SarBox because we were too small.
Things change. One has to be cognizant of that. But at least in our business, when you have trusted confidants you’ve been through the wars with, you are very hesitant to move on to the next piece of candy smiling at you. Its very people-centric. And people and their traits matter more than anything else in these types of businesses.
I’d be shocked if your experience hasn’t been the same.
I haven’t run into a problem personally. But my clients have. Some of it I attribute to something I’ve complained about for years: they don’t work hard enough at keeping their relationships with their own clients and customers fresh. That’s something I do routinely and systematically. It’s part of being in business. So, for example, today I spoke either in person or on the phone with about a quarter of my active clients.
But I do think there’s a flurry of activity right now. Part of it is that I think that lots of people, particularly those working in large companies, are simply desperate to show how indispensable they are. As Steve V., above, noted, that can lead to change for change’s sake.
The major exception is Deloitte, who basicaly fired us after SarBox because we were too small.
That was called “de-selection” back when I worked for a consulting arm of MMC. Done for the same reasons Drew mentions, although smaller clients might be kept if they had some particular cache that might otherwise prove valuable.
Some of it I attribute to something I’ve complained about for years: they don’t work hard enough at keeping their relationships with their own clients and customers fresh.
It’s even worse than that: At many companies keeping the old clients is not “incentivized”; the big inicentives are for bringing in new business. Bring in new business and you’re a hero eligible for bonuses and promotions – keep the old clients happy and your bosses complain that you aren’t bringing in new business. Forget that the hero is loosing all his old clients due to neglect and crappy work, he’s got NEW CLIENTS. I never rose to the level that this was a concern for me, but I saw it all the time. It led me to the conclusion that the companies that worked this way were run by retarded monkies. Need I say that it seemed fairly common practice in the financial services sector? Perhaps it was just the people I was knew though.
[T]hat can lead to change for change’s sake.
That’s the same mindset that leads companies to crow about how much they’re “growing” when all they’re doing is buying other companies. Technically they’re growing, but all growth ain’t the same.
The cynical part of me*, though, says those are all smart plays for the people involved. Job performance isn’t important – making your bosses think you’re more important than you are IS important.
* The would be the part of me that’s older and wiser, actually.
Re: Deloitte
That is correct. sarBox created so much bigco work that they had to get rid of us, although the relationship was deteriorating fast. On the M&A side we had the same tax and structuring people as Forstman and KKR. Tremendous people and good company for a small group such as us. Unfortunately, on the audit side, our CFOs were complaining that they had to train the 12 yr old auditors foisted upon them.
SarBox was (and remains) a travesty. Unbelievable how much needless work that created, preventing people from doing other more useful work. And from what we saw in 2008 it didn’t accomplish any of its goals.
A true exercise in bi-partisanship that was, and a great example of why both parties are actually the worst possible choice at the ballot. (And another example of where that crazy sumbitch Ron Paul was correct – one of 3 NAY votes in the House.) Quote Bush at the time of SarBox passage: “The era of low standards and false profits is over, no boardroom in America is above or beyond the law.” Centrists and compromisers own that piece of shit, and they owe the rest of us an apology.
Like I said, “We must do something now!!!111!!!Eleven” mentality. The urge is strong to always look like you are dealing with a crisis…never mind that there are already laws there to deal with much of the problems that lead to SarBox. And in the end it makes the situation worse, not better.
This is what our ruling class does. These are the same people the country looks to for solutions to our current mess.
The urge is strong to always look like you are dealing with a crisis…never mind that there are already laws there to deal with much of the problems that lead to SarBox.
Yeah, and it even happens for one-off events. Remember all the calls for more gun control immediately after Columbine? Given that the shooters were already in violation of several laws, including some gun control laws, the problem wasn’t with the laws on the books. But that was the easy thing to do to appear to be “doing something” so that was the order of the day. The stuff with SarBox was similar, although at least in that case there was a trend. But the idiots-in-charge didn’t look at the important thing, which was how to better enforce laws already on the books to cover those situations. But if the enforcers can’t spot the fraud when someone esle point it out to them they have no chance of doing it on there own. (I’m referring to Bernie Madoff.)
This is what our ruling class does. These are the same people the country looks to for solutions to our current mess.
That’s why I say voting Democrat or Republican is the worst possible choice.
Well, worst possible choice other than voting for Trump.
I vote for having a scotch on election night, it really is the best candidate.