Agencies unable to respond fast enough, says Grab marketing boss as brands urged to ‘take risks’

Trust isn’t penalizing the agency when a campaign fails.
Trust is getting the agency to take a reduction on the upfront with the promise of an upside (even a multiplier) on the remainder upon hitting stretch targets.
When both parties have a shared interest in a common outcome, that’s taking a risk.
Threatening to cut an agency’s fee is simply transferring the risk to another.
When only one side wins regardless of the outcome, it’s called bullying.

Hi there,

That’s exactly what we did but the article and author felt a one sided approach to this article makes for more clicks and comments.

Hello Cheryl,

I’m the editor of Mumbrella Asia. We’re obviously very disappointed you feel we misrepresented you. Inevitably in a 45-min session, our journalists pick out the strongest angles for a news story, and your honest answers were very refreshing – many people commented to me afterwards what a great keynote it was. Your comments were obviously noteworthy, which is why they have stimulated such a debate (and why we published our story as such). However, to ensure the full context is there, we have added the reporter’s audio to the site (as you can see now) and will add the video once it comes available.

Best Wishes,
Eleanor

Hi Cheryl

Not using agencies based on speed shows a real lack of understanding of the landscape. Like you say, data is your biggest weapon so why not embrace the technologies that cut your speed to market and allow you to really exploit it to its full potential. Perhaps some sort of strategic advice from a robust agency partner is needed. But then again, you will need to pay for their time.

Maybe grab is the best place to take risks, because in any serious client side marketer role, office banter and knee jerk reactions to inform a big campaign probably wasn’t the start of the process.

Good luck – lets hope you aren’t looking for a new role anytime soon.

Isn’t a reduction upfront a show of distrust.
Not all clients would go ahead with a concept that are unconvinced of. So is it back to the drawing board or you stake something to it. As Cheryl said, the CD’s staking his reputation to the campaign’s success means nothing to her as a client – so he agreed to put his money where his mouth is. In this instance, it was a win-win.
And people, surely we can infer that what Cheryl meant was that her TAKEAWAY was to learn to trust her agency. Especially if they have a vested interest in it.

Crazy suggestion here Chez but stick with me, maybe if you don’t squeeze your vendors so hard then boast about it they could afford to put some people on your account so you could get your stuff quicker?

Not willing to pay for good work.

“a kind of low price for the work”

Attempts work and gets it horribly wrong with blunt headed cancer remarks and “so many mistakes”. Conflates that with ‘risk taking’.

“I have never made as many mistakes as when I worked with Grab. I have made so many mistakes….but that is just what happens. You take risks because if you win you’ll be happy, if you lose you’ll be wise.”

Here’s an idea: take time over an idea and pay the right people what they are worth to help you realise and execute. Or just hammer vendors and proclaim yourself as the Overlord of Marketing based on little to no evidence.

This is the best ad for every cab hailing service other than Grab.
You’re right, changing behaviour is the only metric that matters.

So…. you threatened to cut the agency’s fee by 15% and the campaign went on to be wildly successful. Congrats! But the article makes no mention of you topping up their fee by 15% for a job well done. Strange.

Asking a partner to put their money where their mouth is makes sense, but when it’s all risk and no reward, why would an agency want to work with you?

Not saying this applies to Grab, but I find that people who describe themselves as “hard negotiators” are usually just *****

Let’s hope she is not also in charge of PR, because she is really bad for the company image. Why would you publicly talk about how bad you treat your suppliers and that you take advantage of them. Let’s hope they don’t do the same to their drivers. Think I might take Uber home tonight!

yup, deleted the app just now. never really used it anyway….looking forward to hear what their PR got to say about this, well if there’s any PR agency would want to work under threat….

Says the marketing chief with the crappiest advertising going.

Never used Grab. On the strength of this little effort I never will.

Bad work is bad work. Stop making excuses for yourself.

Pay your agency based on the numbers of fares generated is a bit like if a client would pay a restaurant only if he likes the food. Or paying a grad driver only if you estimate that you estimate that he drives well…
I understand she doesn’t get the best of agencies if they make them day and nite, with a low fee, on a performance model. Performance model is linked to too many parameters for a single agency (messaging, channels, UX, brand loyalty…). For example getting download is easy, getting clients is another story.

Its as well false to evaluate a campaign only on data that are trackable. Many of the clients chooses the approach that can be directly tracked without exploring new innovative ways…
Pay per performance includes most of the time low innovation, shit media but results that can be tracked and planned…
Building rite advertising generate sales but as well loyalty. Looking at Grab one, am pretty sure when a new comer will arrive with discounted fares, everyone will shift and forget Grab as fast as they discovered it…

Creativity behind offers with the multiplication of competitors become even more important and difficult.

So can I get a 15% discount on my rides every time my driver is late, takes the wrong route or drives badly?

Hi everyone,

If you read anything that mumbrella writes probably know a lot of it is sensationalised and tabloid like. And here’s the full context because this article deliberately captured something without full context.

For the Thai ad example, my point was that sometimes you need to trust the agency if they feel strongly about something.

1) In the example I gave, I was not convinced on the story board so I asked the agency how convinced they were and the creative head said very very convinced. So we decided to do BOTH – a premium and a deduction based on the targets… and I did clearly say in my talk that we ended up paying them the bonus.
2) The context of “it was already low price” was that I knew this 15% wasn’t something they padded on just so they could negotiate with me. And so they really had skin in the game and firmly believed in the work they did for us. And we did use the same agency for our next video campaign because we felt they were very vested in us.

I also wanted to clarify that while we don’t use agencies for all the work we do because of speed, we still use them for longer lead time work like brand and product launches.

Hi Cheryl

As explained in our personal dialogue this morning, this was an accurate report of what was said in the room. However, it is great that you have engaged with the comment thread to add further clarity. Thank you for doing so, we appreciate it and I’m sure the readers will too.

Dean Carroll
Mumbrella Asia publisher

I guess this is another “mistake” made while at Grab. But that’s okay. I hope she isn’t in Bali.

Insult agencies, get called out: double-down, insult press
– this is exactly what happened!!!!!

I’ve been on the receiving end of mumbrella’s clickbait- & headline-driven editorials about 2-3 years ago. Totally understand where Cheryl is coming from in that aspect. I hope this episode serves as a warning for anybody else hoping to speak with them in the future trying to get a fair shake.

I don’t agree with lots of what Cheryl says in her talk, but tbf I think she’s owed an apology from Mumbrella here, which you guys seem unwilling to offer. You know well that something can be simultaneously accurate reporting and selective reporting, and this feels very much like the latter.

It’s very hard to believe the writer didn’t understand that they’d generate a lot of negative comments by omitting the part about the agency premium for a successful campaign.

You sound like a fishmonger, lady. With your tacky haggling style.

No wonder you have such terrible ads…I don’tt even know what your brand stands for….what an ugly name to begin with….symbolises all that is wrong with the mindset.

Grab….sale offer..grab now. Best price…grab. Hawker centre seat…chope…grab.

I’d rather stick to taxis. At least they don’t talk crap.

If anything, this further proves that you need the help of an agency that understand PR and marketing ethics. The train has passed.. you’ve made a bad rep for your brand by not reaching out to the author directly before slamming the media that interviewed you.. in a comment box.

I can’t believe she was so proud of claiming she’s so smart to demand agencies to be super fast, super cheap, and super effective in such major event and press. She is proud of making many mistakes and take risks as a client but don’t allow agencies to make mistakes to take the risk for better result when working with them?

no wonder you don’t work with agencies. Neither do they.

This what quick gets you

https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/grab-goes-blood-new-ad-indonesia-warning-disturbing-images/1409477

This is what quick, cheap and no agency gets you. This Grab ID ad is appalling it lacks class, taste and paints the company in a very negative light.

https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/grab-goes-blood-new-ad-indonesia-warning-disturbing-images/1409477

Start-ups like Grab have a great story but often in any fast growing and successful start-up that approaches or reaches Unicorn status the early stage employees who were so instrumental in helping the company achieve success eventually need to move aside as the company replaces them with more seasoned executives who can match the companies growth and ambition. It might be that time for Grab to bring in a CMO.

Actually this was done by an agency.

Yes, but with a pressure that they need to do it fast and cheap. That’s what you get for being cocky, Grab.

yup, done by a little (mostly) digital agency, own and run by bunch of Australians.

I wonder if you’ll be the second person that gets fired after a Mumbrella article that is “taken out of context” (≧∇≦)/

Dear Cheryl Goh,

GOOD & FAST = Expensive
GOOD & CHEAP = Slow
FAST & CHEAP = Low Quality
CHEAP & FAST & GOOD = Impossible

Ms. Cheryl – We would love to do your practice, can we threaten all GRAB drivers for a 15% fee cut before riding? for any issue that we will encounter during the ride.

threatening at any form is simply disgusting.

If (IF) you’re comments were taken out of context you need better prep, we all know how Mumbrella and PR works, so you need to really hammer 2/3 points max in a way that can’t be taken out of context.

Its like common sense doesn’t enter anyones heads when everything is moving so fast, we know they’re sensationalist so choose either choose another publication, or do your prep.

For media experts there seems to be no expertise when someone else spins it the other way.

Agree, but in Cheryl’s defence, she most likely thought she was in a safe space. After all, she was doing Mumbrella a favour appearing as a keynote speaker, adding some client-side gravitas to what was in general a very low-key event (and I am sure Mumbrella has a defence for the lack of interesting big-name speakers, so I am not trying to criticise the event too much).

I am sure the last thing Cheryly thought would happen would be for her presentation to be presented in such a manner (or, as she feels, have her comments taken out of context) by the very publication she was helping.

Won’t be too many local CMOs lining up for next year’s show

I think the comments here are a reflection of agency people being fed up with being treated like crap by people who simply do not have the chops to warrant that attitude. Goh’s comments worryingly represent the attitude and view of many senior marketers in SG who flounce around from panel to panel and conference to conference building their profile but who could not cut the mustard at an agency.

Don’t disagree with any of that. Have had plenty of experience of working with clients whose talent does not match their attitude.

However:
1. A lot of comments on here appear to have been written after the headline only. The revisions to the article present a more balanced view.
2. My point stands – Cheryl could (and indeed does) feel let down by the organisers of an event she was supporting.

The lesson here is that speakers should realise that Mumbrella is genuine when it says it is trying to do events differently – for good and bad. This kind of event article would never get published by the other trade press events in the region. They are much happier to take the dollars and pump out PR fluff.

The standard of marketing here in Singapore is so disgracefully low, these comments are just an average day for anyone who’s ever worked in the real world.

Hi Michael

So more than 100 speakers, over 25 international speakers and global CEOs from as far afield as New York is a low-key event in Singapore? Er, I don’t think so buddy.

If you are unable to get value from such speakers, I’d suggest it’s more a reflection on you than them. And the majority of the 1,000 people who came along to the event would probably disagree with you too, judging from the overwhelmingly positive feedback we received.

Dean Carroll
Mumbrella Asia publisher

In case you have our event confused with another Michael, here is the Mumbrella360 Asia program: https://www.mumbrella.asia/mumbrella360asia

Hi Dean

Don’t take it personal. It’s just an opinion. I wasn’t over-impressed by the line up, but then maybe I have event fatigue. I saw very little new or inspiring. That’s okay, because as you say others were inspired enough to attend.

For example, I work on PR and one of your keynote speakers was Lou Hoffman. I can see from your article that he spoke about storytelling. Again. No offence to Lou, but this is hardly at the cutting edge of PR in 2017 (although very much part of the Hoffman Agency pitch). Good, but not for me.

Is it a reflection on me? Sure. Isn’t that natural? I don’t claim to speak for anybody else. But look, there is always an audience for what your event was presenting, so good luck in the future.

Well Michael, you’re not likely to witness anything inspiring unless you are actually there in person to see the content.

Given that you are such an engaged member of the Mumbrella Asia community and that you comment on so many of our stories, perhaps you would enjoy our events too (after all, the same team creates the content for both the events and the website).

Don’t worry, I didn’t take it at all personally. I was simply stating the obvious. The program was stronger than anything else you’ll see in Singapore this year, it’s that simple.

Anyway, perhaps we will manage to tempt you along in 2018. Feel free to send me your no-doubt first-class ideas for the speakers we should go after. My email is dean@mumbrella.asia

Michael,

I agree with you.

I am disappointed to see a writer turn one of their guest’s interviews/talks into click bait.

Its also disheartening to see folks taking an opportunity to put the boot-in while hiding their identity – very brave.

When a client-side CMO stands up and shares their thoughts on stage, its an opportunity to hear whats important to them. Now, if you don’t agree with that person’s point of view, then that’s fine – but you shouldn’t attack them professionally.

Personally, I also believe that the agency model has to change to keep up with the demands that are on client side marketing leaders. I am a great believer in both the client and agency having skin in the game. If the terms that are being proposed by a client don’t work for your business model, then you can always say no to the job.

Let’s move away from the mud throwing, and focus on using these platforms as an opportunity to broker knowledge that adds to the higher body of wisdom that we can all benefit from.

Regards,

Nicholas

Well said Nick, it was such a great learning opportunity, made more impressive by the honesty and transparency around successes and failures, totally unfair to critique it based on this article.

Hi Cheryl (and Grab),

Please don’t feel discouraged with the nasty comments on the Mumbrella’s article. All of them are hiding behind a keyboard and going at it even after you clarified. Even though I wasn’t there personally in the session but I was at the conference, a lot of people who actually went for your session said yours was the most sincere, straight from the heart and they felt it was very refreshing and they were encouraged (and these include agency people!). Therefore, I take it that these nasty comments are coming from other frustrated agency people who might not even be there and are just going at it. Sounds like those Trump supporters to me, they just want an alternative and wouldn’t even budge even after having one of the best presidents US ever had and look where we are now, on the brink of World War III!

Once again, do not be discouraged.

Bringing Donald Trump into the argument is pretty much admitting you don’t have an argument

sad to hear this. Afraid such negative comments is discouraging others to share the truth and speak straight from their heart. Cheryl, please stay true to yourself else many will lose the chance to learn from your experience and from the real side of the world.

I heard the same thing too about your conference Cheryl. I believe that in your space, speed is key and if the last 5 years is any indicator, GRAB has grown tremendously successfully. In short, the results speak for itself. However, might I also suggest to also keep up the dialogue with agencies in the long run, with the purpose of having positive sharing and constructive feedback before one runs into “groupthink”. Lastly, respect the fact you actually came online and answered the naysayers personally.

Built on the back of huge VC investment and no profit. Growth based on funding not ground breaking marketing. Conflation.

Was hoping for better but this type of attitude is typical of an ex-Tan Chong Motor’s (Nissan Malaysia) person. They were trained to hammer the agencies down. Never loyal to their agencies and actually not really actually very good in marketing.

As someone who was actually in Ms Goh’s session, and also as someone working at a creative agency, which involves constantly navigating the balance between fair renumeration and measurable effectiveness of work, I don’t think this article fairly represents Ms Goh’s point.

She emphasised that the agency was rewarded for their success and that it was a clear example of the benefits of trusting and working closely with an agency as a partner.

In terms of the rapid cycle nature of Grab’s communication needs, again as someone in the actual room who heard her speak, I understood her point about the evolution of agency models and what is needed to keep up in a rapid-response retail business like Grab…it was not meant as a dismissive comment about creative agencies, merely as an observation.

I very much enjoyed Ms Goh’s presentation as did everyone sitting at my table and everyone else I know who heard it. It is a shame that this article may capture some of the soundbites but very little of the spirit of her presentation and will no doubt cause concern to potential future speakers at Mumbrella events.

Well said Jessica, I totally agree!

Everyone, lets be fair here and look at this objectively.

The agency has the right to reject. And it’s a mutual agreement. Unfortunately for the high-performing agencies, too many agencies out there are not delivering and startups/companies are the ones who need to bear the loss. If this is the first time you work with the agency, I think it’s fair to have a service agreement that the agency should bear some responsibilities if the investment are not well-spent because of their proposal and work delivered (because the reason why we hired agency is for their expertise, better than us, so often we trust who we hire).

Maybe a better way for Grab to manage this is – instead of suggesting to lose 15% from its fee,

1. The last milestone from the contract shall not be paid for where the milestone is based on agreed deliverables,
2. Contract price is at 15% lower to start off with, and the agency will receive 30% bonus if the target is met. Great motivation! (Because either way, the agency won’t be paid based on its actual contract price anyway)

New agencies (and even agencies who have failed previously but maybe they have hired better people now) should be given equal chance to bid for a project, if they qualify.

There are many agencies who claimed to be good, charges high but do not deliver results. Too many out there and I personally has bad experience with a few. One of which is so bad that my click rate dropped by half consecutively 1 month after she takes over! Increases back immediately right after I hired an in-house 2-3 years experience marketing staff.

But I’ve came across good ones too, generating good results and we would recommend to others.

Same thing actually goes to employees. Most companies have experience hiring under-performing employees (and agencies), and worse if they bring negative impact to their co-workers!

So it’s never whether to work with agencies or having the in-house team managing it.

It’s usually about how and who you choose to work with you, be it as part of your in-house team or the agency.

It’s the same across all industries. I believe that’s what Cheryl is sharing here. Sharing her experience of choosing and managing agencies. So both agencies and the clients would benefit from setting the right expectation and thus having a good working relationship.

Hi Cheryl, I also heard good feedback on your session this morning. I believe that in your space it is important to move fast and even more so to fail fast. If the last 5 years is any indicator, Grab has grown tremendously and I must say it is simply not by luck. You definitely have done something right. However, with that being said, for the long run and in the future, it would be good to engage further discussions with agencies on positive sharing and constructive feedback to avoid the “groupthink” effect. Lastly, I respect the fact that you had the courage to personally come online and respond to all the naysayers. Have a good rest over the weekend and dont let the above cloud your thoughts.

As someone who attended the conference I’m disgusted at how Mumbrella is cherry picking certain sentences to misrepresent what Cheryl said as a whole.

I felt it was one of the better presentations at the event and this article greatly misses the mark.

What’s even worse, is changing the article without stating that amendments have been made or even bother to include Cheryl’s clarification in the article itself.

Yes Mumbrella and Eleanor, take a cue from the news publishers and be transparent to your readers on post-pub edits.

Sure, no problem. We changed the words in the first sentence from “steers clear of” to “often avoids” and added the following sentence: “In the end, the target was reached and the agency was actually paid a premium for having skin in the game.” These clarifications (rather than corrections) were made following a request made to us.

Dean Carroll
Mumbrella Asia publisher

What you have said in the article vs. in your comments are so contradicting, some great examples:
1. In your comment stated, If you read anything that mumbrella writes probably know a lot of it is sensationalised and tabloid like. And here’s the full context because this article deliberately captured something without full context.
You then received a reply from Mumrella editor who said “As explained in our personal dialogue this morning, this was an accurate report of what was said in the room”.
You should have dignity to things that you said and not trying to turn it the other way round.

2. For the Thai ad example, my point was that sometimes you need to trust the agency if they feel strongly about something.

1) In the example I gave, I was not convinced on the story board so I asked the agency how convinced they were and the creative head said very very convinced. So we decided to do BOTH – a premium and a deduction based on the targets… and I did clearly say in my talk that we ended up paying them the bonus.
Hello… you clearly do not have the trust with the agency you have hired! If you do, there shouldn’t even be a alignment on premium fee or cut of fee. Seriously, you should not ever partner any agency if there is no trust… and this is a disgrace to all marketeers, just because you are cheap and do not know how to work with agencies.

Trashy Mumbrella reporting aside, I think the majority of these snarky comments directed at Ms Goh’s marketing and leadership talent are really uncalled for – especially when posted as ‘anonymous’. The reality is Grab has seen phenomenonal growth, fails fast, adapts to market demand and has reinvented our customer expectations around ride sharing and delivieries.
According to yesterday’s insightful presentation, marketing makes up 10% of their workforce and drives both customer growth and product creation – this investment in an agile, data driven approach is exactly what modern marketing and customer experience should look like and should be applauded.
I’ve said it elsewhere and repeat here – thanks for the inspiration, if only we got to work with smart marketers like you every day!
Bravo Cheryl Goh, stay strong and keep believing in yourself.

I was there at the session too Wendy. This is a fair and accurate report of what was said. All the quotes used by the journalist – one of our best and most experienced reporters – were actually said by Cheryl.

There is not a single inaccuracy in the article. And we have now embedded the reporter’s audio recording of the whole session so that you can judge for yourself.

Cheryl’s words were brave and bold, and deserved wider publication, hence our story. We can’t include every single word she said in a news story as the session was 45 minutes long plus we need to focus on the angle that is most relevant for our readership.

This issue of agency agility and fees is, indeed, an important one and should be debated so let’s do that rather than throwing around unfounded allegations of bad journalism. Cheryl’s session really was excellent and there are a number of great themes within it, including the one we focused on in our story.

Please have a listen to the audio yourself again. Our aim is to be a critical friend to the industry with the emphasis on friend, but that doesn’t mean we let people control our content or shirk away from the most contentious issues.

Dean Carroll
Mumbrella Asia publisher

Ignore Wendy.

Don’t feed the trolls mate.

Huge damage to all parties. No one is a winner here so stop defending any side.

Damn I feel sorry for this lady. I know she will think about this for a long time. But honestly, she owes the unnamed agency an apology. What she did was wrong.

Mumbrella is not after clicks or noise. Cmon. You think they are dumb to do this intentionally just to get noticed? Cmon. Looking at that event with top sponsors which most likely spent 30k each, they might prolly have earned at least 300k-400k just from sponsors (im bad at math, just an estimate). Of course they wont do an article just for click or noise if they are aware that their sponsors might be affected next year. Think about that.

It was written without any malice or whatever bad intentions. Too bad Ms. Goh got embarrassed on it.

Cheryl,

While we have never worked directly together, you and I both work with some the same agencies and I know that these people have nothing but utmost respect for you – your clarity, your honesty and your unwavering good judgement of what’s fair. Any agency that takes a “skin in the game” challenge from a client is one with strength of conviction and should be applauded, and I’m quite certain they’re grateful that you gave them that challenge. Not every client would.

The people who were actually there appreciated your candour too, and many of them have said so here already.

Remember that real people count for a helluva lot more than commenters who sign off as “anonymous”. Trust that you’ve done right by lots of good people, and that these trolls hiding in anonymity don’t quite matter one iota in the end.

LOL

Thats the problem of our society today. Wrong practices that are “accepted as normal” as long as one side benefits. Victims do not bother to complain since they need to survive.

Unless someone stands up and complain, these wrong practices would remain a norm in our society.

Did you ask for 15% discount from the dive center when you can’t encounter the fish that you’re supposed to see? Start treating agencies with respect and pay the professional price that you are supposed to pay. Stop being proud of the term hard negotiator, that’s a beautified term for it

Their marketing is a huge mess. They have used and abused agencies along with other freelancers. That would have maybe been fine if they had amazing marketing campaigns. The only thing they have going for them are Sales, but that pretty much markets itself.

I’m with Cheryl.

We’ve all been in business situations where a 15% penalty for underperformance would better be presented as a 20% bonus for exceeding expectations, but we missed the chance – we move on.

It’s public speaking, it’s frisky. We have the power of intonation and the risk of misinterpretation. We attract criticism.

I don’t think Cheryl should try and walk it back – she should stick to her guns.

Grab has been successful by challenging norms and embracing controversy, and this is an example in kind.

The fact that she has attracted criticism is not a bad thing, but clearly she will draw attention from people that disagree with her. Well, who knew that?

I fully expect Grab to support her, and I would be disappointed if they did not.

From a Mumbrella perspective, they gave Cheryl a great forum, they didn’t tell her what to say.

Likewise a good journo looks for an insight, and they chose this one. There was no particular distortion. The quotes were accurate, the recording confirmed it.

We often criticise SPH and MediaCorp for ‘towing the company line’, but when a journo takes an angle then we criticise them.

So which way do you want it? A free press, or one that satisfies the convictions of the audience?

The comments make it clear that when someone speaks for 45 minutes the out-takes depend upon your perspective. Some supported the reportage, some challenged… but the facts were always in evidence.

It prompted a good debate; for good journalism, that’s job done surely?

Looking forward to a brilliant Mumbrella360 next year! 🙂

Best summation of the situation. Thumbs up.

debate only exists if both sides have a valid point. this hard negotiator has no point and has no right to treat agencies the way she does.

brb – my UBER cab is already arriving.

Come on Cheryl. Seriously does fast execution means good work. [Edited under Mumbrella’s community standards] Glad that your spontaneous and fast interview has gotten you in this rut. Think through and think from both side. Clicks does not mean good for brand persona.

Grab a new CMO.

[Edited under Mumbrella’s community standards]
If it’s my responsibility then kindly allow me the courtesy of presenting work when Im happy and convinced that it stands a good chance of working.

L O L

Yet Grabs internal team of slowtards can’t even reply to customers within a week. They have an internal complaints channel, but it takes up to six weeks to get a copy / paste reply from a junior who clearly has limited capacity to deal with real customers. [Edited under Mumbrella’s community standards] As I see it, the Grab experience is declining anyway – a lot more let downs for customers. Address your own service provision issues before lambasting others. You’re not all that sh1t hot yourself Grab!

this article has 71 comments…exceeding the mohawk on here…he won’t be pleased.

hard negotiator. paying less. 15% cut condition. agency can’t deliver in 24 hours. This is grab marketing team. kudos!

made me realise that their marketing team was no good at all. you may never get the best agency service if you are paying less.

is Cheryl the face of their growth? let us re-think. MyTeksi was able to address a transport problem years ago and once people learned it, the product sells and market itself. the key people were their founders.

imagine if they have a better marketing team. maybe uber is already out of business in asia.

https://www.techinasia.com/talk/cheryl-goh-grab-ama

“I wasn’t a marketeer until I met Anthony Tan (CEO & Founder of Grab)”

Well, now we know why. She is still learning as of this writing. Long way to go before she understands the value of agency partnership.

sadly many of industry leaders have minimum or close to zero knowledge in marketing especially on those start up companies. But due to the fact client is “paying” they will act like a marcom guru. I personally came from both agencies and clients sides. My goal is always trying to strike a balance in between. However one thing I have to agree with Cheryl is, timeline is always an issues. Something needs to change here

Cheryl Goh and Grab are exactly the type of [Edited under Mumbrella’s community guidelines] client that no agency in 2019 should want to [Edited under Mumbrella’s community guidelines]. Let them build their own in-house agency to only have their [Edited under Mumbrella’s community guidelines] team leave every 6 months to a year. There’s a line between being a ‘hard negotiator’ and an aggressive client who wants to win big by playing cheap. People like Goh don’t want agencies, they want [Edited under Mumbrella’s community guidelines].