I spent last Monday and Tuesday at the Interact08 conference in DC which, in short, brought folks together to talk about web-based marketing. I was surprised—considering the choice of host city—that none of the discussions or presentations touched on the federal sector. Looking at the speaker list, I probably should have known—big dogs of marketing, advertising, and web development with private sector clients that probably outspend the DoD pushing sneakers and hamburgers. But still, we were in DC, and there are plenty of federal government dollars supporting marketing campaigns no matter that they may be less glamorous.

On day one I was a little annoyed, feeling like none of the content was relevant to me and my federal clients. The examples and strategies were, as I first saw them, simply too cool to fly in the federal sector. Too cutting edge. Too risky. Too expensive. Too original. On and on. I debated returning on day two, but, hell, it was paid for.

I went into day two looking to maybe just meet some folks, but somewhere between coffee number 11 and the lunch I found purpose. Maybe it was better speakers (Brent Canfield from RTCRM was awesome!) or topics, but I ended up jazzed and inspired. Most of all, I came away wanting to do the stuff I was hearing about, but in my sphere, the government sphere. Possible?

First, what makes that level of work possible? What factors support the creation of best of the best marketing? After listening to the slew of speakers I’d say:

• Trust between the client and vendor
• The client’s willingness to accept risk, meaning an acceptance that original ideas may fly or not
• Time to dream, execute, measure and revise and
• Money to get it all done

So, if those four things are necessary to generate killer marketing, can it be done in the government sector? I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about how agencies, with non-government clients, work versus companies focused on federal government clients. The most glaring difference is the inherent competition injected into federal contracting. Certainly the system is designed to eliminate preferential treatment from buyer to seller, which is good if you imagine someone awarding a billion dollar airplane design contract based on who’s his favorite golf partner. But think of the drawbacks. Does the nature of government contracting allow for all four of those factors? Can you develop trust, take risks, and spend time brainstorming as partners when the bid,  proposal, and contracting process is drenched in oversight and mandated recompetes?  Or when RFPs must be so clearly defined that deliverable are pre-determined?

Keep in mind I’m not talking about multi-year billion dollar aircraft design and production contracts. I’m talking about marketing, recruiting, and public awareness campaigns that are often doled out based on specific deliverables as opposed to being based on mission or measurable results. Budgets reset each year. Contracts recomplete. Agency leadership turns over. That environment runs counter to long-term, successful marketing efforts. It seems to me that in order to sustain top notch marketing campaigns the sphere of each effort has to get bigger. Imagine an SES being able to plan out a three- to four-year strategy knowing that one partner will be along for the whole effort. Or even (bite my tongue!) that an SES could choose to work with a vendor with which s/he has a previous successful relationship. In such a scenario there could be all four factors: trust, acceptance of risk, time, and money. And with that come innovation and excellent work.