Clement Vallandigham was defence counsel in a murder trial in 1871 in Lebanon, Ohio.
A fight had broken out in a bar when Thomas McGehan attacked Thomas Myers who was playing cards.
To defend himself Myers pulled his pistol out of his pocket.
As they struggled, Myers was shot with his own gun and died.
McGehan was arrested for murder.
It seemed an open and shut case.
McGehan had threatened Myers’ life before.
Several people saw McGehan walk into the bar and attack Myers.
A guilty verdict was a formality.
It was Vallandigham’s job to try to prove there was a reasonable doubt.
If he could do that, McGehan must be found not guilty.
So in his hotel room, Vallandigham plotted the defence.
What if the pistol had gone off as Myers pulled it out of his pocket?
What if Myers accidentally shot himself?
Even if he couldn’t prove Myers did it, all he needed to prove was that it was possible.
So in front of his two assistants, Vallandigham rehearsed what he planned to demonstrate in the courtroom.
He put the pistol in his pocket, then he quickly drew it out.
As he did, the hammer of the pistol caught on his coat and cocked itself.
But the pistol was loaded.
The pistol fired and the bullet went into Vallandigham’s groin.
And he died.
Several days later the story of his demonstration was admitted into evidence at the court.
Vallandigham’s death established reasonable doubt.
And Thomas McGehan was found not guilty.
Clement Vallandigham won the case, even though he was dead at the time.
Surely we all know that feeling.
Winning on one level but losing on a much bigger level.
Take pitches.
One of the clients says something stupid.
We have the soundest, most sensible argument, everything we say makes perfect sense, and we prove the client wrong.
So we win the argument.
But we lose the pitch because the client hates us for making him look stupid.
Which defeats the object much the same way as Vallandigham’s victory in court did.
It’s what’s known as a pyrrhic victory.
King Pyrrhus invaded Italy in 279 BC.
His army of twenty thousand men beat the Romans at the Battle of Asculum.
But Pyrrhus lost over seven thousand men, a third of his army.
Amongst those were his elite troops, plus his closest friends and advisors.
One of his commanders congratulated him on the victory.
Kind Pyrrhus said “Another such victory and I am undone.”
Meaning he actually lost what he couldn’t afford to lose.
So Pyrrhus was forced to retreat from Italy.
He was victorious in battle, but that victory cost him the war.
When he won, he lost.
Because it’s very hard to resist winning.
It’s very hard to bite your lip when you know you’re right.
But you have to ask yourself what the bigger purpose is.
As Mike Gold used to say to me: “The equation is always this – is what I get worth what it costs?”
This is the story of my life. I usually find myself in this position at work, one-a-many times, having argued with my seniors or my colleagues on something only to prove my point of view to be right, but at the same time failing in terms of support and future help given by them cause they would start thinking ‘I am a know it all’. Ugh.
Or, as I learned from Jean-Marie Dru when we failed to make a key acquisition in Brazil, “You can be right…or you can win.”
In the coincidental small world of things, Dru, was (my) boss at TBWA at that time, directly following the tenure of Mike Greenlees.
RR
It depends how much you want what you get compared to how much you are willing to pay. It also depends on your attitude. Does the man who pays £51 on eBay pay £51? Or does he just pay £1 more than the last person to win?
I just get blown* away with how you always have such a compelling story that paints a picture for where the parable is heading.
*pardon the pun
true for certain instances. but not for the most important social behaviors.
I am an Indian. I am seeing the current government cracking down hard on dissidents.
I see same thing with dissidents in China (and its colonies – kenya, malaysia, thailand etc, where on chinese demand taiwanese people or dissident get deported to China)
Your parable suggests that citizen should shut up and follow the power to ‘win’ – to remain alive and prosper. The dissidents/ revolutionaries are the right – but would lose. So should they dissent?
secondly, coming closer to advertising world. look at the example you gave. when corrected, client gets miffed, don’t give you business. I have experienced that of course. But it is exactly the same behavior that also has strengthened the relationship with the sensible clients. They trust us because we talk sense. These are the clients who don’t put their businesses on pitch often and don’t haggle over retainers. You want a client who listens to you.
It is this short term mentality that is causing agencies losing their pride of place – the frequent pitches, shrinking margins. these are all fallouts of agencies becoming aye-sayers.
this parable works for smaller battles, not the bigger wars of life/ identity/ or strategically big business choices.
I was going to develop a highly intelligent argument, that irrefutably proves that no one and yet everyone in this story was “right.” But, the more I consider perspective and context it appears I know nothing at all! Which is in itself, very interesting and needs further research… lol
Perhaps I’ll lean not on my own understanding, and as I stand to walk consider nothing at all! Sure is a beautiful day though. Wow.