When did Agencies and Vendors become banks for their Clients?

Increased pressure from brands on their agencies and vendors to extend payment windows is greater than ever

Big brands such as General Mills and Chrysler have been throwing their weight around, putting their accounts into review of which payment window terms have reached a new low – or should we say high?

Last month, General Mills’ new creative agency review reportedly demanded a payment window of 120 days. And according to a post on Digiday, “Chrysler succeeded in pushing its payment window to 180 days last fall…And around the same time…a big brand started asking for payment terms of a full year, according to the 4As, which received complaints from creative and media agencies about the terms.”

While the client in that latter situation asked agencies to “work out a deal where on paper it looked as if the agencies had agreed to payment terms of one year,” we can only assume they’re having the agencies prebill far in advance and reconcile later.

At least that’s what we work out with clients and agencies we work with, whether we’re handling a search or modernizing their agency contracts that have to include such burdensome corporate-wide payment windows that go beyond a 30-day period.

The Digiday article further reveals that some marketers requiring these abnormally long payment periods assume that agencies should get financing to cover the widening payment to expense gap. Of course the client doesn’t want to pay the financing fees. And some even use third-party invoice processing systems that charge agencies for every invoice that is submitted – non-reimbursable of course.

Thought agencies were in the business of driving brand revenue through their communications expertise, not money-lenders to clients.

We wonder if client-side staff would be okay with being paid for their services rendered 120 days out.

Definitely not.

Is this what client’s really meant by wanting agencies to be their partners?

This is just another strain in the client-agency relationship.

Share

Old Voiceover Stereotypes In Marketing Still Prevail. Why?

Research shows that female voiceovers are more generally effective when targeting women

Each year marketers spend millions on carefully crafted creative for each media channel in hopes of emotionally connecting with consumers, yet stereotypes still prevail when it comes to talent. Many articles have been written about hiring more female directors through the Free the Bid campaign, but little attention has been given to talent selection – particularly voiceovers.

In our previous client-side jobs and even today as we advise clients, there is still a prevalent belief that male voiceover talent is more effective than female VO’s. And that’s simply not true.

Research then, and still today, shows that male and female voiceover talent are equally effective. However, there can be engagement differences depending upon the product and the core audience as revealed in an article published last November in Media Village.

Author Pierre Bouvard writes, “Marketers spend millions on establishing their brands and want to know what’s driving campaign return-on-investment (ROI).  That’s where third-party companies like Nielsen come in – to connect the dots with data. In an ROI study of 500 advertising campaigns, Nielsen looked at which elements contribute to sales on all major media platforms.  By a huge margin, creative was the strongest sales driver.  It was responsible for nearly 50% of all sales lift…Women in fact prefer female voiceovers in AM/FM radio ads.”

Mr. Bouvard’s article has great data points and graphs from Nielsen that reveal just how more effective female voiceovers can be when targeting women – so give it a read.

Share

U.S. Media Buying Probe May Ensnare Marketers

Ever since former Mediacom CEO, Jon Mandel, publicly alleged four years ago at a forum held by the Association of National Advertisers that media buying agencies were engaged in non-transparent behaviors in order to retain discounts and rebates that belonged to advertisers, investigations into such practices have not receded.

The U.S. Department of Justice investigation, which has been underway for nearly a year, just recently led to the subpoena of records from one major advertiser.

Until now, attention within the industry has focused on behaviors among media buying agencies, real or imagined, but today’s article in AdAge adds a cautionary warning to marketers:  some of you may want to lawyer up.

Why?

If investigators can prove any brand-side marketers approved of, encouraged or willfully ignored misconduct by their media agencies, they could be facing criminal charges. And someone on the agency side may strike a plea deal in exchange for implicating a client.

According to the ANA’s website, the purpose of its recently released whitepaper, Media Buying 2018 – Transparency at a Crossroads , co-developed with legal firm ReedSmith, is to “provide a historical perspective of the transparency issues and to outline the options that advertisers have to cooperate or not cooperate with the FBI.”

If you’re involved with media buying, either client or agency side, you may want to seek advice from your own counsel – both corporate and personal.

Bajkowski + Partners LLC is a leading consultancy providing services to marketing and procurement teams in the areas of agency relationship management, agency search, process audits, contract and SOW development and audits, and other marketing operations related areas. For more information, please visit our website.

Share

Apparently DOJ Not Finished With U.S. Media Buying Investigation

According to an article published by AdAge on March 25, 2019, the Department of Justice had impaneled a federal grand jury, enabling the U.S. Attorney to issue a subpoena to an unidentified “large marketer” for its media records.

This comes as a surprise given December 2018 reporting by both AdAge and Adweek that the DOJ had cleared five major holding companies.

The FBI’s investigation into U.S. media buying and transparency practices began last April as a result of a 2016 media transparency report, also known as the K2 Intelligence Report, released by the Association of National Advertisers.

The K2 report cited serious problems that went against media buying best practices and agency-client contracts.

This week’s AdAge article cites concerns among ANA member marketers over agency backlash and blacklisting should their participation in the K2 and DOJ investigations become public.

Apparently the DOJ has been working with a non-redacted version of the K2 report which contains the names of more than 40 sources that participated in the ANA-sponsored investigation.

 

Bajkowski + Partners LLC is a leading consultancy providing services to marketing and procurement teams including building in-house media planning and programmatic as well as in-house creative and production operations. For more information, please visit our website.

Share