Advertisers: Did You Get What You Paid For?

2 May

Role QuestionPlans are approved, purchase orders are issued by the advertiser to their agencies who then invoice the advertiser on an estimated basis for the approved activity. Reconciling invoices are then submitted by the agency once jobs and campaigns are closed out are submitted. However, these invoices come sans any third-party vendor invoice detail.

So, how is it an advertiser can state with confidence that it received what it paid for?

The simple fact is that unless an advertiser conducts financial audits of its agency partners or it pays on a final billing basis (which is rare), they don’t know if value commensurate to its payments was received.

Think about that. Advertising spend is a material expense and there is little, or no billing support documentation provided by agencies to their clients to substantiate that expense. Given this approach it is fair to ask; “How comfortable should agency CFOs be that their organizations got what they paid for?” Typically, the only window into an advertiser’s approved expenses is agency invoice totals relative to approved purchase orders… not reconciled final billing support from agency affiliates and third-party vendors to the agency.

Along the way, marketing may receive agency reporting in the form of time-of-staff tracking and fee burn reports or job status summaries, but these are best used to generally track spend levels, not to verify purchases. The only way to vouch for the accuracy of an agency’s billing to a client is to conduct a financial management audit.

Unfortunately, the time lag between an agency’s initial billing to a client and final reconciled billing, where estimates are trued up to reflect actual costs can be several months – or sometimes not at all. That is a long time for an advertiser not to have a direct line of sight into the disposition of their funds.

This is the reason that Client/ Agency agreements contain guidelines governing agency financial reporting, time tracking, job and campaign reconciliation and acceptable billing practices (e.g., cost to be billed on a pass-through basis, net of any mark-up). As importantly, it is also why all such agreements contain record retention and audit rights clauses that provide advertisers with the ability to conduct contract compliance and financial management audits.

Based on experience, client-side CFOs should not place a blind level of trust in agency partner billings and financial reporting. Verifying actual costs and time-keeping relative to estimate, and independently vouching agency support is a sound practice – yielding solid learning that forms the basis of process improvements, enhance reporting, and improved controls. This in addition to financial true ups in the form of historical recoveries that more than cover the cost of the audits themselves.

As the saying goes: “In God we trust, all others we audit.”

Are You Paying Competitive Rates for Agency Studio Services?

5 Apr

Low RatesFlexibility, responsiveness, and competitive rates were once the hallmarks of ad agency studio services.

Over the last several years many agencies have expanded their resource offering as the demand for content development, repurposing and sizing has increased in the multi-billion-dollar production sector. Today, agency capabilities include traditional studio services, broadcast production, video, and digital editing. No one can argue the convenience of being able to tap an agency partner to assist in this important area.

The question for advertisers is “How do the rates being charged by agencies truly compare to the market?”

In our experience conducting agency contract compliance audits, advertisers that do not employ the services of a production consultant likely cannot answer this important question. The reason for this assertion is twofold. First, most agencies do not competitively bid these services on a regular basis. Secondly, the agency is typically the one overseeing the bidding process, which could potentially skew the objectivity of the process. Further, most advertisers have not taken the step of centralizing production services with one agency partner. Accessing studio services through multiple agency partners makes it difficult to truly optimize efficiencies and limits their ability to monitor agency adherence to bid protocols… assuming such guidelines have been developed and communicated.

The best place to start is for advertisers to review their client-agency agreements to make sure that certain safeguards have been incorporated. Below are some examples:

  • Requirement for the agency to competitively bid production services at pre-determined intervals (i.e., quarterly, annually, job by job).
  • Language requiring prior, written client approval for waiving any competitive bidding requirement.
  • Incorporating studio “rate sheets” containing hourly bill rates by position and or piece rates for certain outputs (e.g., color proofs) into the agreement and or annual statements of work.
  • Listing of each agency department and or related entities providing studio services.
  • Language requiring agency to secure written client pre-approval for cost over runs.
  • Requirement for the agency to separate studio fees and hard costs on both estimates and invoices.
  • Staffing plans, with estimated hours by position/ person should be required for all projects over a pre-determined spend level (e.g., $25,000).
  • Establish bid protocols and append them to the agreement and annual statements of work.
  • To avoid any doubt, require the studio to maintain support for billings accessible for review (timekeeping and actual output records) to substantiate costs/ activity.

As with any agency service, advertisers would benefit from conducting periodic compliance and financial reviews to ensure that bid guidelines and resource commitments are being followed and applied. These precautions will allow advertisers full transparency into the costs of their agency partners studio offerings.

Building a Foundation for Trust in Client/ Agency Relationships

27 Feb

dreamstime_s_38659968Perhaps I was fortunate. Perhaps it was a sign of the times. When I began my career at J. Walter Thompson, we took great pride as an organization in the number of client relationships that we had, which were measured in decades. Clients such as Ford Motor Company, Unilever, Kellogg’s, Kimberly-Clark, Kraft Foods, and others were celebrated, revered, and nurtured.

Not unlike today, there were challenges to be faced and pressures to be dealt with, whether market-driven or internal.  So, what allowed those relationships to flourish through good times and bad?

The answer was simple. Trust and a mutual commitment to the partnership combined with alignment on business objectives.

Today it is believed that the average length of client-agency relationships is around 3½ years. Is this reduction in longevity correlated with the fact that there has been a slow, but steady erosion in the level of trust between advertisers and their agencies? Consider that a couple of years back, the Association of National Advertisers (ANA) conducted a survey and found that only 29% of its member marketers ranked the “current level of trust between client-side marketers and ad agencies as high.”

A waning level of trust can inhibit communication between stakeholders leading to difficulties that throttle the productivity of the partnership. Conversely, as Stephen Covey once said:

When the trust account is high, communication is easy, instant, and effective.”

Thus, if you believe that stable, long-term strategic partnerships are more conducive to achieving an organization’s business and marketing objectives, then the obvious question is “How can we establish client-agency relationships that endure the test of time?” The answer seems obvious… addressing the issue of trust.

In our experience, there are three fundamental steps that can be taken to build and maintain trust between advertisers and their agency partners.

  1. Contractual agreement predicated on a “Principal-Agent” model – Simply put, in this type of relationship the agency is charged with acting on the client’s behalf and in their best interest. This legally binds the agency to always put the client’s interests first and eliminates their ability to benefit from the relationship at the client’s expense. One of the beneficial outcomes of this type of model is that the client can take solace in knowing that the advice and recommendations of the “Agent” is more likely to be unbiased. In the event that an agency recommends the consideration of principal-based or inventory media buys or the use of or procurement of services/products from a related party of the agency, then the agreement language should require full-disclosure and prior written client approval.
  2. Periodic agency contract compliance and financial management reviews – Having a sound contract in place is a positive step in the right direction. However, if an agency’s compliance with contract terms and conditions is uncertain then achieving the desired level of trust may be elusive. Given industry concerns regarding transparency, all stakeholders will benefit from an independent evaluation of compliance and performance. Further, knowing that there will be an additional layer of oversight inspires stakeholders on both sides of the partnership to uphold the client organization’s desired levels of governance and transparency established within the agreement. This is not a sign of mistrust, but a signal of an advertiser’s commitment to the principle of “assurance.” As the saying goes: “In God we trust, all others we audit.”
  3. Establishing a fair and compelling agency remuneration program – Properly compensating agency partners is fundamental to securing the requisite level of support and bolstering an agency’s commitment to its fiduciary role. Additionally, a well-paid agency is less likely to engage in practices such as the pursuit of vendor kickbacks, the application of non-transparent mark-ups, profiting from the use of client funds, or the unauthorized use of sub-contractors and related parties. Contractual language capping agency revenue to that which is authorized within the agreement and subsequent statements of work will also protect the advertiser from these tactics and help curtail agency temptation to inappropriately supplement its income at the expense of its fiduciary obligations to its clients.

We have seen firsthand the benefits of this proven formula in promoting transparency and bolstering an organization’s trust in its agency partners. Thus, marketers and their agency counterparts should consider embracing this approach to strengthen and reinforce long-term agency-client relationships by ensuring a solid footing.

How is Your Media Agency Making Money in 2022?

17 Feb

agency holding company profitsWritten by Oli Orchard, Partner – Fuel Media & Marketinga specialist communications consulting company focused on advising clients in media communications. 

With Publicis and OMG in the news this week (February 2022) with significant revenue increases year-over-year, now would seem a pertinent time to look ‘under the hood’ of the different revenue streams agencies have available to them.

Using the traditional commission method, still prevalent today, it is often thought that a media agency has a disincentive to save clients’ money or indeed manage lower budgets.

Because most media agencies are compensated on a percentage of media spend, if they negotiate the prices down, and potentially reduce total spend, they will earn less money.

In practice, the traditional ATL percentages involved stop this being much of a disincentive.

  • A buy of $10,000 at 3% commission provides the agency with just $300 income.
  • If the agency negotiates 25% discount on the media, the agency will only lose $75.

Obviously, the agencies are doing this at scale, and those $75 discounts start to add up, as a result the agencies have long looked elsewhere to bolster their incomes. So, in 2022, what other revenue streams are open to the agencies?

Agency income takes many forms, and too many to go through here, so we’ll stick to the top ten.

  1. Fees & Commissions – Whether Time and Materials based, or a percentage commission on media spend these should need no introduction to advertisers. At Fuel we hold data on innumerable best practice contracts, and always work with clients and agencies to come to the most appropriate basic remuneration package
  2. Bonus/Malus schemes – These programmes have become synonymous with best-in-class-advertisers, looking to reward their agency beyond the basic remuneration for exemplary work. The Malus scheme has gained more traction in recent years, as agencies look to differentiate themselves from the competition by having some ‘skin-in-the-game’, often putting part of their profit margin at risk
  3. Incremental services outside of Scope of Work – These are often the result of out-of-date contracts, and can commonly comprise things an advertiser might expect to be included in the contract, such as Quarterly Business Reviews, competitive monitoring, dashboards, post-campaign reporting and even out-of-home planning
  4. Deposit Interest on bank accounts – Historically agencies have taken advantage of bank interest rates and been fast to invoice and slow to pay. With rates on the increase again, albeit slowly, advertisers will need to become increasingly aware of this. Agencies deal in vast sums of money, and this revenue stream should not be overlooked
  5. Kickbacks from vendors – AVBs, rebates, Specialist Agency Commissions, the list goes on; kickbacks have many names, and they don’t always take the form of cash. Free Space that can be given to advertisers to bring the CPM down to hit bonus targets, or alternatively sold on to other clients is another common form these shapeshifting kickbacks can take. It is also imperative that the contract encompasses as much of the agency holding group as possible, often kickbacks can be routed through other parts of the group
  6. Unbilled media – It is not uncommon for a media vendor to forget, unintentionally or intentionally, to bill an agency for a media placement that the agency has already billed the client for. The agency should be reporting and returning unbilled media on a regular basis, though clients should be aware of the fiscal statute of limitations, meaning the vendor could invoice the agency within a specified period of time (it is currently 6 years in the UK) and demand payment, which will then be passed on to the client
  7. Agencies acting as the principal (rather than agent) – This is commonly known as inventory media, the agency takes a position on, or buys, a quantity of media directly from a vendor, with no specific client lined up for it. There will be NDAs in place with the vendor preventing the agency from disclosing the actual price paid to clients or auditors. This allows them to mark-up prices, generally by a very significant percentage when selling this space on to clients. The flip side of this is that an advertiser can get a great rate on something they may have bought anyway, though they may also be pushed into a buy that is sub-optimal for their strategy just to meet the agency’s internal need to offload inventory
  8. Subcontracting to related 3rd Parties – Agency holding groups are vast and have many complimentary disciplines. It is not uncommon for a specific task to be subcontracted (attracting an additional fee) within the holding group
  9. OOH commissions – It is worth listing these separately to those above because OOH often has a unique commission structure where both the advertiser and vendor routinely pay the poster buying specialist for placing the media. This is frequently dealt with in agency contracts as an additional ‘Disclosed Commission’ tucked away in a schedule at the back of the document as Specialist Agency Commission
  10. DSP usage – Programmatic has long been the poster child of non-disclosed fee structures further down the digital value chain but there is one significant agency revenue stream that crops up near the top of the chain in non-disclosed White Label mark-ups. The DSPs allow their clients (in this case the agency, not the advertiser) to add an additional CPM into the net media cost, meaning that it doesn’t show up in any of the auditable invoicing trails, and is passed back to the agency
  11. As you can see from above, agencies constantly evolve income streams, seeking out new ways to profit, and let’s not get the intent of this piece wrong, agencies should be able to profit from their great work for clients. However, many advertiser clients are becoming cash cows, based on the agencies’ opaque trading practices.

At Fuel, we work with the agency and advertiser to produce the optimum contract for the situation, one where transparency around agency income is openly discussed, and the advertiser can make an informed, supported decision about the relationships they forge with their agency partners.

Here’s our checklist for advertisers:

  • Check that your contract is up to date – does it cover the entire scope of business transacted between you and your agency? The very best contracts are reviewed and revised annually to take landscape shifts and revised media strategies into account
  • Make sure that your agency is obliged to ‘call out’ and seek approval for inventory media and use of subsidiaries/sister companies
  • Have a frank discussion with your agency about the non-disclosed White Label mark-up that the DSPs allow them to add into the platform costs, and consider requesting to be part of the conversation around DSP selection
  • Undertake regular audits of performance vs. pitch or year-over-year guarantees, and tie the buying results to a bonus/malus scheme in tandem with service scores and achievement of business objective KPIs 

To find out more on how Fuel can help, contact Oli on +44(0) 7534 129 097 or email oli@fuelmediamarketing.com.

Time & Material: The Best Mode of Agency Remuneration?

30 Jan

punch clockWhat is the best method for compensating advertising agency partners?

This has been a spirited topic of conversation ever since the “old standard” of a 15% commission went by the wayside. To this day, there is no standard in the industry and no consensus on either the mode of compensation or the amount.

Should we utilize a commission model? Straight commission or a variable rate? A hybrid of a fee + commission? Fixed retainer fees? Project-based pricing? Performance-based pricing? Or time and material? Ask a dozen industry professionals from either the client and or agency side and you will likely get 12 different answers.

According to the last ANA’s last triennial study on agency compensation, advertisers still rely primarily on labor-based fees while continuing their search for a means to simplify agency compensation practices. Getting to a compelling and efficient remuneration model that fairly compensates one’s agency partners, while challenging, remains the goal of most advertisers.

With the rise in project-based work versus traditional retainer relationships and the dramatic expansion technology enabled support, including programmatic media buying, we believe that the most effective means of compensating advertising agencies is time-and-material. Direct labor-based fees (direct labor costs + overhead + profit) tied to hourly bill rates by function and estimated utilization levels laid out in a staffing plan should form the basis of this approach. All third-party cost (including technology and data fees) would be billed on a pass-through basis, net of any mark-up. For those advertisers and agencies that desire, overlaying a performance bonus tied in part to agency performance and the advertiser’s attainment of business objectives provides a nice incentive to align both partners’ interests. Bill rates would then be reviewed annually.

The key to protecting both parties’ interests in this model is linking scopes of work to agency staffing models and reporting on agency time-of-staff investment monthly to avoid any surprises. Advertisers seeking to avoid “surprises” when it comes to their agency fee investment can cap hours and fees requiring their agency partners to notify them when that bank of hours is at risk of being depleted and securing the client’s permission to bill additional hours if necessary. This also protects the agency from scope creep, which often occurs over the course of a project and or work year. In turn, minimum fee thresholds can be established that allow the agency to lock-in key personnel, providing their clients with the requisite level of coverage.

Historically, the challenge related to value-based or fixed retainer fee compensation models has been the inability to accurately track time on task to better align agency staff utilization with client scopes of work. Add in the complexities related to rapid response turnarounds and the need to develop multiple creative units to support an advertiser’s digital media placements and these models have become even more difficult to administer.

Long a standard in the professional fee-for-services area, time and material-based compensation models are easier to implement and clear to all stakeholders. Properly structured, they serve the interests of both advertisers and agencies more effectively than output or performance-based models, lowering variability and minimizing risks tied to changes in scope or marketplace occurrences. In the words of Edsger Dijkstra, the 20th century Dutch scientist: “Simplicity is a prerequisite for reliability.”

The Best Way to Involve Agency Related Entities on Client Business

28 Jan

dreamstime_s_137202250Four of the world’s largest agency holding companies account for over $47 billion of advertising spending. Each has dozens of agency brands, specialty service firms and media procurement, marketplace and or platform providers.

Part of the success of the agency holding companies in fueling organic revenue growth in recent years has been their ability to involve these specialists on their branded agencies client businesses.

The use of affiliates is certainly advantageous for the holding companies and can be beneficial for clients seeking to have a coordinated, comprehensive marketing communications program administered by a lead agency.

While there may be efficiencies that accrue to advertisers, unchecked there is an equal likelihood that they may be paying a premium for the use of agency related parties. Why? Because affiliate goods and services are often proffered without client knowledge or consent and may not have been competitively bid to determine value relative to marketplace alternatives. Further, affiliate remuneration is often blind to advertisers and can take the form of non-transparent, unauthorized mark-ups applied in addition to the fees and commissions paid to the lead agency.

Many client/ agency agreements have specific guidelines for agencies seeking to involve related parties (whether the guidelines are followed), others don’t even address this important area.

The best approach for agencies seeking to engage affiliate companies is “full disclosure.” This means notifying the advertiser in writing of the opportunity to deploy theses resources on their business, specifying the nature, scope and cost of the work or product to be accessed and being clear on how the affiliate(s) is to be compensated.

Unfortunately, in actual practice, advertisers often have no visibility into the involvement of agency related parties on their business. This is not an approach that we would advocate because it can fly in the face of an agency’s fiduciary responsibility to its clients. Further, when advertisers learn of some of these arrangements it can lead to an erosion of trust and or confidence in the agency’s intentions and their responsibility to provide unbiased advice that is in the best interest of its clients. As it has been said: “a single lie discovered is enough to create doubt in every truth expressed” and no agency should want to raise the specter of doubt with any client.

Sound contract language regarding the agency “supplier group,” the process for involving related parties, their obligations under the agreement and the attendant level of compensation can go a long way in mitigating these concerns. This creates the opportunity for a proverbial “win-win” situation where both advertiser and agency can truly benefit from this practice.

Can Advertisers Justify the Use of Programmatic Buying?

28 Dec

Programmatic SpendWhich of the following two statements do you find most surprising:

1.  Only 30 cents of every dollar an advertiser invests programmatically reaches the consumer.

2. More than 8 out of every 10 U.S. marketers use programmatic technology to purchase media.

The Association of National Advertisers (ANA) indicated that global programmatic spending “is on track to exceed $200 billion” this year. Further, it noted that PwC estimated that “more than 70% “of a typical advertiser’s budget “does not result in media that reaches the end consumer.”

Where does the money go you ask? According to the ANA the shortfall “factors in ad fees, fraud, non-viewable impressions, non-brand-safe placements and unknown allocations.”

These findings should do little to inspire confidence within the C-suite of any advertiser organization. The alarm bells should be going off when one considers that more than 50% of an advertiser’s spending goes to digital media and that the majority of that is purchased programmatically. Add in the growing percentage of TV, radio and out-of-home advertising being purchased programmatically and the level of working media for most advertisers is seriously compromised.

Thus, while we applaud the ANA’s recently announced initiative to engage PwC, Kroll, and Trustworthy Accountability Group (TAG) to conduct an in-depth study of the “programmatic buying ecosystem” we continue to have reservations.

The reason for our apprehension? The lack of meaningful progress that followed the findings of the ANA’s 2016 study of “Media Transparency in the U.S. Advertising Industry.” This combined with the fact that advertisers continue to allocate a greater share of their ad budget to sectors of the media marketplace that are fraught with non-transparency and brand safety challenges, fraudulent activity and where intermediaries tack on fees that seriously dilute an advertiser’s investment.

We understand that the advertising marketplace is complex and rapidly changing. But there is no rationale for money being siphoned away from delivering an advertiser’s message to consumers.

It is our belief that the quickest way to address these challenges is for advertisers to publicly announce that they will be curtailing their programmatic ad spending until the requisite safety measures and processes are in place that safeguards their investment. Then and only then will media ownership groups, ad technology providers and media service agencies get serious about eliminating waste and improving efficiencies. In the words of the 18th century French writer, Voltaire:

“When it is a question of money, everybody is of the same religion.”

At a minimum, as good measure to vouch for the funds already invested, advertisers may want to seriously consider a combination of financial and media performance audits to fully understand how their advertising investments are being managed.

One Good Reason to Audit Your Advertising Spending

31 Oct

contract compliance auditingExperience from his early days in accounts payable brought home an important lesson…

I was recently talking with a friend, who retired as a senior financial executive for one of the large global airline companies. During our conversation he began to probe on AARM and our agency contract compliance and financial management audit service. While most finance professionals today came into the business long after electronic data processing (EDP) and payment systems came into vogue, this finance executive did not.

After we talked for a while about the nuances of agency compliance and financial auditing, he shared a remembrance from his starting position in the accounts payable department in the early ‘70s… prior to EDP. He recounted processing invoices from the company’s ad agency and the “stacks of paper” that accompanied their invoices. One of the nagging concerns that the finance team always had was whether the agency was reviewing the third-party vendor invoicing for both accuracy and to validate performance or simply passing along the documents. As a result, they implemented a policy that no invoice would be processed until the marketing team had reviewed and signed off on the billing detail. The goal was to encourage both the marketing team and the agency to examine the billing support for accuracy, rather than simply processing for payment. 

The estimated billing approach employed by most ad agencies used to be a paper-intensive process. Billing records not only had to be reviewed but stored and retained for at least 3 years. Thus, most advertisers waived the requirement for agencies to provide third-party vendor billing support with their bill-to-client invoices. Even with the advent of EDP and the digitization of records, advertisers were content to require their agency partners to retain the billing support and to make those records available for review if an advertiser chose to audit those documents. Today, if an agency invoice has been reviewed by a marketing representative and the dollar amount falls within the approved purchase order amount/balance the agency invoices are processed for payment.

Despite the size and material nature of marketing and advertising budgets, most organizations do not invoke their contractual audit rights to validate their agency billing support.

This reality evoked an interesting observation from my friend: “Processing payment, without a review of the supporting third-party vendor documentation is one thing, but to forgo periodically auditing those records is a classic example of blind faith.” His words, in turn, reminded me of a quote from rock legend Bruce Springsteen: “Blind faith in your leaders, or in anything, will get you killed.”

It’s Time to Address the Biggest Risk to Your Ad Budget

26 Oct

iceberg risk

As year-end draws near, many organizations are hard at work on 2022 planning

Significant effort will be invested in preparing next year’s internal audit plans, financial plans, operational plans, and marketing plans / budgets. The question is “Will any of these initiatives address the biggest risk to an organization’s advertising spend?”

When annual planning commences, representatives from internal audit, finance, procurement, and marketing are all proactively evaluating different mechanisms for driving performance and profitability, while mitigating risks to the organization.

Yet we know from experience that one of the best tools for doing just that, on behalf of a significant P&L line item, is likely not being considered.

Which P&L line item are we referring to? Advertising Expense. And the tool that simply is highly effective at mitigating risks and returning significant financial value is advertising/ media agency financial contract compliance audits.

The “Right to Audit” clause is a cornerstone control & financial protection in all client/ agency agreements. Further, organizations such as the Association of National Advertisers, World Federation of Advertisers and the ISBA strongly recommend that advertisers routinely perform compliance reviews to maintain transparency and safeguard their marketing investment. 

When a company’s control environment does not include detailed testing of advertising agency billings and costs – there are real risks that come into play for a few reasons. For one, client marketing teams are forward looking, focused on building brands and driving demand. Testing past financial activity is not necessarily on their radar. Secondly, agency finance teams are hyper-focused on their own profitability. And finally, the estimated billing process employed by ad agencies, takes client money upfront based upon projected expenses. In turn, these expenses are to be reconciled to actual costs once a job is closed. The long lag times for when this final accounting takes place and the lack of detailed billing support that is typically shared with the client creates risks for the advertiser.

The good news is that advertisers can proactively address these concerns and establish a compliance testing audit program that is cost effective, respectful of the agency’s time, and yields material near and long-term benefits, including: 

  • Identification of past overbillings and financial non-compliance for remedy.
  • New contract language including industry best practice & agency reporting guidelines.
  • Financial efficiencies and cost savings tied to process improvements.  
  • Comfort in knowing that the organization has a full understanding and strong controls in place to manage one of its largest expenses.

Most importantly, the work helps to build an organization’s level of trust in each of its agency partners and an appreciation for the role that the agency plays.

Reduce Your Content Management Risks & Costs

1 Oct

Content Management Systems

Content curation and production continues to grow in importance as marketers expand their message distribution to multiple devices across a myriad of channels including mobile, web, social media, shopper marketing, public relations, etc. The result is an ever-growing quantity of brand specific content that needs to be managed and shared.

For most marketers this content is being accumulated, produced, and stored by multiple of their marketing service providers. This can create logistical challenges when it comes to managing and accessing these critical assets, invariably creating risks related to compliance, brand consistency and usage rights violations while driving up operational costs.

The solution can be straightforward… a centralized enterprise-wide content management system (CMS) that improves a marketer’s ability to manage and protect this disparate set of images, videos, logos, and text files across its marketing agency network. Further, creating a content management “center of excellence” makes it easier to search, access, transform and distribute these assets in their proper format for use by each marketing partner.

The centralization of this function, whether in-house, with a designated “lead agency” or with a specialized CMS provider can boost productivity and improve both time and cost efficiencies. How? Eliminating the redundancies in labor and costs related to accessing content curation, creation, formatting and cataloging from multiple agency providers. This allows brand management personnel, and their advertising agency partners to focus on their specialty… “origination” rather than “adaption” projects.

%d bloggers like this: