Archive | Contract Compliance Auditing RSS feed for this section

Economic Growth Projections Raise Concerns for Ad Industry

25 Aug

economyAdvertising agencies are finding that organic growth will be a difficult objective to achieve in the near-term.

One contributing factor comes in the form of marketing spending constraints on the part of advertisers. Why? Organizations are feeling pressure to control costs in the wake of lack luster market conditions that are limiting growth and reducing margins.

The key economic indicator driving advertiser concern is “slow growth” which is impacting many sectors of the economy:

  • GDP growth of 1.2% during the 1st quarter and 2.6% in the 2nd quarter (short of the sustained 3%+ growth rate promised by the White House)
  • U.S. retail sales, excluding auto and gasoline, rose 0.5% in July ’17
  • Fast-Casual restaurant sales fell more than 3% in the first quarter 2017
  • U.S. automotive sales have fallen for seven straight months (Jan. – Jul.)
  • Homebuilder confidence sank, posting HMI’s lowest reading in over 6 mos.

Two CPG giants have announced dramatic moves, which reflect the nature of this challenge. Unilever signaled its intent to reduce the number of agencies on its roster by 50%, while cutting the quantity of ads produced by 30%. Procter & Gamble Co. indicated that it would trim $2 billion in marketing spend over five years as part of an enterprise wide expense reduction initiative.

It is worth noting that there are motivations beyond “cost reduction” driving these decisions by advertisers. Consider fast-food giant McDonald’s, which earlier this year trimmed the number of agencies that it works with from 60 to fewer than a dozen. Their goals included streamlining marketing and improving the consistency of their output… in addition to reducing expenses.

Unfortunately, the impact of slower spending by advertisers is being felt on Wall Street. According to an August, 24 article in the NY Times, WPP which had earlier cut its revenue forecast saw its share price decline by 10.9% in London, with Omnicom Group and Interpublic Group falling 7% and 6.3% respectively in the U.S. and media stocks are generally lower as a sector.

Interestingly, advertisers have made a conscious decision not to fuel marketing spend to counter slowing sales, but to cut spending to protect margins, which is particularly concerning to the ad agency community.

With increased competition from non-traditional players (i.e. management consulting and technology firms) and the continued fall-out from an industry transparency crisis, the lack of confidence on the part of marketers regarding advertising’s ability to drive profitable revenue growth is certainly a worry.

Whether or not this slowdown in organic growth on the part of ad agencies portends a slump, remains to be seen, but at the very least the macro-economic uncertainty will serve to increase industry volatility. Perhaps the industry can find some solace in the words of Yogi Berra the hall of fame catcher and manager of the New York Yankees: “Slump? I ain’t in no slump… I just ain’t hitting.”

 

 

It’s Only Money…

5 Jun

digital mediaThere was one particularly startling revelation that came from the ANA’s recent Agency Financial Management conference in San Diego. During the presentation of this year’s “Agency Compensation Trends” survey results it was noted that the ANA found that almost half of the members it surveyed had not reviewed the findings of the ANA’s 2016 Transparency study.

Think about that. If an organization did not review the Transparency study’s findings, that means that there must not have been any resulting internal dialog with or among marketing’s C-Suite peers, no direct interaction with their agency network partners, no review of existing Client/Agency contracts, no improvements in reporting and controls in which to illuminate how an advertiser’s funds are being managed.

This, in spite of the level of trade media coverage regarding transparency issues ranging from rebates, discounts and media arbitrage, to the Department of Justice investigation into potential ad agency bid rigging practices or the level of ad fraud, traffic sourcing or non-disclosed programmatic fees on both the demand and sell side of the ledger.

There is only one conclusion that can be drawn from this remarkable revelation…many marketers simply don’t care how their organization’s advertising investment is being allocated or safeguarded. Unfortunately, we regularly see the ramifications of this attitude of indifference in our contract compliance audit practice:

  • Client / Agency agreements that haven’t been reviewed or updated in years
  • Failure among clients to enact their contractual audit rights with key agency partners
  • Limited controls regarding an agency’s use and or disclosure of its use of affiliates
  • No requirement for agency partners to competitively bid third-party and affiliate vendors
  • Lack of communication to media sellers regarding ad viewability standards
  • Failure to assert an advertiser’s position on not paying for fraudulent and non-human traffic
  • No requirement for publishers to disclose the use of sourced-traffic
  • Incomplete instructions on buy authorizations to media vendors, minimizing or blocking restitution opportunities
  • Poorly constructed media post-buy reconciliation formats that lack comprehensive information and insights

Interestingly, there have been many positive developments from key industry associations such as the ANA, 4A’s, IAB and public assertions from leading marketers such as P&G and L’Oréal to further inform and motivate marketers on the topic of transparency accountability. Yet, given the materiality of an organization’s marketing spend and the publicized risks to the optimization of its advertising investment, many organizations have not yet taken action, tolerating the risks associated with the status quo. As the noted British playwright, W. Somerset Maugham once said:

Tolerance is another word for indifference.”

The failure to proactively embrace transparency accountability can pose perilous risks to an organization’s marketing budget which in turn directly impacts its company’s revenue. Many would rightly suggest needlessly.

In these instances, the fault for the increased level of attendant financial risk, fraud and working media inefficiencies lies squarely with those companies that have adopted an attitude of indifference toward these very real proven threats. One cannot blame an ad agency, production house, tech provider, publisher or media re-seller for taking advantage of the status quo and acting in manners that, while not in the best interest of the advertiser, are not expressly contractually prohibited.

The good news is that advertisers can address these issues head-on in a quick and efficient manner, mitigating the risks posed by transparency deficiencies. It all begins with a review of existing Client/Agency contracts and engaging one’s agency partners in dialog regarding the adoption of industry best practice contract language to facilitate an open, principal-agent relationship. The Association of National Advertisers (ANA) has a wealth of information on this topic and can also recommend external specialists to assist an advertiser with agency contract development and or compliance auditing.

Interested in safeguarding your marketing investment? Contact Cliff Campeau, Principal at AARM | Advertising Audit & Risk Management at ccampeau@aarmusa.com for a no-obligation consultation on this topic.

Is Your Contract Worth the Paper It’s Written On?

25 May

partnershipThe Association of National Advertisers (ANA) recently released its study on programmatic media. The study was conducted in conjunction with the Association of Canadian Advertisers (ACA), Ebiquity and AD/FIN.

While the study provided fascinating insights into programmatic media performance and costs at the transactional level, there was one particular item that stood out:

88% of the advertisers that were interested in and 75% of the advertisers that signed up to participate in the study could not or had to opt out.

Why was this? According to the study’s authors, “because of a myriad of legal, technical and process roadblocks put up by players in the ecosystem.” Long story short, those advertisers did not have contractual language providing them with clear data ownership or usage rights with their agency, trading desk and or ad tech partners.

The obvious question to be asked is, How can an advertiser’s programmatic media transactional data not belong to the advertiser? After all, it was their media investment that funded the buys. It was their agency partners who invested those funds on their behalf (or not). So, who could possibly own that data if not the advertiser?

What would you do if your agency partner denied your organization access to programmatic performance data that you had requested. Data that would shed light on your programmatic media performance and costs (i.e. third-party costs, agency fees, tech fees, data fees). It certainly seems short-sighted that an agency would deny their clients access to this data, both in the context of the ANA study and for providing transparency into how their programmatic investment is being stewarded to disclose what their true working media percentage is.

Sadly, this is but one example of Client/ Agency contract language omissions that create disclosure and accountability gaps, which can lead to legal and financial risks for advertisers. Other examples include:

  • No requirement for an Agency to disclose or competitively bid in-house production resources or affiliate companies.
  • Media arbitrage deals in which the Agency is marking-up media by an undisclosed amount on inventory that it owns stemming from principal-based buys it has made.
  • Agencies acting as principals, rather than agents, when investing the Client’s creative production funds. One example might be the Agency or its production studio filing for and retaining incentives offered by states and municipalities for shooting or post-production work completed in their geography.

Marketing spend is on the rise and is certainly considered a material expenditure, which can represent 12%+ of a marketer’s revenue base (source: 2015 CMO survey).

And yet too often, an advertiser’s contractual audit rights are not broad enough to ensure unmitigated access to the data files, records and reporting necessary to evaluate an agency’s compliance with the agreement and or their financial management performance. This can and should include:

  • An advertiser’s right to select an internal or external auditor of its choice (i.e. contract compliance, media performance, financial management).
  • The right to audit the agency and its related parties (i.e. holding company, affiliates, related entities, etc.).
  • Assertion of the advertiser’s right to limit or eliminate an agency’s non-transparent revenue (i.e. AVB’s, rebates, non-disclosed fees, mark-ups, float income).
  • The right to audit principal inventory and or mark-ups.

Contracts are also a great vehicle for communicating performance guidelines for items ranging from brand safety and viewability policies to fraud monitoring requirements and an advertiser’s policy on not paying for bot traffic, all of which are designed to safeguard an advertiser’s investment.

From our perspective, it makes sense for advertisers to engage in dialog with their agency partners to talk through contract terms and conditions, such as these, to secure their perspective and ultimately their buy-in. After all, the contract is a document that will govern most aspects of the Client/Agency relationship. Thus, open dialog that leads to a transparent relationship can form the basis for a trusting partnership that will last for many years to come.

As Stan Musial, the legendary baseball hall of fame member of the St. Louis Cardinals once said:

The first principle of contract negotiations is don’t remind them of what you did in the past – tell them what you’re going to do in the future.”

Advertisers: Contract Compliance is Easier to Secure Than You Think

19 Apr

EasyIf you’re an advertiser, we have three brief questions for you to consider:

  1. Does your organization have contracts with its ad agency partners?
  2. Do those contracts contain right to audit clauses?
  3. Has your company ever enacted its right to conduct contract compliance and or performance audits?

Chances are your answer to the first two questions is “Yes” and very likely “No” to the third question. Why is this? Why would the majority of advertisers negotiate audit rights into their marketing supplier agreements and not take advantage of such an important control mechanism? This is particularly perplexing given the materiality of marketing spend and the many publicized challenges confronting advertisers and their relationships with advertising agencies. Challenges such as waning levels of transparency into agency financial management practices, lack of a direct line-of-sight into the rates paid by its agency partners, agency resource constraints and personnel turnover.

After years of conducting advertising agency contract compliance audits, our experience shows the agency community wants to do the right thing in most instances. Are there bad actors? Sure, as there are in any business sector. Are there lapses in oversight or judgment? Certainly. This is a people business and people make honest mistakes. Do errors occur? Of course, as in every organization… no entity is perfect in that regard. Beyond common lapses in judgement, follow-through and or mistakes the primary compliance challenge is often a sub-standard or outdated client/ agency agreement which does not supply an advertiser with the requisite legal safeguards and financial controls.

It is for all of these reasons that “Right to Audit” clauses exist and why it is considered “Best Practice” to engage independent audit support to assess an agency’s contract compliance and financial performance. The benefits of auditing are meaningful and many, with the resulting financial true-ups, identification of process improvement opportunities and new learnings in general, providing substantial contributions to future efficiencies.

These outcomes can have significant financial impacts for both stakeholders. For agencies, who have made oversights, misinterpreted or misapplied certain contractual conditions there is the obvious impact of correcting those items and reconciling their fee and or third-party expense billings. Advertisers benefit from the collection of past due credits, trueing up financial matters, identifying and eliminating unauthorized, non-transparent agency revenue and realigning its scope of work and agency resources on a go forward basis.

It is true that the consequences of an audit can sometimes cause an agency some discomfort and even be outside an advertiser’s comfort zone. However, these important accountability programs are more than offset by the positive outcomes that ultimately drive compliance with the agreement and motivate more effective financial stewardship. To this end, it was with interest that I read a recent article entitled, “Mix Enforcement with Persuasion” by Lucia Del Carpio, Assistant Professor of Economics with INSEAD. Professor Carpio wrote about the topic of improving compliance with laws and regulations. One of his observations had particular relevance to our compliance auditing experience and crystalized what we often profess:

“Compliance sometimes requires nothing but enforcement.”

 The cost to conduct agency contract compliance auditing is nominal relative to the benefits yielded by these initiatives. In our experience, we have never seen an instance where the financial and operational benefits of an audit didn’t provide a return multiple times its attendant cost. Factor in the notion that compliance auditing actually incents agency contract adherence and it is easy to understand why “Right to Audit” clauses exists in client/agency contracts to begin with.

Interested in learning more about agency contract compliance auditing? Contact Cliff Campeau, Principal at AARM | Advertising Audit & Risk Management at ccampeau@aarmusa.com for your complimentary consultation on this topic.

Does Anyone Really Want Advertisers to Solve the Attribution Dilemma?

14 Mar

conspiracyIt has been decades since the concept of Marketing Mix Modeling (MMM), the forerunner to Attribution Modeling, was introduced. The concept was relatively straightforward, marketers would apply statistical analysis to sales and marketing data to quantify the impact that each element of the marketing mix had in driving brand sales and profit. Once the causal relationship had been modeled, marketers would then be able to accurately forecast outcomes and inform resource allocation decisions.

While the concept may have been straightforward, the solution, for most marketers, has been elusive. Why? First and foremost, MMM has some inherent challenges, particularly when it comes to quantifying the impact of longer term brand equity development tactics versus those focused on short-term sales. Secondly, these models have not fared well in accurately assessing the impact of various media types on outcomes to assist in refining allocation decisions.

Fast forward to the late ‘90’s when we experienced an explosion in online media, the birth of e-commerce and the introduction of “Big Data.” The emergence of digital media and the attendant level of data that marketers where now able to gather led to the launch of “Attribution Modeling.” The goal, to assess and quantify what marketing and media touchpoints influenced an advertiser’s target audience, and to what extent, across the purchase funnel in an effort to optimize media spending across the ever expanding gamut of media alternatives.

While there are multiple variations of attribution models to consider, most marketers have relied on single-source attribution models, often using a “last click” approach which assigns responsibility for an outcome to one event. While simple, this flawed approach to attribution modeling gives too much credit to digital media, at the expense of traditional media and other marketing touchpoints.

Sadly, for advertisers that are doing both MMM and Attribution Modeling, it is rare that the feedback from these related, but different approaches synch. Further, there remain audience delivery measurement (i.e. cross-channel measurement), multi-touch attribution challenges that introduce a layer of complexity that drives up the cost of attribution modeling.

That said, since the onset of these two modeling tools being introduced, the industry has dramatically evolved its data gathering capabilities, enhanced CRM and DMP capabilities, conceived of and launched programmatic media buying, where algorithms have replaced media buyers and now we’re seeing the use of artificial intelligence bots, such as Adgorithms’ “Albert” that can plan and place media and create content. Heady stuff to be sure.

This got the cynic in me thinking; “Well if we can master all of this from a technology perspective, surely we should be able to cost efficiently and effectively master attribution modeling.” That led to idle speculation about whether or not the ad industry really wants advertisers to solve the attribution modeling dilemma?

After all, what if John Wanamaker was wrong? What if more than half of his ad spend was wasted? Remember, the marketing and media choices available to him in the 19th century were considerably more limited than those available to advertisers today. Would accurate attribution models eliminate some of the following marketing and media options from consideration?

  • Television
  • Radio
  • Magazine
  • Newspaper
  • OOH
  • Cinema advertising
  • Product placement
  • Direct mail
  • Email
  • Sponsorships
  • Online display
  • Online video
  • Podcasts
  • Paid search
  • Organic search
  • Mobile
  • Social media
  • Native advertising
  • In-store advertising
  • In-store displays
  • On-package advertising
  • Trade promotions
  • Price promotions
  • Couponing
  • Affinity marketing
  • Affiliate marketing
  • Applications
  • Earned media

Crazy. Right? Reminds me of a quote by the American journalist, Gary Weiss:

“One problem with the focus on speculation is that it tends to promote the growth of the great intellectual cancer of our times: conspiracy theories.”

What do you think…

 

4A’s Appoints New CEO/ President

26 Feb

4as_logofinalCongratulations to Marla Kaplowitz, CEO of MEC North America, who was recently selected as the Chief Executive Officer and President of the American Association of Advertising Agencies (4A’s).

An advertising industry veteran with 29 years of media and communications experience, she is also a member of the 4A’s Media Leadership Council and She Runs It.  Commenting on her appointment, Ms. Kaplowitz stated that; “As a passionate member of this industry for nearly 30 years, I’m thrilled to join the 4A’s at this exciting and pivotal time for marketing and communications.”

We certainly wish Ms. Kaplowitz success in her new role and thank outgoing 4A’s CEO Nancy Hill for her nine plus years of service.

Has France Solved the Media Transparency Issue?

24 Feb

dreamstime_xs_13261288Earlier this month the French government passed a new edict extending the coverage of Loi Sapin, their anti-corruption law passed in the early 90’s which made the process of buying media more transparent.

There are two key tenants of Loi Sapin, which afford French advertisers a level of protection related to certain non-transparent revenue sources which the Association of National Advertisers (ANA)/ K2 2016 media transparency study showed were prevalent in the U.S. (and elsewhere around the globe). Specifically, we are referring to the practice of media owners and publishers paying rebates to the agency and the use of media arbitrage, where agencies purchase inventory on their own to be resold to their clients at a higher rate.

Loi Sapin prohibits agencies from selling media to their clients that the agency had purchased in its name. In today’s parlance, it prohibits media arbitrage or “principal-based” media buys. Secondly, the law clearly stipulates that the ad agencies cannot derive revenue from a media owner, stating that agencies can only be paid by advertisers.

To France’s credit, the new decree, which will take effect in January of 2018, expands the coverage of the anti-corruption law to include digital advertising and digital advertising services. Of note, this includes agency trading desks, which sometimes buy and resell digital media to their clients. Yes, agencies will still be able to provide programmatic media buying services through their trading desk operations to advertisers, they will simply have to disclose to their clients, upfront, those affiliates or entities where they or the agency holding company have an ownership interest.

Interestingly, the decree will also require the media owner to direct bill the advertiser and compels them to provide detailed information about the services that they provided to the advertiser. This particular aspect of the law will further enhance advertiser transparency and virtually eliminates the ability of an ad agency to blindly mark-up said services.

As U.S. advertisers and the Association of National Advertisers (ANA), continue to evaluate the most effective means of improving media transparency, France’s anti-corruption law and its new decree covering digital media services certainly provides some interesting food for thought.

What if You Discovered That Your Digital Dollar Netted You a Dime’s Worth of Digital Media?

12 Feb

dreamstime_xs_2601647In 2014, the World Federation of Advertisers conducted a study which demonstrated that “only fifty-four cents of every media dollar in programmatic digital media buying” goes to the publisher, with the balance being divvied up by agency trading desks, DSPs and ad networks.

Fast forward to the spring of 2016 and a study by Technology Business Research (TBR) suggested that “only 40% of digital buys are going to working media.” TBR reported that 29% went to fund agency services and 31% to cover the cost of technology used to process those buys.

Where does the money go? For programmatic digital media, the advertiser’s dollar is spread across the following agents and platforms:

  • Agency campaign management fees
  • Technology fees (DMP, DSP, Adserving)
  • Data/Audience Targeting fees
  • Ad blocking pre/post
  • Verification (target delivery, ad fraud, brand safety)
  • Pre-bid & post-bid evaluation fees

It should be noted that the fees paid to the above providers are exclusive of fees and mark-ups added by SSPs, exchanges or publishers that are blind to both ad agencies and advertisers. What? That is correct. Given the complex nature of the digital ecosystem, impression level costs can be easily camouflaged by DSPs and SSPs. Thus, most advertisers (and their agencies) do not have a line-of-sight into true working media levels…even if they employ a cost-disclosed programmatic buying model (which is rare).

Take for example the fact that a large preponderance of programmatic digital media is placed on a real-time bidding or RTB basis, and a majority of that, is executed using a second-price auction methodology. With second-price auctions, the portion of the transaction that occurs between a buyer’s bid and when the clearing price is executed without advertiser or agency visibility, thus allowing exchanges to apply clearing or bid management fees and mark-ups as they see fit. So for example, if two advertisers place a bid for inventory, one at $20 per thousand and the other at $15 per thousand, the advertiser who placed the higher bid of $20 would win, but the “sale price” would be only one-cent more than the next highest bid, or $15.01. However, advertisers are charged the “cleared price,” (could be as high as $20 in this example) which is determined after the exchange applies clearing or bid management fees. How much you ask? Only the exchanges know and this is information not readily shared.

Earlier this month Digiday ran an article entitled, “We Go Straight to the Publisher: Advertisers Beware of SSPs Arbitraging Media” which profiled a practice used by supply-side platforms (SSPs) that “misrepresent themselves.” How? By “reselling inventory and misstating which publishers they represent.” The net effect of this practice allow the exchanges an opportunity to “repackage and resell inventory” that they don’t actually have access to for publishers that they don’t have a relationship with.

Let’s look beyond programmatic digital media. Consider the findings from a Morgan Stanley analyst, reported in a New York Times article in early 2016 that stated that, “In the first quarter of 2016, 85 cents of every new dollar spent in online advertising will go to Google or Facebook.” What is significant here is that until very recently, these two entities have self-reported their performance, failing to embrace independent, industry accredited resources to verify their audience delivery numbers.  

The pitfalls of publisher self-reporting came to light this past fall when Facebook was found to have vastly overstated video viewing metric to advertisers for a period of two years between 60% and 80%.  

By the time one factors in the impact of fraud and non-human viewing, and or inventory that doesn’t adhere to digital media buying guidelines and viewability standards, it’s easy to understand the real risk to advertisers and the further dilution of their digital working media investment.

Advertisers have every right to wonder what exactly is going on with their digital media spend, why the process is so opaque and why the pace of industry progress to remedy these concerns has seemingly been so slow. Sadly, in spite of the leadership efforts of the Association of National Advertisers (ANA), The World Federation of Advertisers (WFA), The ISBA, The Association of Canadian Advertisers and the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) there is still much work to be done.

The question that we have continually raised is, “With advertisers continuing to allocate an ever increasing level of their media share-of-wallet to digital, where is the impetus for change?” After all, in spite of all of the known risks and the lack of transparency, the inflow of ad dollars has been nothing short of spectacular. According to eMarketer, digital media spend in the U.S. alone for 2016 eclipsed $72 billion and accounted for 37% of total media spending.

There are steps that advertisers can take to both safeguard and optimize their digital media investment. Interested in learn more? Contact Cliff Campeau, Principal of AARM | Advertising Audit & Risk Management at ccampeau@aarmusa.com for a complimentary consultation. After all, as Warren Buffett once said:

“Risk comes from not knowing what you’re doing.”

Advertisers: Buying Guidelines Matter

25 Jan

compliance-rulesAdvertisers and their media agency partners spend countless hours, invest significant energy and apply a wealth of creativity in crafting their initial media plans and updating those plans to address internal issues, marketplace opportunities and or competitor moves over the course of a budget year.

The question is: “Do advertisers and their media agency partners spend enough time ensuring that those plans are actually executed to their fullest during the investment phase of the media buying cycle?”

In our experience, the direct answer is “No.” The hand-off from media planning to media buying and the accompanying media process controls, forms and reporting are often inadequate as is the level of oversight applied on a post plan approval basis.

Advertisers, if you’re wondering whether or not this is the case with your organization, it may be worth reviewing the following processes, forms and reports for their thoroughness and the extent to which they are reviewed and monitored over the course of a media campaign:

  • Buying Guidelines – When was the last time you reviewed your organization’s buying guidelines? Did you approve them? Are they current? Are they comprehensive enough to safeguard your interests and optimize your message reach? Have they been created for each media channel purchased or for TV only? How are these guidelines communicated to media sellers? Does your agency monitor and or report on buying guideline adherence? What are the consequences to the agency and or the media sellers if these guidelines are not complied with? Too often we find that this important communication bridge between media planning and media buying has not been satisfactorily completed or is so lacking in detail and or coverage across media that it is ineffectual. This is a critical mistake. Buying guidelines represent the explicit instructions from the agency planning team to their associates in buying and ultimately to the media sellers for how the client-approved plan is to be executed, stewarded and its performance assessed. Shortfalls in this area negatively impact media delivery and marketing ROI in a very direct manner.
  • Request for Proposals (RFPs) – Whether sent manually or digitally by the agency to media sellers, this process is often fraught with shortcomings. These include insufficient time afforded publishers to effectively respond to the RFP requests; and not enough information provided on the advertiser and or their specific goals to facilitate the publisher to tailor their proposal to the advertiser’s needs. From an advertiser’s perspective, often times these documents fail to ask for feedback on important issues such as whether or not digital publishers employ third-party vendors for website traffic sourcing. In other instances, RFPs fail to communicate critical performance standards such as viewability standards for digital media or in establishing the advertiser’s position on whether or not they will pay for non-human or fraudulent traffic. It would be a worthwhile practice for Advertisers to periodically review the level of detail contained in their media agency’s RFP templates and review completed RFPs to understand the basis for why certain RFPs were accepted or acted upon and others rejected.
  • Insertion Orders & Buy Confirmation Letters – The primary focus with these important control documents is to establish the specific tenets of the deal (i.e. audience delivery, performance guidelines, basis for evaluating performance, make good policies, etc.). Unfortunately, in our media agency compliance audit practice, we regularly discover incomplete documentation in this area that fails to establish enforceable delivery thresholds or basic qualitative standards to safeguard an advertiser’s media investment. In this era of “Big Data,” it is important for agencies to assert their clients’ data access and ownership rights. This relates generally to the audience modeling and transactional data generated as part of their media investment, and in the case of programmatic media buys, specifically to items such as winning bid log files and the associated meta data from all suppliers, including DSPs. Ensuring these types of data access and ownership rights are essential for advertisers if they want to have a clear line-of-sight into impression level pricing prior to the addition of the myriad number of fees and mark-ups charged by third-party suppliers. These documents also present an excellent opportunity for agencies to reinforce the agreed upon advertiser data protection guidelines such as how an advertiser’s data will be siloed, how long it will be stored and the extent to which the suppliers will limit other advertisers and third-parties access to such data.
  • Post-Buy Performance Reporting – There are three primary concerns in this area, aside from whether or not performance reporting is even being conducted. First, how are media buys monitored and stewarded while underway? What is the agency doing to monitor campaign delivery and to optimize performance in-flight? Second, is the agency monitoring performance across all media? More often than not we find agencies conducting television post-buys or digital media performance analysis, but totally ignoring other media elements altogether. Third, are the post-performance reports provided in a timely manner and include the level of detail necessary to hold media sellers accountable and provide meaningful insights that shape future media plans and buys?

Without a solid media stewardship process that incorporates sound control documents, continuous monitoring and comprehensive post-performance analysis, even the most thoughtful and compelling media plans will fall short of their potential. Advertisers could well benefit from conducting periodic reviews of their media agencies approach and performance during this phase of the media investment cycle. In the words of W.B. Sebald, twentieth-century German academic and author:

“Tiny details imperceptible to us decide everything!”

 Interested in learning more about the role of media buying guidelines and controls in safeguarding your media investment? Contact Cliff Campeau, Principal at AARM | Advertising Audit & Risk Management at ccampeau@aarmusa.com for your complimentary consultation on this topic. 

 

May You Live in Interesting Times

23 Dec

confuciousOften referred to as the “Chinese Curse” this popular saying derives from the English Politician Sir Austen Chamberlain in the early twentieth century. Used ironically, the phrase has been used to suggest a set of outcomes that are a little more ominous, “May you experience much disorder and trouble in your life.”

As we reflect on what has been a tumultuous 2016, those working in the marketing and advertising industry most certainly would agree that we are living in interesting times. Recent news suggests that the industry’s troubles will not abate much in the coming year. The year began with evidence suggesting that the level of digital ad fraud would eclipse $8.0 billion in 2016, this was followed by the blockbuster findings from the Association of National Advertisers (ANA) / K2 study on “Media Transparency” which rocked the global ad industry.  Sadly, the industry is winding down 2016 with a litany of additional actions and outcomes that pose serious threats to the level of trust, already shaken, between stakeholders in the $540 billion global advertising marketplace.

In the last two weeks, the industry heard once again from Facebook that it had made yet another audience reporting faux pas, its third of the year, which many in the ad agency community have been all too willing to forgive. Who could possibly be surprised with advertisers for being genuinely perplexed as to why the media agency community hasn’t more thoroughly scrutinized Facebook’s audience measurement reporting or pushed more aggressively for independent verification of those results.

Concurrently, halfway around the globe, Australia’s three largest magazine publishers (News Corp, Bauer Media and Pac Mags) decided to cease their participation in the Audited Media Association of Australia’s (AMAA) magazine circulation service leaving advertisers no other choice but to rely on these publishers’ self-reported “readership” numbers, rather than audited circulations figures.

In the United States, the federal government’s Department of Justice has subpoenaed agencies from four of the world’s largest holding companies; WPP, Omnicom, IPG and Publicis as part of its investigation into illegal bid-rigging for commercial production jobs. It is alleged that these agencies coerced and or rewarded independent production houses to submit inflated bids, ostensibly to manipulate the process in favor of agency in-house production resources. Many believe that the DOJ’s investigation will have a profound impact on both the estimated $5 billion production sector and potentially the rest of the business. Let’s not forget, the DOJ has not yet weighed in regarding agency practices identified in the ANA/ K2 study on media transparency.

Most recently, WhiteOps, a U.S. a cyber security firm providing ad viewability and fraud detection supporting the advertising industry, announced that it had uncovered a Russian led digital fraud effort that was literally stealing up to $5 million per day from advertisers. It was reported by the NY Times that the fraudsters impersonated more that “6,100 news and content publishers” while delivering up to 300 million fake ad views per day. How were they able to do this? By creating over one-half million bots that replicated the web surfing patterns of humans, starting and stopping videos and moving and clicking the cursor. 

If client organizations were experiencing a “crisis of trust” hangover following 2015, it certainly wasn’t remedied in 2016. Going into the New Year advertisers have every right to step back and ask, “Who can we trust?” Our agency partners? Ad tech vendors? Media Owners? Measurement Services? And who would blame advertisers for taking matters into their own hands and make a New Year Resolution to more directly deal with these issues. After all, it is their monetary inputs that fuel the entire industry and they certainly deserve better that what they’re getting right now. In the words of the iconic American actor, Clint Eastwood: Sometimes if you want to see a change for the better, you have to take things into your own hands.”

 

%d bloggers like this: