Archive | Marketing Accountability RSS feed for this section

Never a Wrong Time to Do the Right Thing

27 Sep

DoTheRightThingDoing right by others is certainly a core value and one that many of us subscribe to. For me personally, as a former ad agency account director, I have always been fond of the quote by Victor Hugo, the nineteenth-century French author: “Initiative is doing the right thing, without being told.

In the professional services business sector this credo was once considered “cost of entry.” Today, however, having one’s advertising agency and or intermediaries “do the right thing” isn’t a given and, in the current environment, very likely will come at a cost.

As an example, Forrester recently interviewed thirty-four media agency clients and found that “transparency” was a key priority for marketers. However, many of the media agencies that they spoke with indicated that they “are only transparent if clients require it in their contracts.” Nice to know.

Perhaps you’ve been following the trend among influencer marketing agencies and their vendors who are now charging clients incremental fees for conducting content reviews or brand-safety checks to safeguard advertisers’ placements. For years, influencers have been paid largely based upon the number of followers that they had. Sadly, many influencers had engaged in buying followers to boost their appeal to advertisers and, in turn, their revenue. Now that advertisers are savvy to this practice and are looking for assurances on the influencers utilized and the nature of their followers, influencer agencies want to incorporate an upcharge to advertisers.

What about those instances where trading desks and DSPs are now charging premiums to access content from exchanges that will ensure proper placement, safeguarding brands and minimizing the incidence of media fraud? Whoever said that it was okay to purchase high-risk, low return inventory to begin with?

Maybe you’ve experienced abnormal delays with regard to your ad agency partners closing and reconciling projects to actual costs or in receiving post-campaign media performance recaps. Or perhaps you were expecting your agency to competitively bid your production work, only to find out that they were relying on the same vendor(s) that they’ve always used (maybe even an agency affiliate). Or, you were of the belief that your media campaigns were being monitored and that audience delivery guarantees were being negotiated in-flight, only to find out that there was no such stewardship of your media investment.

What is going on? What happened to doing the right thing? When you query your agency partners they suggest that the Scope of Work (SOW) didn’t specifically call for those activities nor did the agency Staffing Plan allow for providing that support at the frequency or within the time frame that you had come to expect. This obviously begs the question, “When did the agency stop providing the level of service and oversight support that it once did?”

The message is clear, advertisers can take nothing for granted and certainly cannot assume that their agency, adtech, production and media vendors have their back. Simply stated, we are operating in an era when advertisers must incorporate legal terms and conditions, which provide the requisite safeguards and controls that govern the behavior and service levels that they expect, into their agency agreements in order to have each vendor in the advertising supply-chain do the right thing.

As importantly, having solid contract language and tightly written scopes of work in and of themselves does not guarantee that agents and intermediaries will fall in line and comply with advertiser expectations. Experience suggests that adherence will typically only be achieved through performance and accountability monitoring. As the old adage goes; “What is inspected is respected.”

Please note, that we are not suggesting that an advertisers shouldn’t pay for the level of coverage and service that they expect to receive. That said, advertisers can no longer take it for granted that certain service standards, which historically have been part and parcel of agency standard operating procedures and hadn’t been necessary to be called out in an agreement or an SOW, are still being followed. If a service provider drops or alters the nature of a service being provided, it should be incumbent to at least communicate those decisions to the advertiser and engage in discussions to ascertain if the changes are acceptable or negotiate additional fees to cover the desired level of support.

In the end, successfully aligning advertiser expectations and supply-chain member service delivery standards comes down to all parties committing to a policy of open, honest, two-way dialog to ensure that there are no surprises and to incent an environment of initiative taking.

 

 

Will Programmatic Ever Address Advertiser Transparency Concerns?

20 Aug

dreamstime_m_35343815It has been two years since the Association of National Advertisers released its study on media transparency issues impacting advertisers within the U.S. media marketplace.

While much has changed, there remain reasons for concern. Most perplexing is the fact that with all of the intermediaries in place between advertiser and publisher, few seem to be looking out for the advertisers’ best interests.

The reasons for this lack of an advertiser-centric perspective are many and include greed, a lack of knowledge, insufficient oversight processes and often times indifference up and down the programmatic digital media supply chain.

Thus, it was with great interest that I read a recent article on Adexchanger.com entitled; “Index Exchange Called Out for Tweaking Its Auction.” In short, the article dealt with the fact that Index Exchange had altered its auction processes, without notifying advertisers, ad agencies or DSPs. Ostensibly, the exchange’s motivations for this move was to boost its market share, although in fairness, they claimed that they believed their approach reflected “industry practice.”

Of note, Index Exchange made the aforementioned change more than one year ago, employing a technique referred to as bid caching. In short, bid caching is where the exchange retains losing bids in an effort to run advertiser content on subsequent content viewed by the consumer. From an advertiser perspective there are a number of issues with this practice, as detailed by author Sarah Sluis of the aforementioned article on Adexchanger:

  1. Buyers will bid higher prices for the first page in a user session. Thus, if the losing bid is retained and the ad is served deeper into a user session, the buyer will have overpaid for that inventory.
  2. Any delay between the initial bid and the ad actually being served, using a bid caching methodology, increases the chance that the DSP will have found the user elsewhere, resulting in the campaign exceeding the pre-determined frequency caps.
  3. Brand safety definitely comes into play, because even though the ad is served on the same domain, it is on a different page than what was intended.

What is truly remarkable about this scenario is that buyers just learned of this practice and, according to Adexchanger, “not from Index Exchange.”

How many advertisers were negatively impacted by Index Exchange’s unannounced move? What were their agency and adtech partners doing in the placement and stewardship of their buys that an exchange’s shift in auction approaches went undetected for more than one year? Unsettling to be sure.

Ironically, this exchange had implemented a similar move previously, adopting a first-price auction approach, which was known to publishers but not announced to buyers.

Advertisers would be right to raise questions about the current state of programmatic affairs; exchanges not notifying the public of shifts in auction methodology, agency buyers and DSPs unable to detect these shifts to adjust their bid strategies, ad tech firms not catching the shift to safeguard brand ad placements, and publishers that were aware, but settled for the higher CPMs resulting from the shift, rather than informing the buy-side.

This is disheartening news, particularly when one considers the percentage of an advertiser’s dollar that goes to fund each of their intermediaries (at the expense of working media). Yet, advertiser fueled growth in programmatic digital media continues unabated.

Clearly a case of buyer beware. Advertisers that have not already reviewed their supplier contracts or enacted the “right to audit” clauses of their agency and adtech supplier agreements may want to make plans to do so as they begin finalize their 2019 digital media budgets. As the old saying goes:

The buyer needs a hundred eyes, the seller but one.”

 

Try This Quick Programmatic Digital “Transparency” Test

16 Aug

exam resultsIf you’re like most marketers, your organization is spending considerably more of its media budget on programmatic digital media today than it did last year and certainly more than it did five years ago. The question is, “Are you getting value for that shift in media spend?

While agencies and ad tech firms have clearly benefited from the rapid growth of programmatic digital media many marketers have seen their working media levels languish due to the third-party costs and intermediary fees associated with programmatic media.

As marketers know all too well, every dollar invested programmatically is subject to what has been referred to as the “tech tax,” which according to David Kohl, CEO and President of TrustX this can account for over fifty cents of every dollar invested. In his article; “The High Cost of Low CPMs” written for AdExchanger, Mr. Kohl points out that “whether or not the ad reaches its target audience and whether or not it is served into the viewable window or below the fold, DSPs, SSPs, data providers, viewability and verification providers, tag managers, re-targeters and others all take their few cents.”

The question to be asked is; “To what extent is this happening to my organization?” Fortunately, there is a quick, three-step method for testing your risk profile when it comes to programmatic digital media.

Step 1 – Ask your accounts payable department to provide you with a few examples of the digital media invoices that comprise the billing from your digital media agency partners. Check if they have a description of the services provided and the type and level of media inventory purchased. The objective of this exercise is to determine whether the invoices are highly descriptive or general in nature and if a non-media reviewer would be able to ascertain the breakdown of “what” was actually provided for the amount being billed.

Step 2 – Review the third-party vendor invoices that accompany the billing from your agency. If supporting vendor documentation is not provided, ask your agency to provide detail for a handful of invoices. This detail should include the invoices from the actual media sellers, not the agency’s trading desk or an affiliate. Apply the same filter to your review of these invoices as you did for the agency’s billing, with regard to the adequacy of the descriptions breaking out the media purchased and all of the attendant costs (i.e. net media expense, agency campaign management fees, ad tech and data fees, etc.).

Step 3 – Evaluate both sets of invoices, agency and vendor, for an itemized list of the fees being charged such as:

  • Agency campaign management fees
  • Data fees
  • Pre-bid decision making/ targeting fees
  • Ad tech/ DSP fees
  • Publisher discrepancy fees
  • Ad verification fees
  • Bid clearing fees
  • Ad serving fees

If you find that invoice descriptions are less specific than you would like or that third-party vendor invoices don’t contain an itemized list of fees being charged, it is time to have a conversation with your agency partners.

The first topic to be discussed is establishing your position and preference for “How” your programmatic media buys are to be structured when your agency goes to market on your behalf. If it is transparency that you seek, they should be executing your programmatic buys on a “cost-disclosed” rather than a “non-disclosed” basis. This is the only way that you will be able to identify the net costs being assessed for the media inventory purchased and to calculate what percentage of your buys are going toward working media. Fraud and viewability concerns aside, advertisers have found that after fees are subtracted, they’re lucky if 50¢ of a dollar spent on programmatic digital media actually makes it to the publisher to fund the media that your consumers see.

Once you and your agency have agreed on the desired level of disclosure, conversation must necessarily turn to the need for updating client-agency agreements, statements-of-work and each of the media control documents utilized by the agency (i.e. media authorization form, electronic RFI templates, digital insertion orders, etc.). In spite of the ad industry’s efforts to reform what remains a murky digital media supply chain fraught with bad actors, questionable practices and a lack of transparency, advertisers remain at risk. Therefore, it is imperative to ensure all parties are held accountable that they employ the appropriate descriptive invoice detail, reporting requirements and itemized cost breakdowns mandated by the advertiser.

Testing the current state of your programmatic buys’ level of transparency is a necessary first step to stripping away the opacity that can surround digital media buying. In turn, the results of this self-examination will assist advertisers in both safeguarding and improving the return on their digital media investments. In the words of David Ogilvy:

“Never stop testing, and your advertising will never stop improving.”

AARM’s New Privacy Policy

28 May

Contract SigningYour Privacy is Important to Us

Marketers the world over are aware that on May 25th of this year the European Union implemented its new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) to enhance consumer privacy protection. As a result of these new regulations, Advertising Audit & Risk Management (AARM) has updated its Privacy Policy

AARM has and will remain committed to protecting your personal information. We believe that our updated policy further reinforces this pledge.

Our new Privacy Policy clearly articulates what information we collect from you, how that information is used and the steps that we take to safeguard your personal information. Please visit our website to review our new Privacy Policy and to gain an understanding of our practices in this important area. By visiting our website after May 25, 2018 you are indicating that you are in agreement with the terms of our updated Privacy Policy.

Best regards,

AARM | Advertising Audit & Risk Management

Advertisers Beware: Agency Margin Optimization Efforts

19 Apr

Traffic LightIt was with great interest that I read an article on Digiday dealing with “key issues” facing ad agencies and, ostensibly, the “agency model” ranging from transparency to in-housing.

Masked behind the author’s perspective that transparency comes at a high cost was the reality that marketers remain at risk to the predatory non-transparent revenue practices applied by certain agencies.

Why? With marketers demanding more transparent ad buying practices and transitioning certain tasks and or ownership of elements of the tech stack in-house, agency gross margins are under pressure. In turn, this has created an environment where agencies attempt to make up for the margin shortfall from clients that don’t actively monitor agency contract compliance, financial management or media performance.

Of note, one anonymous agency executive went so far as to suggest that some agencies use a “traffic-light system to determine how knowledgeable the procurement teams at clients are.” This guidepost allows the agencies to assess how much margin they can make on a given account.

This certainly reinforces the reality of the old adage; “Where there is mystery, there is margin” and signals the importance for all marketers to get up to speed on both the potential benefits and the pitfalls related to their digital and other advertising investments. For client organizations, most of which do not have the bandwidth or subject matter expertise in-house, engaging an independent contract compliance or media performance auditor or consultant could greatly help to mitigate risks in this area.

In spite of the potential for efficiencies that fueled the rise of programmatic media buying, what we have all come to realize is that the costs related to algorithmic, machine-to-machine buying have far outweighed these efficiencies. One dynamic, which drives costs is the number of agent firms involved in a typical programmatic digital media buy and the fees that each charge for their role. Below is an overview of typical fees or mark-ups that are charged by those on the demand-side of a programmatic transaction.

Digital Dollar

Source: Industry Experts

As is readily apparent, the dollar dissipation that occurs between the advertiser’s initial investment and the money that actually ends up with the publisher is significant. Industry studies have consistently shown that less than forty cents of each digital dollar invested makes its way to the publisher.

To combat this trend, rightly or wrongly, marketers have focused on reducing the number of intermediaries and the fees charged by each, with the goal of improving working media ratios and ultimately the performance of their digital campaigns. Thus, the agency margin squeeze.

That said, the agency practice described in the aforementioned Digiday.com article of taking advantage of unsuspecting, less knowledgeable clients to make up for the margin lost on those that have moved to transparent buying models, is neither appropriate nor sustainable. Agencies conducting themselves in this manner may want to reflect on the words of the renowned physicist, Stephen Hawking:

Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change.”

This is particularly true given the competitive inroads being made by the management consultant and tech consultancies that are focusing on the digital media segment of the market. The best path forward for agencies is to actively engage their clients in an open dialog about mutually beneficial remuneration methodologies.

In our opinion, it is right and just to eliminate the potential for media arbitrage, non-disclosed fees, no charge media weight and volume-based rebates that often accrue to agencies, and much of the time without the advertiser’s knowledge. Further, we also don’t believe that clients are obligated to make up the gap in lost agency revenue tied to transparency reforms. That said, we are fully supportive of an agency’s right to earn a fair and reasonable profit and to have the potential for incremental gains tied to extraordinary performance.

Near-term, the best way to balance an advertiser’s quest for transparency and an agency’s ability to generate a reasonable profit will likely be a compensation schema that incorporates a base fee using a direct-labor or cost-plus methodology with an outcome-based performance incentive. This approach is particularly apropos for advertisers that are leaning toward a managed-service model. With this approach, ownership of the tech stack and or tech platform licensing agreements transition from agency to advertiser; and the agency is then engaged to oversee the digital planning, buying and ad operations chores associated with programmatic media.

If Not an RFP, Then What?

15 Mar

RFP ProcessIt was with great interest that I read a recent article on Digiday entitled; “End of an era: Media buyers are ditching the much-hated RFP” that heralded the demise of the digital RFP.

For those of us with a media background, we’re certainly familiar with the longstanding list of complaints leveled by media sellers at agencies on the multitude of abuses heaped upon them by what is perceived as an unfair or at least highly disorganized and inefficient RFP process. I get it and I empathize with the media sellers for the inequities which they have suffered at the hands of misguided or poorly trained media buyers.

Let’s face it, the RFP does serve an important role in allowing media agency buyers to gather the requisite detail from media sellers as it relates to their ability to deliver on the agency’s media plan and to solicit inventory, audience delivery and pricing feedback.

Yes, the standardization of RFP templates appears to be a pipedream and the resulting impact on the time and effort required by media sellers to complete these RFPs is onerous, the process cumbersome and meaningful feedback from agency media buyers rare. For these and other reasons, it is understood that agency media buyers and publishers alike dislike RFPs.

That said, some of the reasons cited in the aforementioned article to support the declining use of RFP’s should raise concerns among advertisers. I’m not talking about the reduced role of price negotiations due to the increased use of biddable media, but rather the notion that an uptick in the use of digital direct buying, agencies relying on meetings with sellers rather than an RFP or a seller’s ability to “figure out what the strategy is” do not support abandonment of this important tool.

Properly executed, the RFP process allows an agency buyer to communicate strategic and tactical instructions to the seller. In turn, asking sellers for feedback on how best to drive performance for the advertiser’s brand can yield a treasure trove of information. The RFP also provides an excellent opportunity for publishers to make a compelling case as to why they should be on the buy.

Additionally, RFPs serve as an ideal tool for establishing parameters on items such as site retargeting, frequency capping and content considerations (including restrictions). It allows media buyers to gather the requisite detail on items ranging from data segments and sources to audience specifications and universe estimates. How better to communicate creative unit specifications or cross device allocations and target consumption levels or to establish measurement requirements for everything from impressions and video completion rates to qualified site visitors, viewability levels and cost per completed view. What about identifying verification sources and costs, third-party tagging requirements and or establishing the level of reporting granularity.

Last, but certainly not least, the RFP serves a vital “accountability” role by clearly establishing advertiser expectations and communicating guidelines that a seller will need to adhere to, should a deal be transacted.

So while the RFP process is far from perfect, rather than scrapping it, I would advocate that the process be revamped to make it more relevant to all stakeholders, less onerous for media sellers and more productive for agency media buyers. In the words of the noted journalist George Will:

“The pursuit of perfection often impedes improvement.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does Your Organization View Marketing Spend as a Material Expense?

2 Mar

digital mediaWhile on the surface this seems like a nonsensical question, advertiser indifference toward independent contract compliance, financial management and performance auditing of their agency partners might suggest an answer that would surprise you.

According to The CMO Survey conducted by Deloitte, Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business and the American Marketing Association in February of 2018, companies surveyed spent on average 10.3% of their annual sales on marketing. This would certainly qualify as a “material” expense in our book, particularly when one considers that this investment is being made to build brand equity, establish customer loyalty and to drive demand generation.

So why do so many advertisers take a laissez-faire (French term that translates as “leave alone”) attitude toward basic governance and assurance practices related to their marketing spend?

Is it the belief that a tight client-agency agreement provides the requisite safeguards and controls? Perhaps it is because of an unyielding level of trust in one’s agency partners, intermediaries and third-party vendors exhibited by an organization’s C-suite.

Based upon our experience over two decades of providing contract compliance support to some of the world’s leading advertisers we know that this is not the case. Marketers recognize that the industry is fluid and that the breadth and rapidity of change is such that contract language needs to be reviewed and updated on a frequent basis. Similarly, while advertisers certainly trust their agencies, there is also a core belief in the concept of “trust but verify.”

No, we believe that the reason for the laissez-faire approach to marketing accountability is the fact that no one function “owns” this task organizationally.

In our experience, few marketing departments willingly invite independent scrutiny of their marketing and advertising practices, controls and or the performance of their agency networks. If such examination is not mandated corporately, it will likely not be initiated by marketing. Similarly, the procurement organization is typically focused on screening, vetting and contracting with current and potential marketing vendors. Many procurement teams recognize the value of periodic agency audits, but as “support” departments they rarely have the budget to self-fund such accountability initiatives. The same is true of Internal Audit and their ability to underwrite the cost of audit projects in this area.

In many instances, procurement and internal audit leaders will approach marketing and ask for their participation in and funding for a governance and assurance initiative, but too often this is proffered on a voluntary basis. Unfortunately, this scenario rarely leads to a marketing accountability and transparency review. Thus, in the end, if an organization doesn’t mandate periodic examinations or the ongoing monitoring of its marketing investment or provide funding for such an initiative to its procurement and internal audit team(s) than it may be “flying blind” when it comes to safeguarding its marketing investment.

The irony, as progressive marketing organizations have learned, is that a formal governance and assurance program, which includes marketing, provides financial returns that more than pay for the cost of the attendant independent examinations. Further, the resulting improvements in contract language and process related learnings yield efficiency gains for clients and agencies alike and the resulting transparency gains can serve as the impetus for improving the level of trust and ultimately the relationship between these partners.

With an admitted “pro audit” bias, we can state unequivocally that our experience over the course of two plus decades of providing contract compliance and financial management audit support to advertisers, our belief in the old saying; “In god we trust, all others we audit” has never been stronger.

 

Try This Quick Programmatic Digital “Transparency” Test

26 Feb

exam resultsIf you’re like most marketers, your organization is spending considerably more of its media budget on programmatic digital media today than it did last year and certainly more than it did five years ago. The question is, “Are you getting value for that shift in media spend?

While agencies and ad tech firms have clearly benefited from the rapid growth of programmatic digital media many marketers have seen their working media levels languish due to the third-party costs and intermediary fees associated with programmatic media.

As marketers know all too well, every dollar invested programmatically is subject to what has been referred to as the “tech tax,” which according to David Kohl, CEO and President of TrustX this can account for over fifty cents of every dollar invested. In his article; “The High Cost of Low CPMs” written for AdExchanger, Mr. Kohl points out that “whether or not the ad reaches its target audience and whether or not it is served into the viewable window or below the fold, DSPs, SSPs, data providers, viewability and verification providers, tag managers, re-targeters and others all take their few cents.”

The question to be asked is; “To what extent is this happening to my organization?” Fortunately, there is a quick, three-step method for testing your risk profile when it comes to programmatic digital media.

Step 1 – Ask your accounts payable department to provide you with a few examples of the digital media invoices that comprise the billing from your digital media agency partners. Check if they have a description of the services provided and the type and level of media inventory purchased. The objective of this exercise is to determine whether the invoices are highly descriptive or general in nature and if a non-media reviewer would be able to ascertain the breakdown of “what” was actually provided for the amount being billed.

Step 2 – Review the third-party vendor invoices that accompany the billing from your agency. If supporting vendor documentation is not provided, ask your agency to provide detail for a handful of invoices. This detail should include the invoices from the actual media sellers, not the agency’s trading desk or an affiliate. Apply the same filter to your review of these invoices as you did for the agency’s billing, with regard to the adequacy of the descriptions breaking out the media purchased and all of the attendant costs (i.e. net media expense, agency campaign management fees, ad tech and data fees, etc.).

Step 3 – Evaluate both sets of invoices, agency and vendor, for an itemized list of the fees being charged such as:

  • Agency campaign management fees
  • Data fees
  • Pre-bid decision making/ targeting fees
  • Ad tech/ DSP fees
  • Publisher discrepancy fees
  • Ad verification fees
  • Bid clearing fees
  • Ad serving fees

If you find that invoice descriptions are less specific than you would like or that third-party vendor invoices don’t contain an itemized list of fees being charged, it is time to have a conversation with your agency partners.

The first topic to be discussed is establishing your position and preference for “How” your programmatic media buys are to be structured when your agency goes to market on your behalf. If it is transparency that you seek, they should be executing your programmatic buys on a “cost-disclosed” rather than a “non-disclosed” basis. This is the only way that you will be able to identify the net costs being assessed for the media inventory purchased and to calculate what percentage of your buys are going toward working media. Fraud and viewability concerns aside, advertisers have found that after fees are subtracted, they’re lucky if 50¢ of a dollar spent on programmatic digital media actually makes it to the publisher to fund the media that your consumers see.

Once you and your agency have agreed on the desired level of disclosure, conversation must necessarily turn to the need for updating client-agency agreements, statements-of-work and each of the media control documents utilized by the agency (i.e. media authorization form, electronic RFI templates, digital insertion orders, etc.). In spite of the ad industry’s efforts to reform what remains a murky digital media supply chain fraught with bad actors, questionable practices and a lack of transparency, advertisers remain at risk. Therefore, it is imperative to ensure all parties are held accountable that they employ the appropriate descriptive invoice detail, reporting requirements and itemized cost breakdowns mandated by the advertiser.

Testing the current state of your programmatic buys’ level of transparency is a necessary first step to stripping away the opacity that can surround digital media buying. In turn, the results of this self-examination will assist advertisers in both safeguarding and improving the return on their digital media investments. In the words of David Ogilvy:

“Never stop testing, and your advertising will never stop improving.”

Keeping Pace with the Rate of Change in Ad Industry Can be a Challenge

31 Jan

lexiconDo you sometimes wonder how you will ever keep up with the dizzying array of change that has become a constant in the ad industry? The good news is that you may not be alone in your angst. Just take a look at how industry lexicon has evolved in recent years to reflect the technological changes that the industry is dealing with and one can easily surmise why practitioners feel stressed out…

Industry Lexicon for the 21st Century

Algorithm, artificial intelligence, programmatic media buying, header bidding, second-price auctions, big data, fraud, domain spoofing, viewability, demand side platform, Pinterest, supply side platform, data management platform. Ad tech, exchange, tech stack, human marketing, voice activation, block chain technology, deep learning, managed service model, the duopoly, GDPR, hyperlocal media, ad spoofing, biometric recognition, virtual reality, winning bid log metadata files, econometrics, transparency, martech, Facebook, linear TV, Snapchat, digital content production, ad tech integration, ads.text, brand safety, publisher addressable marketplace, blackhat SEO, walled gardens, proprietary tech integration, trading desks, principal-based buying, PII-based consumer ID’s, brand safe environments, push notifications, mobile-app fraud, spoof impressions, ad networks, e-commerce analytics platform, contextual fit, attribution fraud, HULU, curated inventory, general data protection regulation, CX strategy, cyber security, white list, multi-screen viewing, bid management fees, Instagram, PAM, PII based identifiers, automated monetization, onboard connected TV, app-install, exchanges, click spam, downstream metrics, dynamic creative optimization, sustainable ecosystems, dynamic personalization, performance media platform, extremist content, audience engagement, monetization, fake followers, hard news, enterprise brands, CPI, retargeting, data controller, software development kits, mediation products, combinatorial bidding, people-based marketing, waterfalling,  trust, content recommendation guarantees, Alexa, frequency capping, probabilistic methodology, addressable IDs, over-the-top video streaming, TAG, streaming environments, cross-channel messaging, influencer marketing, direct-to-consumer brands, brand activation, experiential marketing, growth hacking, social selling, fake news, user generated content, storytelling, illegitimate traffic sourcing, private marketplaces, sandboxing, non-human viewing, synchronized nodes, decentralized ad networks, voice assistants, cross-channel attribution, verification technologies, internet of things, personalization, social search, facial recognition platforms, 3-D printing, hyper-relevance, automated buying, voice activation, first-price ad auction, AI machine learning, in-home sensors, smart re-ordering services, digital workspace, multi-channel ecosystem, native advertising, organic posts, privacy settings and controls, FVOD free-video-on-demand, clearing price, net neutrality, invisible bots, Spotify, voice strategy, audio logos, autonomous vehicles, behavioral DNA, spot cloaking…

Never a dull moment for ad industry professionals to be sure. Consider the words of the twentieth century American writer, Alvin Toffler:

“Future shock is the shattering stress and disorientation that we induce in individuals by subjecting them to too much change in too short a time.” 

The questions to be considered are; “Can the industry sustain this rate of change, without compromising its ability to deliver? Can you?” Only time will tell.

 

3 Keys to Strengthening Client-Agency Relationships

25 Jan

Keys to SuccessMost would agree that strong client-agency relationships are more conducive to achieving positive results that drive in-market performance levels which meet or exceed expectations.

Similarly, both client-side and agency executives agree that “trust” is imperative in building and maintaining a solid partnership. Thus, one could logically conclude that establishing a relationship predicated on trustworthiness would be beneficial to advertisers and agencies alike.

However, as the ad industry has evolved and grown over the last decade or so, it seems as though the ability to establish trust between stakeholders has been greatly compromised. Whether this is between advertisers and agencies or agencies and ad tech providers or between ad tech providers and publishers. While the reasons for this are many, pundits will point to the myriad of documented transparency related issues that have plagued the industry, while cynics might suggest that Agatha Christie had it right when she said: “Where large sums of money are concerned, it is advisable to trust nobody.”

As consultants specializing in marketing supply chain accountability, working with advertisers and their agency network partners, we take a more pragmatic view. We believe that trust is not elusive, that it can be earned and nourished if clients and agencies are willing to commit to the following three steps:

  1. Establish a Principal-Agent Relationship – In short, an advertiser should never have to doubt the allegiance of their agency partners or the objectivity of their recommendations. A principal-agent relationship establishes the expectation that the agency has a fiduciary responsibility to always act on behalf of and in the best interest of its client. Memorialized within the client-agency agreement, this principle is the single best means for fostering trust.
  2. Perform Independent Transparency Accountability Reviews – Actions that advertisers should consider and that agencies should welcome include contract compliance reviews, financial management audits and media performance assessments. Independent reviews of agency performance relative to client expectations and contractual performance requirements instills a certain level of discipline when it comes to governance, and provides both parties with the assurance each is acting within the guidelines of agreement and a platform in which to discuss improvement opportunities.
  3. Conduct QBRs and 360° Performance Evaluations – We are all in the communications business, yet too often client-agency communications are inadequate when it comes to strengthening the relationship. Not talking about day-to-day interactions, but dialog regarding key business strategies and challenges, performance expectations and opportunities that occurs at even the most senior level within each organization. The use of quarterly business reviews (QBRs), that involve cross functional team members and executives from both the advertiser and client organizations are a great way to ensure that both sides are focused on the business and relationship priorities established at the beginning of the year. Complementing the QBRs should be an annual performance evaluation where representatives from the client and agency are invited to provide feedback on the relationship and identify opportunities to improve processes and performance. This should then be followed by a brief meeting to discuss the results of the evaluation and come to an agreement on actions to be taken in the coming year.

Business relationships can be complex and at times difficult. In our experience, implementing the aforementioned steps greatly enhances effective levels of communication, which fosters trust and confidence, which leads to solid relationships that drive superior performance.  As George Bernard Shaw intoned: “The biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.”

Interested in learning more about how to improve your marketing supply chain accountability for your organization? Contact Cliff Campeau, Principal at AARM | Advertising Audit & Risk Management at ccampeau@aarmusa.com for a complimentary consultation on the topic.

 

%d bloggers like this: