Archive | Marketing Procurement RSS feed for this section

Can Treading Water Be Considered Progress?

31 Jul

Treading WaterThis is certainly one question that could be asked after reviewing the Association of National Advertisers (ANA) 2022 report,Procurement: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly.”

After twelve years since the ANA’s initial report on this topic, marketer and agency perceptions of the role, performance and acceptance of procurement have shown little improvement. While there is a grudging sense of “we’re in this together,” according to this report, client-side and agency stakeholders have not fully coalesced around a common set of goals. Thus, it is no surprise that success for this triumvirate remains elusive:

“Coming together is a beginning. Keeping together is progress. Working together is success.” ~ Henry Ford

Even within client organizations, while most of the marketing and procurement respondents felt that their relationship was “extremely” or “very” healthy, the perception gaps between these two groups when it comes to procurement’s role and performance relative to both its responsibilities and within key disciplines was alarming. Contrasting views in these areas would suggest that the “relationship” between the two functions is more superficial than meaningful. If there was objective, candid communication on these key variables, one would expect a more unified view of procurement’s contributions among team members.

The other striking observation was the continued negative pre-disposition toward procurement held by agency respondents. Most notably, while 54% of procurement respondents characterized their relationships with agencies as “extremely” or “very” healthy, only 15% of agency respondents felt the same. Further, while half of the procurement respondents expressed satisfaction with their marketing and advertising knowledge, no agency respondents shared that point of view. While this perspective may have been justified twelve years ago, it seems unexpectedly harsh and unfair today given the 51% increase in years of “marketing procurement experience” among procurement respondents or that agency personnel are not engaging in meaningful dialog.

Justified or not, agency attitudes in this area will need to be addressed if the relationship between procurement and agency personnel is going to improve. By way of example, commentary offered by select agency representatives and by the American Association of Advertising Agencies (4As) ascribed to the stilted view that to remedy their current perspective, procurement personnel should focus their efforts on “value optimization” versus “cost reduction.”

Newsflash, cost reductions are both an element of an organization’s value optimization efforts and a necessary action during difficult economic times or when performance doesn’t meet expectations. Thus, it is unfair to attribute blame to procurement for an enterprise’s expense management initiatives. This is no different than from the approach taken by agency holding companies and independent agencies when dealing with their suppliers, employees, advisors, and landlords during times when fiscal tightening is required.

Based on our experience, assuming marketing is motivated, we believe marketing is perfectly positioned to take the lead in breaking through the current malaise. Given their P&L responsibilities and attendant responsibility for effectively stewarding their organization’s marketing and advertising investment, they are uniquely qualified to drive stakeholder understanding and respect for procurement’s role and responsibilities.

To this end, the ANA report offers several meaningful recommendations for progress, which are centered on the need for all parties to work together in a more collaborative and productive manner. Importantly, the ANA rightly suggests that this begins with a focus on the relationship between marketing and procurement to gain alignment and present a “unified front” to their organization’s agency partners.

There is much at stake for each of the parties and mutual success is achievable. However, this will require an attitude reset and a renewed commitment to respecting one another’s unique roles and contributions.

“We may have all come on different ships, but we’re in the same boat now.” ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

Marketing Procurement Delivers Value

31 May

Value IA decade ago, agencies and marketers winced at the idea of procurements involvement in their space. The relationships between stakeholders were often contentious. Stakeholders on both sides felt that procurement was singularly focused on cost reduction, did not understand the marketing space and was unable to comprehend, if not measure the quality of outputs delivered by high performing marketing/agency teams.

Have these sentiments changed? Yes, for the better. Have advertisers and their agency partners fully embraced marketing procurement? Yes, in many organizations. That said C-Suite executives at most marketing organizations are comfortable with and comforted by procurement and its role in providing oversight for and optimizing marketing spend.

The good news is that marketing procurement teams have done an excellent job evolving their subject matter expertise and furthering their understanding of the needs of marketing teams and their agency partners. Coupled with procurement’s expertise in all facets of supplier management including sourcing, onboarding, contracting, negotiation and risk management, procurement teams deliver significant value to their marketing peers.

Out of necessity, marketers are increasingly focused on brand building and demand generation. For those fortunate enough to have access to a developed marketing procurement team, the opportunity to drive efficiencies while strengthening relationships across their agency network is significant.

According to the Association of National Advertisers (ANA) better than 80% of marketers utilize procurement to review agency compensation. However, that is just scratching the surface of successfully deploying marketing procurement.

In our agency contract compliance practice, we have seen the benefits to marketers of collaborating with procurement. These include support in the following areas:

  • Supplier sourcing, RFP management and on-boarding
  • Supplier diversity management support
  • Agency performance monitoring and financial management support
  • Contracting and annual statement of work support
  • Deduping of agency roles and overlap across agency network members
  • Agency service consolidation including digital asset management and studio
  • Decoupling of production
  • Fostering enhanced collaboration between network agencies and in-house resources

From our perspective, the success realized by marketers and their peers in procurement is greatly enhanced when the procurement team has direct interaction with agency finance personnel. This must go beyond contract, SOW, and fee negotiations to include ongoing interactions regarding monthly fee and budget tracking reporting and the preparation for quarterly business reviews (QBRs).

In the end, all stakeholders desire the same outcome, attainment of the organization’s marketing goals with the greatest efficiency. Achieving this aim is best done through open, transparent supplier relationships, which the successful marketing procurement teams recognize. As American businessman Harvey Mackay once said, “A smart manager will establish a culture of gratitude. Expand the appreciative attitude to suppliers, vendors, delivery people, and of course, customers.”

Optimizing Client Relationships: Collaborating Effectively with Procurement

30 Apr

procurementThe “Procurement Phenomenon” at the dawn of the new millennium has morphed squarely into the Procurement Era for Marketing and Communications Services. Agency executives can no longer ignore this new marketplace reality and must now embrace, educate, and in some instances, emulate this very influential Client stakeholder.

Join J. Francisco Escobar, President & Founder of JFE International Consultants for an engaging, complimentary webinar that will take you through the evolution, definition, current trends, and best practices that will guide you and your team in optimizing relationships with client procurement teamsClick Here

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.

 

Increase Your Digital Coverage by 40% In One-Easy-Step

1 Aug

simpleisgoodConfucius once said that “Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated.”

Perhaps the same can be said of digital media buying. Too often it seems as though the onset and rapid growth of programmatic buying has created more problems than solutions. An expanded media supply chain with multiple layers of costs, increased levels of fraud, brand safety concerns, visibility challenges, a lack of transparency and perhaps most troubling, eroding levels of trust between advertisers and their agencies.

Growing pains? Perhaps. But something needs to change and this author would like to suggest one potential solution… abandon programmatic digital media buying altogether. Seriously? Why not?

Consider the following and the concept won’t seem so far-fetched:

  • In 2015, advertisers spent $60 billion on digital media, with close to two-thirds of that going to Google and Facebook (source: Pivotal Research).
  • According to the advertising trade group, Digital Content, today this duopoly is garnering 90% of every new dollar spent on digital media.
  • What happened to the magical pursuit of the long-tail and the notion of smaller bets being safer? Economics. The fact is that the notion of the long-tail simply didn’t work as researchers and economists found that having less of more is a better, more statistically sound pursuit. To wit, Google’s and Facebook’s market share.
  • Today, programmatic digital display advertising accounts for 80% of display ad spending, which will top $33 billion in 2017 (source: eMarketer).
  • Between 2012 – 2016 programmatic advertising grew 71% per year, on average (source: Zenith).
  • In 2018, programmatic will grow an additional 30%+ to $64 billion, with the U.S. representing 62% of global programmatic expenditures (source: Zenith).

Come again. Two publishers are getting $.90 of every incremental digital dollar spent and programmatic digital media buying accounts for 80%+ of digital media spend. What are we missing? Is there an algorithm that specializes in sending RFPs and insertion orders to Google and Facebook in such a manner that the outcome yields a 40% or better efficiency gain?

As we all know, there have been numerous industry studies, including those sponsored by the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA) and the Association of National Advertisers (ANA), which have suggested that at least 40% of every digital media dollar spent goes to cover programmatic digital media buying’s transactional costs (third-party expenses and agency fees), with only $.48 – $.60 of that expenditure going to publishers.

So, for an advertiser spending $40 million on programmatic digital media, if the law of averages holds true, $16 million will go to cover transactional costs and agency fees. That means that of the advertiser’s original spend, they will actually get $24 million worth of media. While we know that programmatic media can yield efficiencies, can it overcome that type of transactional deficit?

If that same advertiser eschewed programmatic digital and decided to rely on a digital direct media investment strategy, what would it cost them?

Assume that they hired ten seasoned digital media planning and investment professionals for $150,000 each (salary, bonus, benefits), they would spend $1.5 million on direct labor costs. Further, in order to afford their team maximum flexibility, let’s say that the advertiser allocated an additional $1 million annually for access to ad tech tools and research subscriptions to facilitate their Team’s planning and placement efforts. This would bring their total outlay to $2.5 million per annum.

If they were spending $40 million in total, this means that the team would be able to purchase $37.5 million worth of digital media. Don’t forget that placing digital buys direct will greatly reduce fraud levels that can eat up another 8% – 12% of every digital ad dollar, while also greatly improving brand safety guideline adherence. Compare that to the $24 million in inventory purchased programmatically.

So how efficient is programmatic?

Sadly, most advertisers can’t even address this question, because their buys are structured on a non-disclosed, rather than a cost-disclosed basis. Even if they had line of sight into what the third-party costs (i.e. media, data, tech) and agency fees being charged were, they wouldn’t have a clue as to the fees/ charges that sell-side suppliers were levying, further eroding working media levels.

A simplistic solution? Perhaps. But the fact that the industry continues to drink the programmatic “Kool-Aid” without any significant progress toward resolving the dilutive effect that programmatic transactional costs, agency fees and fraud have on an advertiser’s investment seems a tad irresponsible.

Ask yourself. What would you do if it were your money?

 

 

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.”

Funding Accountability Initiatives

26 Aug

Accountability FinalThe desire on the part of many advertisers to extend their organization’s accountability initiative to marketing is high. This is due to the fact that marketing is both one of the largest indirect expense categories within an organization and, for those that believe in its ability to drive strategic outcomes, critical in driving brand value and demand generation.

One of the key challenges for Internal Audit and Procurement professionals in implementing accountability programs is that they typically do not have a budget to fund the projects. Rather, they are reliant on their peers in Marketing to “buy in” to the concept and to underwrite the investment associated with analyzing contract compliance, financial management and in-market performance across their agency networks. This dynamic can create a loggerhead that delays or prevents corporate scrutiny into marketing and advertising spending and its resulting business impact.

The irony is that relative to the millions of dollars invested in marketing, the cost of implementing an accountability program for this corporate function is much less than one-percent of total spend. As we know, applying the skills and capabilities of audit and procurement teams and outside consultants typically results in improved controls that mitigate financial and legal risks to the organization. Further, these efforts often uncover historical errors and overbillings, and always generate future savings and improved marketing return-on-investment opportunities that more than offset the cost of the program.

It has always been a mystery as to why more advertisers simply don’t formalize and legislate the marketing accountability program and establish the requisite budget to be administered by the CFO / Finance organization. A minority of our clients operate in this manner, but clearly a “win, win” situation is created where internal audit and procurement provide their support and apply their resources pro-actively and marketing doesn’t feel as though funding is coming at the expense of critical business building programs within their budgets.

From our perspective, the source of funding for extending a corporate accountability initiative to marketing is the last hurdle. The reason is that we have seen marketing’s appreciation for accountability support grow along with their respect for the audit and procurement functions and a recognition that such programs can improve the efficiency and efficacy of the organization’s marketing spend.

The advertising industry is a complex; rapidly changing, technology-driven sector fraught with opacity challenges and risks such as digital media fraud and non-transparent revenue practices employed by agencies, ad tech providers, ad exchanges and media sellers. In light of these dynamics, organizations truly understand the benefit of monitoring the disposition of their marketing investment and the performance of their advertising agencies and third-party vendors.

It has been over 140 years since Philadelphia merchant John Wanamaker offered the following perspective on his ad spend:

Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is, I don’t know which half.”

Yet, with the passage of time it would be difficult for the industry to suggest that much has changed with regard to a marketers ability to accurately assess the efficacy of their advertising spend.

There is no time like the present to proactively develop; implement and fund transformative accountability programs that can optimize planned business outcomes, while safeguarding marketing spend at every level of the advertising investment cycle.

Interested in learning more about marketing accountability programs? Contact Cliff Campeau, Principal at Advertising Audit & Risk Management| AARM at [email protected] for a complimentary consultation on the topic.

Sourcing Your Programmatic Buying Partner

14 Dec

3 rsWritten by Peter Portanova, Project Analyst for Source One Management Services

The concepts of reach and frequency have long guided the way marketers approach advertising, and when multiplied, they provide the calculation for Gross Rating Points (GRPs) to measure and evaluate the success of your campaigns. However, the rise of programmatic ad buying (automated buying based on real time data analysis of competitive rates) forces marketers to reconsider their historical understanding of success in marketing, and encourages the consideration of new and potentially more effective metrics.

GRPs are hugely important across a variety of marketing channels, exclusive of programmatic buying. The ideology that more GRPs means greater success is severely flawed, and by using such a calculation in a highly targeted and customized solution like programmatic buying, one misrepresents the technology’s true value. However, instead of arguing the utility of GRPs, it is more critical to consider alternative means of success in marketing and how embracing programmatic can revolutionize your approach to online advertising, while driving a variety of critical KPIs.  

Programmatic buying is growing quickly, and is responsible for billions of dollars in digital media placements. Programmatic buying is the intersection where data and advertising truly meet, with engineers, traders, and data-management platforms replace traditional sales planners. Agencies would like you to believe that their programmatic efforts reduce overall costs, but the truth of the situation is that, when viewed holistically, programmatic buying is actually more expensive.

Implementing programmatic buying efforts does have its merits, and agencies are quick to note that initial costs can be negated quickly. However, for programmatic buying to reach its maximum potential, marketers and advertisers must learn to move past the traditional reach and frequency mindset, and consider the long-term advantages of highly targeted placements. In fact, industry experts note that using programmatic buying to place more advertisements decreases transparency, which can lead to fraudulent placements. In using programmatic buying to deliver a highly targeted message to the right individual at the right time, brands are able to increase their visibility to the appropriate segments, increasing potential brand engagement.

Marketers must begin to understand programmatic buying from a holistic perspective. Why is this more expensive? Does it involve fewer people? Most marketers are shocked that programmatic buying proposals suggest fewer advertisements at a greater cost. While inventory is cheaper in programmatic buying compared to manual buying, there are substantial costs of doing business to implement and manage these efforts. In an article on AdAge, a media agency executive said, “Five full time employees are needed to spend $100 million national broadcast budget, while the same number would be needed for a $5 million programmatic buy.”

Understanding the discrepancy in FTEs and costs becomes more complicated when you also factor agency commissions into the equation. The employees required to manage a programmatic buy are in far greater demand, having a unique skillset that commands salaries 50-100% greater than manual buyers. The technology and the platforms do not eliminate the need for human input, and therefore it is critical to entice highly skilled employees for retention. Traditional full-service agencies have seen these employees move quickly to digital agencies that have a greater focus on new technologies, including programmatic buying.

The true cost of programmatic buying becomes noticeable when considering agency commissions that are charged to simply breakeven. The same agency executive interviewed by AdAge stated that, with a budget of $100 million, break-even points begin at 1% with TV, and quickly jump to 10-12% with programmatic. It is also worth noting that the 12% commission is only the break-even, with many agencies charging a rate of around 20%, to turn a meager profit.

There is a substantial cost of placing media through a programmatic partner. AdAge refers to these costs as an “intermediary tax” which accounts for all the transactions that take place to make a programmatic buy occur. With 7% to 20% taken by ad exchanges, another 10% to 20% taken by automated software providers, and then another 15% for the data-management platforms, there is potential that only $.50 of every dollar will reach the publisher. While these rates may seem expensive, there is value in using programmatic buying; however, the marketer should be fully aware of the intended use of programmatic, with no expectation that they are receiving a more targeted solution for a lower price.

While so far we have discussed mostly the potential benefits (and drawbacks) of programmatic buying, there is always a need to manage costs. Consider the following best practices when working with your agency to ensure greater transparency in your agreement.

  • Contract Language
    • When contracting with your programmatic buying partner, ensure that language exists around specific rates. Furthermore, consider a period where you can renegotiate these rates to be more favorable.
  • Redundant Services
    • Prior to considering your programmatic needs, understand the services you require and what you may need outside of traditional manual buying. When working with multiple vendors (which is common with programmatic buying), there is potential to be charged for the same service multiple times.
  • Liberate your Data
    • Unless specifically outlined, your data may not belong to you after working with a particular partner. If you are unable to retrieve your data during any part of the process, the supplier immediately gains tremendous advantage.
  • Understand your Options
    • Do you need managed service, or do you need self-service? In a self-service agreement, the vendor charges for the use of their technology, but does not charge for any resources associated with operating the platform. A managed option typically has charges for not only the technology, but also the management fees associated with run and execute a campaign.
  • Consolidate
    • Find a partner capable of providing you with a variety of services, and consolidate your marketing to that one agency. Using separate agencies to plan and execute your manual and programmatic buys is inefficient, and unless information is shared freely across agencies (it probably will not be), the effectiveness of both operations will be hindered. Consolidation also allows for better reporting and recognition of opportunities across channels.

As for the future of programmatic buying? It’s only anticipated to grow. EMarketer predicts total programmatic buying spend to exceed $20B in 2016. When it comes to digital marketing, there is no “one size fits all.” While programmatic buying is typically more expensive than other traditional tactics, there’s no doubt the method offers significant ROI in the form of operational speed and efficiency and increased scale and targeting. Like any other agency sourcing engagement, do your due diligence when looking for the right partner for your programmatic buying requirements. Beyond assessing agency scale, technology and data analytics, and skillsets, take steps to establish a strategic client-agency relationship. This begins with strong contract language that drives further value from your programmatic efforts and continues with fostering ongoing communication and transparency with your agency.

Peter Portanova is a marketing category enthusiast and Project Analyst for Source One Management Services. He is an expert at developing RFPs and executing strategic sourcing strategies for clients in a wide array of industries, specializing in navigating the complexities of the Marketing spend category. Click to learn more about Source One’s Marketing Category expertise.

In the Wake of PepsiCo’s Marketing Procurement Decision

17 Nov

OversightOn November 12, Ad Age reported that PepsiCo had made the decision to eliminate its Marketing Procurement department. As a result of the decision, the company will shift responsibility for marketing procurement activities to their brand executives.

PepsiCo’s move is consistent with its philosophy of shifting responsibilities to their brand teams with the goal of allowing those decision makers to “more quickly balance cost value and quality in all of their decisions.” While the company acknowledged the potential risks associated with the move as it relates to financial due diligence and contract compliance, it believes that it will be able to leverage its procurement experience, practices and processes to support the brand teams in this endeavor.

As industry participants know all to well, the role of procurement in marketing has been a contentious one over the last decade or so. Thus, it is likely that this decision will spark much dialog among marketers, procurement professionals and their agency partners. Some advertisers will evaluate the merits of a similar approach for their business and many in the agency community will weigh the impact of this decision on the broader topic of procurement’s role in marketing going forward.

We believe that regardless of one’s perspective, periodic introspection on seminal topics such as marketing procurement is helpful and continued dialog between advertisers and agencies on the practice is healthy. That said, we do not view PepsiCo’s decision as the beginning of a trend away from enterprise accountability and its application to the marketing function.

In our agency contract compliance practice, we work with advertisers that have highly developed, actively involved marketing procurement teams and we also work with advertisers that have not yet involved procurement on the marketing portion of their business. Regardless, each organization is mindful of the accountability and oversight obligation they have when it comes to their marketing investment. After all, advertising and marketing spend is one of the largest line items on a company’s P&L, and is critical to brand building over the long-term and demand generation in the near-term.

Financial accountability related to marketing can be viewed as falling into the following categories:

  1. Formalizing and centralizing key aspects of the agency relationship lifecycle: agency selection, on-boarding, performance monitoring, optimization, and transition when necessary.
  2. Leveraging the agency investment, by brand and across the organization as a whole. Decisions in this area can include both agency remuneration system development and overall composition of the agency network. Do we draft and engage disparate agency brands? Select agencies from a particular holding company? Or do we build a dedicated shop at the holding company level (i.e. WPP’s Team Detroit serving Ford Motor Company or Garage Team Mazda).
  3. Financial stewardship oversight and implementation of controls to safeguard the organization’s marketing spend at each stage of the investment cycle.

In our experience, the best tactic for aiding management of an agency network is the use of a standardized but customizable “Master Services Agreement” template. Formalizing the legal and financial terms and conditions necessary to protect an advertiser’s monetary investment and intellectual property rights is a critical first step on the path toward accountability. This is closely followed by the need to identify representatives from select functional areas of the organization that have would have involvement in the contracting, compensation system development and performance review portions of the agency relationship management program.

Organization’s that have implemented Strategic Relationship Management (SRM) initiatives will undoubtedly have an edge when it comes to leveraging their agency fee investment across brands, divisions and geographies. These companies will likely already have pre-determined agency selection protocols and established compensation guidelines or at a minimum maintain a database of information that can be accessed by client-side executives responsible for agency relationship management to help shape their decision making in this area.

Finally, whether an advertiser has a formalized marketing procurement department or not, independent agency contract compliance and performance monitoring support will typically satisfy an organization’s oversight and transparency requirements.

Many will suggest that PepsiCo’s decision will lead the industry down the path of rethinking the role of or need for marketing procurement. To the contrary, we believe that procurement’s role in marketing has been and will continue to be a highly individualized decision for advertisers. While important, we believe that procurement is but one piece in the overall puzzle for advertisers seeking to optimize their return on marketing investment.

Why Working Media is Still a Relevant Ratio

20 Jul

In the decades since full-service agencies unbundled and the 15% agency commission fell by the wayside, advertisers have sought ways to assess the efficiency of their overall advertising investment.

One of the more reliable measures of efficiency had been the ratio of working media to non-working media. Working media being defined as the percentage of an advertiser’s budget spent on distributing their message to the intended audience (media pass-through costs). Conventional wisdom held that non-working media expenses (i.e. production, studio charges, agency fees, etc.…) should fall between 15% and 20% of an advertiser’s total spend.

The media landscape evolved to include digital, social and mobile channels, which have garnered a greater percentage of media spend, leading many industry pundits to suggest that focusing on working media ratios as a measure of efficiency is irrelevant. Why? Partly because of the increased focus on content creation, analytics and the expansion of an advertiser’s roster to include a host of specialty agencies. All of which have served to fuel non-working media costs.

Stop. While applying a 15% to 20% benchmark may no longer be appropriate, that doesn’t nullify the need to assess the efficiency of advertiser spending.

One must remember that there have also been developments within the industry to increase efficiencies and offset the justification for a rise in non-working media as a percent of total spend. Digital media asset management systems, production centers of excellence, offshoring and programmatic buying are but a handful of items which have leveraged technology to wring costs out of the system.

Advertisers have no choice but to establish goals and benchmarks for monitoring the efficiency of their overall advertising investment. No one is suggesting that this be done at the expense of creating brand relevant, distinctive, effective content. Quite the opposite, trimming unproductive non-working media expense is a necessary means of boosting that effectiveness. Perhaps this is why major advertisers such as Unilever and PepsiCo publicly share their goals and performance as it relates to the non-working media ratio.

The fact is that advertisers’ agency rosters and third-party vendor networks have expanded dramatically. This in turn has created additional layers and redundancies across many of their agency network partners, which can serve to fuel non-working media expense. A few short years ago the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA) conducted research, which found that a majority of advertisers surveyed felt that their agencies had added layers of costs when it came to one important aspect of their advertising spend… media buying.

So why shouldn’t advertisers monitor non-working media spend in addition to the analytics utilized to assess effectiveness? In the end, eliminating waste is part of a marketing organization’s fiduciary responsibility to their enterprise.

The good news is that advertisers can establish their own internal guideposts for monitoring working media ratios. It is relatively easy to look back on expenditures by category to provide a historical perspective to calculate this particular measure of efficiency. Importantly, this will also allow advertisers to establish firm goals to assist them with their resource allocation decisions.

 

%d bloggers like this: