Tag Archives: agency financial management

One Thing Marketers Can Do to Mitigate Advertising Risk

26 Nov

Chances are, in 2020 your advertising budgets were slashed in response to your organization’s fiscal response to COVID-19.

Further, if you’re like most, those budgets aren’t likely to bounce back in the near-term. According to WARC Data’s latest study on global advertising trends, even if the ad market rises by the expected 6.7% in 2021, it will only “recoup 59% of 2020 losses.”

Downward pressure on ad budgets certainly is creating a need for organizations to optimize marketing resource allocation decisions. Yet, given the nature of the ad industry and its complex, layered, often non-transparent supply chain, advertisers may not have ready access to information needed to support these efforts.

As a corollary, in our contract compliance and assurance practice, we have found that those advertisers who do receive timely, detailed, and accurate financial reporting from advertising agency partners benefit greatly – however, most client/agency financial reporting relationships often do not meet this standard.

What is the “one thing” that marketers can do to improve the effectiveness of their advertising investment and to simultaneously mitigate risk? Implement a structured and consistent agency financial reporting (AFR) and monitoring program.

The AFR program’s core element is a finance (client) to finance (agency) relationship and a set of standardized templates to be completed quarterly by each agency partner. AFR submissions include both detailed and summary quarterly and year-to-date activities, and includes at a minimum:

  • Aged work-in-process summary
  • Billings by job and summary, including associated client purchase order, SOW or MSA
  • Out-of-pocket expense & travel by job and summary
  • Budget status by job (approved, spent, balance remaining, job close date)
  • Actual agency hours incurred vs. planned (tied to each staffing plan) for each retainer and out-of-scope fee jobs, including the reasoning for variances
  • Agency fee projection (trend vs. plan)
  • Unbilled media summary

Reporting templates and submission deadlines should be standardized across agencies, managed by client finance (non-Marketing) personnel, and shared cross-functionally within the client organization. AFR details can also serve as inputs to formal, broad-based “Quarterly Business Review” meetings that should routinely take place between client and agency.

The client finance team should take the lead in administering the AFR process, review agency submissions, and have a direct line of communication and relationship with agency finance personnel.

When assisting in implementing these programs, our experience has shown that once an AFR program is pushed out to an agency network and client stakeholders have been through the cycle for two or three quarters (receive agency reporting, review for completeness and reasonableness, perform variance analysis and engage agency finance personnel in Q&A) then ongoing maintenance of the program becomes more routine, engrained, and time commitments decline.

More importantly, advertising ARF monitoring and oversight will mitigate risk, will boost agency reporting accuracy, and will increase shared confidence between client and agency when it comes to financial management and future resource allocation decisions.

What is the True Cost of Opacity? (part 1 of 2)

29 Apr

icebergPart 1 in a two-part look advertiser concerns regarding “transparency” and the impact it is having on client-agency relations.

Ad industry concerns regarding the issue of transparency and the trust which exists between advertisers and their agencies have taken a new, decidedly negative turn over the course of the last month.  What had been largely an “in-house” debate focused on items such as AVBs, programmatic buying, media arbitrage and concerns over digital media viewability was thrust into the limelight as the result of one Wall Street analyst’s recommendation that ad agency holding company investors “sell their shares.”

The recent revelations about the utilization of media rebates or AVBs in the U.S. marketplace and the resulting firestorm in the advertising trade press seems to have been the tipping point that spurred Brian Wieser a Senior Analyst from Pivotal Research Group to downgrade the stocks of IPG, Omnicom, WPP and Publicis and to recommend that investors exit the category. Mr. Wieser’s recommendation provoked an additional round of denials by some holding company CEOs regarding the practice of agencies accepting rebates in the U.S. and spurred some debate amongst the holding companies about the transparency of their revenue realization processes. One notable CEO, Sir Martin Sorrell of WPP reiterated his company’s policy regarding rebates and encouraged WPP’s competitors to be more forthcoming on that front; “We said what the model is in the U.S., the way it’s a non-rebate model. We’ve made that quite clear. I would urge greater transparency in what’s happening to net sales and revenues, then we would have less black box and more open box.”

While the topic of rebates seems to have garnered a lion share of the attention, when it comes to transparency the rebate issue carries with it much less financial risk than the challenges associated with the rapidly evolving digital media landscape. Consider the fact that various research studies have suggested that digital media advertisers may be losing 50% + of their investment to click fraud, bots, piracy and excessive fees related to supply chain complexity.

Given that digital media now ranks second only to television in terms of media spending and that it continues to grow at double-digit rates the potential for Wall Street commentary regarding advertiser investment in this area could be much more problematic. For instance, at the recent ANA conference on “Agency Financial Management,” Peter Stabler, Managing Director, Senior Equities Analyst with Wells Fargo Securities raised concerns about one particular aspect of the digital media space… agency trading desks. Specifically, Mr. Stabler cited the inconsistent manner in which holding companies report on trading desk operations, the potential for the proceeds from trading desks to inflate revenues and create margin dissolution and the potential for conflict-of-interest concerns between advertisers and their agencies.

If there is a silver lining to this maelstrom, now that the genie is out of the proverbial bottle, perhaps the highly charged nature of these issues can serve as a galvanizing force to bring clients and agencies together to address these issues in an objective manner… without the emotion and finger-pointing which has characterized the discussions to date. Let’s face it, the last thing either party wants is to see their market capitalization rates decline because analysts and investors have concerns about how they transact business and or the state of client-agency relations. 

While the individual issues raised are substantive, many feel that they have taken on additional import as a result of an erosion of trust between clients and agencies. Thus, shoring up the strength of these strategic relationships could yield significant asset value both in the context of issue resolution and the ongoing business of building brands and generating demand. As automotive pioneer Henry Ford once said;

If everyone is moving forward together, then success takes care of itself.”

In our opinion, the best place to begin is to develop a sound client-agency letter-of-agreement, which clearly articulates both parties expectations and desired behaviors. Further, the agreement should specifically identify the level of disclosure required by the client of the agency, their related parties (i.e. holding companies, sister agencies, trading desk operations, in-house studios, etc…) and their third-party vendors. We believe that this is a critical first step in establishing accountability standards and controls.

Transparency is the Key to Agency Financial Accountability

17 Jul

agency financial management

A job estimate is generated. A purchase order is issued.  An invoice based upon the estimated job cost is generated by the agency and sent to the client.  This part of the advertiser/ advertising agency billing cycle is visible and clear. 

However, what happens with client funds once that invoice is paid is often anything but transparent.  For instance:

  1. How much does the agency actually pay third party vendors? 
  2. Which third party vendors are utilized?
  3. Do any third party vendors pass along prompt pay discounts or agency volume bonification (AVB) rebates to the agency (and is the agency passing these back to the advertiser)?
  4. Is the agency competitively bidding outside services purchased?
  5. What percentage of the advertiser investment is being directed to agency owned business units?
  6. Are jobs being closed and actual costs reconciled to estimate?
  7. What is the agency vouching process to insure that third party vendors have fully delivered on the products/ services owed for the investment made?
  8. How much time has the agency invested in the process?
  9. Did the agency adequately earn their compensation?
  10. Is the financial process and reporting efficient?

These are not trivial topics, yet strangely it is rare that an advertiser invests the time and or energy to pursue answers to these important financial stewardship questions.  Too often, payment of the initial estimate billing from the agency is the end of the client’s review process, rather than the beginning of an important accountability process, when it comes to billing management and contract compliance.  Ironically, even when advertisers establish processes, controls and reporting requirements within the client-agency letter-of-agreement these parameters often go unchecked.  Perhaps there is some redeeming value in the words of renowned educator, David Starr Jordan:

“Wisdom is knowing what to do next; virtue is doing it.” 

If an advertiser cannot readily answer the aforementioned questions, the associated lack of transparency and lax control environment increases an advertiser’s risk quotient… financial, legal and supply chain management related risks.  In our agency contract compliance practice, we uncover many recurring reasons as to “Why” advertisers fail to enforce the requisite level of financial accountability within their marketing supplier relationships.  These can range from staffing limitation issues (competence, knowledge, turnover, etc…) to organizational process gaps or cultural morays which simply don’t place the requisite value on accountability in this area.   

Experience tells us that once advertisers understand the monetary impact of “flying blind” on these key topics, attitudes toward marketing supplier accountability and contract compliance quickly change.  The financial impact of limited visibility and or lax controls in this area can put millions of dollars at risk, year in and year out.  This doesn’t have to be the case.   An in depth independent agency contract compliance review can yield valuable insight into the financial stewardship aspects of a client-agency relationship including industry “Best Practice” standards that can be implemented to enhance visibility, mitigate risks, boost marketing ROI and strengthen the client-agency relationship. 

“The time is always right to do what is right.” 

~Martin Luther King, Jr.

Interested in exploring the benefits of enhanced transparency when it comes to strategic supplier management in the marketing area?  Contact Cliff Campeau, Principal at Advertising Audit & Risk Management at ccampeau@aarmusa.com for a complimentary consultation.

 

%d bloggers like this: