Tag Archives: ANA

Fraud and the Lack of Transparency. What Actions are you Taking?

26 Jan

fraudsterReflecting at the end of 2022 there were two articles that piqued my interest (links below). The articles dealt with two issues that have plagued the ad industry for years now… the monetary impact of ad fraud and the lack of transparency surrounding programmatic digital media. According to Nick Swimer, an Entertainment and Media Partner at Reed Smith, LLP; “The lack of transparency is costing businesses millions and driving false impressions, which in turn is undermining trust in the industry.”

Advertisers, on the whole, currently invest more than half of their budgets in digital media. A high percentage of this activity is purchased programmatically. Based upon a review of these articles, the monetary impact and attendant risks faced by advertisers in this area are eye-opening. This is on the heels of the 2020 study by the ISBA and PwC which found that only 51% of spending in this area made it to publishers. Of the remaining 49% balance, 15% of total advertiser spend could not even be tracked or attributed.

Given the economic climate and the negative impact on marketing budgets, it is natural to wonder why there isn’t a greater proclivity for action on this front among marketers.

Support for industry trade associations such as the ANA, IAB, and their key initiatives (i.e., Trustworthy Accountability Group (TAG), regulatory outreach and lobbying efforts, etc.) are important steps in this area that will yield results for marketers over the long haul. However, immediate action is required if marketers want to safeguard their investments sooner than later.

Near-term, there are a few key steps that marketers can take to mitigate the negative economic impact that fraud and non-transparency related risks can have on their budgets:

  1. Update media agency contracts to secure comprehensive audit rights, establish a principal-agent relationship and clarify expectations regarding the agency’s fiduciary responsibilities.
  2. Conduct periodic contract compliance, financial management, and performance audits of media agencies.
  3. Assess and tighten media controls including Media Authorization Form language, Buying Guidelines, campaign monitoring and post-buy reporting, agency-generated third-party vendor insertion order language, and client sign-off requirements before using agency affiliates or Inventory Media buys.

Too much time has elapsed since these issues originally surfaced. And while there has been much talk about corrective measures, these trends have continued unabated. It feels as though now is the time for action, not indifference. What do you think?

Tags: , , , , , ,

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.

 

Tags: , , ,

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.”

Tags: , ,

Building a Foundation for Trust in Client/ Agency Relationships

27 Feb

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tags: , , ,

A Key to Rebuilding Client – Agency Relationships

28 Jul

Bias and ObjectivityThe state of client-agency relationships has been on the decline for several years. Whether measured in terms of longevity, the increase in project-based work versus retained relationship commitments or the waning level of advertiser trust in their agency partners, all of these important partnerships are under pressure.

Regardless of the reasons behind the current situation, this is not a healthy dynamic for either advertisers or agencies. The result has been shorter, more volatile relationships, higher levels of agency personnel turnover and some would argue less effective, less efficient advertising outputs. Reason enough for both sets of stakeholders to thoughtfully assess the current situation and seek corrective action.

There is, we believe, a clear starting point for improving client-agency relationships. It involves a return to the tried and true “principal-agent” business model that once formed the basis for relationships between advertisers and agencies. The woes currently besetting these partnerships and driving advertiser concerns over transparency and trust are direct outcomes of the industry’s deviation from this important principle and the resulting practices that are averse to this model.

A basic tenet of principal-agent relationships is that the agent is bound to make decisions and to take actions that are in the best interest of the principal…always. This, in turn, guides interactions between the parties in a manner that achieves the highest possible degree of accountability and ultimately trust.

It wasn’t long ago that all client-agency agreements contained language establishing the principal-agent relationship, the need for agencies to provide unbiased counsel and the resulting fiduciary obligations of both parties.

Sadly, agency compliance with and commitment to this framework began to wane within the agency community. Some may remember the controversial comments by Irwin Gotlieb, once CEO of WPP’s Group M who opined at the 2015 “Agency Financial Management” Conference hosted by the ANA: “Those relationships, rightly or wrongly, don’t exist anymore” he said, adding that “You cease to be an agent the moment someone puts a gun to your head and says these are the CPMs you need to deliver.” Blaming advertisers for the bad practices adopted by some agencies was inappropriate at best.

Even with contractual safeguards in place, problems occur when “agents” have hidden agendas or substitute their interests over those of the principal. This is why the topic of “media rebates” secured and retained by media agencies, without client knowledge or approval proved to be such a lightning rod topic when it initially surfaced.

Fast forward to the present and certain revenue-generating practices that are pursued by many agencies such as principal or inventory buys (media arbitrage), acceptance of incentives from third parties (i.e. rebates, value pots, EPI’s, etc.), agencies awarding work to their holding company affiliates without a competitive review or client authorization, and the application of non-disclosed, unauthorized mark-ups.

Whose interests are being served by such practices…certainly not the advertisers. To paraphrase Shep Gordon, Hollywood producer and talent manager:

“I think a problem for most people in a fiduciary capacity is to eliminate self and greed and all those things so that they can actually be in a fiduciary capacity where the client comes first, whoever the client happens to be.”

Advertisers must protect their legal and financial interests by crafting contract language and implementing the appropriate controls, including performing periodic audits. How else can they ensure that they have the transparency they seek in the context of their agency partners’ financial stewardship of their advertising investment and the confidence that their agencies are acting in their best interest?

On the topic of principal-based buying specifically, we have a contrarian perspective and don’t believe that it is ever appropriate for an agency to purchase media inventory in its name, mark it up by some undisclosed amount and re-sell that to its clients. Yet, these non-disclosed buys have proliferated as programmatic digital media buying has exploded. While the 4A’s issued guidelines to address this practice including documentation including client opt-in, explanation of an advertiser’s audit rights (if any) and access to the underlying costs, oftentimes agreement language is silent on these recommendations or are simply not followed in actual practice.

Thus, if both parties want to establish trust and rebuild the client-agency relationship, begin by eliminating the risk of bias in an agency’s recommendations and or actions and reinforce the principal-agent framework in agreement language.

Tags: , , , , ,

Ad Industry Launches Programmatic Probe

30 Apr

thThe Association of National Advertisers (ANA) recently announced that it will commission a study to identify ways to address the myriad of issues plaguing the programmatic marketplace. Both the ISBA and World Federation of Advertisers (WFA) are supporting the effort.

Citing ongoing concerns regarding “thin transparency, fractured accountability, and mind-numbing complexity” the ANA believes that these issues, combined with the percentage of digital spend going to cover fees charged by ad tech intermediaries, are costing advertisers billions of dollars per year. By their estimate “only 40% to 60% of digital dollars invested by advertisers find their way to publishers.” Of the funds that do reach publishers, a recent study by the ISBA found that “15% of budgets simply disappear without a trace” supporting thin transparency claims.

Picture1

For perspective, according to Zenith Media, 65% of U.S. digital media is placed programmatically. For perspective, advertisers spent approximately $139 billion on digital media in the U.S., representing 54% of total media spend.

Unfortunately, the promise of improved efficiency and effectiveness related to programmatic has yet to be realized. With evolving privacy regulation and a higher incidence of fraud (fake traffic) to add to the lack of clear insight into the fees charged, true inventory costs and placement quality, it is difficult to explain the rapid growth of this form of buying. Yet it seems there is no turning back as programmatic buying has become dominant in digital and expanded to other media types as well.

Despite these challenges, many media pundits suggest that traditional metrics for evaluating media success (i.e., impressions, clicks, views, completed views, etc.) are not apropos for assessing the efficacy of programmatic. They argue that in the end, it is all about actions and outcomes. However, a Google Ad Manager study found that an increase in video ad viewability, for instance, from “50% to 90% can result in a revenue uplift of over 80% (averaged across desktop and mobile).” No one would argue that views and outcomes cannot occur without exposure to real people and legitimate human traffic.

Thus, with advertisers continuing to fuel the growth of programmatic buying across media types, the timing could not be better for the ANA’s initiative to investigate this sector of the media marketplace.  As the 1st century BC writer and philosopher, Publilius Syrius once said: “It is better to learn late than never.”

Tags: , , ,

Agency Audits: An Advertiser “Right” Not Yet a Standard Practice

26 Jan

dreamstime_xs_7828625For most organizations, the “Right-to-Audit” is a staple in their advertising agency agreements. Worded properly, this important contract language provides the company an opportunity to periodically check ad agency compliance with contract terms, review financial support that should agree to agency billings and to otherwise evaluate various performance metrics.

Yet despite the inclusion of this vital risk management clause and the rights that it confers, far too few organizations actually follow through to perform the testing which would otherwise provide stakeholders with comfort that agency billings are accurate and true.

So, why don’t advertisers audit their agency partners?

One might logically deduce that all clients would periodically review agency compliance, financial management and performance given:

  • The materiality of spend levels.
  • Limited insight to whether agencies are accurately reconciling estimated invoices to actual costs.
  • The complex, multi-layered supply chains, especially in digital media.
  • The well-publicized news of the ad industry’s ongoing challenges with transparency and fraud.

Aside from mitigating financial risk that could be eroding marketing expense effectiveness, another benefit of agency compliance testing is that it can help allay client-side stakeholder (marketing, finance, internal audit, procurement) concern and further build trust. Trust is crucial, particularly clients are relying on agency partners to fulfill their fiduciary and legal responsibilities in stewarding their advertising funds.

In addition, the level of trust between advertisers and their agency partners has been under siege. Consider ID Comms 2018 Global Media Transparency Survey where only one in ten respondents indicated that their “relationship with their agency or advertising client was trusting.” Further, 40% of respondents believed that trust levels were “average” compared to 52% in ID Comms 2016 survey.

We see first-hand where contract compliance and financial management audits identify and address gaps in understanding, controls and reporting that negatively affect client spend effectiveness and erode agency margins. Whether financial definitions, billing basis, fee calculations, project briefing, the approval process, rework levels, custom reporting requests, and or payment timing issues, audits can provide a prescriptive for positive change to benefit all stakeholders.

In our practice we see three principal reasons why the right-to-audit is not employed often enough – and therefore has become much less effective as a control than necessary:

  1. No clear ownership who is responsible for the Audit function in the context of marketing.
  2. Lack of a formal budget allocation process for assurance and risk mitigation for marketing and advertising spend.
  3. Limited organizational understanding of risks related to the advertising category.

As a result, clients continue to invest billions of dollars annually through their agency partners in spite of never verifying whether there are proper controls and regulations to safeguard those funds and optimize the efficacy of their investment. The need is real. Building effective verification and monitoring tools into client-agency relationships cannot be viewed as an option, but rather a prerequisite.

Fortunately, if the will is there on the part of client organizations, the solution is relatively straight-forward.

  • Responsibility for the checking agency financial compliance cannot rest solely with the marketing team. Finance, internal audit and procurement each have a role to play in the process.
  • Setting up a rotational audit program for each of the organization’s audit partners is paramount. Funding the effort through marketing, finance or internal audit budgets can ensure that the program will be executed as designed.
  • Establishing direct relationships between client-side finance and agency finance personnel greatly enhances an advertiser’s line-of-sight into the disposition of their funds at each phase of the advertising investment cycle.
  • Develop a relationship with a co-source supplier with deep marketing audit expertise.

Enhancing an advertisers control framework to include the regular review of their agency partners’ client accounting practices and controls along with their contract compliance to contract terms will inevitably mitigate risks and lead to better management of this important investment. In the words of Simon Mainwaring, brand futurist and businessman:

“The keys to brand success are self-definition, transparency, authenticity and accountability.”

Tags: , , , ,

Time for Advertisers to Reach Out to the Regulators

26 Oct

Like many business segments, the ad industry has never been one to welcome government involvement when it comes to policing itself, and perhaps rightly so. That said, now may be the time to embrace the regulators.

Why? Simply put, digital advertising fraud is out-of-control. In a recent article in Campaign U.S. author Alison Weissbrot shared the results of a recent study by ad verification company Cheq and Professor Roberto Cavazos of the University of Baltimore suggesting that U.S. advertisers will lose $35.0 billion to ad fraud in 2020. In a sector that represents $333.0 billion in annual spend this means that ten cents of every dollar spent by digital advertisers is siphoned off the top by fraudsters. For perspective, the author cites the fact that this level of fraud is greater than that impacting the $3.32 trillion credit card industry. And the problem is not limited to the U.S. alone. Consider the finding from Juniper Research’s 2019 report on advertising fraud, which indicated that globally lost $42.0 billion to digital ad fraud last year.

Renowned fraud investigator, Dr. Augustine Fou once commented that, “ad fraud is more lucrative than tax fraud, counterfeiting goods or being a Somali pirate.” Adding credence to the increasing role of organized crime and criminal nation states in digital ad fraud, The World Federation of Advertisers (WFA) recently stated that “fraudulent internet advertising schemes will become the second-largest market for criminal organizations.”

For all of its well-intended efforts, the advertising industry has been unable to effectively counter this growing threat. Thus, it may be time for The World Federation of Advertisers, the Association of National Advertisers, the 4A’s, the IAB and their members to reach out to lawmakers and regulators to join in a coordinated effort to uncover ad fraud at its root and to develop more effective means of enforcement to both deter and punish the criminal organizations perpetrating the fraud. The 18thcentury French social commentator, Montesquieu once said that; “there are means to prevent crime – its punishment.” Combining the expertise of the ad industry with the regulatory and enforcement capabilities of lawmakers makes good sense.

The problem of ad fraud is not abating. With the expanded use of technologies such as programmatic buying and artificial intelligence and the complex, often non-transparent nature of the advertising supply chain, the risk of fraud remains high, threatening not only digital ad spend but emerging media sectors such as mobile and connected television as well. 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Outdated Client-Agency Agreements Pose Risks to Advertisers

21 Aug

ExpiredWARNING: If the contract between your organization and its advertising agency(s) has an effective date prior to January 1, 2017, you may be at risk.

Not unlike fresh produce, dairy products, meat, medicine or even beer, contract language is perishable. 

Seems far-fetched you say. Consider that the ad industry is a dynamic, fast-paced business sector. One only need recall the breadth and rapidity of change brought on by technology advances and increasing levels of regulation in just the last four years:

  • April of 2016 – Europe enacts The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) governing how companies handle consumer data, forcing advertisers, agencies, publishers and intermediaries to implement business rules and guidelines to safeguard personal data and privacy.
  • June of 2016 – The Association of National Advertisers (ANA) publishes its North American Media Transparency study, leading to wholesale changes in contractual controls. As a result, nearly 2/3 of ANA members indicated that they would update their media agency agreements.
  • December of 2016 – The industry’s four largest agency holding companies involved in a Federal bid-rigging probe following allegations by post-production houses on the misleading use of rates they provided to agencies.
  • September of 2018 – The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) goes into effect giving consumers more control over the personal information that businesses, including advertisers, agencies and publishers collect about them.
  • October of 2018 – The Federal Government informs the ANA and its members that the Federal Bureau of Investigation would be investigating potential misleading conduct and or deception between media holding companies and advertisers.
  • June of 2019 – Cybersecurity company, Cheq reports that advertisers will lose over $23 billion to ad fraud in 2019 alone.
  • July of 2020 – Year-to-date the European Union has issued over 300 fines to advertisers and publishers totaling more than $171 million for violating GDPR guidelines.

Each of these occurrences and numerous others has led to the need for advertisers to rethink their contractual controls in order to safeguard their organizations both legally and financially. In turn, this requires language enhancements and the addition of terms and conditions dealing with a range of topics such as privacy protection, data security, intellectual property ownership, transparency, audit rights and indemnification.

All too often, the contracts governing client/ agency relationships are slow to evolve, posing serious risks to advertisers. This in spite of trends such as the growth in the number of intermediaries, agency use of affiliates, expanding agency rosters, murky supply chains, brand safety concerns and the prevalence of ad fraud that pose risks to advertisers.

The thinking on items that were once considered “standard” within the industry, and therefore thought to be sufficiently covered in the context of agreement language can no longer be assumed. Advertiser expectations on topics such as; establishing principal-agent relationships, client-centric audit rights, requirement for full-disclosure in all dealings by the agency with affiliates and third-party vendors and limiting agency revenue to the remuneration described in the agreement and or appropriate SOWs must be reviewed and explicitly defined.

In our contract compliance practice, we have identified 3 key “triggers,” which if present, should incent advertisers to review and revise their agency agreements:

  1. The “effective date” of the current Client/ Agency agreement is more than 2 years old.
  2. If the parties utilized the Agency’s contract template as the basis for the agreement. These documents contain language that reflect the agency’s interest, not necessarily those of the advertiser.
  3. If an advertiser has “evergreen” agreements in place, but updates Statements of Work annually. Too often, while clients update the SOW, reviewing the contract for necessary updates is forgone.

The good news is that both the ANA and the ISBA have issued solid guidance in the form of framework agreements for use as a starting place to construct media and creative agency contracts. It’s important to note that while these broad-based agreements are an excellent resource, every relationship has nuances with new evolving risks that should be weaved into new advertising agreements.

Current, comprehensive supplier agreements leads to solid controls, improved transparency and stronger agency relationships. Integrate periodic contract compliance and financial management auditing and advertisers can rest easier knowing that they have successfully extended their governance and risk management framework to this important area.

“The essence of risk management lies in maximizing the areas where we have some control of the outcome, while minimizing the areas where we have absolutely no control of the outcome.” ~ Peter Bernstein

Tags: , , , ,

Accenture Exiting the Media Auditing Space Creates an Accountability Gap

17 Feb

Acc_Logo_Black_Purple_RGBIt was a move many industry pundits saw coming. With a focus on expanding its interactive marketing services business, which accounted for $10 billion in revenue in 2019, Accenture made the announcement that it was going to “ramp down” its media auditing, price benchmarking and pitch management business by the end of August.

Advertising agencies and competitors within the media audit space were quick to celebrate the news, for differing reasons.

Agencies for their part have long felt that as Accenture grew its interactive marketing services practice, their audit services represented a conflict of interest. Afterall, how could a marketer trust the objectivity of the advice of an audit firm reviewing an incumbent digital agency, when the parent company offered services that were competitive to the incumbent? One fear among agencies was that Accenture could leverage the information taken in on the audit side and generate competitive insights that would yield an unfair advantage when pitching their digital capabilities to advertisers.

Media audit firms, which stand to gain business as Accenture winds down media audit activity, point out that Accenture’s approach to auditing, pitch management and media rate analysis, which relies on its proprietary rate benchmarking pool was dated and less relevant than in the past.

While there may be merit to both group’s perspectives, Accenture’s decision creates a major resource gap when it comes to global media accountability and transparency.

Make no mistake, there are a number of experienced, highly reputable independent media audit firms that will help to fill the void left by Accenture. That said, most lack the scale and or depth of resources to truly backfill this resource gap. This perspective was echoed by Rob Rakowitz of the World Federation of Advertisers’ (WFA) Global Alliance for Responsible Media, who stated that at a time when the “media supply chain needs more clarity” Accenture’s decision to exit the audit space “creates a hole” when it comes to independent oversight.

Interestingly, the holding companies have focused their commentary in the wake of Accenture’s announcement on the “competitive conflict” aspect of the discussion. However, some holding company financial executives, who know full well the impact of independent oversight on their media agency bottom lines, are likely breathing a sigh of relief. Since the Association of National Advertisers (ANA) 2016 report on media transparency, scrutiny of media agency practices and the resulting downward pressure on margins tied to curtailing some of the non-transparent agency revenue practices cited in the ANA’s report have been costly to agencies.

The good news is that there has been progress since the issuance of the ANA report four short years ago. Client/ Agency agreement language has improved, more advertisers have conducted contract compliance and performance audits and media supply chain transparency initiatives have gained traction. The global fraternity of contract compliance and media performance auditors, along with advertiser trade associations such as the ANA, WFA and ISBA have all played an important role in ushering in reforms tied to improved accountability and transparency practices.

Now is not the time for less oversight and one can only hope that the loss of Accenture Media Management and the $40 billion of annual global media spend coverage it represented will not impede industry media accountability efforts. Advertisers can ill afford further reductions in their working media.

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

← Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: