Tag Archives: Association of National Advertisers

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.”

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

12 Feb

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 Thoughts on Facebook’s Video “Watch Time” Issue

3 Oct

facebookFrom an advertiser’s perspective, there were three things that stood out in the wake of Facebook’s recent disclosure that it had mistakenly overstated average video ad watch times.

First and foremost, the miscalculation was not uncovered by the advertising agency community. Given the dollar volume being committed to Facebook, whose digital ad revenues will eclipse $6.0 billion, it would be fair to assume that ad agencies had a fiduciary duty to verify/investigate Facebook’s performance monitoring methodologies prior to investing their clients’ media dollars. The fact that Facebook had not embraced industry standards and asked the Media Rating Council (MRC) to accredit its performance metrics should have been the hot topic of conversation prior to Facebook’s disclosure, rather than after the fact. Ironically, in the wake of this disclosure, WPP stated that the mistake “further emphasizes the importance and need for third-party verification of all media — not only to verify trading terms but also to verify performance.” So if agencies truly felt this way, why wasn’t this standard not being applied here-to-for?

Secondly, it would appear as though the agency community is somewhat fearful of Facebook. Too many agency executives spoke to the trade media on the basis of anonymity rather than overtly stating their personal and or their company’s perspective on both the inflation of the viewing time metric and the need for accreditation. This seems an odd dynamic given the percentage of digital media spend represented by the “Big 4” agency holding companies. Advertisers might rightly expect that the scale of these entities would offer them some level of leverage and protection when interacting with media sellers. This is apparently not the case.

Thirdly, advertisers need to put a stake in the ground when it comes to media transparency and performance authentication. Self-reported performance indicators, such as Facebook’s average video watch time, cannot be the basis upon which they invest their media dollars. If a media seller has not had its delivery and performance metrics audited and accredited by an industry accepted resource such as the MRC, IAS, Nielsen or comScore for example, then they should be excluded from the media investment consideration equation.

The Association of National Advertisers (ANA) CEO, Bob Liodice appropriately addressed this issue when the ANA issued the following statement: “ANA does not believe there are any pragmatic reasons that a media company should not abide by the standards of accreditation and auditing” calling this important step “table stakes” for digital advertising.

The issue with the misstatement of the video ad watch times is not whether or to what extent the :03 second watch time threshold was utilized by ad agencies to assess Facebook’s performance. Quite simply, the issue is that self-reported performance metrics are unequivocally no substitute for independently audited outputs.

For anyone to suggest that the miscalculation is really no big deal, because it is a metric that is not utilized when considering the purchase of video advertising on Facebook, is misguided. The lack of transparency, further compounded by the media seller’s lack of adherence to industry standards when coupled with the self-reported inflated viewing times can and did wrongly influence agency and advertiser decisions. Thus, raising the all-important question: “Absent an independent audit, what portion of Facebook’s self-reported performance metrics can an advertiser trust?”

 

 

 

 

Is It Too Late for the 4A’s on the Topic of Transparency?

26 Sep

toolateEarlier this month, the 4A’s announced that it was pulling out of the Association of National Advertisers (ANA) “Transparency” panel scheduled during Advertising Week in New York City.

In light of the organization’s decision to break from ANA / 4A’s joint media transparency initiative earlier this spring, ostensibly to chart its own course, this move comes as no surprise. However, it is nonetheless disappointing. After all, why wouldn’t the 4A’s and it member agencies want to share the stage with the ANA to address the advertiser community on the topic of transparency?

The quest for improved standards and performance related to transparency would benefit mightily from the involvement of the 4A’s. The ANA, advertisers and many within the agency community have sought the 4A’s cooperation on this issue and would welcome a united effort to address this topic.

Clearly a full-court press is necessary if the industry is going to improve both transparency and ultimately the level of trust between advertisers, agencies and publishers. Aside from the eye opening findings from ANA / K2 study on media transparency, there have been two recent announcements that certainly seem to bolster the results of this study. First, just this past week Facebook indicated that it had misrepresented average viewing times for video ads played on its site. Secondly, the global agency holding company Dentsu came forward and cited multiple instances where there were “failures of placement,” “false reporting” and “inappropriate operations” which impacted over 100 of their clients. Dentsu’s CEO, Tadashi Ishii issued a statement saying that there were “instances where our invoices did not reflect actual results, resulting in unjust, overcharged billings.”

In fact, the impact of the 4A’s decision has resulted in two agencies, Empower and Mediasmith, pulling out of the 4A’s citing the associations failure to take a more progressive stance when it comes to working more closely with the ANA to resolve the issue of media transparency.

From the perspective of advertisers, they are rightly concerned about the issue of transparency and are taking matters into their own hands. Consider the September 23rd article in the Wall Street Journal; “Major Marketers Audit Agencies“ in which firms such as J.P. Morgan, General Electric Nationwide Mutual Insurance and Sears Holdings Corp. indicated that they “had hired outside counsel” to conduct audits, due in part to the ANA study. Additionally, the article identified more than a half-dozen other firms that are “trying to get more liberal auditing rights” to improve the protections afforded them under their Client/ Agency agreements.

Given the importance of transparency and full-disclosure in establishing productive, long-term relationships between advertisers and agencies it is unclear what the 4A’S hopes to gain with its current approach. While the 4A’s has issued transparency guidelines of their own, advertisers and many industry observers have indicated unequivocally that these guidelines are inherently biased in favor of the agency holding companies and that they simply don’t go far enough to address advertiser transparency concerns.

The very fact that many agencies are deriving non-transparent revenue from the budgetary dollars entrusted to them by advertisers is an affront to a principal-agent relationship. And even if, as some agency leaders have suggested, not all client / agency contracts espouse a principal-agent relationship, it is simply not a good practice (and promotes distrust) for an agency to leverage an advertiser’s funds for its financial benefit without its knowledge. This is particularly true when such gains undermine the notion of “objectivity” when it comes to the media investment counsel being provided by these agencies to their clients.

Noted novelist, Thomas Hardy once said that, “The resolution to avoid an evil is seldom framed till the evil is so far advanced as to make avoidance impossible.” One might argue that as an industry, when it comes to transparency, trust and their impact on client / agency relationships the point in time to frame a resolution is long past due. Sadly, for the 4A’s, change is afoot and the organization’s actions may render it as an observer rather than a co-author of a doctrine for positive change.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Video: “The Truth Crisis: Marketing’s Biggest Challenge”

16 Aug

Interesting video from Campaign magazine … Click Here to watch.

transparency

Key to Media ROI: Chief Media Officer or Compliance Auditing Support?

14 Aug

AccountabilityIn the wake of this spring’s Association of National Advertisers (ANA) “Media Transparency” study, conducted by K2, many in the industry have suggested that advertisers add a Chief Media Officer to staff to assist them in navigating what is clearly a complex, rapidly changing industry. For those advertisers that have the financial wherewithal to support such a position, the benefits could be significant when it comes to strategy development, planning and stewardship of their media agencies and extended supplier base.

That said, the dynamics which impact media return-on-investment require resources that go well beyond the reach, and sometimes knowledge, of a Chief Media Officer and create an entirely different set of challenges even for those organization’s that do have the luxury of adding a seasoned, media executive to their staff.

The findings of the ANA/K2 study dealt with non-transparent media agency practices effecting advertisers such as: rebates taken at the agency holding company level and not passed through to advertisers, media arbitrage, value banks, related party transactions and inappropriate mark-up on both media and non-media expenses. The economic and relationship impact of these practices, and the continued adverse effects of digital ad fraud and viewability challenges besetting the industry, all serve to greatly reduce the efficacy of an advertiser’s media investment.

Experience suggests that the key to resolving these issues is more likely rooted in the development of a sound, broad reaching media accountability program. One which focuses on improving client/agency contract language, client/ agency focused communications, financial and legal controls and enhancing advertiser transparency rights that allow clarity into the disposition of their funds at each stage of the media investment cycle.

This is not an easy task in an industry still largely reliant on an estimated billing model, with inordinately long campaign closing/reconciliation processes and multiple third-party vendors and middlemen, which all serve to negatively impact working media ratios.

Add to this the fact that the C-Suite within many advertiser organizations simply doesn’t pay much attention to media, in spite of the materiality of spend in this important area. Consider the results from a July ANA study, conducted by Advertiser Perceptions, following the release of the ANA/ K2 study:

Only one-quarter (25%) of advertisers surveyed were aware of the ANA’s media transparency study.

We believe that advertisers do care about how their media funds are being managed. However, we also know that very few organizations know what happens to their money, once an agency invoice has been paid.

It is for this reason that we believe strongly in the vast benefits that a structured, agency compliance and financial management auditing program. One that can also assist advertisers by providing a context for understanding the scope of the risks they face when it comes to building mitigating controls to optimize their media investment.

At present, few advertisers undertake such testing and even fewer have the requisite industry experience and specific media-based accounting, auditing and fraud examination experience represented in-house. Additionally, we have yet to evidence a client organization that has implemented the requisite software in their media function capable of processing and catching media billing discrepancies and performing other detailed financial analysis on their media investment.

We have learned over the years that the implementation of such controls yields tangible value far in excess of the cost to support such efforts.

The combination of financial loss related to approved but unspent media funds, earned but unprocessed credits and rebates, billing errors, unreconciled pass-through expenses and related party transparency issues can range between 2.0% and 5.0% of total agency billings. Once aware of the causes, savings are realized year-over-year by implementing improved process changes and treasury management.

With this as a backdrop, imagine an organization investing tens of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars on media. The resulting financial benefits, combined with improved controls, enhanced risk mitigation and transparency most assuredly will secure the attention of the C-Suite and their support for media agency compliance auditing.

Interested in learning how to start improving your media transparency today? Contact Cliff Campeau, Principal at Advertising Audit & Risk Management at ccampeau@aarmusa.com for your complimentary consultation.

“Our Agency Contract has Expired…”

22 Jul

ExpiredThis along with feedback such as; “We can’t find a copy of the agreement,” “We don’t have an executed copy of the contract” and “Hadn’t seen that version before” are common responses from advertisers when asked for copies of their Client/ Agency agreements when undertaking an inaugural agency contract compliance audit.

While alarming at a certain level, perhaps no more concerning than the dated, evergreen and largely inadequate agency-centric contractual instruments that represent a majority of the agreements that many advertisers have entered into.

Concerning? To be sure. Perhaps these organizations aren’t familiar with the words of legendary investor, Warren Buffett, who once said:

Risk comes from not knowing what you’re doing.

In an industry grappling with issues such as fraud, transparency, relationship stability, trust and the fairness of agency compensation systems the risks posed by non-existent or inadequate contracts are significant and include, legal, financial and intellectual property exposure.

The reasons for this dilemma are many and common across many client organizations:

  1. No central contract repository within the organization
  2. Limited cross-functional agency relationship oversight
  3. No strategic supplier management system
  4. Contracts negotiated by one function, not shared with relationship owners
  5. No enterprise wide accountability initiative

By now, most are aware of the Association of National Advertisers (ANA) study on “Media Transparency” that was prepared in conjunction with K2 and released in June of this year. If there is one takeaway from the findings of that study, which all advertisers should pay heed to its the fact that a solid Client/ Agency contract is an advertisers best defense when it comes to protecting their advertising investment.

One side benefit of the ANA/ K2 study is that C-Suite members within many advertiser organizations are asking the questions; “How susceptible is our firm?” and “What level of control and transparency do we currently have when it comes to our marketing investment?”

Addressing these questions is an excellent place to begin, because it necessarily involves securing and reviewing current copies of the contractual agreements that are in place with each of the organization’s marketing vendors. Perhaps the next best place to turn is to engage either outside counsel or an independent agency contract compliance specialists, with deep knowledge of the marketing/ advertising industry and some of the advancements and best practices which are in place to safeguard an advertisers investment.

Once an updated agreement is put in place, the easiest way to manage these contracts, amendments and ongoing statement’s of work is to schedule (and contractually mandate) annual reviews of the agreement and all legal documents governing your agencies staffing plans and compensation.

For those seeking an added layer of protection, engaging an agency contract compliance specialist to monitor each agencies adherence to the terms and conditions of the agreements that govern these important relationships is an excellent idea.

Interested in assessing your organization’s legal and financial risks? Contact us for a complimentary agency contract risk assessment by emailing Cliff Campeau, Principal, Advertising Audit & Risk Management at ccampeau@aarmusa.com today.

Will Transparency Concerns Undermine Trust?

17 Mar

transparencyAt the 2014 ANA “Agency Financial Management” conference, representatives from the Association of National Advertisers, Association of Canadian Advertisers and the World Federation of Advertisers each presented member survey results which indicated that their advertisers were concerned about the lack of transparency which existed into the financial stewardship of their advertising funds.

In their February, 2014 study, the ANA found that forty-six percent of the members’ surveyed expressed specific concern over the “transparency of media buys.” As contract compliance auditors, we know from our dealings that the resulting lack of clarity and in some instances, honesty surrounding issues such as data integrity, audience delivery, trading desks, reporting and financial reconciliations creates financial risks for advertisers. Sadly, the lack of transparency ultimately can serve to undermine attempts to improve trust levels between clients, agencies and media sellers. 

Fast forward one-year and two events come to light, which raise serious issues regarding trust.

The first was a speech made by Jon Mandel, former CEO of WPP’s Mediacom unit at the ANA’s “Media Leadership Conference” in early March, where he alleged the widespread use of volume based rebates or kickbacks from media sellers to agencies. He suggested that these practices, which have the potential to negatively affect advertisers, had migrated from cash advances to no-charge media weight which an agency can then deal back to clients or liquidate in barter deals. Mr. Mandel specifically stated that media agencies “…are not transparent about their actions. They recommend or implement media that is off strategy or off target if it works for their financial gain.”

The second event, which coincidentally involves Mr. Mandel’s former employer, Mediacom, deals with revelations regarding the use of “value banks” and the falsifying of media campaign reports by its Australia operation. For those not familiar with the term value bank, this is where media sellers provide a certain level of no-charge media weight to agencies based upon their aggregate client spending with that entity.

In a story which broke in Mumbarella, a media news website, it was reported that media “discrepancies” were found in late 2014 in an audit of Mediacom. The audit, conducted by EY was actually commissioned by Mediacom once it had learned of the problems. Among the findings of EY’s investigation were that Mediacom personnel had “altered the original demographic audience targets to make it appear as though the campaigns had reached the official OzTam audience ratings numbers.” Further, the review found that the agency had been taking “free or heavily discounted advertising time given to it by TV stations” and selling it back to its clients in violation of its parent company’s (GroupM) policy.

While Mediacom terminated several of the employees allegedly involved in these matters and pro-actively engaged an auditor, it should be noted that the audit found that the aforementioned fraud had been taking place undetected for a period of “at least two years.” This certainly raises questions regarding the efficacy of the controls that were in place at the agency to safeguard advertiser funds. The combination of lax controls and limited transparency had a negative financial impact on some of the agency’s largest clients (i.e. Yum! Brands, IAG, Foxtel).

As an aside, following Mr. Mandel’s comments to the ANA conference attendees, Rob Norman, Chief Digital Officer at WPP’s GroupM stated that; “In the U.S., rebates or other forms of hidden revenue are not part of GroupM’s trading relationships with vendors.” Sadly, in light of both Mr. Mandel’s revelations and the Mediacom Australia situation U.S. advertisers will likely take little solace in these reassurances from WPP. Worse, given the levels of advertiser concern about the lack of transparency within the industry, there is a high likelihood that other agencies will be painted by the same broad brush and assumed to be engaged in similar practices… whether they are or aren’t.

For an established industry with estimated 2014 global ad expenditures of $521.6 billion (source: MAGNA GLOBAL) it is amazing that some of the aforementioned practices would take place and that the industry would continue to deny rather than acknowledge their existence in an overt manner. Unchecked, the murky dealings of some media owners and a handful of agencies may ultimately push trust, not transparency to the fore of advertiser concerns and that is not a healthy dynamic when it comes to client/ agency relationships. The words of American humorist and journalist Kin Hubbard may serve to synthesize the crux of the issue:

“The hardest thing is to take less when you can get more.”

Interested in learning how you can improve your transparency into the financial management of your organizations marketing investment? Contact Cliff Campeau, Principal at Advertising Audit & Risk Management at ccampeau@aarmusa.com.

 

 

 

 

For Advertisers Concerned About Transparency, There is an Immediate Solution

4 Nov

transparency concernsLet’s face it the advertising industry is a complex, fast-moving and ever evolving marketing eco-system which at times can mystify even its most experienced participants.  The expansion in both the number and types of media channels combined with the technology revolution that has ushered in tools such as digital asset management systems and programmatic buying platforms have only served to fuel advertiser concerns about their advertising investment.

The Association of National Advertisers (ANA) has twice this year issued statements regarding their membership’s concerns about the “transparency crisis” enveloping certain industry practices.  In May they announced that they were stepping up their “scrutiny of media practices” with the goal of shedding some light on the “dealings” between agencies and publishers.  Based upon a study which the organization had completed in February, 2014 forty-six percent of the ANA members’ surveyed expressed concern over the “transparency of media buys.” This was followed by a blog post in October in which the ANA acknowledged concern over a position paper issued by the trade group AICE dealing with agency in-house production practices entitled; “A Push for Greater Transparency, Ethics, and Fairness.

The good news is that advertisers need not wait for the various industry associations and their members to form task forces or appoint committees to assess the risk and propose potential solutions to the “transparency crisis.”  While these are important steps to be taken, they are time consuming, the potential outcomes are uncertain and the proposed solutions will not be tailored to a specific advertiser’s needs.  So what can an advertiser do today to thoroughly vet these issues and reassure their stakeholders that any attendant risks have been mitigated and to validate that they are receiving fair value for the advertising investment being made?

The answer is as close as a copy of the executed contract which is in place between the advertiser and the agency.  Specifically, the solution can be found in the “Right to Audit” clause, which is a staple in an overwhelming majority of client-agency agreements.  In short, this important clause affords advertisers the opportunity to examine the agency’s records of expenditures pertaining to the agency’s billing to the client for the purpose of validating media bills, production bills, studio costs and reconciling agency fees.

Audit clauses are inserted into contracts because they are an important financial control.  Yet, too often advertisers treat their right to audit as a fall back option, which all too frequently is never acted upon.  When this clause is not acted upon, the advertiser forgoes the opportunity to implement standard compliance testing, which in turn limits their opportunity to validate agency billings and gain a certain level of comfort that comes with transparency into the agency’s financial stewardship of their advertising budget.

Once audit rights have been established, industry “Best Practice” would suggest that implementing periodic and routine testing is a must for introducing and maintaining ongoing preventative control measures.  The resulting testing which occurs as part of the audit process can help to deter wasteful practices, identify errant billing transactions and to monitor key financial metrics. All told, a well defined contract compliance audit program can help an individual advertiser address the “transparency crisis” while providing the organization the necessary legal and financial safeguards.

Of note, the agency community has come to accept independent audits as a normal part of an advertiser’s broader corporate or marketing accountability initiative.  Any pushback on this front should be viewed as a “red flag.”  For those agencies which have implemented sound financial stewardship practices there is nothing to fear from an advertiser’s review of their performance in this important area.  Quite the contrary, a well conceived, balanced independent audit process can yield insights and recommendations which also benefit the agency.  Lailah Gifty, a Ghaniaian and founder of the Smart Youth Volunteers Foundation, rightfully said:

“Never believe all that you hear. Always verify the original source of information.”

Those advertisers conducting business without a comprehensive “Right to Audit” clause are simply at risk, forgoing the most important control mechanism available to them to protect their interests.  For those advertisers, which have secured audit rights, but have failed to act upon this right, you are unnecessarily exposing your organization to legal and financial risks.

The “transparency crisis” cited by the ANA is a legitimate issue, which the industry will successfully address in due course.  The question to be asked of advertisers is; “Are you prepared to wait for a broad-based industry solution? Or do you leverage the contractual rights which you have already secured to address these concerns now?”

If you’re interested in learning more about how you might improve your agency contracts or the benefits of advertising agency contract compliance audits contact Cliff Campeau, Principal with Advertising Audit & Risk Management at ccampeau@aarmusa.com for your complimentary consultation.

Expanding Your In-House Agency?

10 Sep

in-house advertising agencyAccording to a recent survey by the Association of National Advertisers (ANA); “More companies are leaning on in-house  resources for their marketing needs in place of external shops.”  In fact, the survey showed that the “penetration of in-house agencies shot up to 58% in 2012 from 42% in 2008.” 

While there are many reasons that might prompt an advertiser to consider such a move, ranging from budgetary pressures and content ownership rights to responsiveness, “cost efficiencies” were cited by 88% of the ANA survey’s respondents.  A recent announcement from Apple reinforces this trend.  Apple indicated that it sought to bring more of its advertising in-house, hiring outside creative talent, including “senior level creatives known for innovative work” to bolster their in-house design team.  Of note, Apple indicated that this group could grow from 300 people today to over 500 in the near-term. 

While the notion of “cost savings” may sound alluring, advertisers should tread cautiously in this area.  Boosting headcount comes with its own challenges, risks and costs… some of which may be transparent and others that may be unknown.  Perhaps the first question to be asked is; “How do you know whether or not moving work in-house will yield savings?”  Validating this hypothesis would require that the advertiser  has historical information on “what it cost” to execute work utilizing their advertising agencies; a level of detail that goes well beyond agency billings, agency labor hours and bill rates, and studio rate sheets. 

As part of the discovery process for analyzing potential benefits associated with transitioning work from agencies to an in-house staff, advertisers may want to consider gathering very detailed project time and costing information..  This would include securing answers to questions such as: 

  • What are the typical project lead-times provided to the agency by the various client stakeholder groups?  What would the impact on lead times be in an in-house model?  Would there be efficiencies and and thus cost savings by adjusting the cycle?  Can this be achieved in-house?
  • What about project turn-around time parameters?
  • Does the separation between client and agency cause communication issues and re-work?  At what cost?
  • What % of the work is highly complex? Moderate?? Or Simple?  What are the costs for each category?
  • What is the cost of innovation vs. adaptation?  Should an agency relationship be maintained for one or the other?
  • What level of staff proficiency/ experience is required?
  • And MOST importantly, can creativity, and overall advertising effectiveness be continually improved in an in-house model? 

For many advertisers, this type of data may not be readily available from the project tracking and summary documents utilized by your agencies today.  

Thus it makes sense to identify the key decision making criteria which will be utilized to benchmark any efficiency gains tied to bringing work in-house.  Once identified, there are at least two avenues an advertiser can consider: 

  1. Go Forward – Amend current project tracking reporting to incorporate measures which support the aforementioned decision making criteria and monitor performance against those criteria for a pre-determined period of time.
  2. Historical – Work with the agency to conduct a review of project activity over the course of the prior 12 to 24 months to establish an historical database of information to aid the organization in preparing a “business case” for such a move. 

Depending on the timeline for the decision, the “Historical” approach may prove to be both more practical and will likely yield a more accurate perspective on organizational behaviors which can impact project costing.  

So, “Where to begin?” you ask.  It may be a worthwhile investment of time and resources to engage an independent consultant to work with you and your agency to accumulate this information.  Of note, most client-agency agreements afford advertisers access to the data necessary to conduct a thorough audit of past project costs (i.e. agency fees, time-of-staff, 3rd party invoice detail, in-house studio charges, etc…).  The key then becomes conducting a comprehensive analysis of the DATA, timeframes, time value of money, vendor costs, studio costs, labor costs, overhead costs, etc., rather than “hard copy” assessment of a limited sample set of projects, which is necessary to make an informed decision across the hundreds if not thousands of jobs initiated/ completed on an annual basis.  

Armed with a detailed, historical perspective an advertiser will be able to accurately assess if the “efficiency gains” are substantial enough to warrant a further examination of building out an in-house resource. 

 

 

 

%d bloggers like this: