You would think that after all of these years at least a basic comprehension of digital marketing and advertising would have resonated with major companies’ executive management team so that they could determine the best ways of valuing agency and media services. At the very least assign someone to procurement who has an intimate understanding of the agency business and digital media, considering they are the department responsible for negotiating compensation for these services on the company’s behalf. Although, instead of getting more qualified people into procurement departments, it appears to be getting worse. As a result, the adverse effect is occurring; companies are losing more money due to the inexperience and lack of knowledge from their procurement officers than if the division did not exist in the first place. And 2012 appears to be another clusterf@#k of a year when it comes to the agency/procurement dynamic. Ah, the idiotical behavior of major corporations never ceases to amaze me. It’s no wonder this country is going to hell in a hand basket.
One might ask, “Wow, Jason! You are awfully cynical for the start of the New Year.” Yes. Yes, I am. Now, I realize that procurement is nothing new and they have helped companies for many years to tighten up their belts to avoid excessive spending to boost profit margins. I get it and I’m all for it. However, evaluating agency services and media offerings should not be the role of procurement. The last time I checked, this should be the responsibility of the marketing department, no? I watch marketing and procurement clash all of the time and procurement always wins. Why? Because when it comes to saving money and negotiating prices on the company’s behalf, that’s what procurement’s role is. Take it or leave it. Unfortunately, given the state of the economy and agencies’ desperately seeking new business to stay in business, has resulted in everyone losing money – especially, the one entity responsible for this debacle; the client.
We partner and consult with a variety of different agencies and we are often on the front lines of developing capabilities and credentials presentations for client pitches. As a result, I read many client briefs and agency RFPs. It is pretty disgusting the demands advertisers are placing on prospective agencies just to be considered to pitch. Apparently, advertisers don’t pay for strategy any more. You have to provide your strategy in the first round of consideration. Only now, it’s not just strategy – it’s a strategy, “big ideas” (whatever that means), a recommended budget, a media plan, flight calendars, creative strategy, competitive research, sample reports and analysis, ad unit recommendations, rates by site and placement, and recommend key performance indicators and an optimization strategy for the year.
We talk about the commoditization of media all of the time. Well, guess what? The agency business has been completely commoditized before our eyes and the one that is going to lose will be the advertiser and here’s why. You see, when it comes to digital media management, agencies are already at their floor pricing in order to sustain any kind of profitable margin. Through our work with NextMark, we helped determine what it costs an agency to develop and execute a media plan. On average, 8% of the overall media budget is required to fund the planning and execution of a digital media plan. Note, there are plenty of variables that can skew this margin, but this is the average. Therefore, an agency must retain at least 8% of the media budget for fees just to break even. Regardless of whether you, the advertiser, decide to pay for this now or later, you will pay one way or another. You have to if you want your agency to stay in business.
Let me start with media rates, since this is the most counter-productive request you can ask from an agency during the pitch process. It is important to understand that this exercise has no value in assessing cost savings by agency. There are too many variables that determine rates by site, placement, and creative. Rates are driven by the balance of supply and demand within the market. Unfortunately, this balance does not currently exist for digital media for a variety of reasons. We have actually found that advertisers have lost more money from inefficient campaign management from their agencies than from any media rate differences.
Digital has a far greater supply of ad inventory than there is buyer demand. As a result, many publishers are shifting their ad inventory into the ad exchanges to improve margins by minimizing operating costs and eliminating sales commissions. This is causing media pricing to become much more dynamic than it has ever been before. A shift towards real-time-bidding and exchange media buying is becoming the preferred method of buying and selling media as it provides fair market value at an impression level. This practice is dramatically changing the way digital media is bought, sold, and negotiated. Media pricing for banners and video is moving towards a completely dynamic market driven by demand. This means that average media rates can fluctuate daily based on what the market is willing to pay for it.
There are too many variables to determine the value of an impression in the general market (i.e. target audience, contextual relevance, behavioral profiling, ad size and format, ad positioning, etc.). Media “value” is completely dependent on advertiser marketing performance benchmarks. Digital’s ability to track and measure beyond the ad impression allows advertisers to set their target rate to achieve goals based on historical performance and lifts in KPIs. Below are just some of the factors that dramatically influence digital media rates.
- Percentage of inventory retained by sales organizations in relation to the amount of inventory that is submitted into the exchange marketplace
- Inventory demand in the open bid market will dynamically shift supply and demand in real-time causing a constant fluctuation in media rates; even for inventory retained by the sales organization since overall availability is affected.
- Media budget allocation by flight period
- Targeting criteria (i.e. geographical, audience profile, behavioral, re-targeting, etc.)
- Frequency capping by flight period
- Year-over-year rate changes and seasonality affects
- Ad unit file size and format combined with deal structures and packages
- Shifts in audience traffic month-over-month
It is poor practice to negotiate rates until the agency has been awarded the assignment. The only way to get competitive rates is to actually contact and negotiate directly with media providers. Requesting and negotiating rates for a pitch would be inappropriate, as it creates an excessive amount of work that no one is being compensated for. Some agencies maintain their ethical position and do not adhere to these inappropriate client demands, which provides them with the credibility to negotiate the best possible rates when the time is right and when it counts most. Any agency providing negotiated rates for a pitch should be removed from consideration as they are not adhering to industry best practices and will not receive preferential treatment by the leading media and technology providers.
To demonstrate just how ineffective this exercise actually is, I will provide you with a real example. We recently had a client that was having agencies go out and negotiate the best possible rates for a pitch. The agency that came back with the best rates would win the client’s business. After going through this process, which lasted a year – yes, a year – they awarded the business to an agency who actually reached out to partner with us to execute the campaign. Upon reviewing the media plan and talking with the media providers on the plan, we learned that the client paid nearly 150% more than what we would have been able to negotiate on their behalf, for the simple fact that the media providers needed to cover labor and operational costs to do the spec work for the pitch and had to charge accordingly. Yes, it is true, you can get people to do the work for a perception of “free”, but you will pay for it in the end.
When it comes to requesting strategy and plans from agencies for a pitch it is costing you even more money. Sure the agencies that lose the pitch take a loss, but the one who wins your business is going to make up for the work they provided during the pitch one way or another. They have to. There are too many resources allocated towards these pitch assignments not to, if the agency is to stay operationally profitable. Perhaps you, the advertiser, will pay for these services in the form of padded hours, a perceived increase in scope of work, or by assigning the most junior and inexperienced people possible to manage your account behind the scenes –which always costs you money in mistakes, more hours required due to inexperience, and of course no expertise to drive dynamic strategic thinking for ongoing campaign management and optimization. Don’t worry, the agency will be sure to cover up the costly mistakes their junior staff makes…you’ll pay for it, but you’ll never know it. Ignorance is bliss, right?
It’s fine if you need an agency to demonstrate their strategic thinking, but to ask for a custom strategy, creative development, and a media plan is just going to cost you more money in the end. In fact, we have found that when you factor in the inflated agency fees, rate increases due to poor practices, increased scope of work, unqualified procurement assessors, the internal costs for procurement salaries, and operational costs, it is actually costing companies exponentially more money to find an agency than any efficiencies that can be created from competitive differences between agencies. With each new demand procurement requires, the more money your company is pissing into the ignorant abyss. You may as well just throw a bunch of agency logos up on the wall and throw a dart. Save time, money, credibility, and perhaps actually get what you pay for.
MindTime of the Day
Future thinking excels at negotiating. Past thinking wil
l validate the needs assessment. Present thinking will inform the process of integration. If there is not a balance of all three when evaluating corporate partnerships, much inefficiency can be created.