A month after a scathing report detailing the pervasiveness of non-transparent agency practices last month, the Association of National Advertisers released a new transparency guidelines for marketers and agencies yesterday.
Digiday spoke with Bob Liodice, president and CEO of the ANA, who said that he felt “relieved” to have the guidelines out there.
“We’ve always wanted to get to a place where we felt that we had both sides of the equation: the facts about what really is going on and intelligent prescriptions of what to do,” he said. “It’s a good place to be.”
Here’s more from that conversation, lightly edited for clarity:
Do you truly believe that the transparency issue is “eminently solvable,” especially when everyone stands to benefit, to some degree, from the current arrangement?
Definitely. I don’t know if it’s a sign but I read the other day that WPP was actually starting to adjust some of its media agency contracts. We’ve been getting a better feeling from the agency community that they want to talk. I am more convinced now than ever that is solvable, the only thing I don’t know is when. It’s not like flipping a light switch. It could take six months or six years.
The initial agency response was defensive though. Do you think they were rightfully upset?
I can understand that certain agencies might have been upset because if you look at the definition of “pervasive,” there may be some out there that don’t fit within it. There might have some whose actions may have been wholly transparent.
You also got criticism for providing confidentiality.
There were major trade-offs. If we did, in fact, not provide confidentiality and anonymity and preserve that, then we wouldn’t have gotten any insights whatsoever. We had to do that to get a good read on what the situation was like. Some may feel a bit burned but I think for a vast majority, it was a wake-up call to do better.
Isn’t this the inevitable result of clients making it nearly impossible for agencies to make money?
Have you looked at the holding company P&Ls? They’re making quite a bit of money and their bottom line figures are growing each and every year. One could argue and say, well, they’ve only been making that much money because they’ve been engaging in a lot of non-transparent behavior, which would only prove my point.
So clients aren’t to blame?
There is no question that some marketers are probably engaging in difficult practices. For example, they may have extended terms for up to 180 days. That’s challenging, and no client should ever expect their agency to finance media transactions, or anything for that matter, outside of a normal set of terms. But those I think are the exceptions rather than the rule. If someone can come and show us that majority of the contracts are unfair, then there is something to be done.
Isn’t the fact that some agencies have started to act as principals also the problem?
For an agency to act as a principal, the client has to opt-in to that agreement. And that’s up to individual clients. That is a one-on-one relationship, and if they find that such a relationship is valid and imperative to the growth of their business, I can’t tell them that’s not in their best interest. We can’t regulate that. It’s buyer beware.
Yesterday’s report seems to put the onus more on marketers themselves. Why is that?
Well, it’s their money. And if their processes aren’t rigorous, then it opens up the doors for non-transparent behavior. Their money is their asset, whether it’s millions or billions. If I was a senior marketing officer, I would accept the fact that my responsibility is to provide the best stewardship for those assets. If we disregard that stewardship mantle, then candidly, shame on us.
And that’s not what you found.
What we found were prevalent processes and practices that were inconsistent with optimal behavior. There are things we’ve gotten lax on. One of my board members told me that he’d just pulled out his contract after five years. Just think about what’s happened to the media landscape in five years. You could probably drive a truck through his contract.
How the layoffs at 100 Thieves underscore esports’ creator-executive leadership problems
Esports organizations have long been notorious for elevating professional gamers to more business-focused senior executive roles — and for suffering scandals as a result.
Hyatt, Lacrosse United, Lulu’s tap college athletes’ authenticity to target Gen Z
Hyatt, Lacrosse Unlimited and Lulu's are among brands highlighting partnerships with college athletes in an effort to reach new consumers, particularly those in the Gen Z cohort.
Marketing Briefing: Twitter, TikTok vie for ad dollars, offer incentives as they seek to own second screen for Super Bowl
While Twitter has traditionally been the platform that marketers turn to for real-time marketing efforts during the Super Bowl, the shift in leadership and advertiser exodus over the last year has left its place in this year’s Big Game a question: Will its importance continue?
SponsoredHow Rumpl and Replacements got creative with CTV ad production and media buys
Sponsored by MNTN This year, marketers are balancing multiple priorities, including the convergence of two trends: the growth of CTV advertising and economic uncertainty impacting ad budgets. To keep costs low while generating ROI, savvy brands are embracing innovative approaches to production and media buys. These tactics allow advertisers to continue reaching audiences on CTV […]
Digiday+ Research: Agencies’ clients more likely to invest in CTV over traditional TV
More than two-thirds of agencies said clients spend at least a little on TV marketing, Digiday+ Research found. And they're more likely to spend on CTV than traditional TV.
WTF is the global privacy control?
Although Do Not Track failed as an effort to make it easier for people to opt out of being tracked and targeted online, its spirit lives on in the Global Privacy Control.