ANA report shines the light on sketchy ad tech deals
The Association of National Advertisers’ long-awaited media-transparency report released yesterday rang familiar in some corners of the ad tech world.
One ad tech executive compared major agency attitudes to a mob boss sizing up a shakedown target: “They act like, ‘Nice ad tech business you got here; it would be a shame if something happened to it,'” the ad tech source said. “We’ve been subject to that a couple of times.”
The ANA decided to withhold names of all individuals and companies involved in the dealings outlined in the report. That decision has drawn criticism from agencies as unfairly tainting the entire industry. Still, the report has several fairly detailed accusations of behavior that calls into question whether agencies are regularly acting in ways that are in their interests, not in clients’ interests. Some key issues related to ad tech:
- Service agreements: Many ad tech providers reported that they felt compelled to enter service agreements, which were basically acting as rebates, with agencies. The ad tech companies would pay for extra services from the agencies like custom research reports they didn’t need, in exchange for being part of their preferred vendor lists.
- Black-box deals: These are deals for buying online ads programmatically, and media holding companies use their own trading desks to execute the buys, funnel the ads through ad tech properties they own or invest in, and take a markup on the ad at each stop on its way to being served online.
- Contingent equity: One ad tech CEO said media holding companies had requested stock in the company in exchange for funneling ad dollars to the ad tech company. That practice is described as par for the course for media companies that often favor their own ad tech units or ad tech companies they partly own through investments.
Of course, not all ad tech players were innocent bystanders in the report, which also found cases where the ad tech companies were the ones asking for special favor in exchange for money.
Media sellers tend to play ball in order to get business. The agencies are able to negotiate discounted rates on ads, and often straight cash kickbacks from the companies known as “rebates.” The report found that while the agencies put the squeeze on their media suppliers they don’t even pass savings onto their advertisers.
The report outlines numerous ways holding companies structure deals to secure good prices on services and ad inventory while not sharing the savings with clients. In the U.S., actual rebates are not allowed, so they’re just called discounts.
The report also delved into the tendency for media holding companies to funnel business to their preferred ad tech vendors and digital media suppliers they either own or invest in, while not disclosing the relationship. Agency trading desks were some of the main beneficiaries of these non-transparent deals, the report said.
“Agencies are not being transparent, and advertisers don’t know where their money is going,” said Rob Griffin, who used to work for a major holding company and went on to help start a boutique agency called Almighty. Up to 90 percent of the money advertisers spend gets peeled away as it goes through the supply chain, Griffin said.
It has been a persistent problem in digital advertising where there are so many intermediaries between the advertiser and the ultimate ad being served. That complexity gives cover to the kinds of behavior outlined in the ANA report.
The waste is one of the reasons advertisers have been shredding longtime relationships with media holding companies and put their agencies up for review en masse last year, when $30 billion in ad spend was all of a sudden up for grabs.
“It’s becoming a very loud drumbeat, and it’s all connected,” said one Madison Avenue veteran. “One of the biggest questions left is, the more we are hearing about the underbelly of the whole ad industry, is it an issue of ignorance or is it maliciousness on the part of agencies.”
‘You’re not going to get it all right’: IBM CMO Michelle Peluso on managing through a crisis
As marketers manage another crisis, they are thinking about how to help their teams as well as how they should be advertising.
‘Stand for something’: As protests continue, tone-deaf influencer marketing is in the spotlight
Questions about diversity in influencer marketing, opportunism and the need for brands to get comfortable with influencers taking a stance on politics and racial issues are bubbling up now as this may be a moment of self-reflection for the influencer marketing community.
‘There isn’t a talent pipeline problem’: Confessions of a black advertising exec
In this edition of our Confessions series, in which we exchange anonymity for candor, we hear from a black media buyer who believes brands need to do more to support for Black Lives Matter and that agencies still haven't truly changed their hiring policies.
SponsoredVideo: Marketers discuss the future state of less interruptive in-stream ads
In a new video, experts from GumGum, The Martin Agency and Pinterest discuss the future of video advertising — and outline their vision for how video ads can be less disruptive.
Member ExclusiveDigiday Research: Over half of brands say they handle marketing ‘mostly’ with internal resources
Digiday’s quarterly benchmarking survey found that about 83% of marketers are managing their marketing either mostly in-house or completely in-house. That's up from the 55% of marketers six months ago who said the same.
Member Exclusive‘Our job is to sell’: Marketers, moving past coronavirus response, return to selling products
Marketers need to get back to the job at hand: Keeping the squeaky wheels of capitalism turning.