Got this message from one media agency senior planner, when asked to share thoughts on a media agency:
A commission based agency is for:
The planning and negotiation of the efficient renting of space in pre determined media spaces for determined lengths of time. Success is often based upon the achieved lowest cost per 'thingy' that you're buying, making it a further commoditised business than it was yesterday....(yawn)
Agree here. So how many media agencies around the world are still working on commissions? And is this as much to do with client indifference to organising more forward thinking payment mechanisms as a media agency wishing to be stuck to the cosy commission?
The contributor goes on to say:
A fee based agency is for:
The planning of the most effective ways that a brand can communicate with its consumers to positively influence their perceptions and behaviours. This must result in a positive (financial or other) outcome for the brand company. Often this is rooted in creating opportunities for consumers to have new experiences with the brand. Success should be measured in terms of its delivery to the client's business, levels of channel integration / collaboration and smiles.
So a media agency should be measured on an ROI that is built around brand measures, not media measures. Yep. They should also be measured on putting their promise of 'holistic/integrated/blah blah theory into practice? Buy that too. Smiles are good, as they suggest trust and confidence. Which a media agency should strive for.
But I am struck by the 'collaboration' word. This came up at IMM09 where talk of a future media agency required a sense of openness to working with other companies who are just plain better at some things than media agencies. The trouble is - media agencies already collaborate, but often want to white label the collaborating parties, so to pass their input as that of the media agency.
Paul
Comments