| |

Schizoid brands: media agency parsimony vs Bond profligacy

Schizoid brands: media agency parsimony vs Bond profligacy

Media agencies must wish they could operate, like Bond product placement, in a world where there are no rules or ratecards.

Welcome to increasingly schizoid behaviour of brands. One the one hand, as evidenced by the ANA investigation into the murky world of media agencies, we see a group determined to scrutinise the movement of every media penny.

This paranoia, to compound the media agencies’ woes, comes on top of their parsimony, where – as Mediapolooza shows – they are equally determined to screw down every penny of the budget and the agency’s remuneration.

And then, on the other, we have the profligacy of brands’ involvement with the latest instalment in Bond franchise, Spectre where, without so much as a CPM, KPI or audit trail, they unthinkingly hand over millions for a bit of reflected glory (see second story below).

How galling this must be for the media agencies. How they must wish some of Hollywood’s magic dust would rub off on them. How they must wish they could operate, like Bond product placement, in a world where there are no rules, no ratecard.

Still, back in the real world, I’m trying to get some perspective on the ANA initiative. In some parts of the media, the hiring of professional fact-finders K2 – complete with its background investigating Bernie Madoff and teams of ex-FBI special investigators – suggests that they will be digging around in dustbins and exposing media agency executives to gruelling interviews, perhaps based on sensory – or sleep-deprivation techniques.

Just like a Bond baddie, in fact – ‘Vee ask ze qvestionz, Mr Media Executive. Now about zose media owner rebatezzz…’.

[advert position=”left”]

In fact, as I understand it, this is far from the case, and in any case K2 can’t make any media agency do anything, and no media agency will be obliged to say anything. Of course they would be foolish not to answer a summons, but that doesn’t mean they will be forthcoming in their answers. Indeed, I expect there have been one or two clandestine meetings where a policy of ‘omerta’ or a party line to certain angles has been agreed.

But others will be happy to talk – such as media owners, ad tech vendors (I bet their kickbacks are something to behold) and the pitch consultants – and it is the role of Ebiquity both to identify the people to interview and to help K2 understand how the media market works. Add in the ‘stakeholders’, and there must be several hundred people to interview.

In any case, K2 can always turn to the likes of Brian Lesser of Xaxis who, giving an impression of a man consumed by his own immodesty, happily boasted to MediaPost that 60pc of the $950m in revenue Xaxis claims came from arbitrage – i.e. buying inventory at one price and selling it on to advertisers at a higher price.

Here is Lesser: “This year, we will do about $950 million in revenue. And because we are not an agency, for the purposes of our income statement, our revenue is our billings. That’s not WPP-wide, that’s specific to Xaxis. So what proportion is traded in that manner? About 60% is traded that way.”

I imagine he has received a short text message from Sir Martin: “Brian. Shut. Up. Now.”

There is also talk that this is just the beginning, and what happens in the US will spread across the world. It’s possible, I suppose, but this is just a US investigation, and unless the advertisers pick up the bill themselves, it’s hard to see the ANA funding anything wider.

And the truth is that, while everybody knows – and broadly accepts – there is a black media economy in other parts of the world, the US has always kidded itself it was different, evidenced by the extraordinarily close relationships (certainly compared to elsewhere) between advertisers and agencies.

So US advertisers are in for a rude shock. The question is: what happens when the investigation is complete?

My suspicion is that very little of it will ever be made public – other than general statements of what the investigation has uncovered and perhaps a list of the most egregious practices (which the agencies will pore over in order to see what their peers have been up to). And no doubt there will be some apple-pie list declaration of transparency that everyone will be required to sign up to.

But that’s it, and the reason is simple: the report will reveal a truth many advertisers would rather not know, and to have their ignorance displayed publicly, or in front of their bosses, will afford them severe embarrassment and loss of status.

‘Come in, Mr Brand. We’ve been expecting your cheque…’

Even before Spectre launched last week, I was heartily sick of it. Not just the endless, boringly repetitive, fawning coverage of the media, but the supporting ads too from brands desperate to trumpet their connections. Heineken (ok, not too bad), Gillette, Omega, Belvedere, Sony, Jaguar Land-Rover, Aston Martin… But spend they must, because that is part of the contract.

Of course I will see the film and, yes, I understand why they are so in thrall to Bond. Here, as quoted in The Guardian, is Jason Gonsalves, the chief strategy officer at ad agency Bartle Bogle Hegarty, explaining it: “Part of Bond’s personality is discernment and sophistication and a lot of that is expressed by consumer choices, like which tailoring he uses and which car he drives.”

Except that it’s not really. Heineken is hardly the choice of the discerning lager drinker; the Sony Xperia Z5 phone…well, I tend to think of Sony as the Nissan of phones: bland and remorselessly mid-market. And as for Gillette, what’s discerning about a brand you can buy in Superdrug?

The answer is nothing, except for the discernment practiced by the Bond franchise in finding enough brands that are easily parted from their money. Cast your eye over the supporting brands, and you will see that they fall into two categories: classy, but not wealthy; and rich, and a bit scuzzy.

But Bond is a global franchise, and the fact that to UK consumers, Heineken, Sony and Gillette are mass-market products that come laden with a certain brand legacy matters not a jot. Their target is the developing world, and that’s where they can position themselves as sophisticated and upmarket. Brand snobs (like me) can be safely ignored.

There are other advantages too: brands get access to content they could only otherwise dream of; and to the stars themselves who, if it weren’t linked to Bond, wouldn’t endorse these brands in a million years. In this context, the product placement is best seen as a lever to get the other stuff.

So there is some logic to it, but nevertheless I still cannot square the way in which, when it comes to Hollywood, brands abandon all the rationality with which they scrutinise all their other media activities.

Now, where’s my ticket?

Patrick Morrison, Director, all mod comms, on 04 Nov 2015
“In the face of 50% of advertising switching into automated digital direct response triggers, i hope that more emotive brand communication approaches continue.
Especially the rare one off exclusive never to be repeated opportunities to cut through.
Hard to measure, hard to cost but hard to beat.
The following brand connection principle applies : "if its good enough for Bond ......" then its good enough for the whichever upscale, downscale and middle market audiences that Bond pulls in relentlessly."”

Media Jobs