Tag Archives: TV buying

A Boon For Hulugans, Streamers and Cord Cutters

Today’s content is written by Alexa Paradis

Hulu has always been a leading force in the streaming age, differentiating itself from Netflix by offering current seasons of network shows in addition to their vast library of shows and movies. This made them the perfect match for cord-cutters who wanted immediate access to new episodes of their favorite shows. On May 3 during their 2017 Upfront, Hulu announced that they were now offering a live TV subscription that includes over 50 channels to start that will grow over the current year. The current channel offerings include all 4 Broadcast networks, all major sports networks, 5 children’s networks along with the Scripps channels just to name a few. This package will not replace their normal streaming subscriptions but instead be an add-on for customers that will cost $40 per month and also come with the ability to stream on multiple screens at once, quite less then the average cable bill. “Hulu can now be a viewer’s primary source of television,” said Hulu CEO Mike Hopkins. “It’s a natural extension of our business, and an exciting new chapter for Hulu.” As a millennial that cut the cord once I moved out of my parents’ house, I would definitely consider adding this onto my normal Hulu subscription especially if it means I can be watching the new episode of Scandal while my boyfriend watches the Yankee game in the other room.

For advertisers this means even more inventory on Hulu, in addition to their 32 million viewers who opt for ad-supported content advertisers now have access to the standard 2 minutes of local breaks per hour on cable networks. Also announced was a new deal with Nielsen, Hulu said advertisers will have access to Nielsen’s Digital Ad Ratings (DAR) across connected-TV devices starting in the fall of 2017, to provide a validated measurement solution across screens. Another amazing new feature for advertisers is the launch of T-commerce interactive ads in partnership with BrightLine that will let subscribers purchase movie tickets through their connected TVs. The on-screen purchasing capabilities will expand to other categories like retail and quick-serve restaurants in 2018.

Aside from the exciting announcement of the live TV subscription Hulu touted their extensive release schedule of original programing for this year with all of their biggest stars stepping on stage to share their excitement. Stars of the instant hit “The Handmaid’s Tail” announced that not only did they have the most streamed series premiere on the platform out of original and acquired series but they have already been green lit for a second season. Other exciting original series announced were Marvels “Runaway Teens”, Mars mission drama “The First” from House of Cards creator Beau Willimon, Seth Rogen’s project “Future Man”, Sarah Silverman’s political comedy series “America, I love You”, “The Looming Tower” which will star Alec Baldwin along with the series finale of “The Mindy Project”.

A powerful moment took place when Mindy Kaling took the stage for her last upfront and thanked Hulu for being a place that all types of women can be showcased and celebrated, which is not something you can find in many types of entertainment today. This certainly sets Hulu apart from their traditional network counterparts as a way to connect with Millennials who place a high value on inclusivity of all types of characters, especially female ones.

This year’s upfront showed that Hulu is remaining vigilant in their quest to be streamers go-to service and advertisers go-to platform to reach a diverse and highly engaged audience. The company shows no signs of slowing down their innovation either.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

When Walking Away Is The Right Decision

I hate walking away from prospective business, but a recent situation made me realize that sometimes that is the best outcome. A few months ago I received an inquiry from someone purported to be a consultant who was given our name through a mutual business friend. She was looking to bring in a new media agency for a small HBC company. The brief she sent focused on two objectives; reduce the agency fee and improve the media efficiency (she meant to say lower the CPM because media efficiency and media cost are not the same thing).

I scheduled a conference call with her and one of my key people, while on vacation, to discuss the project and see if it made sense for us to participate. We opted to go forward and had an in-person meeting with the consultant the following week. As she briefed us it became clear that she was asking for spec work, a fully fleshed out media plan—read my prior post on this subject here http://wp.me/p2edMw-2s

There is a certain amount of spec work I am willing to do in a new business pitch. Anything more than that I ask to be paid for. In this case I asked for a “go-away” fee on the work if they did not hire us. It’s an interesting approach in that often times the work is good enough that it forces the prospect to hire us or pay two agencies. The problem here is that we wanted a lot more than the prospect was willing to pay. They did not put the same value on our work as we did. Our ask was 10X what they were willing to pay.

We settled on an intermediate number, but I insisted that it be only if the client agreed to our ongoing fee structure. It made no sense for us to continue if the client wasn’t intending on paying us the compensation rates we wanted. The consultant danced around the commitment and kept insisting that we needed to do the spec work and the fees would work out. Red flag number 1.

Red flag number 2: the consultant asked us to break out our fees for planning and buying separately because she wanted to manage some of the buying herself. Apparently she had a relationship in the :10 TV unit space and wanted to be more than the consultant. She was going to push for the agency that allowed her to maintain this position—and likely the one who planned the most :10’s.

It was then that we decided that we did not want to pursue the assignment because there would be a lot of spec work, which even if they did not hire us, would benefit the consultant more than the client or us.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Battle Over The Pipeline

No, not the Keystone Pipeline, but the pipeline delivering content into US homes. Yesterday the FCC proposed a framework (whatever that means) for providing innovators, app developers and device manufacturers the information they need to develop new technologies. A link to the FCC’s statement on this is here: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db0127/DOC-337449A1.pdf

So who is for and who is against?

No surprise, cable companies are against this because it does something they hate most, it creates competition for accessing TV programming. It also removes an important revenue stream—renting boxes to subscribers, generating billions to their coffers.

Basically everyone else in the world supports this. Imagine people having their own boxes (think Roku, AppleTV, Google Fiber) and deciding what programming they want through their cable company and what programming they want direct.

Another benefit for consumers will be the ease to transition from Cable TV to SVOD to YouTube, etc on your TV monitor. My favorite part might be a single remote instead of three. The question that remains is whether this will eventually reduce costs or increase costs. People are willing to pay for multiple services and convenience, so it could go either way.

Video content providers will see a boon and direct access to subscribers without having to be held captive to cable company’s demands and idiosyncrasies. With millions of options for video content people will curate their own personal networks. We will likely see even more short-form content with fewer ads as either pre-roll or in-stream with more real time ad insertion and addressability.

In the words of the French poet Paul Valery, “The future isn’t what it used to be”.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Is Your Marketing An Investment Or A Cost?

Never underestimate the importance of goal setting and strategy in media. While smart media buying will save you money, smart media strategy will make you money. Without a well thought out media plan you are not getting the most from your budget because you have not determined what you should buy and what you should not. While what you buy may be priced well relative to other options, buying the wrong media is wasteful no matter what the price is. And all too often advertisers and their agencies let buying lead the media process or are missing the connection between the plan strategy and the buy.

Would you use an investment strategy of buying only stocks that are less than $10 per share? And would you use the broker who charges the least per transaction because all he has to do is tell you how much of a given stock is available when you are ready to buy? Or does this sound crazy to you? It is crazy. But what’s crazier is that some companies handle their largest investment, advertising media, in this manner.

This approach is designed to limit your costs, but what you may not know is it also limits your return. Successful media buying, much like having success in the stock market, depends on good research and good timing because the basis of both is supply and demand. The biggest difference is that media buying is more negotiable than the stock market, an extra level of complexity that ultimately determines how much you will pay for your ad time/space.

And negotiating is something large media buying agencies on the whole don’t do as well as their smaller sized competitors. “How can this be?” you ask. “My agency buys gazillions of dollars of ad time, they have to get better prices than the agencies who buy less. It’s simple math. You buy more you get a better price.” Remember Lucy and Ethel in the chocolate factory in that classic “I Love Lucy” episode? That is what being a media buyer in a mega-media agency is like. You don’t have time to “wrap” the schedule properly because you have three more buys to get on the air that day.

Negotiating is about give and take, a certain back and forth. If you’re using one of these big guys chances are you’re not getting the best price because the buyer cares more about getting four buys on the air, and less about buying the right inventory. It’s easier for them to only buy the lowest priced stuff because they don’t have to worry about value. But you should because your media buy is your investment in your brand like your stock portfolio is your investment in your retirement, not an expense on your P&L.

Smart media planning let’s you know which media does and does not make sense for your efforts. It helps tell you which media to stay away from. Buying the wrong media because it’s cheap is as wasteful as buying premium priced media that isn’t right for you. Neither one will produce results.

An approach that recognizes the importance of strategy means targeting the right people at the right time, yielding a smarter use of your marketing resources. Make it easier for a buyer to buy effectively because they know the difference between price and value.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Model Isn’t Broken. It’s Fixed.

Sony, VW, P&G, J&J, Bacardi, SC Johnson, Visa, 21st Century Fox, L’Oreal, Coca Cola, BMW, BASF. What do all these companies have in common? They all have placed their media business in review, or recently completed a review. Their incumbent media agencies; the usual suspects—OMD, Zenith, UM, Mediacom, Vizeum, Carat, Starcom/MediaVest. The agencies involved in the review; the usual suspects.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

I’ve heard and read that some people believe that industry change (content, integration, analytics) is driving this rash of reviews. If so, why are the same agencies that some clients are dissatisfied with all of a sudden appealing to others? Why would OMD be a good repository for Bacardi, which they recently won, when current clients J&J and Visa have put their accounts in review? Is it because what is shown in new business pitches is not what is used on a daily basis? I witnessed much of this when I was at Initiative, albeit a dozen years ago. The people who work on client business think many of the tools and sexy stuff shown in new business pitches is just that, only shown in new business pitches. It’s not practical for everyday use because the planners have too many boxes of GRP’s to fill in. They do not have the time to solve real business problems.

So what is the value proposition of these mega-media agencies? It certainly isn’t buying leverage because smaller agencies can match the big guys on media pricing—and often beat them. The big guys speak of relationships with the media companies, but the media companies are putting more and more inventory up for sale in the open market, using exchanges to eliminate the human aspect of transactions that is rife with inefficiencies.

Others suggest that the reviews are procurement driven, which explains why only the usual list of invitees are participating. These big agencies hate losing business and they’ll promise everything to win. They have a beast to feed to perpetuate their own myth and they believe their own BS.

You don’t have to. If you want the same-old solutions join in the Mad Hatter’s Tea Party. If you want real change you really have to want to change.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Repercussions

The fallout from Jon Mandel’s statement at the ANA about Agency kickbacks has led to a number of anonymous executives admitting it has happened under their watch and some even confessed to participating themselves. Now, this doesn’t mean that these individuals received kickbacks, but that they allowed their agency/media company to take or give money for a media buy. Initially I thought Jon Mandel was overstating a problem, but apparently it is more prevalent than we could imagine. This is certainly more significant than an agency taking the 2% cash/pre-payment discount–which is still sometimes offered–and not offering the money back to the client.

In my last blog I focused on the kickbacks that were occurring out in the open via mega holding company specialty shops. Read that blog for background. So to go into more detail, here’s how the mechanics would work in two scenarios:

  • Moving buys through a barter division. To simplify things, media companies sometimes want to take clients on a trip or schedule a sales meeting in a nice venue away from the office. Rather than pay cash for these trips the media company will offer future access to media inventory at a reduced price or for free to a barter agency. This is easier than going to management and asking them to pay out-of-pocket, but the media company offers value of inventory that is higher than the cost of the trip. The media company can be more lavish and less cost-conscious, especially when it comes to taking clients on a trip. The barter agency sells the inventory either internally or externally at closer to market pricing and makes a significant profit. The barter division of the mega agency holding company tries to move this inventory internally first, where they can ask for equivalent market pricing. If they sell it externally it needs to be sold at below market pricing. Suddenly a 2% commission on national Cable TV becomes 25% or more–I’m being kind. Remember, some of this inventory can be accessed for free. Barter division provides kickback to media agency to ensure the deal goes through.
  • Non-disclosed media buying. Marketers less familiar with the agency process or infrastructure might be led to believe that their media buying is falling under the master contract with a creative agency when, in fact, it does not. The media agency adds their commissions into the media prices they quote, taking a high commission rate. The creative agency keeps all of their fees, not having to pay for media service while completely offloading the labor. Sometimes they even get a kickback above and beyond their fee.

Both of these scenarios would pass muster on an audit because the audit only goes one transaction deep. The auditors are not examining every transaction nor do they know there are secondary transactions. The kickback would always be treated as a separate transaction, not discounts on invoices.

The more you know, the more you don’t want to know.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I’ll Have Two Scoops, Please.

The ad industry is abuzz with the recent accusations by Jon Mandel, a longtime media exec, regarding widespread kickbacks between media companies and media agencies. I can believe that there are kickbacks, personal favors, some tit-for-tat agreements, but the claim that it is widespread is difficult to believe because of the number of people that need to be involved, all either partaking in the fraud or looking the other way. In order for them to be as widespread as Mr. Mandel states it needs to be systemic. To get away with it strict non-disclosure agreements between the agency and the media vendor must be in place. It would also survive an audit because any kick-backs would be treated as a secondary transaction. It would be disturbing if it is indeed happening. Read the following for more info on Mr. Mandel’s statements: http://adage.com/article/agency-news/mediacom-ceo-mandel-skewers-agencies-incentives/297470/

But there is another practice that is widespread in our industry, one that happens out in the open. I’ll call it “double-dipping”. Double-dipping is when an agency buys services from itself in order to improve its bottom line. And it is happening at the biggest agencies out there.

Not to pick on any one, but look at the major holding companies and you’ll see how agencies are making money today when the stated commissions seem to get lower and lower every year. Each major holding company owns creative agencies, media agencies, barter companies, mobile agencies, tech platforms, CRM companies, research and strategy companies, branded content companies, etc. So you can see for yourself, below are links to their organizations:

IPG: http://www.interpublic.com/our-agencies

Omnicom: http://www.omnicomgroup.com/ourcompanies

WPP: http://www.wpp.com/wpp/companies/

Publicis: http://www.publicisgroupe.com/#/en/maps

Their worst offenders are their trading desks where there is no transparency between the amount they are paying and the amount that they are selling it to themselves.

High-level executives at any company like this are encouraged, and likely their bonuses are dependent upon, how they can improve the bottom lines of the parent company by moving money between organizations internally. Whenever and wherever possible they will buy services through an internal partner who is arbitraging inventory. The client thinks the margins are slim, but they can easily double or triple when no one is paying close attention.

Marketers have contributed to this by creating an environment where this can happen. Every year procurement led reviews occur wherein a marketer’s stated goal is to reduce the service costs. This is compounded by their insistence on extending payment terms. Who in their right mind would continue to accept lower terms AND wait to get paid? The answer is simple. Someone who’s figured out another way to make money.

If you’re a marketer who is now concerned about these practices look carefully at your agreement. Is your agency able to subcontract without your permission? Is your main agency constantly parading in specialty divisions? If they use an internal subcontractor with your knowledge do they not want you to have a direct contract? Do you not audit your agency and their vendors? If so, there’s a possibility they are double-dipping.

Holding companies developed these arcane multi-discipline organization charts for one reason and one reason only. They’re not interested in being the best at anything, except discovering new ways to separate you from your money.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Matter of Efficiency

If you ask any media planner or buyer what the term efficiency means they will tell you that it is the way to determine relative value of different media and is usually defined as the cost per thousand impressions, CPM, of the media vehicle or buy. This results in their decisions on which media to buy being made strictly on costs.

That definition is dead wrong and leads to overemphasis on a surrogate measurement that may not correlate with sales results. Something is efficient if it is capable of producing the desired results without wasting materials, time, or energy. Can the vehicle deliver sales at a lower cost than other options? There is a cost/benefit perspective inherent in that definition. Nowhere in this description is there any indication that trying to get as many people as possible to see your efforts compared to other choices is the goal.

Making decisions based exclusively on audience cost of a media vehicle can waste tremendous resources. One of the sayings I’m known for is that the cheapest media is the most expensive media you might buy if it does not work.

Today we have so many tools at our disposal to apply metrics other than CPM to define efficiency. We also have ways to insert intermediate steps in the purchase consideration path to measure whether we are on the right track.

Are your media buyers looking at data other than audience delivery to track your progress? Are they looking at your Google Analytics data? Are they making adjustments based on how well their buy is driving traffic? Even if your ultimate goal is sales at retail there are intermediate steps that can be taken to identify what is working and what is not.

The secret is predicting in the planning stage what the potential return on each vehicle will be based on syndicated data, prior transactional data, behavioral modeling, etc. During the execution stage, make sure you align an inbound intermediate mechanism for tracking. You can use unique landing pages or promo codes, statistical modeling on web traffic, coupon downloads, social media actions or good old fashioned phone calls. A holistic look at this activity can prove helpful in making the proper optimizations to your campaign. Now that’s efficiency.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Television Data Shift

Today NBCU announced that it is going to be using data other than Nielsen to help marketers better identify audience value of their networks and programs. Linda Yaccarino, the head of sales for NBCU, thinks it puts TV on an even playing field with digital media’s data driven targeting, but in reality it does not.

Using data other than Nielsen ratings to decide which TV programming to buy ads in should be more commonplace today than it is. I’m glad that NBCU has made this step and hope others follow their lead, but to suggest that now TV is on equal footing with digital is a misstatement. Why? Because I cannot tell NBCU that I ONLY want my TV ad shown to those in their audience who exhibit the behavior I value. I still need to buy a TV ad in an entire program.

Don’t get me wrong, I think NBCU is taking a big stride in improving the way marketers make decisions on which TV shows to buy but any media planner worth their salt was already using other metrics and data streams. In truth, NBCU hasn’t even caught up with what can be done on TV with this move.

If a marketer wants to use addressable video ads delivered via TV there are already methods of doing that. Rather than place a buy with NBCU I would go directly to the cable provider. Remember, for many product categories the household is the buying unit, especially FMCG. Knowing which household is buying which laundry detergent is the most important consideration for Tide. The cable provider can tell me which households had a set that my ad (and my competitor’s ad) aired on based on set top box data. Many retailers can tell me which households bought which brand based on loyalty card data. A simple list match can reveal enough households to see whether advertising has any impact on sales, but more importantly new penetration.

The cable provider can execute addressable TV. I can “serve” different TV ads into different households based on their buying behaviors. Does Tide have an advantage they want to use to steal customers from Wisk? Is there a different benefit or incentive they want to use to lure away Cheer buyers? We can do that.

Thanks NBCU, but no thanks.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Automation Infatuation

I’m a big process, math and science guy yet I am not one to fall head over heels for programmatic buying. Last week IPG announced they would be using an automation platform for buying video inventory not just for web-distributed video but for traditional TV outlets as well. They’ve set up deals with multiple networks, local station operators and cable operators. IPG’s goal is to automate up to half of its media buying by 2016. Media Post had a quote by Tim Spengler, Magna Global CEO who said that their “goal is to ignite real change in the way media is transacted for the industry.”

 http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/207108/interpublic-strikes-deals-to-automate-buys-with-5.html?edition=63600#axzz2cVuTF8FJ

 That’s a great goal for a media buying agency. Not. I see no mention of client benefits and, in fact, the article suggests that clients could be harmed because programmatic buying isn’t an auction or a way to drive media prices down. It’s a way for sellers to set a floor price at which they will not go below. While it also enables agencies to set price ceilings the only thing it accomplishes is allowing the agency to better predict the pricing by reducing the range of pricing paid. It also removes most, if not all, of the human and qualitative factors from the show selection process. Some TV shows are better than others at adding value to a marketer’s commercial—I’ve got case studies to prove this. Robots and computers cannot discern that from the numbers they are analyzing. Some shows are highly marketable to the trade based on name alone for purposes of getting higher quality merchandising in-store. In true Real Time Bidding situations a client cannot tell the retailers in advance what programs are going to be on a buy

There are some positive aspects of these developments. Incorporating more than Nielsen audience data is in my opinion the biggest benefit.  I’m sure access to data from set-top-boxes and over-the-top boxes are part of the agreements between the cable operators and IPG, or at least I hope it is. Combining this with shopper loyalty card data on product purchases can be beneficial IF the agency is driving to the proper metric.

Programmatic buying doesn’t help an agency make better decisions for its clients as much as it helps an agency make better decisions for itself because the agency can manage more work with fewer people. It helps the sellers because they will have even more control over pricing—most notably their worst inventory–and it harms clients IF they are not using the right metrics to select programs.

Tagged , , , , , ,
%d bloggers like this: