| |
Despite all the hype surrounding media neutrality,
many believe
it’s just a new term for integration. But is this
really the case?
David Reed reports...
Media-neutral planning is like teenage sex - a lot of people
are
talking about it, but how many are actually doing it? As with any
new concept in marketing, there is always a concern that it is simply
a new badge for an old process. On the surface, media-neutral
planning can seem like integration - and there are precious few
examples of genuinely integrated campaigns.
So why should this idea be taken seriously? For one thing there
are
some very senior clients advocating a new approach to their marketing,
ranging from Unilever to IBM. Another consideration is that major
agency groups such as WPP and Leo Burnett recognise the need for
root-and-branch changes to their service.
Behind the scenes, some major stakeholders are already participating
in programmes aimed at establishing what the new model and techniques
to support media-neutral should be. If these disparate groups can
find enough common ground, the nature of marketing might undergo
a
fundamental change. A public discussion of the impacts on direct
marketing, chaired by myself, will take place at the DM Show on
Tuesday October 15.
A simple definition of this new planning
process is offered by Marc
Michaels, director of direct marketing for COI Communications.
"A media-neutral approach should deliver a more considered
view
of what individual media can contribute. The client would see that
their agency was open-minded, and prepared to consider options in
detail, rather than just serving up the standard - easy? -
approach," he says
The output would be more balanced marketing
campaigns, involving a richer media mix. Approaches would be more
likely to be tested to validate perceptions about each route to
market.
"This should, in turn, lead to greater learnings, better awareness,
response, conversion and, ultimately, better return on investment
(ROI),"
says Michaels.
In the current climate, clients are desperate to find new tools
to
squeeze the most out of their marketing budgets. If doing so means
squeezing their agencies to work in different ways, then so be it.
Brian Aspin, head of media development for Royal Mail, believes
resistance is futile. "I am absolutely behind anything that drives
marketing effectiveness and media-neutral planning is a very important
strand in doing that. Many agencies say that is what they have been
doing anyway - but it is evident that it has not happened.
Good sense
says it should be happening," he says.
In some respects, agencies have been trying to introduce more rounded
solutions to clients for a while. Leonardo chief executive Steve
Barton
insists his agency’s new business pitches frequently include
media-neutral
approaches. "The last thing we need to solve this issue is
another
vision," he says.
He believes improving the performance of marketing will not result
from
an overly-formal process. "What is critical is getting the
right people
involved at the right time" which is often earlier than you
would
expect, states Barton.
This should involve a careful consideration of the brief, before
committing
to a specific execution, he argues. Planners have to be involved
in
a “solution neutral "role, guiding specialists and “keeping
egos in check.
He or she needs to lead the debate from a solid understanding of
the issues, rather than be pigeon-hold as the gatekeeper of things
strategic", he says.
Whether Leonardo has been working towards
this goal or not, it might
find
the furniture gets moved around anyway. Leo Burnett has
announced a major restructuring that repositions it as an 'ideas
collective', with strategic thinking being driven out of a new unit
called
Leo IQ.
This houses the planners, whose role it
is to provide the consumer insight
that is the real heart of media-neutral planning. One observer points
out
that "the huge challenge is to make that work on a profit and
loss basis".
Bruce Haines, chief executive of Leo Burnett, has already had public
arguments about whether clients will be paying additional fees for
this
strategic thinking.
Many people might point out that leading
agencies need to do something
in order to retain their best strategic planners. The account planning
group of the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising (IPA) is
very much at the forefront of the media-neutral planning debate.
As one source close to this group says,
"the better thinkers are frustrated
people who don't feel recognised, rewarded and resourced in
the way they would have expected. They are exploring where they
may best
re-emerge".
This frustration stems from the shift in
their role away from being
genuine
strategic thinkers, towards being simply 'ad tweakers.' Through
an interesting quirk of fate, media buying agencies are currently making
all the running in terms of pulling in this planning resource.
One piece of research being carried out
at the moment has revealed that
media and agency planners "miss each other", even if they
are highly
critical when put in the same room. Both sides look back with fondness
to a time when they used to work closely together.
An important dimension behind the current
interest in media-neutral
planning is a shift in agency profitability. Advertising agencies
are
working on margins of 3 to 4 per cent and direct marketing agencies
on
10 per cent, while media buyers are still making 15 per cent. If
nothing
else happens, this is certain to change the character of the IPA
- its
recent merger discussions are just one indicator of that.
Richard Marshall, business development director
of Tullo Marshall
Warren,
argues that these changes work in favour of direct marketing
agencies. "Unlike any other marketing services discipline, direct
marketing agencies are best placed to deliver media neutrality.
This is
because response is almost always a key objective, and we
can use
anything from DRTV and press to door-drops and digital marketing
to
achieve this," he says.
What should drive the decision is an understanding
of which are the most
relevant and cost-effective channels for the client, he says. "Over
time,
clients and agencies develop a clear view as to which channels are
the most
effective mix. Media neutrality that ignores these principles may
simply
end up spreading the message, but with diminished response,"
says Marshall.
While some agencies are making wholesale
shifts, WWAV Rapp Collins
recently announced the appointment of a director from the parent
company's field marketing operation to the board of its media
group. While that is not a lead discipline, it is at least a gesture
in the right
direction.
Executive director, head of creative, for
WWAV Rapp Collins Ian
Howorth,
is an advocate of media-neutral planning. "Media neutrality
is
solutions-driven, not driven by the choice of media. Often, the
media
decision is taken before the problem is even considered. The brief
says
‘fill this ad space’, or do a mailing’. Media neutrality
means coming
up with a solution and using the appropriate media," he says.
Haworth points to the launch campaign for
guava-flavoured Snapple that
ran in New York several years ago. "It had a tiny budget, so
the agency
took a different approach. It thought about which people would like
the
drink and where they could be reached. It recognised that guava
is so
distinctive that the main audience is existing guava eaters,”
he recalls.
So stickers were put on all guavas on sale that said. “Also
available in
Snapple flavour".
Following a recent presentation on media
neutrality at a conference,
Haworth was approached by a client in the fundraising sector. After
a
brainstorm, the agency came up with a solution that embraces TV
advertising and new product development. "It is driven by the
need to
get people together and the whole difficulty of that –
we are creating a
product out of it," says Haworth.
If media-neutral planning results in planning
taking a lead role, Howarth
welcomes this. He says, "If we're working closely with
planning on
consumer insights that gives us a freedom. It means
the creative
opportunity is huge."
Agencies can hardly be blamed for the fact
that they are built around
specific media or disciplines. "We fulfil a client need –
that is why we structured by discipline. There are campaigns that
are happening that are
genuinely media-neutral, but they are often
small, niche initiatives," says
Haworth.
Clients might still be forgiven for doubting
just how independent of media
their agencies will be, even when they claim to be media-neutral.
One
outcome of this might be the opportunity for new agencies to spring
up and fit into the gap.
DirectionGroup, a recently announced initiative
by ex-FCA chief
Chris Parry, is a collection of independent marketing
specialist
companies that provides one point of contact for all
of a client’s
marketing requirements."I thought I had
cracked integration
when running FCA," says Parry. "We
did a good job, but it was
restricted by the disciplines we had
in the toolbox. There was
only so much we could provide and staff
we could have." To try
to avoidthese restrictions, the new
group operates a central
strategic unit that then pulls in separate
agencies once a
solution is agreed.
Parry is frank about the ability of mainstream
groups to operate
this way. "Marketing services groups claim
to be integrated –
bollocks," he says. The main issue
with groups is that while they
may contain all of the necessaryindividual
agencies, "who's
going to advise the client on whether to use them or not?"
Parry recounts an anecdote from one of the
agency heads in his
group. The company quoted on a piece of work,
sub-contracted
by an agency, at £6,500. Some time later, the
agency boss was
sat next to the client at an awards dinner. He
said, "you guys did
a fantastic job - it was well worth
£20,000'. That client was not
only being ripped off,
but the service provider was also being
priced out of the market,"
explains Parry.
Agency mark-ups of this sort are one of
the dirty little secrets
that contribute to media bias. Advertising
agencies have long
done this with direct marketing components, but
direct
marketing agencies are not innocent either - they frequently
rack up sizeable additional fees from subcontracted data work.
One paradox is that the need to align true
planning with media buying reminds many in the industry of a model
that used to exist - that of the full serviceagency. That got broken
up when both parties were looking to pursue more efficient media
buying. Now the goal has shifted to effectiveness, rather than efficiency,
it could become fashionable again.
A more serious issue emerging from the current debate is whether
clients will review their agency relationships in a far more serious
light. "Agencies will either have to have clean hands or open
books," says one source.
Bias will not be acceptable nor accepted, especially by shareholders
of
publicly-quoted companies. "There is an issue of good governance
to
ensure that any money spent on marketing has been to the shareholders'
best advantage. The current model falls well short of that,"
says the source.
That is a serious charge, and one marketing may soon have to answer.
It is a well-known fact that the financial directors of most major
companies are putting the screws on their marketing departments.
Justifying budgets and demonstrating a return have become major
tasks for marketing directors.
If shareholders pick up the theme of marketing ROI, then the gig
could
really be up for the current agency model. Right now, some forward-looking
agencies are trying to get ahead of the curve by adopting media-neutral
planning, while others are being dismissive of the whole concept
as just reheated attempts at integration.
Aspin is certain about which side will win. He says: "Media-neutral
planning won’t go away. For those agencies that do enough early
on, looking back, history will be kind to them. But those who appear
to hang on to a model that is not helpful will be judged."
For further information, please contact:
Richard Stephens
DirectionGroup
Tel: 0118 989 8104
Mob: 07836 587096
Email: richards@directiongroup.co.uk
www.directiongroup.co.uk
|
