The Association of National Advertisers (ANA) recently released its study on programmatic media. The study was conducted in conjunction with the Association of Canadian Advertisers (ACA), Ebiquity and AD/FIN.
While the study provided fascinating insights into programmatic media performance and costs at the transactional level, there was one particular item that stood out:
88% of the advertisers that were interested in and 75% of the advertisers that signed up to participate in the study could not or had to opt out.
Why was this? According to the study’s authors, “because of a myriad of legal, technical and process roadblocks put up by players in the ecosystem.” Long story short, those advertisers did not have contractual language providing them with clear data ownership or usage rights with their agency, trading desk and or ad tech partners.
The obvious question to be asked is, How can an advertiser’s programmatic media transactional data not belong to the advertiser? After all, it was their media investment that funded the buys. It was their agency partners who invested those funds on their behalf (or not). So, who could possibly own that data if not the advertiser?
What would you do if your agency partner denied your organization access to programmatic performance data that you had requested. Data that would shed light on your programmatic media performance and costs (i.e. third-party costs, agency fees, tech fees, data fees). It certainly seems short-sighted that an agency would deny their clients access to this data, both in the context of the ANA study and for providing transparency into how their programmatic investment is being stewarded to disclose what their true working media percentage is.
Sadly, this is but one example of Client/ Agency contract language omissions that create disclosure and accountability gaps, which can lead to legal and financial risks for advertisers. Other examples include:
- No requirement for an Agency to disclose or competitively bid in-house production resources or affiliate companies.
- Media arbitrage deals in which the Agency is marking-up media by an undisclosed amount on inventory that it owns stemming from principal-based buys it has made.
- Agencies acting as principals, rather than agents, when investing the Client’s creative production funds. One example might be the Agency or its production studio filing for and retaining incentives offered by states and municipalities for shooting or post-production work completed in their geography.
Marketing spend is on the rise and is certainly considered a material expenditure, which can represent 12%+ of a marketer’s revenue base (source: 2015 CMO survey).
And yet too often, an advertiser’s contractual audit rights are not broad enough to ensure unmitigated access to the data files, records and reporting necessary to evaluate an agency’s compliance with the agreement and or their financial management performance. This can and should include:
- An advertiser’s right to select an internal or external auditor of its choice (i.e. contract compliance, media performance, financial management).
- The right to audit the agency and its related parties (i.e. holding company, affiliates, related entities, etc.).
- Assertion of the advertiser’s right to limit or eliminate an agency’s non-transparent revenue (i.e. AVB’s, rebates, non-disclosed fees, mark-ups, float income).
- The right to audit principal inventory and or mark-ups.
Contracts are also a great vehicle for communicating performance guidelines for items ranging from brand safety and viewability policies to fraud monitoring requirements and an advertiser’s policy on not paying for bot traffic, all of which are designed to safeguard an advertiser’s investment.
From our perspective, it makes sense for advertisers to engage in dialog with their agency partners to talk through contract terms and conditions, such as these, to secure their perspective and ultimately their buy-in. After all, the contract is a document that will govern most aspects of the Client/Agency relationship. Thus, open dialog that leads to a transparent relationship can form the basis for a trusting partnership that will last for many years to come.
As Stan Musial, the legendary baseball hall of fame member of the St. Louis Cardinals once said:
“The first principle of contract negotiations is don’t remind them of what you did in the past – tell them what you’re going to do in the future.”