Marketing Math Blog

Agency Trading Desks and the Issue of Transparency

By Digital Media, Media No Comments

With the rise in digital advertising budgets and the dramatic expansion in the level of inventory available from publishers, advertising agency holding companies have developed a viable alternative to ad exchanges for securing a portion of their clients’ digital media inventory needs.  This is being done through the use of agency trading desks.

Simply put, a trading desk is a separate holding company service entity that integrates a demand-side platform with other technology and a wealth of consumer data to deliver targeted audiences at scale.  While primarily focused on display advertising, this dynamic method for purchasing media on a real-time basis is expanding to the buying of online video, search, mobile and social media.   This approach leverages an auction based model to buy unsold publisher inventory at efficient rates relative to pre-procured media.

The benefits to the advertiser can be significant when it comes to audience buying and ad impression optimization relative to content/ context based digital media buys or purchasing packaged buys through an ad network.   Given the relative newness of this approach combined with the complexity of the service offering and the limited understanding of trading desks among advertisers there remain concerns about the approach tied primarily to what is perceived as a lack of transparency.  This in turn has resulted in questions ranging from how agencies are compensated for this service (“Are advertisers  double paying their agency partners?”) to the potential for an agency’s objectivity to be compromised as they become both a buyer and seller of inventory (buy from publisher at one price, resell to clients often at a premium).

There are a number of ways for advertisers to enhance transparency into the trading desk operations of their agency partners.  The first is to check your agency letter-of-agreement to determine if there is language related to the agency’s trading desk operation.  If not, check to determine if a separate agreement with the trading desk operation was executed and read through the agreement carefully.  Secondly, engage your agency in dialogue about whether or not they are currently using buying digital media on your behalf through their trading desks and if so, what percentage of your overall digital buy is being channeled through the trading desk.  If the agency is not utilizing their trading desk for your digital media buying, ask whether or not it would be appropriate for your business model and what percent of your digital media buy would be a candidate for this approach.

With the answers to these questions in hand, it is time to discuss how the agency expects to be compensated for this service.  Compensation could include any or all of the following; commission on executed media buys, fee for service, incentive compensation tied to performance (i.e. cost per action, cost per lead, cost per acquisition) and mark-up on the media purchased by the trading desk and sold to the advertiser.  Further, inquire whether or not the trading desks earns rebates or discounts from publishers or technology partners tied to volume and if so, how is your pro-rata share calculated and passed through to you.

It is important to note that the trading desk model employed and the approach taken will vary by agency, so asking questions and establishing guidelines on how to evaluate both the efficacy and efficiency of this approach is critical before allocating a portion of your digital media budget to this channel.   While questions remain with regard to this emerging agency service, the level of risk represented is no more than that represented by ad networks.  Having direct conversations with your agency about the approach, costs, reporting and performance metrics will go a long way to ensuring that you have a sound understanding of how your investment is being handled.

Finally, incorporate a “Right to Audit” clause into the agreement which you execute with the trading desk operation to contractually insure your organization access to the date required to support your desire for full transparency. If you would like to learn more about this area and or how AARM can assist you in assessing the relevance of this approach or analyzing the performance of your agency’s trading desk, contact Cliff Campeau, Principal at ccampeau@aarmusa.com for a complimentary consultation on the topic.

Who’s on First? Advertisers Want to Know

By Advertisers, Advertising Agencies No Comments

agency freelancersAd Age recently published the results of discussions it conducted among agency executives, freelancers and staffing companies with regard to the growth in agency utilization of freelance talent.   If you’re an advertiser their findings may serve as a wake-up call for you.

First and foremost, we understand the fast-paced nature of the advertising marketplace and the important role that variable labor plays in helping agencies meet short-term labor demands.  That is not the issue.  What is of concern is the growing reliance on independent contractors versus permanent staffers by ad agency executives.  Ad Age coined the term “permalancers” to reflect this trend of engaging freelancers for extended periods of time, in excess of 100 days.

Why the concern?  Consider Ad Age’s primary conclusion on their investigation into this practice, that agencies “are not attracting and managing freelancers appropriately.”  This perspective is supported by an executive of Redscout Ventures a division of MDC who was quoted in the Ad Age article stating that; “our current system of sourcing freelancers is incredibly inefficient.”   Sourcing and managing of freelance talent aside, there are numerous risks and costs to an advertiser that are often not transparent.  For example, do advertisers even know which agency representatives serving on their account are permanent staffers or freelancers?  Is there an established procedure that defines how the advertiser is being billed for freelance time (i.e. pass through cost or incorporated into agency fee/ direct labor cost calculations)?  What is the impact on agency time-of-staff investment tied to the learning curve associated with rotating in freelance help?  Does this practice impact the quality of the work or the level of re-dos?

At Advertising Audit & Risk Management we conduct both contract compliance audits and agency fee reconciliations which consistently highlight the financial impact and risks confronting advertisers regarding the lack of controls and limited transparency around an agency’s use of freelance talent.   Audit findings have identified risks ranging from intellectual property ownership to violations of the non-compete clause to inadequate time tracking of freelance talent.  Unbridled, an agency’s use of freelance talent shifts the legal and financial risks associated with the advertising industry’s lack of sufficient controls in this area from the agency to the advertiser.

There are mechanisms which an advertiser can implement to mitigate this risk without affecting their agency partners’ ability to tap into variable talent pools to supplement the account team if and when needed.  Advertisers interested in learning more about how to assess the prevalence of the use of freelance talent by their agencies and what can be done to introduce the requisite protections can contact Don Parsons, Principal at AARM for a complimentary consultation at; dparsons@aarmusa.com.  For more on this issue, read the article; “Freelancers’ Stock Rises on Madison Avenue” in Ad Age.

Time Keeps Ticking… 3 Common Agency Time-of-Staff Reconciliation Errors

By Agency Fee & Time Management No Comments

It has been several decades since the move away from full-service agency relationships where advertisers compensated their partners on a straight commission basis, to the use of specialized marketing agencies compensated on a direct labor or fee basis.  However, in spite of the elapsed time, advertisers may still not be optimizing their agency fee investments.

Over the course of our timekeeping system and fee reconciliation audit work we frequently come across vagaries and oversights that hinder an advertiser’s ability to leverage its investment in agency compensation.  This is frequently compounded by the fact that there is little transparency into the accuracy of an agency’s time reporting vis-à-vis its timekeeping system.

The three most common errors that our audits uncover are as follows:

  1. Lack of a proper agency staffing plan incorporated into client-agency agreements.  A proper staffing plan should identify annual full-time equivalent hours, the individual, their position, the pledged utilization level and the billing rate or departmental cost to be utilized to calculate and reconcile agency fees.
  2. While many client-agency agreements set forth processes for monthly time-of-staff reporting and quarterly or annual reconciliation reviews, few advertisers receive and or review these reports or reconcile fees to the agency’s time-of-staff investment.  Further, it is rare that the advertiser has previously conducted an independent third-party review over the accuracy or validity of an agency’s time reporting.
  3. No definitive contractual approach for how an agency will report on and or bill for freelance or independent contract talent.

A lack of clarity and controls in this area results in transparency gaps and billing oversights.  Absent independent verification of agency time reporting, discrepancies are not transparent to the advertiser.  And, absent accurate historical information, the problem is perpetuated when future fee levels are based on inaccurate historical time and cost assumptions.

Clear definition, process and control will mitigate significant economic risks for both the advertiser and agency.  This is also why a comprehensive staffing plan is essential to the fee / time-of-staff reconciliation process.  In the words of William Penn:

“Time is what we want most, but… what we use worst.”

Armed with accurate costing and utilization information, both the Advertiser and Agency will be able to build on their joint efforts in fostering a strong partnership based on a fair underlying compensation structure.

As a complimentary offer, and to talk through agency fee investment best control practices, please contact Don Parsons, Principal at Advertising Audit & Risk Management, at dparsons@aarmusa.com.

Global Marketer Gets Lean & Mean

By Advertisers, Marketing Agency Network No Comments

marketing services agency networkAt the beginning of 2012 PepsiCo announced a series of strategic enterprise expense reduction initiatives.  These included the elimination of 8,700 employees representing 3% of its global workforce plus additional cost reductions of $500 million per annum over the course of the next three years and an announced streamlining of its marketing services agency roster.

It was announced that part of the savings from that initiative would be invested back into marketing PepsiCo’s beverage brands to narrow the competitive spending gap with category leader Coca Cola.  According to Jefferies & Co. in 2010 Coca Cola spent 8% of annual revenues to market its beverage brands compared to 3% for PepsiCo.

On April 13, 2012 it was reported by Advertising Age that Pepsi’s North America beverage division had completed the downsizing of its agency roster.  The result?  Pepsi eliminated sixty-five percent of its beverage division’s marketing agencies, approximately 100 agencies.  Long-time agency partner Omnicom Group was the big winner, strengthening its hold on what has been a long-term client relationship.

To PepsiCo’s credit, it had recognized that its agency roster had become bloated in recent years and took aggressive action to right size its marketing services agency network.  So what will this move yield for the beverage giant?  Well for one, the consolidation of responsibilities across fewer agencies will yield a combination of agency fee and expense reductions tied to the elimination of duplicative efforts and overlapping roles and responsibilities across its marketing agency network.  Secondly, the reduction in the size of PepsiCo’s agency roster will enhance the marketing team’s focus and ability to effectively engage its marketing partners in a meaningful collaboration to build sales, market share and brand strength.

Managing and motivating a smaller group of suppliers is certainly less complex than doing so with an agency network numbering over 150 marketing agencies.  However, post-consolidation PepsiCo’s North American beverage division will continue to work with approximately fifty agencies.  While there will continue to be challenges in aligning agency resource investment and effort with the division’s business goals, establishing performance criteria and systematically monitoring progress across its media, creative services, digital, diversity, promotion and PR agencies this is clearly a step in the right direction.

Hats off to PepsiCo for taking a measured approach to identifying a supply-chain optimization strategy that has the potential to both save money and enhance marketing ROI.  In the words of Benjamin Franklin; “Well done is better than well said.”

Agency Agreements Require Adequate Audit Rights

By Advertising Agency Audits, Client Agency Relationship Management, Contract Compliance Auditing, Internal Audit, Letter of Agreement Best Practices, Marketing Agency Network, Marketing Budgets, Marketing Procurement, Right to Audit Clauses, Transition Audits No Comments

Advertising Audit is an important financial control process – not an optional luxury.

Any large company conducting business with an advertising agency or media buying firm without comprehensive Audit Rights is simply at risk. The marketing supplier may refuse to cooperate with (or significantly restrict) even very reasonable audit requests.

Based on years of experience and observation, it is clear that a sub par or non-existent audit clause often limits an Advertiser’s ability to implement standard compliance testing which therefore limits their opportunity to validate agency billings and gain comfort. Important learning opportunities are also lost – clearly an undesired outcome.

An example of a healthy financial relationship between parties – there are cases to note where even lacking clear audit documentation, the marketing supplier has complied with audit requests, but these cases are few and far between.

Pushback is a “red-flag.” Good financial practices should have nothing to fear from thorough scrutiny. The more pushback the higher the risk meter should rise.

Verification of billing accuracy / support would seem an innate right of any large company spending millions of dollars with a vendor (yes, even in Marketing).

What should you do? (1) in the near term amend the current Client-Agency Agreement to add a Right to Audit clause – and make it retroactive for at least 3 years; (2) add a Right to Audit clause within an ancillary document such as a Statement of Work (SOW) or an annual amendment to the Master Client-Agency Agreement; or (3) create a new document signed by both parties creating a Right to Audit and adding it to the vendor master file.

Ensure the audit clause is
well-defined and comprehensive.
For a guide, contact AARM at 415.381.3400

Once Audit Rights are established, a best practice and preventative control measure is to implement periodic and routine testing to deter wasteful practices, to identify errant billing transactions and to monitor key financial metrics. Testing should be performed at least annually, and always in cases where an agency relationship has been terminated (“transition audit”).

The audit concept also applies to systematic (or continuous) monitoring processes. A systematic monitoring program measures agency financial transactions, reporting and timing against a predetermined set of tolerances. Metrics are compiled and delivered at least monthly to stakeholders. Systematic monitoring is generally performed by an independent third-party with specialized software, and the Advertiser often chooses to share results with the agency – to support incentive compensation goals of and or a basis for behavior modification.

Right to Audit is a necessary safeguard in today’s business environment. Determining a schedule, methodology, and defined approach that encompass at some level each vendor in the organization’s marketing network will provide necessary assurance to management that adequate oversight and preventative controls are in place to catch errors, drive efficiencies and enhance ROI.


Managing Controllable Spending

By Marketing Budgets No Comments

The ANA recently released the results of its sixth annual spending survey of 250 marketers regarding their 2012 budgets.  Not surprisingly, budgets are not going up much, if at all.  In fact, half of those surveyed indicated that budgets would be flat and one-third stated that budgets would be reduced from prior year levels.  As part of their budget management efforts, more than 8 out of 10 marketers are being asked to “tightly manage” their controllable spending.  Not surprisingly, the focus on controllable expenses is being extended to the organization’s agency partners as well with more than half of those surveyed indicating that they would ask their agencies to cut internal costs.

The not so good news is that some of the categories of expense reduction being targeted ranging from the elimination of employee training and development to shifts in media mix to lower cost media channels can negatively impact a marketer’s effectiveness in the near-term and over the long-haul.

What if there was an option available for a marketer to meet their organization’s budgetary guidelines, without sacrificing their ability to build brands and to profitably drive sales and market share?

It might surprise some to learn that the ability to boost available budget and drive efficiencies is closer than they think.  The answer comes in the form of a contract compliance and performance audit of an organization’s marketing agency partners.  In a majority of client/agency relationships the right to audit is specified within the master services agreement.  However, most marketers don’t avail themselves of this legal provision, which yields both improved financial controls and recoveries while leading to improved agency efficiencies and performance.

When was the last time your organization conducted an agency fee reconciliation or conducted an independent billing reconciliation that included actual versus estimated costs along with 3rd party vendor remittance data?  Have you recently checked to determine whether early pay discounts, annual volume rebates or your pro-rata share of agency group buying discounts were being captured and returned to your organization?  Do you currently review your agency partners’ monthly time-of-staff investment reports?  Reconcile them quarterly?  Engage in dialogue with your agency partners to evaluate ways to streamline processes that can reduce your costs and bolster their margins? If the answer to any of these questions is “no” then you could be leaving money on the table.

How much money you ask?  In our experience, it is not uncommon for a compliance audit to yield financial recoveries, future savings and risk avoidance benefits in the 3% to 9% of audited dollar range.  While periodic compliance audits make good legal and financial sense, they can also serve as the impetus to strengthen the client/ agency relationship by establishing and tracking performance criteria while identifying mutually beneficial process improvement opportunities.  Interested in learning more about the ANA survey results? …  Read More

Agency Agreements Lacking Adequate Audit Rights

By Contract Compliance Auditing, Letter of Agreement Best Practices, Right to Audit Clauses No Comments

For those organizations operating without a Right to Audit clause or a weak clause in their agency agreements, marketing suppliers can outright refuse to cooperate or significantly limit the scope of a proposed audit.  In some cases, the missing clause could turn what would have been a relatively quick and cost-saving process into a long and difficult effort.

More often than not, however, even without a written contract right, most marketing suppliers will allow an audit, especially if the advertiser is or was a major client.  An agency that refuses an audit request knows that it could be portrayed as having something to hide.  Sometimes circumventing your current agency contact and appealing to a superior may result in a positive outcome, since senior management may be unaware of all the reasons for the initial contact’s refusal.  Moreover, certain marketing suppliers may embrace the audit as an opportunity to voice concerns if it thinks it is being unfairly treated, wants to discuss process change, or is seeking additional business from the advertiser.

To obtain a right to audit, options include, in order of preference: (1) amending the current Client-Agency Agreement to add a right to audit clause; (2) adding a right to audit clause within an ancillary document such as a Statement of Work (SOW) and or an annual amendment to the master Client-Agency Agreement; (3) creating a new document signed by both parties creating a right audit and adding it to the vendor master file; or (4) the least desirable option, filing a civil lawsuit and subpoenaing the documents needed to conduct an audit.  When adding a new contract right, it is also important to ensure the audit clause is well-written, clear, and comprehensive.

Most importantly, once the right to audit clause is in place, the advertiser must exercise its right to detect and deter abusive or wasteful practices and potentially recover appropriate funds.  This can include performing regularly scheduled limited audits for some accounts, conducting comprehensive examinations on an annual or bi-annual basis, or performing exit audits after an agency relationship has been terminated.  Often overlooked, as well as extremely effective, are post-audit monitoring programs with metrics specifically tailored to each relationship that can be objectively measured.  Results can be shared and act as a self-policing mechanism to maintain improved performance.  These performance metrics can also be integrated into client-agency evaluations.

Right to audit clauses are a necessity in today’s business environment.  Determining a schedule, methodology, and defined approach that encompasses all members of an organization’s marketing vendor network provides assurance to management that it has adequate rights to oversee its advertising dollars and can identify and take advantage of opportunities for efficiencies through improved oversight.

Interested in a complimentary second opinion on your agency agreement right to audit clause?  Contact Jim Bean, Principal, AARM at jbean@aarmusa.com.

ANA’s Advertising Financial Management Conference

By Advertisers No Comments

The ANA in conjunction with this year’s conference program chair, Sopan Shah, Group Manager, Marketing Procurement for Nestlé USA have done a great job in assembling a thought provoking line-up of topics and speakers.  From global procurement and agency compensation best practices to insights into the expanding digital media segment and lessons from advertisers that have conducted media audits there is much to be excited about if it is knowledge that you seek.   Whether you work for an advertiser, an agency or a marketing services supplier and regardless of what your functional roles and responsibilities are this year’s “Advertising Financial Management” conference will provide an excellent opportunity for knowledge sharing and dialogue.

While there is guarded optimism that global markets will break through the economic malaise which has plagued the business sector for the last few years, there remain challenges for firms seeking to increase sales and market share.  One thing is certain, the time is now for Marketing, Finance and Procurement to work together more closely to drive cost savings, increase marketing ROI and deliver extraordinary value to the organization.  A balanced approach will clearly be required to achieve enterprise expense reduction initiatives, without jeopardizing demand generation success.

For advertisers interested in learning more about achieving this balance, AARM, North America’s leading provider of Marketing Agency audit and consulting services would like to extend a special offer to this year’s conference attendees.  We are offering a complimentary, no-obligation consultation on the role of compliance auditing in building a high-performance marketing agency network to anyone attending this year’s conference.  Simply click here to answer a few questions and sign up for your free session.  We shall look forward to seeing you in Boca Raton on May 5th.

The Key to Improved Marketing Procurement Practices

By Marketing Procurement No Comments

marketing procurement

The topic of Marketing Services procurement practices remains a much discussed, often hotly disputed topic within the industry. There are several reasons why differences of opinion exist, however the time has never been better for marketers, procurement professionals and marketing services agencies to establish a mutually beneficial framework for constructively advancing this discussion.

Recently, a number of global marketers including Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Procter & Gamble and General Motors have made announcements that directly impact marketing services procurement, albeit in different manners. In the case of Coca-Cola, the organization will utilize savings wrung from supply-chain efficiency gains to fuel its investment in marketing. PepsiCo seeks to streamline its global marketing services agency network, with CEO Indra Nooyi announcing that the organization’s beverage division has identified 100 North American agencies that will be eliminated from its agency network. Procter & Gamble will pare back its investment in traditional media to leverage the reach and efficiency of digital and social media. Dan Akerson, the CEO at General Motors, which just consolidated its global media planning and buying with Aegis Group has stated his intent to “reduce complexities and drive efficiencies.“

In addition to the actions and intentions being announced by large multi-national advertisers, there was an interesting study on marketing procurement conducted by Charterhouse at the close of 2011. Entitled; “The Marketing Maturity Index” the organization surveyed 200 procurement professionals from a cross-section of Europe’s 500 largest businesses. The findings of this study reinforce the need for constructive action in this area:

  • A vast majority (88%) of those surveyed felt that current marketing procurement practices are inefficient.
  • 4 out of 5 claimed that marketing product and services could be purchased more efficiently.
  • 4 out of 10 identified efficiency savings as a “significant opportunity” for their businesses.
  • Only 1 out of 5 felt that their organizations were as lean as possible.

The take away is clear, a well thought out marketing services procurement process can play a key role in supporting both an organization’s supply-chain management and demand generation initiatives.

To successfully create and manage an effective, highly efficient marketing agency network a collaborative approach may be best. Why? As the breadth of marketing agency networks have expanded and the tenure of CMO’s has declined (around 24 months according to recruiting firm Spencer Stuart) a cross-functional approach to the development, management and monitoring of agency performance and contract compliance is required to safeguard the interests of each stakeholder. Further, the marketing agency network is a vital corporate asset that would benefit from the involvement of and access to senior representatives from Marketing, Procurement, Finance and Legal. Let’s face it the cost of changing agencies is expensive in terms of absolute costs, financial risks and demand generation momentum. Thus, an organization committed to a stable, high-performance agency network stands to gain significant value.

Organizations’ can improve their return-on-marketing-investment by optimizing the performance of their marketing agency network by taking the following actions:

  • Stabilize the Marketing Team and marketing agency network. Organizations lose valuable knowledge when institutional marketing memory is not transferred to others. The rate and rapidity of personnel and agency turnover creates risks in this area.
  • Truth, transparency and respect are necessary ingredients for successfully managing marketing agency networks. Implementing contractual, financial and performance oriented controls can safeguard an advertisers marketing investment and establish a sense of clarity among the supplier base as to “what is expected” and the analytics that will be used to assess performance.
  • Reality matters when its insight that you seek. Monitoring and benchmarking agency performance yields knowledge which can be utilized to drive efficiencies and to socialize “Best Practices” throughout the advertisers organization and across the network.

When it comes to marketing service procurement and the benefits to that can be realized by creating and maintaining a high performing agency network, one can take inspiration from the noted Roman poet Ovid:

Make the workmanship surpass the materials.”

This perspective is as valid today as it was two millennia ago and it has the potential to galvanize each of the stakeholders in this important discussion around the ultimate goal of marketing services procurement. Interested in learning more? Read a summary of the “Marketing Maturity Index” survey.

Is the Size of Your Agency Network Limiting Performance?

By Marketing Agency Network, Uncategorized No Comments

enhance agency network performanceGone are the days of the full-service advertising agency, providing integrated support across a broad range of marketing disciplines. Today, advertisers rely on a network of marketing services agencies that specialize in specific functional areas, geographies or diversity segments. The net effect of this shift is that the number of agencies which comprise an advertiser’s agency network has mushroomed. The question one might consider; “Is a larger network of specialist agencies more than a smaller network effective?”

With this question in mind, it was with great interest that I read a paper entitled; “Why individuals in larger teams perform worse.” The paper was based upon a study conducted by Jennifer Mueller, Professor of Management at Wharton who sought to explore team size and the impact on individual performance. The parallels between individuals serving on a team and specialty agencies collaborating as part of a vendor network are quite striking.

Professor Mueller found that the cost of collaboration was higher for larger teams. Of note, one of the “costs” identified in the study was tied to less time available to form meaningful relationships that boost productivity with each member of the team. How many firms make up an advertiser’s agency network? The numbers can grow to be quite unwieldy when you consider the combination of creative services shops, media agencies, digital agencies, diversity agencies, DM agencies, PR shops, social media agencies, research firms, printers and so forth. Have client-side Marketing staffs grown sufficiently to effectively manage large, diverse vendor networks and to nurture meaningful relationships with each?

One of the other bi-products of large teams was an increased level of stress tied to uncertainty regarding “who to turn to” or to call on when a question or a need arises. This scenario when viewed in the context of the lack of role clarity and responsibilities that exemplify many agency networks and their client-side sponsors can lead to both “relational loss” and “coordination loss” each of which can impede productivity, fuel stress and negatively impact the quality of work.

The key finding of the study was that while larger groups may perform better than smaller groups (up to a point), individuals on smaller teams performed better than individuals on larger teams. Professor Mueller was able to determine that the lack of connectivity between members of a larger team was the key driver of lower productivity.

Thus the challenge for advertisers managing a large agency network is to determine a means of enhancing connectivity between those agencies in a manner which leverages their respective areas of specialization while synchronizing the efforts of the team as a whole. Improved connectivity can aid team building efforts and boost relational strengths. Professor Mueller suggests the appointment of a “troubleshooter” to serve as a quarterback or “go to” person for each team member to turn to when problems solving support is required. Many advertisers have attempted to leverage their agency of record to serve on point in the capacity of “troubleshooter.” However, history shows us that the notion of a “lead agency” serving as the go to contact for other firms in the agency network is fraught with challenges and often proves to be an exercise in futility. Preferably, the “troubleshooter” should be a representative or representatives of the client’s Marketing Team, which more directly supports the goal facilitating disparate vendor organizations to work together in an efficient, connected manner to optimize the organization’s marketing investment.

The addition of a “go to” representative when augmented with clear roles, responsibilities and contract/ compensation models tied to desired performance outcomes is an excellent method for integrating the efforts of a marketing agency network. Further, continuously monitoring agency contract compliance and performance will provide an advertiser with additional controls to mitigate risk, generate a timely stream of accurate marketing analytics data and boost productivity of the agency network. Check out the article in its entirety at Knowledge@Wharton … Read More