An explosive report on kickbacks in the ad industry is coming out next month and some say it could lead to ‘jail time’ (Business Insider)
Media agencies are paid by advertisers to secure them the best and most efficiently priced advertising slots.
However, one of the issues is whether buying agencies are actually securing the most strategic slots for advertisers, or whether they’ve made a previous agreement with a media owner to spend a set amount of their clients’ ad dollars in order to receive a rebate.
Rebates are standard media-buying practice in certain countries in Europe and Brazil. But they are not meant to exist in the US. Any sort of incentive is supposed to be disclosed and returned to the advertiser, unless otherwise previously agreed in the contract.
Media agencies are supposed to spend their clients’ money where the client will get the best value, not just where the agency gets the biggest benefit. Credits, or freebie ad slots – which were granted precisely because an advertiser spent so much with a media owner – are supposed to be returned to the client not sold on for the agency’s gain. And rebates aren’t supposed to be hidden income for other parts of the agency business, such as an agency group’s barter, or programmatic, or international operations, which are harder for clients to audit.
Some agencies argue that such volume-discount rebates belong to the agency to reward them for their bulk-buying power. That’s the benefit of working with a big global agency, as opposed to a smaller independent – and if clients are unhappy, they shouldn’t sign the contracts.
Business Insider does not yet know precisely which – if any – of these nontransparent practices the report will address, but sources told us the impact of the report’s findings will be huge.
Il concetto è che l’inserzionista paga il centro media che paga il concessionario che mette la pubblicità sull’editore.
oltre alla commissione che l’inserzionista paga al centro media, il centro media “ottiene un corrispettivo” dal concessionario, generalmente proporzionato alla quantità di budget degli inserzionisti che il centro media destina al concessionario stesso.
Semplificando, funziona un po’ cosi:
Cioccolata spa affida al centro media PippoMedia 70 franchi per comprare pubblicità (PippoMedia viene pagato da Cioccolata Spa 10 franchi per il servizio)
PippoMedia da’ i 60 franchi residui al concessionario AgenziaADV che ne trattiene 10 per il suo servizio, poi prende 40 franchi e li suddivide su Editore 1..n. Restano fuori 10 franchi.
Questi 10 franchi residui, AgenziaADV non li paga agli editori, ma li paga a PippoMedia come “Diritti di Negoziazione” (in gergo DN) o altri servizi, come dice l’articolo
Credits.. are supposed to be returned to the client not sold on for the agency’s gain. And rebates aren’t supposed to be hidden income for other parts of the agency business, such as an agency group’s barter, or programmatic, or international operations, which are harder for clients to audit.
E se tu concessionario non ci stai ? otterrai poco budget dei clienti del centro media (a meno che tu non abbia una forza commerciale tale da essere esplicitamente richiesto da Cioccolata spa, tipo se sei Google..).
Diciamo che in generale i soldi (in acquisto di pubblicità) che il concessionario riceve dal centro media (per conto di cioccolata Spa) sono proporzionali ai soldi che il concessionario paga al centro media.
Questo fa nascere il dubbio che il centro media possa sceglirer il concessionario cui destinare i soldi del proprio cliente, non in base alla bonta’ del concessionario, ma in base ai soldi che il concessionario e’ disponibile a retrocedere al centro media.
Se il concessionario paga il centro media 1, avrà 5 in pubblicità; se paga 2, avrà 10.
WPP’s Martin Sorrell says firmly that media kickbacks are not a factor in America: “There are no rebates in the U.S.” #CannesLions
– Adweek (@Adweek) June 26, 2015
Pare che invece ci siano anche in america.
L’articolo offre diversi scenari di possibili esiti.
Comunque tema interessante…
