component, he said. Our clients âwant to know: Can I still trust my agency? Do I get to know of kickbacks or rebates?â Are these shared with the client? Inevitably, the increased wariness of clients âleads to tighter contracts.â
The fifth component is the agencyâs use of data and analytics andhow it measures performance. Clients commonly ask, âWho owns my data?â They want to know the competence of the agency in new machine tools like programmatic advertising. And they want to know if they are paying for fraudulent clicks.
Finally, and as central to the client as are costs, they want to know about what talent will be assigned to their account. âWhat I see happening more and more is advertisers want guarantees on key people,â Glock said. They worry whether the agency has enough scale to service the client. And the client defines talent more broadly. âIt used to be a given that only the creative agency sat at the table. Now that has changed. Public relations agencies sit at the table. Media agencies sit at the table. Digital agencies sit at the table.â
âThe problem agencies have,â Millard interjected, is that cost pressures from clients âis causing agencies to pay less to their employees. Because of that, theyâre not as attractive. Why would I go to an agency that looks like a dinosauric entity rather than go to Google, or Facebook, or LinkedIn? Why would I do that, and be paid what I would be paid to work in a sweatshop around lots of unhappy people?â Contradicting Mandelâs thesis that agency margins swell, Millard said, âItâs a real problem for agencies because they canât make any money. Their margins are getting squeezed. This is a very bad scenario for everyone, including the clients who are not getting the best work out of agencies because they are not getting the best talent.â
âI remember,â she explained over a cup of tea in her office after the meeting concluded, âwhen I was growing up in this business the pride General Foods and Young and Rubicam would have when theyâd say, âWeâve been in business twenty-five years with Jell-O. We built this business together. This is a partnership, a great cause for celebration.â Thatâs gone. Agencies live in great fear that theyâre going to go into review at any moment. Agencies are now treated as vendors.â
Millard described a meeting she had that morning with one of herclients, Time Inc. Executives there complained of not being able to âhave a strategic discussion with an agency. Itâs all about pricing.â She says the same is true of MediaLinkâs other media clients who want to sell space to media-buying agencies. She offered this example: âIf Time devises an elaborate $3.5 million sale of space for its multiple magazines, the agency says, âI need $1 million.â Youâre having a price conversation before you even finish telling them what the idea is. All they know is that they have to skinny you down because theyâre being skinnied down. Theyâre being judged by how well theyâre doing on pricing.â
Little wonder clients turn to MediaLink, Millard said. âWe donât have a dog in this race because we love each agency equally. And weâre going to help the brands through some of this decision making because we donât care if they choose Omnicom or Publicis. But they canât go to Omnicom and ask, âAm I in the right place?â They are more likely to come to us and ask, âShould we be working differently with our agency? Or should we put our account up for review?ââ
----
â Â Â Â â Â Â Â â
The tidal wave of accounts up for review swept through the agency business. Agencies lost part or all of the business of longtime clients. Publicis, for instance, lost Procter & Gamble and General Mills, as well as Coca-Cola,