Very proud

A bit of family pride here.  My cousin (Darren Keff) and his partner (tip top creatives at JWT in London) have won a Gold at Cannes for this superb bit of ambient creative for Polo (Mint not Car).  Click here to see it - Polo Snow Stamp. And no procurement involvement from me at all (had to put that in there somewhere to make it a tiny bit relevant to this blog!) ! Have a good weekend.

IPA Report

The IPA have published a report that says that ads that win awards are 11 times more effective. The report examined 213 case studies of advertising over the last eight years, including campaigns by marketers such as Cadbury, Volkswagen, Budweiser, Honda, Audi and Orange. They claim that there is a direct link between creativity and effectiveness and that this is a good argument for quality over cost. So far so good.

But in the next breath, guess what, Hamish Pringle the DG of the IPA says that by putting all the emphasis on cost and procurement, are marketers reducing their chances of creating campaigns that really work and will drive business growth in the long term?. Yes we have last week's example of the Thomas Cook signing on fee (still no proof on that by the way), but hey don't wave a broad brush at everyone else in the industry. 

Apparently procurement people are paid a significant bonus linked for reducing costs. Where is the evidence of this ?  Sure there may be a bonus in play for the individual or department, but targeted savings may be one of say four measures that the bonus could get paid out on (if at all).

I am disappointed by this as I don't really see any evidence of 'tough' procurement driving out cost at the expense of quality.  It is our job to get and know the balance to get the best result for marketing whilst making sure that a fair commercial proposition in place.  Perhaps the IPA could redo the study and see how many of their successful case studies had procurement people in.  I know one of the answers as I worked at Orange when we won the IPA awards !.

The aftermath of the TC affair

This week's Campaign has a number of different articles in response to the 'news' that Thomas Cook was 'asking' its pitching media agencies to pay £1m up front.  I have not seen an official response from TC Procurement or Marketing but I did speak to someone who is aware of the process, and their only comment was that TC treat their agencies as suppliers - read into that what you want.

So for a guided tour on the articles:

Page 2 - Claire Beale leads with the headline 'Why it's time to say no to damaging fee term's'.  This is about the fact that agencies often don't help themselves and likewise there are some clients that will take advantage of this. I agree with this totally and for once procurement isn't blamed !

Page 12 - Tim Williams of Ignition Consulting calls for a better way of charging that isn't link to hours, quoting examples of Coca-Cola (well documented in this blog). I am a great fan of the concept or licence fee - the client pays an one off lump sum for the agreed level of output with agreed parameters e.g. .usage for one year in the UK on TV.  Kerry Glazer @ AAR said this week that they are seeing a few more examples of this happening.

Page 18  - Ian Darby has a good view then the TC pitch is running the danger of supporting  a "murky and opaque world where agencies collect their wedge in the form of undeclared kick-backs from media owners".  I wonder where TC stand with their incumbent agency on unbilled and AVB's ?

then finally on Page 22 - James Kydd ex Virgin Media says that he is sympathetic to TC's demands and that media agencies haven't help themselves so don't deserve much sympathy.

So a jam packed issue on this very thorny topic. I would really love to know the truth on this pitch.  Let's see how it pans out.

Edinburgh International Marketing Festival

The guys at creativebrief are launching with The Marketing Society and The Assembly the inaugural Edinburgh International Marketing Festival.

Apparently they have developed a unique series of events to demonstrate how marketing permeates and fashions a lot of what we do in our society and how this influence to and from society is ever more prescient as technology, attitude and behaviours change and advance.


This event is a Festival of Marketing , not an industry conference, and as such is appealing to marketers of course, but also to government, educators and students, the media industry and the general public. The other partners include IPA and DMA.

They have kindly offer readers of this blog a discount.  There are around 100 paid seats available.  More details can be found on www.eimfest.com. 

If anyone is interested, just drop me line and I can forward on to make sure you get the discount.

Buzzing news today

Have a look at a story on today's Brand Republic site.  Apparently Thomas Cook Procurement are asking for a £1m signing on fee for their £30m media contract that is up for grabs across 4 agencies.  They are asking for a significant reduction in agencies fees and at least a 10% reduction in media costs.  The IPA are saying that this is very unprofessional procurement and that the agencies should pull together.

First is it true ? (MH @ TC if you read this - would you like to set the record straight?).  Secondly would any other category of spend discuss with suppliers a signing on bonus ?  I am sure I have heard about it before, not in marketing but in another category.  Thirdly I do agree with the IPA (if this is true) that the agencies should say no if they are fundamentally disagree with the requirements of the pitch.

Any comments on this?

PR Procurement Conference

The CIPR are organising a half day conference on Procurement in September.  It costs £250 if you are a CIPS member or £300 if you are not. They have  a mix of agencies, COI and procurement people speaking.  Looks fairly interesting but I would question the price of it for a half day session in these times where money for training etc is a bit tight. But here is a link to it - CIPR Conference

Here to stay

Here is an article that appeared on the Procurement Leaders website last week.  The central theme of it being that Marketing Procurement is here to stay. Not a surprise for the many of us that have worked in this area for ages.  The one interesting bit is that a web-spend analysis company says that with good visibility, savings of 20 to 25% can be found with Procurement's help.  Here is the article - Procurement Leaders

Procurement does Cannes

There was a discussion at one point with Sir Martin of WPP and Keith Weed of Unilever (Chief Marketing and Communications Officer). Below is an extract from it - I have highlighted the two sections where they mention Procurement.

"Continuing on the effects of the slowdown, Sorrell said that there’s a sense of procurement and finance function becoming more powerful than the marketing function and that’s led to decline of marketing as an entity. From a consumer goods point of view, Weed replied, there’s been no erosion in the importance of marketing as a function. “Our growth is driven by consumer demand and marketing is the key to fuel the demand.” Weed accepted that the buying side of marketing, that’s procurement, can become more professional. “But this improvement should deliver creativity and effectiveness,” he stated."

I agree with Keith Weed about marketing being central to meeting what the customer requirements are but not convinced about totally about the need to develop the professionalism of procurement.  I wonder what Unilever Marketing Procurement team have to say about that ?