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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment