Is it me or does it seem that once a year the old debate of Payment by results come out ? It has been around as a form of incentivised payment for many years. The reason that it is in the news this time is that the COI is looking at it. Short answer....about time too.
I like PBR and agree with the comment from David Wethey, that a few clients agree a PBR and then don't have the money to pay it. A PBR should reward against the pre set agree targets and should be paid in full.
To be the question is not PBR good or bad but rather should and could PBR be applied to other sectors more than just advertising ? I have recently tried to look at it for a DM and a Digital contract and neither agencies could get their head round it. So let's see if the value of a good PBR can extend to other disciplines.
Showing posts with label David Wethey. Show all posts
Showing posts with label David Wethey. Show all posts
20 November 2010
01 August 2010
ANA Study and strong words in Campaign
The ANA in the USA has just published a report which says that the majority of clients are still using the fee based remuneration system, with only a small minority (1% - very small then) looking at value based output. I would have thought the latter would be higher with the likes of P&G and Coca Cola now looking to operate in this week. Be interesting to see which clients over here start to look at value based pricing in a big way. Here is the link to the article - ANA report.
The letters page in this week's Campaign page 22 has 2 letters of interest. One from David Wethey @ Agency Assessments which leads on from the above mention of value based pricing. David feels that clients and especially procurement people have become use to paying agencies as some form of salary and that we should look at how architects and design shops are charging. True re design agencies - they tend to charge per staged delivery.
The next letter is from someone called Marcus Cauchi (if you look him up he seems to work in sales). His views on the Thomas Cook media pitch are shall we say very strong. His website seems to be written with the same strong view on life. He does make some decent points, and I understand why Campaign has published it as it is a very entertaining ! read, but I do object to the phrase 'guttersnipe procurement monkeys' when he is talking about the recent Belgian pitch where the agencies went on strike. Does he know all the facts and like the Thomas Cook pitch, it is always better to know all sides of the story before making such sweeping comments. But worth a read if you have a copy of Campaign.
The letters page in this week's Campaign page 22 has 2 letters of interest. One from David Wethey @ Agency Assessments which leads on from the above mention of value based pricing. David feels that clients and especially procurement people have become use to paying agencies as some form of salary and that we should look at how architects and design shops are charging. True re design agencies - they tend to charge per staged delivery.
The next letter is from someone called Marcus Cauchi (if you look him up he seems to work in sales). His views on the Thomas Cook media pitch are shall we say very strong. His website seems to be written with the same strong view on life. He does make some decent points, and I understand why Campaign has published it as it is a very entertaining ! read, but I do object to the phrase 'guttersnipe procurement monkeys' when he is talking about the recent Belgian pitch where the agencies went on strike. Does he know all the facts and like the Thomas Cook pitch, it is always better to know all sides of the story before making such sweeping comments. But worth a read if you have a copy of Campaign.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)