Showing posts with label advertising agencies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label advertising agencies. Show all posts

Friday, 10 April 2020

Agencies have a chance. But it’s here and now.





I’ve been here before.

I know what happens.

In the crash of 2008, we saw Advertising Agency income drop a ‘mere’ -40% because, put simply, Advertising is the first thing clients switch off when they struggle. It’s easy. They stop Ad expenditure today, without the need for even a Board meeting and when they’re looking through their P&L, they see big Advertising savings sticking out like a sore thumb.

Today, it looks like it might be heading to a shocking figurative zero.

You can of course, continually tell them that they’re wrong – brands who advertise in a recession stay stronger blah blah blah – but it’s like standing on Dollymount strand trying to push out the waves. They’ll cut Advertising first, and frankly, if I was them, so would I.

When it’s a choice between letting people go or, stopping Advertising, which would you do?

The 2008 crash looks halcyon, because today, it’s looking like Advertising is going nowhere now and, when businesses get back, Advertising will not be top of their list either. 

They’ll be more concerned about getting their machines fired up, people back to work, sales calls, getting drivers on the road, putting product in the hands of customers to generate income, to perhaps, advertise then only when they’re paid. So there’s going to be a time lag.

Added to that, as we sit here in April, it’s looking like a summer time lag, at best. The 2008 crash took nearly 2 years to right itself.

Which summer coincides, as the horrible Ad gods would have it, in the annual June/July/August ad shutdown anyway. Most Agencies traditionally do more business in an October than June/July and August combined and that’s been the way for a thousand years. The perfect storm.

Like all businesses, Agencies have fixed monthly overheads (probably 30/40% of income). Rent the obvious one (I know Agencies faced with 100k+ a month rent) but there’s also staff vhi, mobile phone bills, likely 5% pension contributions, insurance, company cars  and so on. Then there’s the salaries representing 60/70%.

Deferring the fixed overhead now, is possible, to avoid the constant dip into current cash reserves but in effect, you’re just moving debt into other months. It’ll still have to be paid, have to be financed from cashflow later. That day cometh.

Staff salaries can be cut (if they agree), redundancy is a substantial cash cost now, so you’ll avoid that, and anyway you’ll need those staff resources too in order to provide a service later. Agencies are a measure of their staff after all. Your assets go home in the lift every night.

In the short term, the likely course is you’ll finance as much of it as you can from reserves and defer what you can. See what happens. Too big to fail. So were we, Ireland’s biggest Agency at the time.

A ‘holding pattern’ in the hope of better days ahead but with no clients today in the mood or even available for business conversations (they too have other things on their minds), you’re living in hope. Fingers and toes crossed.

You cheer yourself up with ‘what if’ healthy looking projections that do not materialise. Possibly government assistance will help?  (They will until they run out of cash too and bonds will eventually start to wobble). Or bank loans for liquidity? (They won’t because like you, they don’t know where you’ll be in three months). You think, but it’s all short-term. Then you open the wine.

We did all of that and in time, it’s worthless.

Because as no bright horizon appears, the debt burden increases and either you pull the plug or someone else does and, it comes quickly. We were trading on a Monday, gone on a Thursday morning. Four days. We should have acted faster and not lived in hope, and kept our reserves.

There is a way out. The change that needs to be taken now, is structural.

I have been beating this drum for 10 years – all business is an online business. That includes Agencies and if ever you needed the proof, look around you today.

The solution for Agencies is to provide their services online, as much as they can, without the need for high staff (and the associated other overhead such as cars, pensions, mobile phones, vhi), no high rent and frankly, better 247 365 delivery. Automate whatever you can and it makes Clients stick.

Client self-op platforms for Planning, Media buying (Traditional and Digital) in real time, Automated Invoicing, Online support/advice via Skype (to home workers in some cases), sophisticated Client dashboards and even creative uploads of Advertising material. Media Agencies can do what they do best in person, Media Planning and then automate all Media buying but with the same margins.

Admatic has that turnkey solution for Agencies.

You start now and you/we build on it. We do it with you because we know the Agency business. Backwards. We’re here to help.

The game has changed, the time is up, move fast and move now.

Been there, done that and have the T-Shirt.

It cost me 33 million.

That’s the T-Shirt that you don’t want.



Stu Fogarty is a former President and Fellow of The Advertising Institute (IAPI); Board Member and Fellow of The Marketing Institute; Chairman of The Advertising Press Club; Board member of The Publicity Club; former Ad Agency CEO and Owner of Ireland’s largest Ad Agency AFAO’Meara/McConnell’s; Founder of Club Internet (floated Nasdaq March 2000 as Via Net Works); founder of ICAN; Founding Director Realex payments.
He currently runs Admatic Ireland and Streamabout The Video Agency.

He’s happy to chat at Stuart@admatically.com. 085 7100458.

Tuesday, 24 May 2016

Television Effectiveness Versus Digital Video? The Mad Debate.




It's a worrying time when the debate about Television being more effective than Digital still labours on. Nastily.

I don't know how many traditional TV Campaigns we've managed in our pasts..... If it's not in the thousands, it's certainly in the hundreds and that doesn't necessarily gives us authority, but it does give us experience. Saying that too as the author is both a former Madison Avenuer and Fellow of The Advertising Institute. Agency blue-blood.

And how many Digital Video Campaigns have we managed? Thousands too.

But this debate seems to become angry with Traditionalists Versus Digital Evangelists whereas really what matters, is what is the audience doing? 

Where are the eyeballs going?

The TV traditionalists seem to blindly like TV, because that's the way it's always been done without understanding, that the world, their world, has changed 360 degrees.

Clearly too, one is not a substitute for the other, despite traditional TV data produced (and paid for) by TV Broadcasters which is dubious, at best.

It's common sense to understand that the TV audience is in decline.

With the high penetration of Social Media (Facebook, Twitter) predominant and with their peak usage in evening times, has to mean less TV is being watched. You can't be actively doing both.

The increasing high penetration of Ad-free streaming services (Netflix has over 250,000 homes in Ireland alone) which are watched at peak time, has to mean less TV viewing. 

The cable chord cutters are watching less TV too de facto. The prevalence of second screen viewing, must mean less TV is being watched. The huge growth in YouTube especially amongst the youngers, means they're watching less TV.

The decline in published ratings, means less TV is being watched in itself albeit, US broadcasters are now dependent on live sports rather than traditional "shows".

The growth of Apps (Tinder for example) at the very least, diminishes the OTS (opportunity to see) of TV. The growth of Mobile activity takes away from TV viewing. Better broadband brings homes more digital viewing opportunities as well. The Ipad and ITunes. 

And so on it goes on, common sense. The more distractions, especially at key peak time (high advertising expenditure times), the more TV viewing will decline. 

It struck us in this week especially, what a great example of video effectiveness this was.




In less than two days, this online digital video topped over 100 million views and is now Facebook's most video live video ever. We have no doubt it is already over 200 million views.


The Hasbro mask (44.99 usd) sold out (http://abcnews.go.com/Lifestyle/chewbacca-mask-sold-online-womans-video-super-viral/story?id=39292349)

And the Media cost? Zero. Nothing. Nada. Except the cost of producing the video.

Now what TV Campaign could deliver that audience? None

And at what cost? Certainly millions of dollars if you could achieve it using TV.... which you can't.

And the one big reason? Shareability. 

You can't share a TV Commercial and that's one big downside of traditional TV viewing (despite audience numbers) where Digital has the advantage (as this video shows).

Not only can it be shared, but to a like-minded demographic (friends and followers), a marketers dream in fact. Thereby, effectively communicating the message exactly to the target. 

So when we talk about TV Advertising effectiveness, let's not kid ourselves because we want Clients to keep thinking it....in our own vested interest, or, because we can't keep up with the digital age.....


And let's not argue blindly.

There's a role for both, absolutely. 

One is growing, one is declining, but all that means is that the eyeballs are switching. And as marketers or Ad men and girls, that's what should concern us most. 

Rather than defend a position because it's all we know. What are we afraid of here? It's good news because online video creates new, long form opportunity. No longer are we hampered by that 30 second Commercial length for example which should nurture creativity. 

Stopping Digital Video is like standing on Dollymount Strand and trying to push out the waves. 

Let's not do that and let's give the correct answer to Clients. Impartial arbitors of media.

Like the peasant's in Lamb's essay, we know not how to roast pork, other than to burn the house down. 

Streamabout.com