Frenemies: The Epic Disruption of the Ad Business (and Everything Else) by Ken Auletta

of a lucrative 15 percent commission, agencies now negotiate a fee. And they are part of giant holding companies seeking more and more fees. “When I worked at an agency, I wanted to sell ads. Now our agency, WPP, wants to sell other services. Their strategy is to get more money out of clients.” In earlier days, “the focus was on the work. Now the conversation has shifted.” Agencies talk more about data, and spending more money to target audiences, and bringing in public relations and social network experts. He says he keeps asking, “Where are the creative people?” The biggest change in his own behavior as CMO, he says, was that “we had to be more demanding.”
    There are, of course, other logical reasons for tensions between clients and agencies. Step into the shoes of the client: newtechnologies and a multiplicity of digital platforms offer baffling and expensive choices.
    No secret drawer contains a checklist of the correct answers to the dizzying array of new choices clients face. No agency or McKinsey adviser who is not insufferably arrogant would declare they know the answers. The CEOs of the brands badger their team about company profit margins, as if marketing costs were an extravagance. The agencies complain they are being choked by low fees, but the CEO knows that agency holding company profit margins are still a relatively robust 15 or so percent. So the company CEO demands to know the return on investment of what is spent on marketing, and the honest answer is at best a guess. Corporate raiders are circling, pressing companies to manufacture short-term gains. The average CMO holds office for only about two years before being replaced by a new CMO. The new CMO is probably inclined to bring in a new agency and to insist that the agency reduce its costs.
    What does the CMO do about the digital fraud issue? A 2015 study by Distil Networks concluded that one of every three digital ad dollars is wasted by ad fraud, meaning ads are clicked and paid for but are not viewed by desired consumers. Often, the culprits are computer programs or bots. The CMOs’ official spokesman, Bob Liodice of the ANA, said in late 2015, “Roughly at least twelve percent of digital ads are going to nonhumans, and twenty-three percent of digital ads are going to criminals.” He pegged the cost to his advertiser constituents at $6.5 billion, and bluntly blamed clients for being “negligent. We spend nothing on cybersecurity.” The Distil study totaled the loss to clients in 2015 at a much higher $18.5 billion. Liodice’s global counterpart, the World Federation of Advertisers, estimated that if fraud continued unpoliced, by 2025 global marketers would be robbed of $50 billion annually.
    The CMOs feel trapped. Their CFO or procurement officer demands that the company stop wasting money on false clicks and ads that were paid for but never delivered to an audience. But how? Can the CMO fully trust social networks like Facebook, given that the more reported viewers of an ad, the more Facebook gets paid? The CMO doesn’t completely trust the ad agency, for they are compensated for placing the digital ads. The CMO is wary of Nielsen or other measurement agencies, for they still have a primitive way to gauge the size of the digital audience and whether an ad was actually viewed.
    Not all clients are dissatisfied with their agencies. Keith Weed of Unilever, for example, has four hundred brands served by multiple agencies, foremost among them the agencies of WPP. Weed flatly says, “I don’t trust my agencies less.” And as for the cost cutters, he says, “Procurement works for me at Unilever.” It would have pleased advertising agency executives to attend a crowded panel discussion among CMOs on the beach at the 2016 Cannes festival. Marc Pritchard, the chief brand officer of Procter & Gamble, the world’s largest advertiser, surprised members of the audience by expressing sympathy for agencies and criticism of many clients: