Contemporary Advertising 14th Edition by William Arens ,Michael Weigold ,Christian Arens

تمرين 17

Periodically, advertisers invite presentations from avariety of agencies. This process is referred to as an agency or a ccount review. If the client's current agency is invited to participate, and the review is handled responsibly and respectfully, it can serve as amutually beneficial tool in keeping the relationship between the client and the agency honest and open for both sides. Conversely, when used in an unethical manner, account reviews can be very destructive to the relationship, tarnishing the reputation of the client and/or the agency and damaging the integrity of the brand.
Historically advertisers have been expected to show some allegiance to their current agency, unless that agency has mishandled acampaign through ineptitude, malfeasance, or simple ineffectiveness. Recently, though, client loyalty seems to be on the wane, while agency reviews are on the rise. A survey by the American Association of Advertising Agencies, covering 175 agencies and their 3,700 accounts, shows that the average length of the client-agency relationship has dropped significantly. Several examples illustrate this trend: United Airlines dumped Leo Burnett Chicago after 31 years; Delta Air Lines reviewed its 50-year relationship with BBDO Worldwide; Colgate-Palmolive Co. shifted $200 million in billing from Foote, Cone Belding to Y R Advertising.
The increase in account reviews is linked to two recent changes in the traditional client-agency relationship. The first change lies in the very nature of the client-agency bond. The historical, brand-building marriage is on the decline, and vendor-based services are on the rise. Today's advertisers, focused on the bottom line, increasingly settle for a quick fix that will temporarily increase volume sales, as opposed to the long-run investment of working with one agency to create an established brand. Used in this way, agencies are treated like specialized vendors, hired to spur the movement of the product or service desired, and called into review the moment that movement slows. Once a review is called, the chances of an agency keeping the account are slim-an informal survey by Adweek revealed that only 1 incumbent agency out of 12 actually survives a review.
The second change in the traditional client-agency relationship is agency consolidation. As the industry transforms from a wide array of agencies into a handful of superpowers, the odds of rival advertisers falling under the services of the same shop have increased. Many clients believe same-house representation creates a conflict of interest, sparking more account reviews.
In addition to the fundamental changes in the structure of the client-agency relationship, many agency people cite other, more questionable motives as the cause for review increases. One such basis for review, tied closely to the bottom-line-oriented approach, is what Roger Lewis, a partner at LHoffman/Lewis, San Francisco, dubs the "BOSS Theory of Marketing-Blame Others, Save Self." FHere is the BOSS theory: In the event an advertiser's sales decline, marketing directors look for the quick fix by calling an agency into review to lend the perception that action is being taken to reverse the decline. Although unfair to the agency, the advertiser has the incentive to do so as an immediate means of bolstering management and shareholder confidence.
The lure of free creative work is a second questionable motivation for clients to hold account reviews. In conducting a review, clients ask the participating agencies to create mock presentations as ameans of assessing the capabilities and creativity of each in relation to the prospective account campaign. After reviewing these presentations, clients have no financial or legal commitment to pay participating agencies, even though they may later incorporate these ideas into their campaigns.
The ethical involvement of agency review consultants has also been questioned. Many within the industry believe that because review consultants are in the business of account reviews, it is in their best interest to see that account reviews happen more often. In an article titled "Conducting an Effective Advertising Agency Review," one marketing strategist suggests that "four agencies should be asked to produce twelve campaigns in total... [as] an opportunity to look at a vast amount of work built specifically to your needs." By spurring these disputed uses of account reviews, review consultants have aided in the growth of unethical reviews.
Account reviews clearly are important. Yet the growing abuse of the review process for unethical gains will only serve to create an unprofitable rift between the sides. On the agency side, the costs of participating in a review are escalating, as the average per-pitch cost to an agency runs in the range of $60,000 to $75,000! This enormous cost unfairly keeps smaller agencies from competing for accounts. If the frequency of reviews continues to rise, smaller agencies will obtain a lesser and lesser percentage of the business, greatly reducing the competition within the industry over time.
What's more, reviews are extremely damaging to the reputation of the incumbent agency: Other clients can be led to wonder what caused the agency to lose the account. For Peter Drakoulias, director of business development at Interpublic's Deutsch, New York, agencies are "perceived as damaged goods" after losing an account-a status from which an agency may never recover.
On the client side, reviews can be equally damaging in terms of the health of a brand. If a brand is often changing its identity and public perception, it loses its integrity as consumers become skeptical of the product. Loyalty to one agency can create the stable brand recognition that comforts consumers and propels the sales of a brand. Before the rise in account reviews, long-term marriages were believed to give an agency "deep knowledge of the client and product, a deep knowledge of the essence of the brand, adeep knowledge of retail relationships, and a deep knowledge of the customer," all of which are important in creating a strong brand.
If unethical motivations continue to drive the desire for account reviews, the client-agency relationship will suffer severely. Advertisers and agency review consultants have the power to ensure this does not happen by changing the way that account reviews are used and, in doing so, defining a fair and stable role for ad agencies in the years to come.
What do you think might be done to reduce the amount of account reviews motivated by unethical gains?