Advangen CEO takes aim at Ikon, claims agency targeted women in fishing shows
The CEO of the parent company for hair loss brand Advangen has, today, used an investor call to take aim at its former media agency Ikon Communications, blaming it for a “totally unsatisfactory” advertising campaign in early 2016.
Maria Halasz, CEO of Cellmid, told investors that due to the ongoing legal action she was unable to provide much detail of their cross-claim but cited one example, of where she said ads for women were being shown during a fishing show, to claim the agency had missed its objectives.
“We are now in a legal dispute with Ikon and I will not go into any detail on the multiple basis of our complaint,” said Halasz. “But by way of example, a female (targeted) ad was shown during a fishing show. We do know that some women watch fishing shows but the evidence shows these are a small minority.”
Halasz also claimed that the poor performance of the campaign had had a negative financial impact on the business, with the CEO noting that they had made sure their distribution network was “fully stocked” in anticipation of an uplift in demand, which failed to eventuate.
“We contracted Ikon Communications in June of 2015 to drive customers to stores with a targeted advertising campaign,” said Halasz. “All (the) pillars were in place to maximise our 1000 stores national pharmacy distribution network, which was fully-stocked by the start of January 2016.
“We were ready to go but the advertising campaign that Ikon delivered was, in our view, totally unsatisfactory. Our expert advice has subsequently confirmed that the ads missed the creative brief and campaign objectives entirely.”
The parties are now embroiled in a legal dispute, with Ikon claiming it is owed $939,000 and Avangen saying it intends to counter-sue, claiming Ikon “engaged in misleading and dishonest conduct”.
“They are also managing our most recent launch of an advertising campaign; the results of this new campaign which only started on the 20th of July, at a significantly lower cost than Ikon, is too early to comment on.”
Advangen’s remarks drew a strong statement from Ikon, which had previously avoided commenting on the matter, rejecting the notion that it had not been transparent and insisting its legal action was largely an attempt to “recoup pre-approved third-party costs.”
“Ikon Communications can confirm it has entered into legal proceedings against Advangen International, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cellmid, primarily to recoup pre-approved third-party costs,” said a spokeswoman.
“Throughout its 17-year history, Ikon has had a strict policy of acting with complete transparency in all its dealings with clients and other service providers. It will vigorously defend any claims made by Advangen in relation to misconduct.”
Halasz noted that attempts at mediation between the parties had been unsuccessful but claimed it was confident in its claim.
“We have tried to settle our differences with Ikon but our recent attempts at mediation failed,” she said. “Ikon filed legal action on the 22nd July and we will vigorously defend these proceedings and file our own cross-claim. Our legal advice is that we have a strong claim against them.”
I’m not a fan of Ikon but me thinks that if the adverting fails, it is usually because the product offer isn’t strong enough. Blaming your agency for a product failure is like blaming your beautician for not getting any dates.
User ID not verified.
Surely they would have signed off on the campaign and the media plan? So to then blame the agency, seems like an exercise is shifting blame…
User ID not verified.
Imagine a woman watching a fishing show, heavens above!
User ID not verified.
Anyone who had been paying attention would know that bonus spots can pop up anywhere. And anyone with hair ( or without ) would know that poor sales are more likely due to people knowing these products simply don’t work.
User ID not verified.
Client doesn’t want to pay so goes through every single spot through daytime and late night to prove ineptitude. Probably should have done that before agreeing to go to air if you felt that strongly about it. After you “had product ready” and everything. Take a hike you chancers.
User ID not verified.
There’s really no plaice for this sort of thing.
User ID not verified.
Good advertising makes bad products fail faster.
User ID not verified.
What were the net ratings?
User ID not verified.
I experienced hair loss as an STW shareholder.
This product restored my hair but not my faith in STW
User ID not verified.
These guys are sharks. Bought the media plan hook, line and sinker.
User ID not verified.
In other news, Colgate are suing their DSP because a banner ad appeared on a Mixed Martial Arts fan site where most enthusiasts don’t even have teeth.
User ID not verified.
Seriously? If the “fishing show” is the crux of the “misleading and dishonest” argument this will get interesting! Why are agencies always to blame? The client signed the campaign off so why are they not holding themselves and their product and their judgement to account. Grow up and pay your bills!
User ID not verified.
I love this- the advertising didn’t work so it must be the product? What do you say when the campaign did work? Or is your position that advertising doesn’t have an impact?
User ID not verified.
No one wants your product – stop shifting the blame!
User ID not verified.
This would never have happened four years ago. They wouldn’t have accepted a sub 1m client. Oh how the mighty have fallen.
If they didn’t believe in the product, they shouldn’t have believed in the media plan, fishing or not.
User ID not verified.
Firstly learn to spell (place not plaice). Secondly Evolis product sales have dramatically increased in the last few months since Ikon were dismissed. (Figure it out)
User ID not verified.
I agree, fishing show’s are terrible, but this sort of behaviour by client is outrageous. Where does it end? Basically, this Halasz’ argument is “the campaign didn’t achieve the sales objectives that I promised management would be met, so I need to blame someone”. It doesn’t matter that a few ads appeared out of what would be considered regular female based programming, it was probably a couple of bonus spots or misplaced by the network, as often happens. You ask for compensation for those spots in the form of more spots, not a million dollar refund. If your ‘mini-campaigns’ are yielding better results for you on Studio 10, you should continue to do this sort of in-program infomercial and not attempt mass-marketing again. That’s the trials and tribulations of marketing isn’t it? You find a mix of creative and media that works to sell your product and you use that. Sometimes this means not all mediums available to you will work. Don’t blame the agency, you approved the plan.
User ID not verified.
Do you work for the client, Andy? You sound very bitter. Better pay your bills mate.
User ID not verified.
Well put Billy. As a client working on FMCG brands for over a decade, every campaign has an internal approval process. If you write the brief, get your chiefs to sign it off, manage the project, then you own it. Don’t blame your agency when you didn’t move the stock you sold in to retailers. There are many levers at play. What was your price point? What were your competitors doing? Etc etc. If this campaign didn’t meet your brief objectives, reaccess and learn from it. Your “cross-claim” makes you look foolish. Stop fishing for excuses. Grow up. Take responsibility. And pay your bills.
User ID not verified.
When a campaign does work, the quality and desirability of the product contribute a lot more to the success than the advertising does. At best an ad camping could be responsible for 40% of the positive effect. Usually it is a lot less. Advertising is a weak force that nudges people to act. There is no don’t, as you point out, that a lot of advertising is wasted.
User ID not verified.
I watched a fishing show having my nails done last week…
I do like the fact though that Ikon sued first …..
User ID not verified.
Sure, but if you can’t take their advice and if you’re going to do all the work why pay a media agency.
User ID not verified.
Andy, I think you missed the joke!
User ID not verified.
She’s selling hair replacement products…who’s really being scammed here?
User ID not verified.
Oh, dear Cod, Andy. I can’t believe you pointed out a simple mis-hake just to get your point across. So shellfish.
User ID not verified.
It’s spelled “p-u-n”
User ID not verified.
Andy if you miss the joke your hair will fall out.
User ID not verified.
Got him hook, line and sinker!
User ID not verified.
Looks like the client was pulling their hair out.
I believe their next product to market will be snake oil.
User ID not verified.
Bang on Billy.
The client is using a very bad line of argument here. Complaining about where the ads ended up… what a joke. Unless the entire $1m of ad spend ended up on mistargeted fishing websites – which I’m sure it didn’t – then using the client’s own argument as to why iot was unsatisfactory, Ikon’s leagal team will have a field day in court pointing out the numerous other places the ad appeared and getting expert witnesses to testify that these places were suitable for female audiences. She’s talked herself into a corner here. At best, she might get compensation for some misplaced spots but to argue that she should pay NIL is ludicrous.
Very interested to see how this plays out, I have no vested interest but I would be very surprised if Ikon lost this case. A client approved plan is a client approved plan.
User ID not verified.
Ignore him Andy, he’s just fishing for a laugh.
Thank Cod you saw through it.
And it’s good to hear that they have netted some new sales, hopefully that means they won’t be quite so crabby.
User ID not verified.