GroupM says multi-million dollar YouTube deal could be ‘first of many’
GroupM chief intelligence officer Danny Bass has signalled the media buying group is open to doing other exclusive video deals with the likes of Facebook, Mi9 and others in a similar vein to its new Youtube preferred partner deal.
Google last night confirmed GroupM has secured the right to be the exclusive partner on its new Google Preferred program in 2015, giving WPP’s Australian media agencies the first rights to much of the online behemoth’s premium content, along with new demographic and geographic targeting in return for an upfront commitment of the group’s Youtube spend next year.
Speaking to Mumbrella after the Brandcast event last night Bass said: “We are talking about YouTube tonight but you have Facebook coming in at some stage next year in a big way in video.“Whether we do (more deals) or we don’t this is set up to allow us to very quickly assess whether a new (video) inventory source would work across our client portfolio.
“Our MDesk (product) gives full transparency, benchmarks all CPMs. People might look at this and say it’s not good news for TV but at the end of the day video CPMs are extremely expensive.”
GroupM is rumoured to have committed more than $20m to secure the deal.
However Google’s decision to feature the deal at the upfront-style event, which included performances by musicians Kimbra and Empire of the Sun and appearances by Vice Media’s global head Hosi Simon and its Youtube stars Bethany Mota and Troye Sivan, drew criticism from GroupM’s rivals.
“I thought throwing a GroupM partnership in the faces of an audience of whom 80 per cent weren’t GroupM wasn’t an overly smart thing to do, and incredibly frustrating, and almost disrespectful, to the rest of the media community who have supported Google a great deal,” said one agency CEO who declined to be named.
GroupM’s Bass would not be drawn on what the deal meant for the market, arguing that was a question for Google. But he said the deal gave their agencies Maxus, MEC, Mediacom and Mindshare a “first mover advantage.”
“Google can answer (what it means for the market). I care about GroupM and no one else,” said Bass. “We get first mover advantage, I think we genuinely can have a conversation with clients that other agencies can’t and we will have a year of learning through. And while it won’t be for all clients, I think we will have a group of early adopting clients.”
Asked about the nature of the deal Bass explained: “We have worked with YouTube on their premium channels and we have gone through each and every one of those to agree whether they fall into our understanding of that.
“We will get the first opportunity to secure all of that inventory, should we need it, and also have exclusivity on certain key buying demographics. At the end of the day YouTube reaches 9.5m Australians and it is not for us to be the arbiter of what is premium and what isn’t,” he said. “If we know more about that journey and the consumer then that’s a opportunity for the client.
“What this deal does is give us some security and stability and the ability to say this is what we will deliver you for next year.
“This is not about the death of TV, it’s not about shifting the enormous budgets away from TV, it is about creating a very transparent and clear platform for buyers and clients to buy.”
“What we are doing through our MDesk approach is to create a very clear view for our media buyers and our clients to truly for the first time make key decisions based on where they think the best fit for their media is,” said Bass.
“Previously a lot of the online video has been in the digital bucket and there are reasons why. But there is a now a point in time where we have to look at things in an unemotional way and compare it to tent pole shows like MKR and The Block, that we have always supported.
“YouTube would acknowledge that they are not at a stage where one of their shows would stack up against a final of The Block, but not every client sponsors The Block.
“Where we are today could be very different to where we are in a year’s time. What this does is give us another layer of the progression of our agencies and we are confident it will springboard us into 2016 and 2017.”
CEO Maile Carnegie said in a media statement: “We’re thrilled to work with GroupM to connect brands with YouTube’s top content and highly engaged, passionate audience.”
The company’s head of agency Lisa Bora downplayed the holding company’s first rights access to premium content.
“We presented the opportunity to all of our key partners and we are delighted that GroupM had the appetite to take this opportunity on in our maiden year,” said Bora.
“Google Preferred is just one buying method across our network. The program is a buying method but you can actually connect to a raft and breadth of premium content on Youtube in many other ways.
“It’s a buying method that is geo and demo targetable, that is the distinction. Most of our partnerships to date haven’t been using that method in terms of what we currently have with our agency partners accessing that content is still very much available. The program itself is a new way of buying which the industry has been asking for and which we responded to.
“It is a buying method that is talking to a geo and demo targetability we would never otherwise have made available.”
Nic Christensen
Disclaimer: YouTube is currently advertising on Mumbrella
Since when did 5% equate to “much” of the content?
User ID not verified.
What a funny media release. The deal is no more exclusive than fish and chips.
Question to Google: can you confirm that Group M will be getting first dibs at premium inventory and that Aegis, Havas, Omnicom and others will be left to buy the garbage as stated by Danny above.
…. what a load of PR b#llocks.
User ID not verified.
Its a great deal if you want to target teenage gamers….
User ID not verified.
GroupM client CMOs should expect to see a lot of YouTube on their schedules from now on. Although to be fair it will probably add some variety from an otherwise 100% Xasis buy.
User ID not verified.
When a GroupM client receives YouTube as a media recommendation, are they entitled to ask: is this a letigimate, genuine evaluation of my target audience or GroupM attempting to back fill a $20m commitment?
User ID not verified.
5% of 48hours of uploaded content per minute is a load of content, and if you discount 90% of it as never being appealing to viewers then yeah – it’s much of the content.
This is a significant deal.
User ID not verified.
good of groupm to give their clients a heads up on the upcoming arbitrage of youtube.
User ID not verified.
Do they get first dibs on cat videos then?
User ID not verified.
This sort of deal would have been a ace up their sleeve two or even one year ago, but now this is nothing more than a burden on Group M agencies and clients who will have to pay for it. it’s more one way communication which perpetuates old-school ad thinking.
And brands will be hamstrung into buying media at the cost of investing in content, social engagement, and innovations like Interactive video and social rich media (which youtube doesn’t support).
I’m glad i no longer work at a 65 Berry St – at least now i can put some actual thought and creativity into my work
User ID not verified.
considering 96% of Ads on Youtube are Skipped and 75% of the remaining Ads that do play aren’t actually watched then the deal sucks BIG TIME. If i was an Advertiser I’d be staying well away from Youtube.
User ID not verified.
How do they determine which content is premium? Surely media buyers should be buying inventory in real time, rather than a pre determined block?
User ID not verified.
Wow! Big Agency does bulk deal.
Big Agency thinks it’s innovative because not only is it on the interweb thingy, it’s with the Google everyone is swooning over.
Big Agency Pommie Guy thinks it’ll look good on his resume, so he tells the world about Big Agency’s Bulk Deal.
Big Agency does another bulk deal next Tuesday. Doesn’t tell anyone about it. It’s on TV or Outdoor (i.e. something boring).
Big Agency client scratches head and reaches for Nic Christensen piece on ‘What your agency isn’t telling you’
User ID not verified.
When will these agencies learn not to let self promoters talk to the media
… Not that we don’t love the watching them cast banana skins on the path in front of themselves.
User ID not verified.
No Google response. Mmm
Too busy assuring everyone in other agencies that the press release was just a self important piece of pommy dribble.
User ID not verified.
Oi client, av I got a deal for you geezer. Init
One for you, one for me, one for you, two for me
User ID not verified.
$10mill for YouTube, $10mill for MDesk.
Transparency?
Not….
User ID not verified.
One of the reasons we moved our account from our media agency was the lack of transparency around these deals.
If the agency commits early on our behalf, in theory second guessing our plans for the following year, then they are either the worlds best media agency or profiteers.
I cannot understand how the agency agrees deals in advance of being briefed. Much like doing deals with the television networks calendar year end and six months in advance of us signing off our plans.
Its gambling with our budget.
The motivation behind this needs to be reflected upon. Why risk being misaligned with your clients unless the agency is earning discrete money themselves off the back of it.
Now this is of course the worst kept secret in medialand. Whats become hard to stomach though is the degree to which groups are taking back handers. In my mind this is ruled by a younger generation of senior media leader coming through. They have grown up with many practices that are dodgy but at least were also seen as such 10 years ago and therefore media agencies self regulated or risk getting caught.
This new generation know no limits though. And why should they, they have been groomed in this way. I wonder how many actually know that taking back handers or inserting clandestine commissions into DSP or Trading desk deals are actually in breach of most contracts and are illegal.
Its not that long ago that people at Ogilvy in the USA went to jail for theoretically similar practices in terms of breach of contract and ultimately fraud ie. inflating costs.
See the story here: http://norml.org/news/2005/07/.....ti-pot-ads.
In conclusion I would be very very careful if I was Group M or any media agency in putting out press releases like the above about the consequences of perceptions and associated issues of trust.
I remember when Trading Heads were employed to get the best deals for clients money. Now they are employed to get the best deals from clients money.
Tut tut
User ID not verified.