Inquiry into ‘opaque’ media agency pricing recommended in ACCC Digital Platforms Report
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has taken issue with the “opacity” of media agency pricing in its Digital Platforms Report, recommending an inquiry into the “black box” process of buying and selling ad space.
The regulatory body zoomed in on holding groups and large agencies that negotiate discounts with publishers and may be incentivised “to act in ways that benefit their own interests, to the detriment of advertisers”. The inquiry would directly look into the share of ad spend media agencies retain, including “any potential excessive margins”.
The report cited Google’s submission to the preliminary report, in which the search engine noted that agencies pool their purchases on behalf of all clients to get discounts, only to resell that inventory to clients without disclosing the original purchase price. These discounts or rebates influence agencies as to where they direct client spend, which could be inconsistent with the client’s interests, the ACCC proposes in its 623-page report.
“There may be an incentive for agencies to not pass on any cost savings, discounts or refunded payments received by the agency or holding company from the relevant website or platform to advertisers,” the ACCC said in the report.
It named WPP, Omnicom, Publicis, Interpublic and Dentsu as the five major international holding companies, suggesting that agencies sitting within holding groups like these are even more opaque because the holding groups negotiate with suppliers such as Google, Facebook and publishers to buy ad inventory, and then sell that inventory to their agencies.
“However, clients of the advertising and media agency typically have a direct contractual relationship with the agency, rather than the holding group. As such, they have no visibility or control over the relationship between the agency and the holding group, or the contractual relationships between the holding group and suppliers of advertising services,” the report reads.
“Accordingly, while a client may receive full transparency in regard to its dealings with the contracted agency, it may not have a similar level of transparency over the relationship between the agency and the holding group, or the relationships between the holding group and suppliers of advertising services. It is in this space that a holding company can potentially increase their profit margins, to the detriment of the advertiser.
“Advertisers are unable to determine whether the services they purchase offer ‘value for money’. Competition is undermined if advertisers are unable to compare and select the most efficient ad tech partners and publishers with whom to place media spend.”
The opacity is driven by the use of multiple services in a single transaction (and the resulting accumulation of fees), the lack of transparency regarding the algorithms that facilitate media bidding and auctioning, and the structure of agencies, according to the report. It also stated that, while such opacity exists in other advertising contexts, such as TV advertising, it is magnified in online advertising because of the number of intermediaries involved.
The ACCC acknowledged that the process of media agencies negotiating volume discounts is “complex” and that its experience throughout the Digital Platforms Inquiry “suggests that advertisers and others may be unwilling to publicly identify their concerns”. This, the regulator said, reinforces the need for a separate inquiry into media agencies.
The inquiry, which would be conducted by a specialist digital platforms brand – the creation of which is another recommendation within the report – could also deal with whether advertisements on digital platforms are actually served to their intended audience, which the preliminary report raised as a concern.
The Australian Association of National Advertisers (AANA) welcomed the report, with CEO John Broome saying: “We will engage fully with the government during the forthcoming consultation process and participate in the proposed inquiry into the operation of ad tech services and advertising and media agencies.”
Treasurer Josh Frydenberg added that the report is “groundbreaking” and “world-first”, with the government set to provide its response to the report by the end of the year.
Ouch.
User ID not verified.
Great, so can we see the individual costs of each component of an iPhone please?
This seems to conflate two issues. 1) the margins within the digital media buying process 2) agencies not acting in the best interests of clients.
2) is bad.
1) is a result of Agencies knowing more than clients about the true cost of goods sold and is easily remedied by any advertiser taking the time to strike their own deals.
User ID not verified.
“This, the regulator said, reinforces the need for a separate inquiry into media agencies.”
User ID not verified.
I’m totally over this.
The ACC looked into Facebook and Google market dominance and anti-competitive issues that affect jobs, innovation and even democracy.
During this industry consultation phase, the AANA members went off topic & cried foul over ad-tech and media agencies again. Give me a break.
– Ad-Tech is not simple. Either skill up or give it a miss. Stop complaining you don’t understand.
– Media agencies are directly contracted. So if you want more trust & transparency then change your contract.
The AANA needs to wake up. They just added their own unnecessary confusions into an important regulatory matter.
User ID not verified.
About time. The issue with your iPhone component line, is that Apple will definitely know how much each component costs from each supplier. Whereas, the same cannot be said about media buying.
User ID not verified.
The components of an iPhone have individual purpose and contribute to the overall value of the manufactured product.
Adding 100%/200%/500% to unit costs – on top of management and media buying fees – is just plain misleading, damages the reputation of all agencies and accelerates in-housing.
It’s like Volkswagen emissions in reverse. Performance is a lot better than it seems!
Cue smug PR campaign from big holding group announcing they’re the first to ‘go straight’…
User ID not verified.
Transparency is long overdue, I just hope its retrospective.
User ID not verified.
Of course, the same can be said about media buying.
Demand a transparent pricing obligation in your agency agreement. Move your business if the holding company doesn’t comply. They’ll soon adjust. There’s only one customer.
But if that customer wants turnkey wholesale rates with 0% agency commission AND full supply chain transparency… well that’s a something for nothing problem.
Either way, hardly a matter for regulation. Let the market decide
User ID not verified.
What about the ever increasing rebates paid by Broadcasters and other media to the agencies and their holding companies ?
Surly the ACCC is going to stumble upon those at some point?
User ID not verified.
Dont forget the independent agencies.
[Edited under Mumbrella’s comment moderation policy]
User ID not verified.
[Edited under Mumbrella’s comment moderation policy]
User ID not verified.
@[Name edited under Mumbrella’s comment moderation policy]
We need a real audit from a client with consequences, like a government client. Like they had in the USA a few years back in a creative agency where people went to jail.
We need the culprits called out and held accountable and sent to jail like any other white collar criminals. Its definitely going to happen at some stage. Its just a question of when really. The paper trails must be massive around this stuff.
Its crazy too think you have all these execs walking around lording it up when so many are just white collar criminals.
… start shredding guys.
User ID not verified.
I agree regarding the broadcasters paying kick backs to the media agencies. I don’t see why they don’t just stop.
What could the agencies do, stamp their feet, report them to the ACCC for ceasing to pay bribes – it’s laughable.
But it is corruption and fraud, what else can you call it.
For example let’s say client [Edited under Mumbrella’s comment moderation policy] briefs in a winter campaign $500,000 budget to the agency. The agency then approaches Network [Edited]. They tell them that they will give them all the money if Network 6 Acme pay them $270,000 paid discretely over a few months as a kick back. The Network says great. They don’t care, why should they. They get all the budget, the agency agrees to pay higher rates than it could really buy for, ignore whether any other media is more suitable for [Edited] and pockets the $270,000.
Everyone’s a winner.
Except [Edited] who pay double to be on the wrong channel.
The ACCC getting all over digital is one thing, and an important thing, but where have they been when it comes to this very obvious, very well known, very common, very dodgy fraudulent activity that has been all over the industry for decades.
We are a very dirty industry. It’s time to drain the swamp. Let’s make media great again.
User ID not verified.
@[Name edited under Mumbrella’s comment moderation policy] . I get it but ..
I think it’s well know just the numbers are smaller so it doesn’t warrant raising to many alarms.
Most aren’t audited and as accreditation no longer exists small Indis are writing their own invoices.
The temptation to add another zero when cashflow gets low could be compelling for someone whose spent decades doing it for somebody else in New York or Hong Kong.
User ID not verified.
I agree with Josh Frydenberg it is “groundbreaking” and “world-first”, that something is being investigated. Its not ground breaking investigative findings but again it is ground breaking that at last something is happening and the big players havent managed to crush things again. My mind goes back to a group set up by the MFA a few years ago positioned and designed to set rules for transparency and honesty. These were the senior people in charge of programmatic and media businesses. So, we put the fox in charge of the chickens – amusing.
John says “with the government set to provide its response to the report by the end of the year?”
Britney do you know in what capacity the government is examining this or who is the point of contact there should we wish to share information with the government regarding non transparent activity?
User ID not verified.
I’d like to know more, please elaborate?
User ID not verified.
Hi Bob,
The government isn’t responding to the report until after a consultation period, so we we won’t know which of the recommendations they’ll agree to and follow through with until the end of the year. With regards to the inquiry into media agencies, the ACCC wants it to be carried out by a specialist digital platforms brand. The creation of this is another recommendation, so until we know whether it will be set up, and it is set up, your best bet is contacting the ACCC directly: https://www.accc.gov.au/contact-us/contact-the-accc
Hope that helps,
Brittney – Mumbrella
Like all the athletes caught doping, metaphorically speaking if an agency bosses have been revealed to have been taking money from their clients when they shouldn’t have, as the report above suggests, and therefore bringing our industry into disrepute when then have also been publically recognized for their contribution to the media industry – then man up, give your medal back.
Admit what you have done and see what happens from there.
The crazy thing is that the majority of those involved in stealing clients money through dodgy digital or back handers have taught themselves to believe that it is not stealing. But of course it is. And people who steal are called thieves.
#giveyourmedalback
User ID not verified.
It makes sense. But is old news. Yawn
User ID not verified.