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.
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.
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…
Sure, but if you can’t take their advice and if you’re going to do all the work why pay a media agency.
Imagine a woman watching a fishing show, heavens above!
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.
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.
There’s really no plaice for this sort of thing.
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)
Do you work for the client, Andy? You sound very bitter. Better pay your bills mate.
Andy, I think you missed the joke!
Oh, dear Cod, Andy. I can’t believe you pointed out a simple mis-hake just to get your point across. So shellfish.
Got him hook, line and sinker!
It’s spelled “p-u-n”
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.
Andy if you miss the joke your hair will fall out.
Good advertising makes bad products fail faster.
What were the net ratings?
I experienced hair loss as an STW shareholder.
This product restored my hair but not my faith in STW
These guys are sharks. Bought the media plan hook, line and sinker.
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.
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!
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?
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.
No one wants your product – stop shifting the blame!
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.
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.
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.
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.
I watched a fishing show having my nails done last week…
I do like the fact though that Ikon sued first …..
She’s selling hair replacement products…who’s really being scammed here?
Looks like the client was pulling their hair out.
I believe their next product to market will be snake oil.