Five of Australia’s six media agency groups condemn plan to charge fees to facilitate client relationships
Five of Australia’s six major media buying groups have condemned the idea of asking media companies to pay for help building closer relationships with advertisers.
The statements, condemning the proposed practice, were shared after Mumbrella reported the existence of the document, which was circulated to more than a dozen media companies. It was sent to a suite of traditional and digital media players allegedly offering them the chance to get closer to clients in exchange for a fee.
The initiative is seen as an unusual one within the industry in the context of the traditional three-way relationship between advertiser, the media agency acting on its behalf and the media company, and the questions of potential conflict of interest which arise.
The letter also detailed a menu of other consultancy services. These included facilitating sessions which would put media owners in a room with clients and agency execs in exchange for a fee. The price for that service is allegedly determined by how many of the group’s clients media owners chose to see. One proposed fee was $150,000 to set up four client meetings.
I’m confused. It looks from the statements that all 6 holding groups have said its not them. So who is it then?!?
Read the above carefully. I think it seems pretty clear.
So it was (Edited by Mumbrella for legal reasons) then…
(edited by Mumbrella for legal reasons)
“Amplifi is a division that has been established to re-invent the supply side of media and re-invent relationships with media owners for the benefit of all. It is a separate and distinct entity within our group that operates independently from our agencies that represent our advertiser clients. Amplifi provides a range of services to partners, to better navigate the digital economy.”
the headline says 5 of 6 say its not them – buty all 6 say its not them?
So 5 of them “categorically denied” and 1 was “not aware”.
Do the math.
I think I know who it might be………
One (Edited by Mumbrella) quote doesn’t deny anything.
So (edited by Mumbrella) are admitting it by using legal language or do I have that wrong?
Mumbrella you provide 6 x holding company statements that seem to absolve each of any wrong doing. Why do you state that it is 5 of 6 and (edited by Mumbrella for legal reasons)?
# (Edited by Mumbrella for legal reasons)
Who is the Edited by Mumbrella for legal reasons agency?
Are they new in the market?
It sounds as though someone is as guilty as a puppy sitting next to a pile of poo.