Three brothers attend a live auction to bid on an old 1984 sedan with a busted tape deck and a paint job worthy of a demolition derby. It’s a gem. One by one the brothers out-bid each other until the price of the car gets to be so high that the oldest brother must sacrifice his life’s savings just to win.
As the auctioneer yells “Sold!” all three look at each other with utter confusion and anger – including the eventual winner. Why the long faces? Together, they wanted to buy the car as a cheap 16th birthday gift for their baby sister. Instead they competed against each other and paid entirely too much for a piece of, to put it nicely, junk. There was no collective game plan.
In a race to find the lowest media rates, marketers in today’s direct response world are finding themselves in a similar situation: They have been sending three men to do a one-man job, hoping the hungriest would scavenge around and do whatever needs to be done to find the best and cheapest media.
This method has not been very effective. In fact, it has driven prices in the wrong direction – up.
Over the past few years television advertising pricing has soared to new highs. Why? It’s a simple rule of supply and demand. If three companies want the same time slot (whether it is for the same client or not), then that time slot is put on the auction block for the highest bidder.
It’s obvious why media outlets are supporting such a competitive, animalistic environment. As Rick Petry mentioned in last month’s Electronic Retailer Magazine, sellers support the manufactured competition for their inventories because it drives up rates and ultimately increases their revenues.
But why are companies and entrepreneurs sitting idly sidelines as their agencies take a costly beating out on the media playing field? Agencies and the marketers are supposed to be on the same team.
Petry says a good chunk of the problem is distrust. Why would a marketer trust one player when he could field a whole team of agencies? It’s a valid point. Putting too many dollars in the hand of one agency can be detrimental in B2B, but there is another word that balances out distrust in this business – loyalty.
Most DR ad agencies are extremely loyal. They have no reason not to act in the best interest of the marketer. If an ad agency finds inexpensive, well-placed time slots then the marketer is likely to spend more dollars with the agency in the future, increasing revenues on both sides while leaving the expensive artificial competition out of the game.
Here is one thing any good company engaging a DR company should know: There needs to be a high level of loyalty, understanding, and trust between sellers, agencies and marketers. Ask the veterans of this business. Ask Rick Petry. Choose a good agency and let it go fight for you, not against you.
