Read the history books. Take your pick. Ogilvy on Advertising? Juicing The Orange? Where the Suckers Moon? All of them will paint a similar story, when it comes to media and media agencies. Consolidate your spend with a partner and they’ll offer value in the form of buying power. Additionally, if you commit to buying all your media “upfront”, the publisher also returns some type of value to the buyer.
This has been the case for decades. Media agencies consolidate their clients’ spend into one large spend with a publisher. Where possible they try to orchestrate one giant upfront purchase, By consolidating that spend into one giant spend, they generate a more favorable rate from the publisher and then pass on the savings to the advertiser…well, most of it.
For example, company X wants to buy media on Yahoo. But, so do companies Y and Z. Yahoo, in theory wants to have that money, committed, as far in advance as possible. For this example, let’s assume, companies X, Y and Z all work with the same media company. That media company, now takes the consolidated investment from companies X, Y and Z and uses it as negotiating power to drive down cost and/or create more value for the spend.
Theoretical “buying power” was and is, still a reason, for selecting a media agency partner. Better buying power should lead to better rates, better value and in theory, create cost savings. All of the above made sense 50 years ago. It made sense 10 years ago. But, does it make sense, now, today, in 2017?
What’s changed? Well, buying power works in a world, where there’s a fixed cost to negotiate off of. Let’s say you live in a condo building with 9 other tenants. All of the tenants need to replace their front door. The cost of the door is $500. But, if all 10 tenants can agree to purchase their door from the same company, that company might be willing to decrease the cost by 10% to ensure they get all 10 tenants to purchase from them.
But, what happens if the cost is no longer, fixed? When that happens, the idea of buying power, goes away. Let’s use search engine marketing, as our example. Companies bid on terms, with the winning bid (s) showing up as a paid ad on Google. So, if company X bids $1 and company Y bids $1.25 and company Z bids $2, company Z wins. That $2 bid might have been good enough to win on Tuesday at 3PM, but on Wednesday at 8AM, would be been lost to someone bidding $2.10. That type of dynamic marketplace eliminates 2 things:
- The idea of paying upfront for the media. Try asking Google if you can purchase $1MM of SEM, in advance. You can’t, because the value isn’t fixed. That $1MM in spend could equal 1MM clicks, it could also equal 2MM clicks or zero clicks. Because you on only pay on a click and your ads are only shown if you win the auction, there is no way to lock in a rate. It’s no different than buying stock.
- The concept of buying power. Whether you buy that keyword directly or use a company, the cost per click is still going to be a variable rate. There is no savings that comes, because you spend 10X more than the competition.
Search Engine Marketing was the first true biddable marketplace for digital advertising. But, today, most everything in digital marketing is biddable / represented in a dynamic marketplace. You have programmatic display, video, social, etc. All of them offer some type of biddable buying option. This is a big deal, when you consider that, today, more than 50% of marketing dollars are in digital, not traditional advertising mediums.
Does “buying power” exist, when everyone can purchase the same thing, at the same cost? Of course not. To be clear, this doesn’t mean you shouldn’t work with a media agency. However, it does mean, if buying power is the biggest reason you’re choosing to work with an agency, you’re thinking about it the wrong way.