June 2007 Archives

I heard today that one of the big network media agencies is in the process of appointing a single 'approved' affiliate network.

Sounds like a sensible process?  Well, to a point.

It makes sense if your ethos is to treat digital media like a commodity buy. The underlying thinking feels like "Hey, all affiliate networks are pretty much the same, let's choose the best one and roll it out to our clients." 

But affiliate networks in fact have very different characteristics.  Buy.at for example, have a strong network of schools and local clubs which might make them a good choice for a charity.  OMG have historically been strong in the finance sector.  Tradedoubler's European network would make it a natural choice for a pan-European campaign.

Choosing a single preferred supplier takes away from the planners the ability to make sensible decisions on behalf of their clients.  On the other hand, it could be a decent way to maximise short-term revenue, especially if clients don't think it through!

NMA published a response from Mauricio Leon to my piece on trading directors. 

His argument boils down to the fact that long-term partnerships are about much more than just price - for example, they will typically include improved service-level agreements, research projects and exclusive opportunities.

That's fair enough, and I wasn't really arguing that cheap was bad per se - in fact it's easy to argue that most digital media is over-priced.  My point really is that by negotiating individual deals, you can take a client's requirements into account and create a bespoke package that will probably be better value in the long run.

As for the access to research, that can often be negotiated as part of relatively small buys, so I don't see that as a serious argument.  The fact is that trading directors are there to get the best prices for their clients and to maximise profits for their agencies - but not necessarily in that order!