Procurement doesn’t seem to be working, does it?
At least, according to the agencies that have to live (or die) with it.
In the latest study by the Association of National Advertisers, 66% of the 90 agency representatives said procurement failed to meet their expectations.
What’s even more eye opening is that only 49% of marketing execs thought that their own procurement units were knowledgeable about marketing. And, only 54% felt that their own procurement departments were communicating honestly with agency partners.
Not boding well for the future, I’d say.
So, what’s the cure for procurement? Interestingly enough, 84% of procurement executives said they viewed marketing as an investment to be optimized.
Not surprisingly, 74% of agency executives said they thought procurement executives viewed marketing as a cost to be minimized.
Which is why it looks as if the solution is to be able to optimize without minimizing. The only way to do this is to reduce the cost of creative based on performance - after the fact - rather than cutting costs before production has even begun.
We now have the digital data that tells the advertiser how much of his advertising was consumed by the viewer. If the first step to having a successful commercial is to have the commercial watched in its entirety, the digital platform now measures how well that is done.
Why not have advertisers pay agencies and production companies based on that data? If only 10% of the spot is watched by viewers, the agency and production company would make less than if 90% of the spot is viewed.
It’s still procurement. It’s just after the fact. Maybe instead of procurement, we can call it anti-curement.
The key is to let the cure be in the work itself. Not in the hands of those whom, according to their own bosses, aren’t knowledgeable about marketing.