So, here we are. The biggest advertiser in the country is no longer advertising – at least for the time being.
As associate editor Lisa D’Innocenzo details in the cover story, the inevitable has happened, and the federal government, which has spent over $800 million on ad programs and $250 million on sponsorship over the last five years, has turned off the taps.
If it makes you feel any better, as André Lanteigne, director of public affairs for Communication Canada, says, ‘It just happened by accident almost.’ Which is rather cold comfort, really.
What he means is that after the opposition parties made a big deal out of the fact that a subsidiary of the now-infamous Groupe Everest was continuing to manage the government’s multi-million-dollar media spend, the feds immediately put media buying on hold. Since a new media buying agency had yet to be chosen when we went to press (thanks in part, no doubt, to a ‘new transparency’ which translates into incredibly long, dense RFPs), that effectively and abruptly cut off the ad bucks.
This is just a temporary situation, of course. Once a new media AOR has been selected, the federal ad dollars will start flowing again. But don’t expect a gusher: I have a feeling they won’t exactly be burning through the bucks, at least until the next scandal comes along and everyone forgets about this one (which, on the bright side, could happen in less than six months).
But there’s a larger problem here, and these days, it’s a very familiar one. Let’s put it this way: On the universal trust-o-meter, ad agencies have now descended to the questionable company of corporate accounting firms, energy futures brokers and organized crime.
Yes, there were only a few bad apples, and yes, almost every agency in the country operates above the board, offering every client measurable ROI for its advertising dollars. But perhaps more than any other business, advertising is a faith game. It’s tough to prove it works, so to a certain extent, all agencies rely on gaining their clients’ trust.
Well that just got harder.
Right now, your clients are reading stories about agencies fabricating invoices, charging huge sums to, say, remove a logo from the letterhead, or chalking up hundreds of billable hours for a single phone call. It’s every client’s worst fears realized.
Luckily, it just so happens that communication is what Canada’s agencies are all about. So they immediately jumped in to make sure their message was heard: That the tainted agencies were the exception, that most agencies are professional operations, that, if anything, agencies undercharge for helping their clients realize billions in incremental sales.
O.K. Well maybe they didn’t.
I did hear that the ICA is taking part in an international ethics study, with topline results likely released in April, after most of this is over. And I know that in Quebec, le Conseil de l’industrie des communications du Québec has been thrown together to address the problem. But I gotta say, as a regular guy who watches the news and reads the papers, I’m seeing a lot about how agencies mishandle their clients’ money, and not much in the way of a response.
Now, I know that in some cases, silence actually is the best way to respond. Sometimes a response makes it look like the industry is going on the defensive and has something to hide. Sometimes a response can prolong the issue’s play in the news, so it’s best to let it quietly die away.
But I have to ask: Did everyone meet and decide silence was the best response, or is it just happening because no one can be bothered? And more importantly, if the agency world is saying that in times like this the best communication is no communication, then I’m afraid that just makes the problem worse.
Duncan Hood, editor, dhood@brunico.com
