Why, actually … do some still want transparency?

It's amazing how many media people still emphasize the importance of "transparency" in media relations. Most of the time it means the traditional transparency in media conditions, so as in the past, when everyone knew on what terms publisher sells inventory to the media agencies, and at what premium - actually the agency fee - the inventory was sold to the advertisers, the customers of the agency. Anyone who calls for transparency today has not really shown much transparency himself in the last few years in media market deployment!

So much has changed. After investigations of the anti-trust authorities at IP, 71Media and the media purchasing officers in the agencies in 2007, the world has completely changed in the contractual relationships in the media market. In effect, the Cartel Office has indirectly ensured that there is no longer any transparency today, and the advertisers have to pitch so often. The media agencies no longer have long-term customer relationship security, and they even have a considerable effort with the pitches that arise due to the lack of transparency in the market.

What happened there? In 2005, Axel Springer AG conducted a due diligence on SAT.1 to acquire the TV station. The Kirch group had fallen in 2002, Haim Saban had rebuilt the group and wanted to start the worthwhile exit. When the CFOs had finished, they filed a petition for takeover and sent it to the Cartel Office. And diligent as the cartel officers are, they even read the attachments carefully. And discovered something pretty what they did not like: The discount scales of IP and 71M, which held a dominant position - they've done a very good job! - no longer complied with german antitrust laws. They included a contracting function, in particular for advertisers budget increases during the year, and prevented the market-oriented participation of the smaller TV stations. So much at this point - more about it personally if you like.

Later, the TV marketers paid a hefty fine, and "we" media agency bosses had accountants in our offices. And have learned that our contracts with our customers and the media were not correct. The system "Free Spots" became the Casus Knacksus. And we got to know the § 667 BGB (duty of surrender). It had to go into our contracts - but negative, so as exclusion criterion! In the following episode, we then understood that we previously had quasi-escrow contracts with our customers. So all contracts were reformulated and resigned. In the later episode, it became clear to everyone that the contracts between publisher / sales house and media agency and between media agency and advertiser had nothing to do with each other, and had been decoupled. Two very different contracts with completely different content. Since then, an advertiser is no longer interested in the conditions on which his media agency buys TV commercials. It was the system of the so-called "own economic level", that's what they liked to call it. Today it is easier: a media agency buys and sells in its own name and for its own account. Like every dealer. So no one knows who agreed what with whom, everything is very secret. No more transparency. And it is consistently implemented in that way. And at Edeka it does not matter to the customer, on what terms Edeka bought children's chocolate at Ferrero! And Edeka also earns a margin on buying and selling. That's the way it is.

All this has developed since 2007. Media revenues, both in purchasing and in sales, are based on this model. So why is anyone still asking for transparency today? Unfortunately, even our beloved (at least german) trade media did not deal with these fairly simple legal relationships, otherwise they would not still make such strange comments about the media business and scream so many alleged protagonists for transparency. The big advertisers have understood and take advantage of it. The little ones are left to their fate - call us, we should talk! It's almost always worth it! And media (publishers) pay the bill, they are performed as in the circus tent by tractors and have to do what the trainer orders. And woe, they want to break out and enforce their own will. And there are so many who are circling ... and everyone wants the largest possible part of the cake. But that is limited. And now it is even (even) smaller - see OWM Symposium 2018.

What does it take to be successful in this system? Perspective! Transparency is so from yesterday. Sometimes a good adviser helps you, a professional who is familiar with that game. And knows how to play the game in this round. And knows the manege...

Always at your service …. Enzenauer Unternehmensberatung Professional Media Consulting & Solutions