COMMENT: Moving to fees is in the best interest of agencies and clients

<p>One of the extraordinary anomalies of the contemporary advertising </p><p>business is that it is still largely based on a compensation system </p><p>which was designed in the coffee houses of London in the 18th </p><p>century. </p><p><BR><BR> </p><p>The agency commission system - and the 15 per cent rate which </p><p>accompanies it - is still the preferred method of clients to pay for </p><p>advertising in Asia. In North America, we estimate 30-40 per cent of </p><p>compensation is now feebased; in Asia, outside of the US- based </p><p>multinationals, fees hardly exist in advertising. </p><p><BR><BR> </p><p>Where commissions yield to fees, the usual result, in my experience, is </p><p>that clients save money and agencies are guaranteed a proper return. </p><p><BR><BR> </p><p>It sounds like a win-win. So, how come so few Asian advertisers and </p><p>agencies are prepared to dance the fee tango? </p><p><BR><BR> </p><p>Well, let's take the worst possible view. First, it seems like too much </p><p>hard work for the client. Let's face it, the commission system is easy; </p><p>you just negotiate the rate - and ignore everything else. Second, </p><p>there's just too much greed on behalf of the agencies: you never know </p><p>when commission might yield windfall profits. Actually, there is some </p><p>truth in both stances. </p><p><BR><BR> </p><p>Fee systems do need effort to make them work, particularly in the early </p><p>days; they can require more administrative support. And, when agencies </p><p>often perform small advertising tasks at a loss, there must be some </p><p>attraction in raking back revenue from a big "commission run". </p><p><BR><BR> </p><p>But I do not believe this situation to be healthy in the long-term. It </p><p>essentially de-professionalises the relationship between advertiser and </p><p>agent. Unlike normal professional engagements, scope of work becomes </p><p>replaced by abstract notions of service. Yet, a mutually agreed scope of </p><p>work is the single best way for defining expectations, and for matching </p><p>remuneration to the actual activity, and to the level and quality of the </p><p>participants. </p><p><BR><BR> </p><p>Fortunately, from my perspective, there is a trend at work tending </p><p>towards consideration of fees, and that is the increasing integration of </p><p>communications disciplines. Quite simply, if a client is buying services </p><p>from one menu, it becomes much less attractive to pay for them in </p><p>different currencies. </p><p><BR><BR> </p><p>Except in markets such as Japan, where an entrenched commission system </p><p>and a weak specialist sector has allowed agencies to give away other </p><p>services as loss, I can see the disciplines and benefits of labour-based </p><p>compensation slowly taking root in clients' consciousness. </p><p><BR><BR> </p><p>We should do everything we can to accelerate this. If you believe, as I </p><p>do, that ultimately the future of our business lies in being the </p><p>repositories of out-sourced work from slimmed down marketing </p><p>departments, then the sooner we make the change from the ambiguous role </p><p>of media owners' agent into being genuine professional services firms, </p><p>the better. Clinging on to the past is something agencies are quick to </p><p>condemn in others; but it seems difficult to behave as bravely in their </p><p>own back-yard. It shouldn't be. </p><p><BR><BR> </p>