Media agencies in rankings uproar

<p>Media agency heads have cast strong doubt on the veracity of a new </p><p>ranking of media agencies in Asia-Pacific, with Zenith Media Asia </p><p>regional finance director Roland Crouch claiming the ranking contains </p><p>"glaring inaccuracies". </p><p><BR><BR> </p><p>He told MEDIA that until these inaccuracies were addressed, the rankings </p><p>"will not be accepted as a benchmark for the industry in the </p><p>region". </p><p><BR><BR> </p><p>Optimum Media Direction Asia CEO Mike Cooper also echoed Mr Crouch's </p><p>comments, despite the fact that the rankings, compiled by Paris-based </p><p>research company Recma, put OMD at near the top of the pile. </p><p><BR><BR> </p><p>"I'd love to say it's all true," he said. </p><p><BR><BR> </p><p>Apparently, Recma received a number of complaints from various media </p><p>agencies when the rankings were first published, and the research </p><p>company is said to have promised to make "necessary corrections". </p><p><BR><BR> </p><p>"I have some serious concerns about the accuracy of the individual </p><p>country rankings. We are proud of our No.1 ranking in China, and yet the </p><p>Recma rankings has Zenith Media at No.4, with billings of US$120 </p><p>million and staff of 85 - we actually have billings of US$320 </p><p>million and 186 staff," said Mr Crouch. </p><p><BR><BR> </p><p>"The Hong Kong 4As China income report, using shareholder billings, </p><p>ranks Zenith as No.1, and so I fundamentally dispute (Recma's) ranking. </p><p>The description of their source as 'declared' billings is </p><p>inadequate. </p><p><BR><BR> </p><p>"Who declared these billings and to whom?" </p><p><BR><BR> </p><p>Carat Asia regional director Alex Abplanalp also called into question </p><p>the accuracy of the figures quoted in the Recma list, noting that on a </p><p>region-wide basis, Carat's actual billings in 1999 stood at more than </p><p>US$290 million, more than reported by Recma. </p><p><BR><BR> </p><p>Meanwhile, CIA Asia-Pacific regional MD Mark Austin said that of far </p><p>greater interest than the actual rankings or billings cited was the </p><p>qualitative analysis of the market positioning of each media </p><p>specialist. </p><p><BR><BR> </p><p>"Those that have read (Recma's) analysis will understand why CIA is full </p><p>of optimism, while the dinosaurs are very worried," he said. </p><p><BR><BR> </p><p>Mr Austin's stance has long been that the assumption that "biggest means </p><p>best" is grossly flawed. </p><p><BR><BR> </p><p>"The key issue here is the risible assumption that 'big equals cheap'," </p><p>he said. </p><p><BR><BR> </p><p>"While this is blatantly not the case, it is an understandable mantra </p><p>from the big boys, as their ad agency owners have restricted their </p><p>competitive edge to 'price'. </p><p><BR><BR> </p><p>"They really have little choice." </p><p><BR><BR> </p><p>OMD's Mr Cooper, however, disputed this, saying that size is important </p><p>to a media company simply because a major player will have access to </p><p>much more information about media costs, and if this information is used </p><p>intelligently, it can buy better rates. </p><p><BR><BR> </p><p>"Large media companies can also offer a greater degree of </p><p>specialisation, which has become much more important to our business </p><p>recently," he said. </p><p><BR><BR> </p><p>Thus, the onus is on the media independents to clearly demonstrate that </p><p>their service and delivery is ahead of their competitors at all levels, </p><p>said Carat's Mr Abplanalp. </p><p><BR><BR> </p><p>"Media is one of the most measurable and accountable parts of the </p><p>communications process ... It's down to delivery and not rankings," he </p><p>said. </p><p><BR><BR> </p><p>"These are mutually exclusive." </p><p><BR><BR> </p><p>OMD's Mr Cooper also noted that a respected regional ranking was </p><p>important as it was a measure of success, and "that's what turns people </p><p>in our business on". </p><p><BR><BR> </p><p>"I would rather see an audited ranking, though, because Recma is only </p><p>based on claimed numbers, where there is too much opportunity to </p><p>exaggerate," he said. </p><p><BR><BR> </p><p>ASIA MEDIA AGENCY RANKING (Asia-Pacific - 1999/2000) </p><p>Rank Agency Total Share of </p><p> (USdollars m) Market </p><p>1 MindShare 2,558 19.1% </p><p>2 Universal McCann 2,313 17.3% </p><p>3 OMD 2,094 15.7% </p><p>4 Media Edge TME 1,550 11.6% </p><p>5 BDM Burnett Dentsu </p><p> Mastus/Mediavest/Starcom 1,333 10.0% </p><p>6 Zenith Media 1.199 9.0% </p><p>7 Initiative Media Worldwide 823 6.2% </p><p>8 Medicom 494 3.7% </p><p>9 TN Media/FCB 343 2.6% </p><p>10 Optimedia 240 1.8% </p><p>11 CIA 205 1.5% </p><p>12 Carat 164 1.2% </p><p>13 Eurolab 56 0.4% </p><p><BR><BR> </p>