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