EUROPE: Seven steps to easing conflict

With the consolidation of brands, and increased globalisation of marketing, account conflict is a growing problem in advertising. John Shannon looks at proposals for alleviating the situation

Recently the attention of the advertising trade press has turned toward the problems posed by client conflict. Though not new, the question of agencies handling apparently conflicting accounts is increasingly pertinent in Europe.

The reasons for this are manifold, and thus difficult to cover fully within the confines of this column, but can be said to include: consolidation among client companies; the continuing globalisation of brands; the related question of pressure on agency terms of business; client demands for exclusivity on an ever-wider geographical and cross-category scale; and the emergence of new media and the corresponding requirement for their total integration with conventional media channels.

Reference is often made to the recently published paper by the European Association of Communications Agencies (EACA) on this subject; so what exactly is the EACA suggesting?

First, the EACA recommends that more use should be made of non-disclosure agreements and that these – signed by individual members of agency staff – should serve as a reminder to all parties of the need for security. Secondly, it recommends that agencies should demonstrate that they are able to make provision for greater secrecy, by more stringent filing, segregation and security than is perhaps now the case.

Next, the EACA suggests that when conflicting accounts are handled within different branches of a single agency – whether in the same country or overseas – care should be taken not to pass marketing information from one unit to another and that it must be a responsibility of management to see that this does not happen.

The EACA’s fourth point is that exclusivity should be restricted to key named competitors only – not to complete sectors – and that the degree of exclusivity demanded by a client must be reflected in the fee an agency is paid. Furthermore, the EACA suggests that definitions of conflict should not rise above agency brand level, nor should they extend laterally across promotional disciplines or to subsidiaries of the agency, if separately housed or managed.

Only in exceptional circumstances should global exclusivity be requested, says the EACA. In line with other sectors like PR, a base level of agency income could be established as a starting point for consideration of exclusivity, on more than a local or regional basis. In such cases, the client should rigorously enforce use of the aligned agency by its local subsidiaries and operating units. Lastly, the EACA recommends that agencies should not be prevented from handling business in countries or market sectors where they are not used by the client.

Naturally, the ability of these guidelines to resolve problems of account conflict will only be proven by their application to “real-life” marketing situations. Nevertheless, as such, they represent a sensible starting point for dialogue on the subject.

(Readers seeking a fuller understanding of the EACA’s position should read the paper at www. eaca. be/docs/codes08. htm).

John Shannon is president of Grey International