“The universe is not rich enough to buy the vote of an honest man” – Gregory
I know what you’re thinking. “Yeah, my ass!” After a few decades in this business, what did 1994 bring to the media industry? Greater opportunity? More mass media? New print titles? More acceptable political coverage?
Nope. It brought bigger incentives, bribes, rewards, tokens of appreciation, call them what you will.
The invitations went global! No longer did one have to be satisfied with – pick any/all from the list below:
You and a partner come to the Loeries with us? Yes/No
You and a partner come to Sun City and see Queen? Yes/No
Come river rafting down the Orange River? Yes/No
A weekend in Mmbatho Sun with a half hour presentation? Yes/No
Come to the Swazi Sun? Yes/No
A trip on the Achille Lauro? Yes/No
You and a partner up to a weekend in Dullstroom? Yes/No
Once parochial, local, and boring, the quality of the old invitations have escalated steadily, with media owners topping their competition in terms of the “offer”. The stakes have improved. Now one can choose between:
Rugby World Cup!
Olympics!
Soccer World Cup!
UEFA Cup!
Cricket World Cup!
South African tours abroad!
Rugby tours overseas!
Passports have been filled with new and exciting visas. Three weeks leave has become more like six or eight weeks leave. Media planners and buyers are having a ball, and its costing media owners plenty.
But is there any reward for them? I have to doubt it. Not when one sees the plethora of invitations. Yes, you cement relationships and friendships, but so does your competition. Sure you can do the soft sell. But so does your competition. Seriously, one has to believe that the sooner a “Media Owner Forum/Association” is formed, the better. By mutual agreement, it will save them millions.
There’s also that tricky question: is it a bribe? Well, I don’t think so – not if one can justify it as “commonly acceptable” practice. All do it. It’s overt and disclosed. Transparent, in today’s speak. But perhaps the worrying factor is just whose interest the buyer/planner may have at heart. Are they on the side of their new buddies, the media owner, when it comes to hard negotiating? Or are they on the side of their client, who after all pays them?
So, I hear you ask, do you go on such trips, Harry? Yep, I do. I can roll out all the justifications in the world, but they would apply to me as much as to the next person. Perhaps the only “excuse” one can offer is that it’s done on such a broad base, by so many media owners, one becomes impervious to the ulterior motive, and just enjoys the experience and the company.
Various other media experts in the country have commented on the practice, but whether the “reward” is conditional to a buy or not is really irrelevant. One generally has the opportunity through the year to enter dozens of conditional-to-purchase media competitions/promotions. I really don’t see the difference between this and a straight-out invitation to the World Cup.
My colleagues in the industry have spoken out on “enrichment, ethics, objectivity, transparency, and corporate governance”. Unfortunately, they too attend World Cups, tests and such like.
To conclude, it’s not wrong in my opinion. It’s just unnecessary marketing costs. As one evaluates every activity in one’s marketing mix, so too should media owners be looking at “incentives” and establishing their true worth.
A far darker side of the industry is the free spot/discount that never makes it to the client’s schedule —but that’s another article altogether.
Harry Herber is group managing director of The MediaShop.