Ben Shepherd writes: This is more aimed at those working in agency side … but has anyone ever wondered why the legal T&C’s of contracts advertisers enter into with publishers in AU are so one sided.
Basically the T&C’s all protect the publisher, leaving advertisers exposed.
I have noticed of late there are T&Cs around late creative – allowing publishers to charge a pro-rata rate for creative submitted late. IOs also stipulate that only publisher supplied data will be used to verify delivery in the event of a discrepency. There’s also a few other ones that would make most media people uncomfortable. One that has always confused me is when publishers offer makegood activity, they expect the advertiser to dig into their pocket and cover the ad serving? Whaaaa?
My feeling is there needs to be a little bit of compromise in this area. After all, the media do claim to be the ‘partners’ of the advertisers … And advertisers are asking for this level of trading diligence. After all, under deliveries, mistakes, errors etc cost money. They create extra admin, finance adjustments and most importantly, impact on the advertisers ability to execute the media strategy they have paid for. If the publisher’s oversight/error/laziness has caused this then surely they should cover it.
GroupM in the US have standard T&C’s when dealing with media providers and I think this sort of position will perhaps become more common locally. In fact, GroupM are taking it further by taking ownership of data – http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=99481
The initial feedback I have gotten from publishers when discussing a bit more equality with the terms and conditions of order has been along the lines of ‘what is your problem?’ Thing is … I don’t have a problem and I’m not anticipating that it will be required to act on these T&Cs very often. All it would do is protect my clients should something go wrong … which is the exact reason publishers have T&Cs … to protect themselves when things go awry.
The main areas GroupM are looking at are
* Electronic signatures
* Late creative
I am sure we will see these reviewed a little closer in AU too …
Liam writes: I don’t see what the fuss is about Ben.
It is common place around the world to have T&C’s by agency. I can’t imagine publishers are saying having modified T&C’s is a problem?