A Woolley February: The 5 Biggest Stories

As the year rolls on, it feels like it is not just the seasons changing. The whole world is on a roller coaster ride that is more of the same, only on a grander scale and simultaneously unexpected. 

Here are the top five stories from the past month in advertising, marketing, technology and media. Let me know what you found unexpected and what is simply a grander view of what we are increasingly coming to expect.

Late last year, Omnicom announced it was swallowing IPG, while Publicis Groupe Australia was practising gobbling up Atomic 212 as an appetiser in January. Internationally, Publicis Groupe merged Leo Burnett and Publicis Worldwide and called it Leo. This month, Clemenger Group has folded CHEP and Traffik into Clemenger.

Why does it matter? If you needed more evidence that the old holding co model is no longer fit-for-purpose, look no further. Be it to look for cost efficiencies or create scale to fund a transformation, the original model of growth through acquisition appears broken. The question is, when will Omnicom Advertising Group come to Australia with another round of changes?

Has anyone noticed the run of stories we have seen in the past six months about the increasing concerns over digital advertising of all types? Be it the reliability of the data held by the social media walled gardens or now the ability of the authentication platforms to ensure your ads do not appear to be funding terrorists, gambling, drugs, fraud or, in the latest reports, child sexual exploitation.

Why does this matter? With projections that digital advertising will take 70% of all advertising media spend within the next year or so, you would want to hope it was safe, transparent and accountable. But from what we are reading and hearing, this is not the case. 

In February, VoxComm, the alliance of communications agencies associations, published an op-ed calling out the pay-to-play pitches for undermining fair competition. This included intermediaries (consultants) asking agencies to pay an upfront fee or a percentage of client billings if they were successful. This places the cost burden for the pitch on the agencies, with advertisers not having to pay any fees. 

Why does this matter? At TrinityP3, we have to pitch for projects, too. Often to marketers who do not want to pay for a service they believe they can manage themselves. This and our previous agency experience mean we have never, and would never, charge agencies to be on a pitch. Charging agencies for pitch participation is counter to obtaining the best-fit agency for your needs. The amount you would save as a marketer is infinitesimally small compared to the investment you put at risk.

Meanwhile, over at X (formerly known as Twitter), the sales team and management continue its innovative approach to media sales. Last year, it took GARM and the major advertiser members of the WFA (World Federation of Advertisers) to court for antitrust violations against X. Then it was reported that it was dropping the case against those who had committed to increase their spending with the platform.

More recently, it has added further companies to the court case. It is reported that Omnicom has been warned that unless it increases spend with the platform, the government approval for the IPG takeover will be at risk.

Why does it matter? Is this an innovative sales approach or simply an extortion racket? Imagine if advertisers started making media investment decisions based on which platform would harm them the least, reputationally, economically, or politically?

In the past month, we have seen the industry call out oOh! Media for running a billboard for the political lobby group Advance Australia, which carried the misinformation that renewable energy is harming the environment and the economy. Then, Ad Standards found that Gina Rinehart's Hancock Prospecting had misled consumers with an unsubstantiated claim that gas was clean. Along with the launch of Ad Net Zero in Australia and the latest AANA Environmental Claim Code coming into effect this month, it looks like the environment is now a thing for the industry to care about.

Why does it matter? After decades of denial of the climate crisis and then obfuscation, climate awareness is blowing through the marketing, media, and advertising landscape. But for how long? In 2007, Kevin 07 and the Labor Government moved to address the issue, only to be replaced by a conservative government that unpicked it all for another decade.