Comments on: GroupM’s Channel 4 Deal

By: An Interested Party

An Interested Party — Mon, 15 Feb 2016 21:43:07 +0000

Is there not also a question of what the media owner pays for each programme? Perhaps one way to increase your rebates back from a media owner is to get paid more than the nominal price of the programme so double whammy? Obviously nothing like this happened in this deal.

By: Gerry MILLER

Gerry MILLER — Sun, 14 Feb 2016 13:03:20 +0000

Seems a long way from the innocent days of the Texaco Hour and every radio show (in America) which would not have appeared without a credited sponsor.Who would “present” Jack Benny today?
Seems a better solution to name names than to have to look under rocks and follow the money.
And if there is undue hidden influence today, when was there not?

By: Jacques Lehodey

Jacques Lehodey — Sun, 14 Feb 2016 12:29:37 +0000

Perhaps not such a bad move after all as despite the noise about agencies not playing fair, the siren song of ‘we can get it cheaper’ is one that advertisers respond to eagerly

By: John Billett

John Billett — Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:15:45 +0000

Brian
Good piece. Thanks for the historical perspective. I agree and share your concerns re the reported arrangement. There are two matters here of concern. First is the nature of the airtime deal that avoids any reference to client advertisers and their needs. Second a clandestine arrangement over pricing. If one party buys airtime our and sells programmes in the pricing of each element is a random number – anywhere from 99-1 to 1-99. That may work well for the medio owner and media agency but it’s zero transparency and a practice in the city now banned by the FCA. This story goes way beyond these particular participants and will run and run.

By: Steve Grubbs

Steve Grubbs — Thu, 11 Feb 2016 11:53:37 +0000

Points well taken. In the U.S. maybe part of the deal for agency/client funded programming should be reduced commercial loads of the shows when aired on nets