Comments on: Rebates and Language https://bja.igloo1.com/blog/rebates-and-language/ from BJ&A Thu, 28 Jul 2016 12:01:57 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.38 By: Brian Jacobs https://bja.igloo1.com/blog/rebates-and-language/#comment-105186 Mon, 04 May 2015 17:44:49 +0000 http://www.bjanda.com/blog/?p=571#comment-105186 I think a scenario could play out like this (simplifying hugely!).

1. Amnesty is agreed.
2. Agencies start to rebate all appropriate discounts to clients.
3. Clients start paying back some of/all of these discounts in a planning fee.

But of course someone needs to be the first to take the plunge!

]]> By: Jacques Lehodey https://bja.igloo1.com/blog/rebates-and-language/#comment-105159 Mon, 04 May 2015 14:48:48 +0000 http://www.bjanda.com/blog/?p=571#comment-105159 No one will make the first move here unless pushed as their does seems not to be any upside for either the Agency or the Advertiser. The push will occur when agencies start paying for planning and this is not likely to occur in a business environment where telling the board or CEO that the agency remuneration will go up it’s OK because the Agency will no longer be making money off of us (without our public knowledge)which they have made for a number of years (on your watch). The way to bring a carrer to a screeching halt.

]]> By: Brian Jacobs https://bja.igloo1.com/blog/rebates-and-language/#comment-104488 Thu, 30 Apr 2015 14:30:53 +0000 http://www.bjanda.com/blog/?p=571#comment-104488 I agree, Jeffrey the easiest thing to do is prorata the rebate to spend that generated the discount in the first place. I also agree that the semantics involved in this debate are very important. This isn’t really about ‘client’ rebates, but about agency rebates generated by client volumes.

]]> By: Maarten Albarda https://bja.igloo1.com/blog/rebates-and-language/#comment-104480 Thu, 30 Apr 2015 13:31:31 +0000 http://www.bjanda.com/blog/?p=571#comment-104480 Irwin is right: We’ve extracted results for ourselves on the back of someone else’s activity.

Brian is right: They might start by stressing that the buyers job is to buy the plan. It’s not the planner’s role to justify a buy made to benefit the agency ahead of the client.

Jeffrey is right: The issue is what to do with year end agency volume bonuses that are not associated with any one client but are achieved due to the critical mass of all clients in the pool. That is why they are not lying when they say all “client” rebates are returned. The issue is the desire of clients to get a pro rata share of those rebates AND not pay for planning.

Darn it!

]]> By: Jeffrey merrihue https://bja.igloo1.com/blog/rebates-and-language/#comment-104474 Thu, 30 Apr 2015 12:21:41 +0000 http://www.bjanda.com/blog/?p=571#comment-104474 The issue is what to do with year end agency volume bonuses that are not associated with any one client but are achieved due to the critical mass of all clients in the pool. That is why they are not lying when they say all “client” rebates are returned. The issue is the desire of clients to get a pro rata share of those rebates AND not pay for planning.

]]>