2012 Global Agency Compensation Survey

Transkript

2012 Global
Agency
Compensation
Survey
R3:JLB
May 9, 2012
Survey Method
• Online Survey fielded Feb, March 2012
• Survey completed April 2012
– 71 ANA member responses, representing 60
different global companies
Respondent Marketing by Country
UK
84%
China
80%
France
79%
Canada
78%
Germany
74%
Brazil
73%
Autralia
71%
Spain
69%
Mexico
68%
Italy
66%
India
65%
Argentina
61%
Japan
61%
Russia
60%
Singapore
59%
Netherlands
55%
Colombia
51%
Philippines
50%
S. Africa
49%
Source: ANA 2 0 1 2 , Global Agency Compensation Survey
Chile
Malaysia
Venezuela
Turkey
Peru
UAE
Ecuador
Caribbean
Israel
Saudi Arabia
Syria
Morocco
Nigeria
Kuwait
Algeria
Libya
Angola
Iran
Egypt
48%
48%
46%
44%
41%
40%
39%
35%
35%
33%
31%
24%
24%
20%
18%
16%
15%
15%
14%
Base: 80
Survey Overview
“FORM”
vs.
“FUNCTION”
Survey Overview
“FORM”
vs.
“FUNCTION”
Compensation
Method
Compensation
Management
Mostly similar
to U.S.
practices
Diverse
and
Challenging
Creation and Management of Global Advertising
Assignments
51% of respondents employ
a combination of central,
regional and local
resources to manage
their global advertising
assignments.
Don't
know/
Not
sure
4%
Combination
(central,
regional,
local)
Centrally
20%
Regionally
11%
51%
Locally
14%
Base: 71
Management of Global Agency Compensation
Likewise, about half
manage their global
agency compensation
through a use of central,
regional and local
resources.
Don't
know/
Not
sure
4%
Centrally
24%
Combination
(central,
regional, local)
Regionally
9%
48%
Locally
15%
Base: 71
Source: Global Agency Compensation Survey, ANA 2 0 1 2
Negotiation of Global Agency Compensation
Contracts
• Majority of respondents involve both Procurement and
Marketing in global compensation negotiation
- Particularly true of larger marketers
Who negotiates global agency compensation, contract
Procurement with support of marketing
47%
Marketing with support of procurement
28%
Marketing
10%
Procurement
3%
Other
8%
Don’t know, not sure
4%
Base: 71
Negotiation of Global Agency Compensation
Contracts
Company Type
Annual
Revenue
(US)
Annual Ad
Budget (US)
B-to-C
B-to-B
&
B-to-C
<
$10B
>
$10B
<
$100M
>
$100M
39%
50%
63%
44%
58%
32%
67%
28%
39%
25%
25%
11%
32%
21%
23%
Marketing
10%
15%
7%
0%
22%
0%
21%
0%
Procurement
3%
0%
4%
6%
6%
3%
5%
3%
Other
8%
8%
14%
6%
17%
7%
21%
7%
Don’t know/Not sure
4%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Total
Sample
B-to-B
Procurement w/support
of marketing
47%
Marketing w/support of
procurement
Note: the subgroup average may not equal the total sample average because not all respondents shared their firmographic information.
Base: 71
Primary Method of Global Agency Compensation
• Fees are dominant form of global agency compensation,
but significant use of both fees and commissions
Method of global agency compensation
Fees (fixed or labor-based)
57%
Combination of fees, commissions
37%
Value-based compensation
4%
Sales commission
2%
Media commission (fixed or sliding scale)
0%
Base: 70
• Global use of both fees/commissions much higher than U.S. -- likely
driven by markets like Brazil, Japan where commissions are still the
dominant practice and by smaller spend markets where agency
activity is more highly uncertain, variable
• Sales commission method used much less globally
Method of global agency compensation
Global Survey
2012
U.S. Survey
2010
57%
75%
Combination of fees, commissions
37%
6%
Value-based compensation
4%
0%
Sales commission
2%
15%
Media commission (fixed or sliding scale)
0%
3%
Base: 70
Sources: ANA 2 0 1 2 , Global Agency Compensation Survey; ANA 2 0 1 0
Trends in Agency Compensation Survey
Company Type
B-to-C
<
$10B
>
$10B
<
$100M
>
$100M
77%
64%
38%
61%
58%
68%
57%
37%
23%
29%
50%
28%
36%
32%
33%
4%
2%
0%
4%
13%
11%
3%
0%
7%
0%
4%
0%
0%
3%
0%
3%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
B-to-B
57%
Combination of fees &
commissions
sliding scale)
Annual Ad
Budget (US)
B-to-B
&
B-to-C
Total
Sample
Value-based
Sales commission
Media commission (fixed or
Annual
Revenue
(US)
Base: 70
Negotiation of Global Agency Fees
Don't
Know/
Not
sure
5%
44% negotiate centrally,
51% locally or regionally
Locally
30%
Centrally
44%
Regionally
21%
Base: 66
Dealing with the “Exceptions” (e.g., Brazil or Japan)
It is negotiated as local
agreements between the client
and agency
27%
33%
It is negotiated with the agency
as separate agreements to the
global contract
It is left to the agency to work
out with its local offices
22%
18%
Don’t know/not sure
Base: 67
Staff, Fee Detail Provided by Global Agency
88%
Most respondents obtain detailed agency staff and
cost information – and it is mostly gathered from local
level up
65%
60%
8%
Hours or FTEs
Labor & overhead cost
Base: 65
Profit
Other
Organization of Cost Detail
51%
62%
46%
18%
Locally only
Regionally only
22%
24%
27%
15%
Hours or FTE's
Labor & overhead cost breakout
Bases: Hours or FTEs (55), Labor & overhead costs (41), Profit (39)
36%
Profit
Globally only
Review and Reconciliation of Agency Staff Time
and Costs
Don't
know/
Don’t review, Not
reconcile
sure
13%
5%
On an
as-needed
basis
24%
Base: 63
Annually
19%
Bi-annually,
6%
Quarterly
33%
58% review, reconcile
global agency fees on
annual or more frequent
basis
How Agency Staff Time and Costs are Reviewed
Don't know/
Not sure, 4%
Almost half review agency
time and costs on a local
basis
Globally
19%
Locally
46%
Base: 52
Regionally
31%
4 9 % Use Incentives
• Similar to U.S. survey, almost half of respondents are
employing performance incentives
- Use skews to consumer marketers and larger spenders
Incentives Part of Agency Compensation
Agreement
Global Survey
2012
U.S. Survey
2010
Yes
49%
46%
No
39%
54%
Don’t know/not sure
12%
n.a.
Base: 67
4 9 % Use Incentives
Company Type
Annual
Revenue
(US)
Annual Ad
Budget (US)
Total
Sample
B-to-B
B-to-C
Equal
combo
<
$10B
>
$10B
<
$100M
>
$100M
Yes
49%
38%
68%
38%
44%
68%
26%
80%
No
39%
54%
25%
50%
50%
29%
63%
20%
12%
8%
7%
13%
6%
3%
11%
0%
Base: 67
5 2 % Use Global Metrics
Over half establish agency incentives at the global level; a
third do it locally
Locally
33%
Regionally
15%
Base: 33
Globally
52%
Incentive Metrics and Compensation
Similar to the U.S. survey, about 2/3 of respondents tie their
global incentives to both company and agency performance
2012 (Global)
2010 (U.S. Only)
16%
3% 3%
2%
30%
16%
66%
64%
Both company and agency performance
Company performance only
Agency performance only
Don't know/Not sure
Bases: 2010 (35), 2012 (33)
Incentive Metrics, Criteria
• Over 80% of respondents use agency
performance reviews as key component of
agency incentive plan
– Similar to U.S. survey
• Global marketers more local to employ media
performance, brand/ad awareness, brand
perception, copy test, and digital metrics than in
U.S.
- And more likely to use market share vs. sales goals
Agency performance reviews
81%
Media performance goals
53%
Brand/ad awareness
47%
Sales goals
47%
Other criteria
44%
Brand perceptions
44%
Market share goals
44%
Copy test results
41%
Digital/online communications goals
31%
Profit goals
Base: 32
13%
3%
81%
78%
Agency performance reviews
Media performance goals
53%
21%
Brand/ad awareness
31%
47%
Sales goals
Other criteria
28%
Market share goals
34%
Copy test results
Profit goals
Bases: 2010 (35), 2012 (32)
28%
31%
7%
13%
72%
44%
13%
Brand perceptions
Digital/online communications goals
47%
22%
44%
44%
41%
2012 (Global)
2010 (U.S. only)
6 6 % Pay Agencies Locally
Most respondents handle agency bill-pay at the local level,
likely for tax and internal budgeting reasons
Annual
Revenue
(US)
Company Type
Annual Ad
Budget (US)
Total
Sample
B-to-B
B-to-C
Equal
combo
<
$10B
>
$10B
<
$100M
>
$100M
Globally
9%
15%
11%
0%
11%
7%
21%
3%
Regionally
23%
23%
25%
13%
33%
16%
16%
20%
Locally
66%
62%
64%
81%
56%
74%
63%
77%
2%
0%
0%
6%
0%
3%
0%
0%
Base: 65
Majority Plan to Change Compensation Agreements
No, we do not plan on significantly changing your
global agency compensation agreement(s).
35%
Yes, we plan to reduce/restructure global agency
compensation.
27%
Yes, we plan on including performance
incentives.
24%
Yes, we plan to consolidate/centralize our global
agency compensation methodology.
19%
16%
Don't know/Not sure
Base: 63
Global Agency Compensation Challenges
The respondents noted a number of challenges to
effectively structuring and managing their global
agency compensation. The more common themes
included:
Aligning on goals, strategies
“Making sure the local
and global marketing
groups are in alignment.”
“Marrying client operating
structures to multiple
agency structures to best
support the business.”
“Difficulty aligning the
level of compensation –
incorporating nuances
by countries/local
markets.”
“Dealing with
differences in needs
and staffing at the local
level, which varies from
country to country and
year to year.”
Global scope of work
and fee planning/management
“Getting scope verified
with regional/local
markets and then
working with business
needs and budgets.”
“Marketing reporting
structure not aligned
to maintain/enforce
markets.”
“Staying abreast of
rates in all the local
markets”
“Addressing local tax
treatment, billing,
country allocations.”
Dealing with “Local”:
practices, cost differences,
desire for local control
“Local markets feeling
they are paying too
much for a large,
globally-networked
agency.”
“Local mentality of
marketers; an ‘I know
what is best’ mentality”.
“Ensuring we create the
right balance between
performance-based
compensation and
account attractiveness
in difficult market
conditions”
“Need a clear
measurement method to
evaluate the performance
of agencies”
Structuring
Pay for Performance
“Using multiple
agencies in the same
market and isolating
the specific agency’s
performance”
Summary and Best Practice
Fees here to stay
Innovate
Quarterly Reviews
Reconcile
49% incentives
Accountability
Change is coming
Plan Ahead
Questions, Discussion
• If your questions are not answered today, please
follow up with:
- Your ANA rep
- David Beals, [email protected]
- Greg Paull, [email protected]
Need More Insight?
ANA members can access the full Global
Agency Compensation Survey Findings!
Visit www.ana.net/mkc
or email [email protected]
2012 Global
Agency
Compensation
Survey
R3:JLB
May 9, 2012

2012 Global Agency Compensation Survey

Transkript

Benzer belgeler

Evaluation of Anti-Nuclear antibody test results in clinical practice

PFC - Microelettrica Scientifica Türkiye

Full Text - International Journal of Business and Social Science

Terms of Use of Mafyakur.com

Bilingual babies - National Literacy Trust

Mill CNC Controller

11. uluslararası prens adaları yüzme sampıyonası

learning about “family relations” in turkey through proverbs