• by Mitch Oscar , Op-Ed Contributor, November 10, 2009

In 1976, Larry Fried, my boss at full service advertising agency BBDO, offered me a promotion to Director of National Radio for the media department. Three perks, exclaimed he: "lots of free meals, a plethora of tickets -- [which I didn't realize meant coordination for all departmental and executive agency requests] and lastly [although 'Director' would be embossed on my business card] your status internally is still one of an assistant national TV buyer." My annual salary was $8,500 supporting a New York City rental. How could I refuse?

 Within months of my promotion ABC Radio Networks, one of the most powerful radio group in the country, modified its sales strategy from having one salesperson representing its four networks (ABC-Contemporary, ABC-FM, ABC-Entertainment and ABC-Information) to an ad agency to two. The plan: one salesman would rep the younger networks (FM and C); while their sibling would sling the older more affluent E & I network inventory. 

"Why?" I queried the ABC head of sales.

"In order to be more competitive with each other," he responded.

"Each salesman will have to work harder for your business to get the best price possible," he punctuated.  

A pause. 

"But don't both salespeople report directly to you?"

"They do," he nodded.  

Wikipedia defines a Baker's dozen, also known as a long dozen and a long measure, as 13, one more than a proper dozen. This English statute instituted during the reign of Henry III (1216-1272) helped bakers avoid severe punishment for shortchanging customers. To guard against the punishment of losing a hand to an axe, a baker would give 13 for the price of 12 to avoid short measure on the basis that one of the 13 could be lost, eaten, burnt or ruined in some way, leaving the baker with the original legal dozen.

It has become a universal measure. A standard ubiquitously accepted.

This past summer, Canoe Ventures announced that it would launch an EBIF enabled Request for Interaction (RFI) application (interactive banner overlay over video) by mid-fall. I don't remember if that was a simple voting or polling foray over content or the commercial couponing retrieval. Rumors were circulating that Turner Broadcasting's TruTV would be the first to launch the app in 3 million homes and TBS siblings would initially view from the bleachers. In the wake of the Community Addressable Messaging (CAM) mishap the waters have been still. Little of Canoe's intentions have surfaced. Last week following CTAM's snow bound annual event, industry trade publication MultiChannelNews published an article, "EBIF Landscape, Revisited", in which the reporter, Leslie Ellis, stated: "The word from Comcast: 11 million set tops will be EBIF-enabled by year-end; loads more next year."

 Question: How will the different constituencies representing the EBIF applications (local cable and telco sales people,  cable network and broadcast network sales people and the national sales operator teams representing cablers and satcasters) coordinate their efforts (proposals, pricing and reportage) to the ad agencies?

Each sales force targets a different member of the media-buying community: the local cable sales people, the local buyer and/or digital team; the national cable and broadcast sales people, the national TV buyers and/or digital team; and the national sales operator teams, the national and local buyers coupled with agency media planners, and possibly the digital team. When all of these agency stakeholders compare internal notes -- given lack of familiarity to the proposition it could be a real possibility -- will they discover a deliverable uniformity or disparate elements that compete for ad dollars (marketshare, CPMs, guarantees). Will the broadcast network and cable network pricing models be more or less expensive than the local operator deployments -- where comparables exist. Will individual cable operator footprints be more enticing than the national play. Will ad dollars migrate from local cable to national media given its advanced interactive TV proposition, ease of entry and scalability.

Back in the '70s, when the head of ABC Network Radio sales attempted to rationalize the company's new competitive stance by having two salesmen vie for my budget, the ruse unraveled when the arbiter of pricing and deliverables turned out miraculously to be the same for both salespeople -- a financial wizard behind the curtain manipulating inventory pricing to better serve his corporation. I think that Canoe Ventures and partners must navigate carefully as they enter the realm of what could be conceived as dueling paddles and avoid the shoals of discontent. I look forward to hearing the soundtrack.