Ad Execs Question Ethics, Legality Of Disney-Like Pitch Terms

by Joe Mandese , December 10, 2019

Nearly two-thirds of ad execs say terms that require an agency to commit to their other clients' ad budgets in order to win a new account are "unethical but legal," while another 12% say it is explicitly illegal.

The findings, part of a series of questions about the ethics of asking such terms in media company account pitches, was fielded by Advertiser Perceptions for Research Intelligencer in the wake of news that Disney had required agencies pitching its $1 billion media account review to commit their other clients to buying inventory on Disney's media properties.

Only 7.7% of respondents to the survey said they had "no problem" with the request, while another 16.8% said they were not sure or had no opinion about the terms of such a request.

A detailed break down of the findings, including how advertisers responded vs. agency executives, as well as explicit drill-downs, will be published later today in Research Intelligencer.

In a related move, MediaPost's Research Intelligencer is embarking on a series of studies -- both trade, as well as consumer -- analytics, and special events intended to examine the role of ethics in the advertising industry, especially in media practices.

A special briefing will be hosted today at Omnicom's Sparks & Honey to create a baseline understanding of the current culture surrounding advertising industry ethics.

Part of the briefing will be streamed live on Sparks & Honey's LinkedIn page if you'd like to watch.

If any readers have ideas for benchmarking, examining and conducting new research surrounding the ethics of advertising and media, please contact joe@mediapost.com.

cmmr

3 comments about "Ad Execs Question Ethics, Legality Of Disney-Like Pitch Terms".

Check to receive email when comments are posted.

John Grono from GAP Research, December 10, 2019 at 4:57 p.m.
So I assume that buying a single spot would satisfy "to commit their other clients to buying inventory on Disney's media properties."
Reply

Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics Inc, December 10, 2019 at 5:34 p.m.

John, as originally reported, the demand was for a certain proportion of total media ad spend in the categories--like primetime TV---that were involved. Said demand was, in effect, a guarantee of future business share---a very iffy business in my opinion---if true.

John Grono from GAP Research, December 10, 2019 at 6:28 p.m.

Thanks Ed - I missed that detail.

If you tried that in AU you'd be in court, face massive fines, and potentially gaol terms (not that gaol happens much - more a slap on the wrist with a soggy lettuce leaf).