Commentary
Madison Avenue's Big Law Moment
- by Joe Mandese @mp_joemandese, Yesterday
As far as industry metonymies go, Omnicom's and Interpublic's decision to accept the Trump Administration's consent decree this week is Madison Avenue's equivalent of the Big Law moment, when some of the nation's top law firms caved in and capitulated on Trump's onerous terms, rather than fight them on legal grounds.
"We are delighted," Omnicom's John Wren said in a statement informing the holding companies' shareholders. It's a "notable step forward," added Interpublic's Philippe Krakowsky.
More like two steps back, if you ask me, because two of the world's biggest ad companies just set a dangerous industry precedent by agreeing to let politics determine how and where they place their clients' media buys.
advertisement
advertisement
Sure, the consent decree is worded the opposite way -- that Omnicom and Interpublic are now prohibited from excluding media outlets based on their political or ideological views -- but the practical effect is they are now required to turn a blind eye to media outlets that have also been conducting a war on truth, justice and the American way, including the spread of misinformation.
I find it especially ironic that Interpublic, whose roots include the McCann-Erickson motto "The Truth Well Told," has caved in, because it had been a leader in propagating truth and fighting misinformation, including its development of news equity marketplaces, as well as diversity marketplaces, to encourage ad dollars supporting the best media actors, not the worst ones.
And while Omnicom has been more muted on those issues, I know it has always prided itself on its approach to media neutrality, and planning and buying the media that are both safe for and advance the communications objectives of its clients' brands.
The capitulation isn't just bad for Omnicom's and Interpublic's clients and organization, but builds on the anti-commercial free speech momentum that started to build with Elon Musk's suit that shuttered the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) and continues to threaten both the World Federation of Advertisers, as well as some of its biggest members.
It also follows Jim Jordan's House Judiciary Committee investigation of Omnicom and Interpublic on political grounds, as well as a threat to probe Dentsu's attempt to jumpstart its own post-GARM industry initiative supporting responsible media. Dentsu subsequently abandoned that initiative.
Politics aside, Omnicom's and Interpublic's capitulation creates another dangerous precedent for brand safety by making both "exclusion," as well as "inclusion" lists prohibited -- at least inside what will be the biggest buyer of ad-supported media in the world.
Ironically, the ad industry's shift away from exclusion (ie. blacklists) and toward inclusion was moving things in the right, arguably politically-neutral direction, because it supported good media actors without explicitly harming its bad actors.
Omnicom's and Interpublic's leadership may be delighted by their capitulation, but it's probably more about their own golden parachutes and the immediate returns on shareholder value, and not -- as people are fond of thinking about on Madison Avenue -- their long-term brand equity.
In other words, it's just politics as usual.
As a just-released report by nonpartisan watchdog Accountable.US notes, the practical result of it is that the agencies will be forced to advertise on right-wing outlets, including Trump's own Truth Social, as well as X, Rumble, and a litany of extreme right-wing news outlets.
“The self-professed small government conservatives in Congress are strangely silent as the Trump Administration moves to force private businesses to advertise on right-wing media platforms like President Trump's Truth Social,” notes Accountable.US Executive Director Tony Carrk, adding: “But for President Trump, it’s just another day of his administration tailoring policy that puts more money in his pocket while he demands brutal cuts to health care and food aid for millions of working Americans, seniors, and veterans.”
Joe Mandese is the Editor in Chief of MediaPost. You can reach Joe at joe@mediapost.com.
Joe, yes, the FTC's proviso you refer to was politically motivated, but I believe that it also gave the agencies an out. They can do exactly that--not recommend or buy ad space/time in a media vehicle because of its perceived "political" viewpoint---- providing that this is demonstrably agreed to by the client involved. That's why they accepted the restriction. All the agencies have to do is specifically outline what they are doing and get the client to formally concur. Sure, its more work as the client's wishes are generally known but are not routinely set down on paper for each buy.But that's all. The FTC is saying that the advertiser must be formally informed and have the final say.
@Ed Papazian: It's not 100% clear, because much of the media-buying done by the holdcos these days is not as an agent, but as a principal (meaning the agency is actually the media-buying client). Interpublic had been pushing aggressively in the direction of principal buying prior to the Omnicom merger announcement, and CEO Philippe Krakowsky recently disclosed that half its clients opt for a principal buying arrangement now:
https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/403727/krakowsky-half-of-ipg-clients-opt-in-to-princip.html
Joe, I agree that it's a very clouded area and it probably applies not only to principal buying in general but to many programmatic digital media buys, in particular. My problem with principal media buying--and selling ---discussions is determining what kinds of media are most commonly involved-certainly not national TV--and the scale. When Phiippe says that half of his clients opt for principal media buying that, if true, might involve only 5% of his agency ad billings or even less. I very much doubt that half of his ad billings are executed via principal buying deals.