Search by name, company, title, location, etc.

Morten Pedersen

Member since July 2012Contact Morten

Two decades of helping advertisers navigate an increasingly complex and opaque media landscape.

Articles by Morten All articles by Morten

Comments by Morten All comments by Morten

  • The Information Asymmetry Of The Year by Joe Mandese (Planning & Buying Insider on 12/14/2023)

    The "information asymmetry" was established in the one-sided ANA report back in 2016, and the situation has only deteriorated since then. As Joe Marchese highlighted in 2014, unlike the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis, the media industry isn't too big to fail. Advertisers and agencies must collaborate more closely to rebuild trust and ensure commercial transparency. Everything else is academic.

  • From Dust To Magic And Back Again: A Brief History Of Advertising And Media by Morten Pedersen (Planning & Buying Insider on 09/11/2023)

    Apologies Ed. The above was in response to Leo.But great to hear your personal story.

  • From Dust To Magic And Back Again: A Brief History Of Advertising And Media by Morten Pedersen (Planning & Buying Insider on 09/11/2023)

    I must be too young to know all this.What I do know, however, is that Gilbert Gros won the World Poker Championship in 1988.

  • 4As Rejects ANA/Ebiquity Recommendations by Steve McClellan (MAD on 07/29/2016)

    Welcome to Ivory Tower Battles 2.0. The game that drives talent away from Advertising and Media.

  • Rebates? Really? Oh, Damn Those Other Guys...!!! by George Simpson (MediaDailyNews on 06/09/2016)

    Don't forget to mention the huge amount of "independent" pitch consultants who calls for more transparency one day, and then receives a check the next morning from the very same agencies.

  • OMG! Agency Kickbacks Could Lead To Jail Time! by Richard Whitman (Mediapsssst on 05/24/2016)

    BREAKING: Following all-inclusive family day out at SB 50, Brand Manager sends thank-you note to TV network. In other news… as the IAB’s LEAN initiative adoption rate is exploding, 8 in 10 advertisers have briefed their agencies to get more programmatic onto their H216 media schedules.

  • 2016 - Say Goodbye To Prediction Fiction by Morten Pedersen (MAD on 01/12/2016)

    Thanks Ed. Let's toast and hope for a little more objective writing in 2016!

  • For Advertisers,The Race To The Bottom Has No Winners by Maarten Albarda (Online Spin on 10/26/2015)

    Good post Maarten,The problem is that the revenue from dark pools, inventory trading, ad-tech fees, and other "alleged" volume rebates does not end up with the operating agencies - hence it has no direct impact whatsoever on the starting salary (let alone the quality of the talent).In fact, I think doing 2 things completely unrelated to media transparency would solve the talent crisis:1/ Cut the obligatory 15%-18% holding group "services fee" that operating agencies pay to a flat 10% (i.e. leaving 5%-8% more $ for the client facing agencies to play with), and2/ Distribute any performance related bonuses amongst the people that are working on the business (not to compensate for a salary increase, but pay it as a financial bonus). For sure, this represent only low single-digit revenue, but it should be sufficient to motivate future managers to stay in the business.For those interested, Dominic Proctor very briefly touched upon the issue of attracting and retaining talent Festival of Media 2014 (see 13:50 and onwards). Doei

  • Record Media Account Reviews: Fall Out From the Rebate Issue? by Brian Wieser (MAD on 05/26/2015)

    All of the reasons mentioned in this article undoubtedly contribute to the many current and future reviews. Media transparency is becoming an increasing issue, and advertisers want their fair share (even if the US-rebate model is structured differently…). As an intermediary on some of the above-mentioned media pitches, I however also see other factors leading to advertisers' decision to engage in costly reviews: 1/ Advertisers expect their agencies to seamlessly collaborate with technology and content partners both within and outside the traditional holding group model. Until now, agencies have been reluctant to go down this route, so many clients use the pitch to explore new agency and service models. 2/ Most advertisers acknowledge that media planning and buying is increasingly built around highly measurable data points, hence they use the pitch to explore long-awaited agency remuneration models shaped around agency output and business outcomes. 3/ The pricing structure in the US media market is in itself very opaque as there is no view over supply and demand for individual properties. Adding that agency holding group inventory deals are gaining pace, many clients use their pitch to not only beat legacy pricing, but to create a situation where they benefit disproportionately from much cleverer deal structures.

  • ANA Members: Media Rebates A 'Hot Topic,' Increased Pressure To Lower Agency Comp by Joe Mandese (MediaDailyNews on 05/18/2015)

    @Ed: the 15% referred to the remaining clients who will go for the bigger opportunity that is rebates, kick-backs and other benefits and bonuses derived from holding group deals (reality is that the number is much lower as I describe below). Most agencies involved on the rebate/kick-back culture work on percentages, and value is offered only to a few select advertisers. This type of client would normally be up-to-date with the latest trends in holding group deals, and they will enter rebate discussions with proper negotiations strategies and leverage. As a client, you will know from your latest negotiations results whether you fall into this category. The biggest challenge that the US market is facing is that the vast majority of clients either doesn’t do anything about the rebate issue, or alternatively act like bulls in a china shop (trying to bully their agencies into submission). These types of clients typically never meet the agency person who has authority to discuss/allocate holding group value. Lastly, mixing agency remuneration and rebates in negotiations is counter-productive: Agency remuneration is predominantly earned on operating agency level (i.e. the client-facing front offices), and they get to keep almost everything except the obligatory holding group overhead. Volume deals and benefits associated are managed at holding group level (the entity that contracts volume deals with the vendors, technology companies, etc.), and the value is then redistributed to clients according to the above. Consequently, reducing fees only hurt operating agencies, and clients going down this route often end up with poorer service and less investment in talent.

About Edit

You haven't told us anything about yourself! Surely you've got something to say. Tell us a little something.