Traders 0; Ideas 1 -- Brian Jacobs

By The Cog Blog Archives
Cover image for  article: Traders 0; Ideas 1 -- Brian Jacobs

The time has come to ask what is becoming something of an “elephant-in-the-room” question. What business are the media agencies (and more specifically their sibling trading desk partners) in? Are they in the advertising business; or are they in the online trading business? The two are looking increasingly incompatible. 

A couple of recent pieces in the American trade titles Adweek and Advertising Age have brought the issue into focus. The Adweek piece, dated September 26th reported on a panel discussion that took place as part of New York’s Advertising Week and which featured the heads of the largest trading desks. The Advertising Age piece, dated October 13th was headlined “Agencies Defend Turf As Ad Tech Moves In On Clients”.

The trading desk heads came across as at best confused (or maybe the reporter was confused, who knows?). Many of them seem to have a fundamental problem deciding whether they’re buyers or sellers. (Three out of five said they did basically the same thing as ad networks.) Furthermore, they’re not sure if they even have a future – some think they’ll be spun off, others that they’ll be absorbed within media agencies.

Meantime, no doubt thoroughly enjoying the confusion, “many venture-backed ad-tech companies that originated as agency vendors are increasingly going directly to marketers and offering them cheaper ways to implement their technology”,according to the Advertising Age report. This raises the issue of exactly what trading desks are for.

Furthermore, Advertising Age name-checks Procter and Gamble, Kellogg’s, Unilever and Kimberly-Clark as being amongst those who have decided not to use their media agencies’ trading desks.

This is an unholy mess, and it’s going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

I’ve blogged before here on the future of media agencies. For what it’s worth, my view is that agencies have to remember that their core role is to place ads in front of the right people, at the right time, in the right context and at the right price. And then to contribute to the measuring of effect so that they can do more of the right thing and less of the wrong thing next time.

Media agencies have expertise in media planning; they do excellent work understanding how different communication channels work on their own and in combination. Many have proved themselves adept at creative thinking and idea generation. Much original and valuable research starts with the best media agencies.

Trading desks do none of those things. How many of them even know what the creative is that they’re placing? Most would laugh at any suggestion that they should be aware of such niceties – what counts, they would counter, is the algorithm and the bidding system.

Well, algorithms don’t have ideas. Bidding systems don’t lead naturally to solutions that surprise and delight consumers, leading them to change behaviour or to go out and pay for something. Furthermore, if I was Procter, Unilever or any other major advertiser generating large quantities of valuable data the last thing I would want to do is to hand the lot over to my media agency; the same media agency I may decide to fire at some future date and with whom I would then no doubt spend months arguing as to who owns which bits of data.

I have the highest regard for Sir Martin Sorrell, but when he proclaimed that we are in the era of the Math Men as opposed to the Mad Men he seemed to suggest that today maths beats creativity. (I wonder who writes his scripts? Not a mathematician that’s for sure.) Without getting into the semantics of how maths can be creative, too, the point surely is that without brilliant ideas the ad business simply won’t survive.

When asked by Advertising Age why advertisers needed media agencies when they could easily go direct to the technology vendors, Vivaki’s President Kurt Unkel said: "If you want to just add more and more partners to the table as a client, at some point someone starts saying, ‘There's a lot of complexity here; who's in charge?’” It would be a shame not to point out the irony in this statement coming as it does from the head of an organization whose very existence has added a huge slab of complexity to the partner media agencies.

Media agencies need to restate their role, the critical one of working with creatives to ensure that people see, engage and act. Trading desks and all the rest of the data hoopla are there to support this role. They exist to make the advertising more effective, and they shouldn’t forget it.

Brian Jacobs spent over 35 years in advertising, media and research agencies including spells at Leo Burnett (UK, EMEA, International Media Director), Carat International (Managing Director),Brian JacobsUniversal McCann (EMEA Director) and Millward Brown (EVP, Global Media). He has worked in the UK, EMEA and globally out of the USA. His experience covers shifts from full-service ad agencies to media agencies; from traditional single-commercial-channel TV to multi-faceted digital channels; and from media planning to multi-disciplinary communication planning. Brian can be reached at

Read all Brian Jacobs' MediaBizBloggers commentaries at Brian Jacobs.


Check us out on Facebook at
Follow our Twitter updates @MediaBizBlogger

The opinions and points of view expressed in this commentary are exclusively the views of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of management or associated bloggers. MediaBizBloggers is an open thought leadership platform and readers may share their comments and opinions in response to all commentaries.

Copyright ©2020 MediaVillage, Inc. All rights reserved. By using this site you agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.