English
A weird moral issue has suddenly arisen yesterday, after the Ponta government approved amendments to the Law of the Audiovisual, through an Emergency Ordinance, amendments which free the radio and TV stations from the slavery which the advertising agencies were keeping them in.
The decision is just, and I praise it with joy and admiration.
My moral issue comes from the fact that the amendments I praise were apparently initiated by Dan Voiculescu.
In my opinion, Dan Voiculescu isn't capable of thinking normally, or with a minimum level of logic.
I for one don't think that Voiculescu is a "businessman", because my definition of the term doesn't fit him, because it also includes the notion of "honesty".
In spite of all this, Voiculescu promoted the idea of paying VAT upon receipt, a fair idea, which isn't new and which I have supported in BURSA 15 years ago.
Voiculescu also promotes the idea of distinct VAT rates, with a much lower rate for basic foods, which, again, I find fair, considering the poverty of the nation.
And now, Voiculescu breaks the decade-old monopoly of the advertising agencies.
What can I do?!
I am forced to completely agree with him.
This is something I never thought I'd say!
I can only say that I doubt he could change his habits.
But now, I have to applaud him with just one hand: the other one won't unclench.
The advertising agencies deserve the kick in the pants they got.
Media publishers lacked the ability to fight the monopoly situation which the agencies have created - something which the advertising industry knew so-well, that any copywriter barely able to write correctly, regardless of the agency he worked for could afford to act incredibly arrogant, even to the top managers of any TV channel.
Advertising agencies each reunite a number of advertisers - industrial, trade or service companies - in other words they come between the publisher which broadcasts the ads, on one hand, and the money source without which the TV station would go bankrupt.
The advertising agencies are the ones to set up the "media-plan" for the advertisers they represent; if your relationship with the agency is bad, then you're screwed; the agency will simply "skip" you when drafting its media plan, and you won't know it until your competitors start running the advertising campaign.
Is your relationship with the agency bad?
Then you can kiss a considerable number of clients goodbye - the ones the agency manages.
Is your relationship with the agency bad?
Bankruptcy looms.
The situation creates a monopoly of advertising agencies.
Major advertisers entrust the management of their advertising campaigns to the agencies.
As a result, the major media groups hold festive dinners for the advertisers, give expensive gifts to their managers and employees of advertising firms, and take them to expensive trips abroad, to exotic locations.
As the guild of advertising intermediaries became increasingly aware of its power over the mass-media, the agencies got increasingly cheekier: first, they asked for bigger discounts, from 25-30% (which was the normal level), to 40-45%, then to 50-60%, they then raised it to 70-75% and nowadays, they even go as far as to ask for 85-90%.
And it's working.
The mass-media professional associations are divided by disagreements, mutual contempt (that doesn't surprise me - I, myself have trouble finding any respectable media institution), irreconcilable diverging interests, which go beyond normal competition and into politics (politics are the second factor the survival of the TV stations depends on, and it frequently goes hand in hand with the first- the advertising agencies - to launder money through the TV stations).
The mass-media is unable to unite against the slavery it endures under the advertising agencies.
Therefore, claiming that they deserve an additional reward for bringing in a large volume of advertising, the agencies have asked for an additional 5% of what the media institution was left with after paying the discounts.
In the end, because throughout the year the agency has rewarded its bosses and employees lavishly, like the money was flowing from the sea, which in a way, it was, it asks for about 10% more of what is left, calling it a "rebate".
In many cases, out of the total amount paid by the media buyer, the television channels get about 5%.
If they're lucky.
That is, if the media agencies pay up, and don't all of a sudden file for bankruptcy.
Payment deadlines are another issue that requires negotiating.
From 15 days after the broadcasting of the advertisement, the payment deadlines have been contractually extended to one month, two, three and even four months.
So the publishers issue the invoice today and they pay VAT, out of the money they have in their accounts, all the time wondering whether writing that invoice was wise, because that VAT may be money that they will never see again.
You wait for four months to find out.
Meanwhile, the agency earns interest on the money it owes the publisher.
In the end, the agency will postpone the payment by an additional two, three or four months, asking for a higher rebate, a higher fee and the restructuring of the contract to your (the publisher's) disadvantage.
You dare not complain, you don't ask them for payment delay penalties.
You breathe a sigh of relief, when the agency throws a few dimes your way, even after a one year delay.
You got paid!
Hurray!
This is slavery.
Voiculescu took the first step towards liberation.
The amended law stipulates that the televisions need to conclude the contracts directly with the advertisers, even if they are brokered by agencies, so that they know the true budgets allocated by the advertisers.
The agencies can no longer play their game, away from the eyes of the TV station and of the advertiser.
Way to go, Voiculescu!
That doesn't make me forget that, whenever I see him on TV, I feel like watching a live broadcast from hell.
He must have had enough of the agencies himself.
----------
POST SCRIPTUM
The European Association of Communication Agencies (EACA) jumped to the rescue of the Romanian agencies (which are also members of the EACA) using a mind-boggling argument against the current amendments to the Law of the Audiovisual:
"The draft encourages the monopoly of the broadcasters over their own advertising space by eliminating the ability to negotiate".
That's a good one!
I mean, damn, how stupid do you have to be not to realize the meaning of the "own" word?
Yes, I have the monopoly of my "own" money in my pocket.
I have a monopoly over "my own" home.
I have a monopoly over "my own" advertising space in my media institution and I won't give you the right to use it, unless you pay.
It's mine.
"Own" comes from "ownership".
If it's "my own", then it's not yours.
If it's "my own", then it is a "monopoly".
In fact, what that arrogant imbecile at the EACA is saying is that he wants to keep me, a media institution, in the situation of a slave, where it has nothing of its own.
Cheekiness knows no bounds.
Euro
Dolar SUA
Franc elveţian
Liră sterlină
Gram de aur
