Many software and
hardware companies today sell based on TCO or Total Cost of Ownership.
This tactic is especially effective when comparing to either a market
leader or a company that is cutting prices and appears to be cheaper.
The concept of TCO has to do with the end cost of the deal when all is
said and done, including upgrades, service fees, etc. As a consumer, you
have probably run into this concept if you have tried to evaluate
leasing vs. buying a car.
We run into pricing situations all the time in new business and with
evaluations by current clients. Most times it comes down to the
percentage of gross billings that we will charge, which is often
compared to that of competitors. As an example, I wrote last week about
the commoditization of pricing that is quickly happening in the
Interactive media agency space.
I believe that clients ought to be evaluating their media services
(and other agency services) based on a concept I will call TCS or total
cost of service.
There are several categories that should be included in this
computation. The first is, of course, the current basis, which is the
fee that is being charged by the agency. Added (or deducted) from this
should be a number of factors including savings, value added and monies
left on the table or lost through error. I'd like to explore these
concepts in depth.
Documenting savings is said by some to be hard to put a number on.
Yet there are deals all over our industry that are incentive based vs.
savings, so some have figured out to do this in a win-win manner. A
couple of examples: 1) Savings vs. the previous vendor on the same or
equivalent inventory. The establishment of a base line is all-important
here. We have done this a number of times to the satisfaction of both
the client and agency. 2) Savings vs. established earned rate card
levels or industry norms. With a resource like SQAD, this should be
especially easy to do in radio, TV and cable. In time, SQAD will have
grown their databases in print and Interactive so that these media can
be included in such a valuation as well. The important thing here is to
agree on the basis for comparison. For example, I have had clients who
believed the pitches of "savings" promised for print when the basis was
the 1x, not the earned rate that they should have gotten anyway.
The second factor is value added. This includes easy-to-document
areas like make goods and free insertions/spots/impressions from the
media as well as putting a value on merchandising and promotions
provided by the media. In addition to this, a harder but important area
to document is value added services provided by the agency. This can be
in the form of strategic services from senior people above and beyond
what a competitive baseline might be, and projects taken on that others
agencies might bill out but are included in the base fee.
The last area is not something that agencies will be anxious to
provide to their clients but is available all the same through auditing
services. Media auditing is an article unto itself, but suffice to say
that these services that are fairly standard in Europe have yet to take
hold on a global basis in the U.S. From a client perspective, these
services can document areas where goals have been underdelivered from an
advertising weight level basis, can identify mistrafficked activity on
the part of the media and situations where either the media vendor or
the agency owe credits to the client. In the final computation, these
factors also need to be taken into account.
A recent release from P&G indicated that their purchasing
department would be taking a greater involvement relative to ongoing
agency relationships in the future. This means that agencies need to
find ways to quantify the true value of their services if they don't
want to get into an all-out price war. TCS is a step towards such a
valuation.