building relationships with advertising agencies_8.2_p

Shaping the Future of the NewspaperANALYSING STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENTS AND OPPORTUNITIES IN THE PRESS INDUSTRY

STRATEGY REPORTVolume 8 N2 JANUARY 2009 WAN

BuildingRelationshipswithAdvertisingAgencies

www.futureofthenewspaper.comAll the strategy reports are available to WAN members and subscribers at the SFN Web site

Advertising agencies andnewspapers are intertwinedand interdependent. How can they build a mutuallybeneficial relationship under a yin-yang scenario?

8.2

Shapingthe Future

of the Newspaper

www.wan-press.orgA WORLD ASSOCIATION OF NEWSPAPERS PROJECT, SUPPORTED BY WORLD LEADING BUSINESS PARTNERS

www.atex.com/ THE MEDIA INDUSTRYS LEADING PROVIDER OF CONTENT MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE AND SERVICES

www.man-roland.com/en/p0001/index.jspA LEADING COMPANY FOR NEWSPAPER PRODUCTION SYSTEMS

www.telenor.com/THE LEADING NORWEGIAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS, IT AND MEDIA GROUP

www.norskeskog.com/A WORLD LEADING PRODUCER OF NEWSPRINT AND MAGAZINE PAPER, WITH 18 PAPER MILLS AROUND THE WORLD

WORLD ASSOCIATION OF NEWSPAPERS, 2009

VOLUME 8 REPORT N 2 BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS WITH ADVERTISING AGENCIES

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary 5Introduction 7

1 The Advertising Agency and Buying Landscape 11Media Agency: The Players 11Media Scheduling: Reach and Frequency 13Advertising Agencies 15Advertising Expenditure 18

2 What Agencies Want from Newspapers 25Starcom MediaVest Group 27Dentsu 29GroupM 30Horizon Media 31Davis Harrison Dion 33ZenithOptimedia 34Mediaedge:cia 35

3 Survey Overview 37Media Buying Landscape 37Newspaper Ad Revenue: Print vs. Online/Digital 39Newspaper Ad Planning 39Newspaper Ad Buying & Pricing Model 39Satisfaction of Working with Newspaper Publishers 40Newspaper Ad Evaluation 40Cross-Media Ad Campaigns 41

4 What Newspapers Want from Agencies 43New York Times Media Group 43The Guardian 45Cox Newspapers 45AJC Media Solutions 45

5 Can You Sell to Agencies? 47Principles of Selling to Agencies and Key Clients 48The Agency-Client Relationship: When to Involve the Client 50Guidelines for Direct Contact with Clients 51

Conclusion 53

JANUARY 2009 SHAPING THE FUTURE OF THE NEWSPAPER

4


5

The relationship between newspapercompanies and advertising agencies ischanging. Advertising budgets are shiftingaway from newspapers and into digital mediain many parts of the world, as agencies changetheir organisational structures, strategies andobjectives. Newspaper companies andadvertising agencies have had a yin-yangrelationship for as long as agencies have beenaround, for more than 100 years. In Chinesephilosophy, the yin-yang concept ischaracterised by two opposing forces that areintertwined and interdependent.

What business is an advertising agency in? Inthe advertising creation and placementbusiness. What business is the media in? Theadvertising delivery business, according toMedia Selling: Broadcast, Cable, Print andInteractive, by Charles Warner and JosephBuchman.

The interdependency of these roles in the saleand distribution of advertising sometimescreates friction, differences of opinion andeven inspires newspapers and agencies tojockey for a dominant position.

Sometimes it feels like two warring parties aregetting together, says one print-buying advertisingagency executive interviewed for this report.

Among the thousands of newspapersworldwide, each one depends on agencies for acertain percentage of advertising revenues. Inthe United Kingdom, national newspapersreceive about 80 percent of their non-classifiedadvertising revenues from ad agency clients,while regional newspapers receive just 20percent. In the United States, nationalnewspapers each receive about 90 percent oftheir non-classified ad revenue from agencies,while local newspapers receive roughly 10percent. The remaining advertising revenue isearned from in-house sales departments andselling advertising to local clients.

This Shaping the Future of the Newspaperreport, Building Relationships with AdvertisingAgencies, goes to the heart of matter, to helppublishers and ad agencies understand oneanother's needs better, and ultimately, to buildbetter relationships for the future. The reportsmain objective is to maximise newspapersrevenue-making potential with agencies.

Executive Summary


6

The report chronicles numerous interviews withmedia buyers and planners and advertisingagency executives about relationships withnewspapers, and enumerates suggestions topublishers about practices, interactions and ratestructures. The report also details interviewswith publishers about their businessrelationships with agencies, and their efforts toimprove their relationship through bettercommunication, more transparency, fewer ratecards and more efficiencies in processes ofbuying newspaper advertising space.

Finally, the report analyses the current andfuture relationship improvements, factoring inrecommendations and the impact of the seismicchanges going on in media and agencies today.The interviews with media-buying agencyexecutives in New York, London, Paris, Tokyo,Zurich, New Delhi and beyond provideinspiration to improve relations betweenagencies and newspapers. Some of theobservations of the agency executives include:

Buying newspaper advertising is complicated.You cant do one-stop shopping (acrossnewspapers).There are too many rate cards.Invoices are frequently wrong. Contract ratesare not always in the newspapers computersystems.Sales reps arent always informed about ratecard prices or why prices have inexplicablyrisen.Newspaper advertising prices havent caughtup with declining circulations.Sales reps dont understand our clientsneeds.Cross-platform audience information is good,but Im not sure how well use it.Newspaper usage data must be about now,not six months old.There are a lot of choices out there for mediaplanners. Newspapers need to become morecompetitive with new pricing and new offers ofvalue.Editorial rules the roost in decision makingabout whether innovative ads will run or not.Its hard to guarantee a position on a page.Invoices are frequently wrong, and it takes along time to clear up the problem.

Similarly, several newspaper advertisingexecutives were interviewed about their businessrelationships with agencies. If newspapers couldchange how they work with agencies, they

would improve a variety of factors, including:

Some agencies collaborate with us. Othersare just bullies.Some agencies are hard to deal with. Theyare only interested in price.Trading has become more of a negotiationwhich is more commoditised a tradingenvironment and not sales.Agencies dont trade on value. Thats justgone, gone, gone. If we could trade on the truevalue of our brands, it would be a betterscenario.Agencies ultimately need to discover abusiness model that worksagencies areterrified, they are doing more and more forless and less.We want more transparency about the clientand its campaign objectives, and also aboutcampaign performance so we can learn for thenext campaign.We want agency and publisher to act onbehalf of the customer.We want to get into the campaign during therequest for proposal (RFP) process.We should make advertisers and agenciesaware of our value.Based on the experiences working withagencies, they primarily think we are anewspaper. What we are doing is to build anunderstanding with them that we are muchmore than that.

The report provides analysis and conclusionsfocused on improving the business relationshipbetween newspapers and advertising, including:

Improving transparency in decision-makingand business practices among agencies andnewspapers. Streamlining processes on both sides,including fewer rate cards, electronic billingand payment, and one-stop shopping on thenational level. Allowing newspapers to be more influential inthe media buying process, at an earlier stage. A better flow of information aboutnewspapers value propositions. A better and more scientific accountability toagencies about newspapers reach, frequencyand advertising campaign success. A mutual understanding of advertising clientneeds for each campaign. An expanded sense of newspapers as brands,with reach and frequency capabilities acrosstheir print and digital channels, rather than justcirculation alone.

By Robert Ray, marketing director, the Newspaper Society, United Kingdom

In my agency life, I have been lucky enough tohave worked with some of the worlds biggestcompanies and brands, which has naturallymeant being at the sharper end of getting thevery best out of media owner relationships,and well beyond simply getting a deal. In thepast four years working with the NewspaperSociety, I have spent a great deal of time withagencies to help them better leverage thestrength of local media across the UnitedKingdom.

So, in providing some personal thoughts forthis piece, I can call upon both past andpresent experience from an agency and mediaowner perspective.

Why bother building a relationship with anagency?

In an era when many deals between mediaowners with agencies are annualised and muchmedia is traded as a commodity, surely its

about setting up the deal, rather than managingthis across the year, isn't it?

No. We need to go back a little in history tosee why agency relationships are critical tomaximise share, volume and importantlystimulate and drive cross-platform initiatives.

Heres a little history to set the context.

I started at my first advertising agency in the1980s. I was a fresh-faced, 21-year-old throwninto the hustle and bustle of a major ad agency.The relative glamour of checking vouchercopies to see if our clients ads (all black andwhite in those days, of course) had appearedon the right day and in the right position was astep up from my previous career training asan accountant. My first agency job was in thepress buying department, which also served asmy first experience in building relationshipswith media owners.

In the same press buying department, therewere also several elder statesmen of thebusiness. What is fascinating is that they hadbeen through times of very limited media


7

Introduction

availability and an effective rationing of mediaspace. Just after World War II, paper wasrationed, which led to severe restrictions inadvertising space. This was before commercialradio and television existed in the UnitedKingdom, and a good generation away fromanything resembling the Internet not a badtime to be in newspaper advertising, I suspect.The relationship-building in these times wasperhaps the reverse of where we are today, andthose times of media space scarcity must havebeen interesting indeed.

The UK national press groups have longsince moved from their former addresses onLondon's Fleet Street, still synonymous withthe country's press, where the elderstatesmen I first worked with beganpractising their trade. Even when I firststarted at the agency, many of our nationalpress deals were still conducted over aliquid-based lunch at one (or sometimesmore) of Fleet Streets pubs or drinking dens,including Ye Olde Cheshire Cheese, TheBell, Vagabonds and The City Golf Club.

So, after the war and during a period ofscarce print supply, little other mediacompetition and increasing advertiserdemand, the relationship building withagencies seems to have consisted of mediabuyers forming an orderly queue outsidesuch Fleet Street pubs to buy newspapersales reps drinks in the hope of then securingwhat limited space was available in theirnewspapers presumably at rate-card cost!Most business was, of course, conducted inthe morning before the alcohol-fuelledafternoon gave way to the commute home.

There are many more tales I heard about thosegood old days, although most arent fit forpublication! Yet, in an era of restricted supplyand huge demand, there was more of an onusupon the agency for building a relationshipwith the media owner, rather than vice versa.

Times have clearly (and thankfully for thelivers of many media sales folk) moved on.The explosion and fragmentation of mediachannels is more than well documented. Andfor agencies, this has its own set ofchallenges creating the most compellingoffering in a very well supplied marketplace,creating the most appropriate structures,retaining and building business (as seeminglylower terms of business) and so on.

To my earlier point: Why bother building arelationship with an agency?

In answering this, I have three key points:

1. The benefits of building a relationshipwith an agency2. Getting better receptivity to your pitch3. Things to avoid (like the Plague)

1. The benefits of building arelationship with an agency More volume Increased share Access to more clients/brands Earlier information on potential/forthcomingcampaigns Better scope for cross-platform deals Access to more people in the agency (not justbuyers) . all leading to more volume, more share

I won't elaborate on these, as they're prettyobvious, but I will give you a left field view.When I was on the agency side, we wouldoften be asked about our relationships withmedia owners what deals could we get, howcould we improve a client's existing deals,what extra added value could we achieve, andso on. In other words, what were the benefitsof the relationships we had with media owners?

Yes, we could do all of the above, and more.However, in many instances the biggest point-scorer wasnt simply what we could get them(clients) in to, but what we could get them outof. Favours. Relationships dont guaranteeeverything, but what they most certainly do ishelp get you out of a less than desirablesituation.

A client has a late copy problem A client has an issue with budgets A client needs to shift campaign periods Etc. etc. etc.

The strength of a media owner relationship,and not simply our volume or clout, would sortthese. How many favours do you need? Itmight sound intangible, but it does matter andit makes a difference.

So how about gaining better receptivity to yourpitch?

All of us pitch for business. Either for majorcontracts or for smaller everyday deals. Dorelationships with agencies help this process?


8

2. Getting better receptivity to your pitchSome of you have annual deals with agencies,while others trade on more of an ad hoc basis.Some of you sell print only, while some sellcross-platform campaigns. Theres not a one-size-fits-all answer to getting better receptivityto your sales pitch, but I can offer someconstructive advice.Most major advertisers are involved inanywhere between five to 15 or more pitchesper year, across everything from media tocreative to point-of-sale. Most major mediaagencies are involved in a similar number ofpitches every year, and are exposed tohundreds of pitches from media owners eachyear.

In various consultancy projects, I have spokento agencies regarding their exposure to suchmedia owner pitches.Here are the three guiding principles forsuccess (beyond the obvious, such as gettingyour pricing right for your market):A. Make your pitch relevant. Avoid off-the-shelf. Ensure your proposal adds significantvalue to the communications strategy of thebrand you are pitching for.

Of course, if you (or your team) had a goodworking relationship with the agency youwouldnt be pitching blind and would be wellinformed to deliver against the above threepointers.

And, surprise, surprise, getting the people rightis critical. Two quotes typify the response tobad pitches:the terrible pitches from media ownersoften come down to the individuals.we once had a dire pitch from X (a majorpublisher)and afterwards the sales directorapologised and said shed not seen thepresentation before.There are many factors that make for awinning pitch to an agency. Work I havecarried out suggests three very clear pointersfor success. Once again, these may or may notseem obvious, but from a large quantitativestudy I ran for a major UK project they wereunanimous amongst the sample. What I havealso added are a number of quotes that sum upsentiments agencies have about media ownerpitches.

Have a clear brand and business focus:Listen to what they need. Sales folk have atendency to sell or talk at, whereasagencies and advertisers prefer media ownerswho listen to the requirements of the brief andthen respond accordingly. More specifically,agencies respond more to those media ownerswho not only listen, but then respondeffectively to the brand and campaignrequirements.(media owners) need to think more aboutthe questions we have on our brands.understand the agenda of who yourepitching to.too many just give information (and sell)when a meeting should be a discussion.B. The first step is all about listening. Turn a presentation at them into adiscussion with them.Have the right people on the business:Chemistry. It's not a trip to the sciencelaboratory, but simply about getting along withagencies is important. This again may seemobvious, but the next time you (or your seniormanager) gets a call from a top person at anagency saying were not getting on with Xor I think we should get Y moved off thebusiness, take it seriously. You shouldquestion why the situation has risen to a levelnecessitating the agency chief calling you tosuggest a change in your representation of theagency. Although the natural inclination (minetoo) is to ignore the agency's view andcontinue to force your person upon them, myown view is to change representation as soonas possible!agencies buy good people.absolutely bloody vital.and passion.casting the wrong people is a nightmare.C. The second step is totally about chemistry.Do take time to think about having the rightpeople on a particular agencys business anddont shy away from changing the currentformula if you receive negative feedback froman agency. It does remain a people business.

Make the presentation or pitch totallyrelevant: Less is more. This is a very wellworn clich, yet everyone reading this musthave been on the receiving end of apresentation where there is simply too muchcontent, or too much unnecessary spiel.


9

Every year, we run various industry awards.One of the awards we run is for the best cross-platform sales pitch, which is one that hastruly leveraged the various channels of localmedia (from newspapers to Internet, events,mobile, etc.). We receive some fantasticentries. We also receive entries that could befantastic but are so cluttered with unnecessaryinformation, background and detail that itdetracts from the great idea.

I dont need 100 chartsdont even needPowerpoint whats important is whats in itfor me and my brands.The third point is to keep quality over quantityin mind. Agencies (and advertisers) arestretched for time, and far more responsive ifmedia owners waste less time and provide arelevant, results-driven response to a brief.

The best pitches, those which will not onlyreceive a great reception but will also lead toincreased business, tie in with the three keypoints I have observed above.

3. Things to avoid (like the Plague)Thankfully, the Great Plague of 1665 was, inLondon at least, quashed by the Great Fire ofLondon in 1666. The post-war press buyers Imentioned at the beginning of this piece pliedtheir trade not too far from Pudding Lanewhere the Great Fire started. As I mentioned atthe outset, the relationship with agencies hasmoved on significantly. The best relationshipstoday are true partnerships where the mediaowner works with the agency to deliver themost compelling communications solutions forthe agencys clients.

This isnt to suggest that trading disputes dontand shouldnt arise. They do, and of coursethey should!

But the media owners and agencies I know orwork with would wholly endorse a partnershipapproach as the most fruitful way of developingan agency/media owner relationship. Andlistening, having the right people, and tailoringa response to briefs are the top three ways towin more business with your relationship.

Things to avoid are, quite simply, those factorsthat work against these top three factors: beingbog-standard and boring, not listening andfailing to address the core business issue orcommunications task.

Failing is simply about failing to address whatI call The Big Three: Listening, Chemistry andRelevance.

If you can focus more on these as they relate toa specific agency and that agencys specificbusiness, then youll stand a much greaterchance of developing a stronger relationship,and from that, increasing your volume/shareand increasing business across your multitudeof platform offerings.

I hope this provides a helpful personalperspective on how to build better agencyrelationships. These are challenging times andI am convinced that stronger agencyrelationships will yield better business resultsgoing forward.

Robert Ray is the marketing director for theUK-based Newspaper Society, a trade bodywith a member portfolio including 1,300 localnewspapers, 1,100 Web sites, more than 750local magazines and supplements, 36 radiostations and two TV stations. Prior to his workwith the NS, Ray spent most of his careerworking in agencies, from a trainee levelthrough managing director level in agencynetworks across Europe, the Middle East andAsia, as well as running a specialist mediaconsultancy firm working with both agenciesand media owners in the United Kingdom andacross Europe. Ray has worked with some ofthe worlds biggest companies and brands,such as Procter & Gamble, Unilever,Anheuser-Busch and Barclays.


10

Of the tens of thousands of advertisingagencies in the world, many are part of globalagency conglomerates with offices in theworlds major cities. Most mass media,including newspapers, depend on agencies forsome or most of their retail advertisingrevenues.

In the United Kingdom, for example, nationalnewspapers receive about 80 percent of theirnon-classified advertising revenues from adagency clients, while regional titles receive just20 percent. In the United States, the model issimilar. The four national dailies, USA Today,The Wall Street Journal, The New York Timesand The Washington Post, each receive about90 percent of their non-classified ad revenuefrom agencies, while local newspapers receiveroughly 10 percent. The remaining advertisingrevenue is earned from in-house salesdepartments, which sell advertising to localclients.

The pattern of national and regionalnewspapers reliance upon advertising agencyrevenue is found on every continent, and mostmajor countries.

The relationship between newspapersandadvertising agencies has a significantimpacton the volume and value of theadvertisingtrading relationship.Understanding the wayagency workers makemedia planning andbuying decisions isessential newspaper representatives whowork with agencies.

There are four basic categories of advertisingagencies: Media-buying, creative, full serviceand specialty. For the purposes of this report,we are referring to relationships withagencies with media-buying functions.

Newspaper sales people who liaise withmedia agencies explain the newspapersvalue proposition, including its ability toreach targetgroups, its strengths comparedwith othermedia, and about its overall reachandfrequency with print and digitalassets.Understanding the players andprocesses of media decision making equipsthe newspaper representative with theammunition to be more effective salespeople. Here is an example of a typicalmedia agency structure:

1. The Advertising Agency and Buying Landscape


11

Media agency: The players Managing Director/CEO: Mainresponsibilities are to lead the organisation toprofitability and effective use of human andbusiness resources. Group Manager: Key role is to manage agroup of clients and is responsible formanaging the media departments staff andtime on group accounts. Strategic Planner: Responsible for planningmedia for clients, including whom to target,which media, and when, according to theclients marketing objectives, as outlined in theclients brief. Research Analyst: Provides data andmaterials to planners and buyers to enablesound media buying decisions. Investment Manager: Responsible foroptimising rate negotiations and buying withall media placed by buyers. Buyer: Negotiates and implements buys forall media. Media Assistant: Administrative support toagency departments.

A typical campaign process between advertiserand agency:1. Client Briefing: The client provides a briefabout the product or service to be advertised,and detailed expectations for the campaign2. Strategic Planning: The process ofevaluating the appropriate mix of mediaplatforms and estimated campaign costs3. Implementation Planning: Identifies thebest ways to develop the campaign

4. Media Buying and Negotiating: Tonegotiate rates and book space in print andairtime in broadcast5. Post Monitoring: Evaluating theperformance of the campaign againstexpectations6. Invoicing: Billing all booked mediaAdvertising clients may state any number ofobjectives for their prospective campaigns, in abriefing to the agency, including: Increasing awareness through a trial offer Maintaining its current position and reinforcing Introducing a new brand, repositioning acurrent brand or relaunching a declining brand Preventing erosion by a competitor Improving image or reputation Changing attitudes Supporting sales forces and franchises Eliciting a direct response with a coupon orwrite-in offer

The briefing serves as a foundation for themedia planning process. The media strategistbuilds the framework for the campaign,including choosing media that will achievethe advertisers objectives. If the advertiserwants to reposition a car from a middle-aged,female profile to a young target audience,then the strategist will find media in print,broadcast and Internet that reach youngaudiences in the way that achieves the reachand frequency, demographic, geographic,campaign timeframe and cost parameters.

The media planner will scour researchresources in order to execute the strategists


12

plan. The planner will focus on the consumerand their media habits in order to makeinformed decisions about media selection.

Among the choices of media are newspapers,television, radio, magazines, cinema andoutdoor, out of home/ambient environments,direct mail, email, mobile phones, the Internet,blogs, video games, CDRoms, merchandise,music, etc. In addition to using research,planners consider the strengths andweaknesses of each medium and dovetail thecharacteristics of the media with the objectivesof the campaign.

Media Scheduling: Reach and FrequencyUsing the variety of media research toolsavailable to them, media planners consider theamount of reach and frequency that is requiredby the campaign, and then schedule mediaflights to achieve the objectives. A mix ofmedia is often selected to run over a variety ofintervals to extend the campaign over time.

Before proceeding to the implementationplanning phase, the media agency presents theplan and proposed media schedule to the client


13

Comparative Strengths and Weaknesses of Media

Source: Media Federation of Australia, industry research World Association of Newspapers 2008-2009

MediaTelevision

Radio

Magazines

Newspapers

StrengthBuilds high reach quicklyAble to target all demographic groupsGeographically selectiveImpact through sight, sound and movementIntrusive (in the home)Call to action with direct responseHighly researched

Builds frequency quicklyEasier to book a campain at short noticeMore accountable radio surveysTarget specific demographics/psychographicsGeographically selectivePersonal mediumMore negotiation flexibility with added valueLower production costsCredible environment (talkback)Creatively flexibleNational coverage with one insertionProvides detailsTarget specific group e.g. 4wd enthusiastsHigh use by womenMost are a paid forHigher level of involvementEditorial compatibilityCreative opportunities e.g. gatefolds, pop-upsHighly researchedLongevity of advertisingHigh quality productionQuality image associationBuilds high reach quicklyMore detailFor major metros and regionals, paid forTailored environmentsMore accountable highly researchedGeographically selectiveProduction costs are generally lowBook at short noticeOffers colour to create impactCredible environmentNegotiable on editorialCan accommodate coupons/direct response

WeaknessHigh production costHigh capital media costDifficult to obtain specific programmes short termChannel surfingIn the case of Free to Air TV, not a paid for mediumHigh level of ad clutterCant measure out of home viewing for major eventsProgrammes can be recordedNot paid forChannel surfingExpensive for national coverageMore expensive for a broad target groupLimited creative flexibility (reliant on sound only)Lower reachReception can be low quality

Longer lead time particularly for monthly magazinesMore difficult to book by regionsHigh level of clutterSlow to build reachPassiveLacks urgency

Short lifespanNo readership figures for specific sectionsExcept for business skewed papers,requires a high number to provide national coverageMore difficult to reach younger audiencesAds can get lost in editorialColour reproduction quality

for approval on the target audience, mediachannels, reach and frequency, flighting,geographic targets and costs. After approval,the buying team goes to work on buyingmedia, according to the schedule. First, buyersresearch the options available across media onthe schedule, including TV ratings, print ratecards, special print sections or major eventsand holiday periods that may influence mediaconsumption patterns. After determining keyobjectives, the buying team books the mediawith media outlets, and seeks ways to savemoney for the advertiser. For example, the

buyer may work with the newspaperrepresentative to get a discount for volume, orto get elevated prominence for the campaign.The newspaper titles are usually selected at theimplementation planning stage, so the buyerrefines that selection based on further researchinto target audience, cost and the like. Thebuyer is responsible for reaching campaignobjectives and not to exceed the set budget.Buyers will refer to rate cards, which are oftenfound on newspaper Web sites, or areaggregated on such services as the Standard Rateand Data Service (SRDS) in the United States.


14

Top 10 U.S. Advertisers in Newspapers, Internet

Source: Advertising Age, 2008; TNS Media Intelligence World Association of Newspapers 2008-2009

Rank

Newspaper12345678910Internet (Display) 12345678910

Advertiser Total U.S. Medium as 2007 2006 % change spending 07 % of total (US$ millions) (US$ millions)

Verizon Communications 686.7 686.9 -0.0 3,016.1 22.8 Macy's 609.7 715.3 -14.8 1,389.7 43.9 Sprint Nextel Corp. 460.6 495.7 -7.1 1,903.2 24.2 AT&T 328.3 483.5 -32.1 3,207.3 10.2 Time Warner 311.6 298.4 4.4 2,962.1 10.5 Fry's Electronics 229.3 215.1 6.6 312.1 73.5 Procter & Gamble Co. 213.7 207.6 3.0 5,230.1 4.1 Sears Holdings Corp. 200.7 233.1 -13.9 1,627.8 12.3 General Electric Co. 200.7 215.1 -6.7 1,791.3 11.2 Walt Disney Co. 185.2 185.0 0.2 2,293.3 8.1

IAC/InterActiveCorp 314.4 123.0 155.6 806.1 39.0 General Motors Corp. 212.0 118.2 79.4 3,010.1 7.0 Experian Group 193.1 129.4 49.3 330.9 58.4 Apollo Group 192.4 123.5 55.8 262.2 73.4 Verizon Communications 189.1 111.4 69.7 3,016.1 6.3 E-Trade Group 186.9 106.9 74.8 300.7 62.2 Ford Motor Co. 163.5 99.1 65.0 2,525.2 6.5 FMR Corp. (Fidelity Investments) 142.8 97.4 46.6 499.0 28.6 Scottrade 142.5 105.0 35.8 204.4 69.7 Microsoft Corp. 142.2 82.0 73.4 959.5 14.8

Measured ad spending in medium

Top Global Advertising Agencies

Source: Advertising Age DataCenter, 2008 World Association of Newspapers 2008-2009

Rank Worldwide revenue2007 2006 Agency [Parent] Headquarters 2007 2006 % change (US$ millions) 1 1 Dentsu Tokyo 2,171 2,185 -0.6 2 2 BBDO Worldwide* [Omnicom] New York 1,742 1,540 13.2 3 3 McCann Erickson Worldwide* [Interpublic] New York 1,619 1,479 9.5 4 4 DDB Worldwide* [Omnicom] New York 1,432 1,264 13.3 5 6 TBWA Worldwide* [Omnicom] New York 1,292 1,135 13.8 6 5 JWT* [WPP] New York 1,237 1,140 8.5 7 7 Publicis [Publicis] New York/Paris 1,004 974 3.0 8 8 Hakuhodo [Hakuhodo DY Holdings] Tokyo 943 886 6.4 9 9 Y&R* [WPP] New York 907 820 10.6 10 10 Ogilvy & Mather Worldwide* [WPP] New York 812 770 5.5

Advertising Agencies

The top 100 advertising agencies worldwidecontrol the majority of the advertising spendaround the globe. Most agencies are structuredto focus on just one task, either buying or

creative. Most are also still silo-based intheir organisational structure, that is, theagencys departments centre on one media, andmost individual departments do notcollaborate. This decades-old practice isstarting to change in the top media buying


15

Top 10 World and U.S. Media Agencies

Source: Advertising Age DataCenter, 2008 World Association of Newspapers 2008-2009

Rank Worldwide revenue2007 2006 Agency company [media unit] Headquarters 2007 2006 % change (US$ millions)By parent company, worldwide 1 1 WPP Group [Group M] London $2,070 $1,816 14.0 2 2 Omnicom Group [Omnicom Media Group] New York 1,759 1,571 12.0 3 3 Publicis Groupe [Publicis Groupe Media] Paris 1,590 1,416 12.3 4 4 Aegis Group [Aegis Media] London 1,348 1,091 23.6 5 5 Interpublic Group of Cos. New York 780 705 10.6 6 6 Havas [Havas Media] Suresnes, France 518 401 29.3

Rank Worldwide revenue2007 2006 Media agency [parent] Headquarters 2007 2006 % change (US$ millions)Worldwide 1 1 OMD Worldwide [Omnicom] New York $859 $790 8.7 2 2 Starcom MediaVest Group [Publicis] Chicago 814 708 15.1 3 3 MindShare Worldwide [WPP] London/New York 734 687 6.8 4 4 ZenithOptimedia [Publicis] New York 681 614 10.9 5 5 Carat [Aegis Group] London/New York, N.Y. 674 NA NA 6 6 Mediaedge:cia [WPP] New York 641 539 19.0 7 7 MediaCom [WPP] New York 592 535 10.7 8 8 Universal McCann [Interpublic] New York 410 355 15.5 9 9 MPG [Havas] New York 379 357 6.2 10 10 Initiative [Interpublic] New York 276 255 8.2 U.S. 1 2 MindShare Worldwide [WPP] New York $302 $278 8.9 2 1 OMD Worldwide [Omnicom] New York 299 290 3.0 3 3 Starcom USA [Publicis] Chicago 259 228 13.6 4 4 Mediaedge:cia [WPP] New York 243 197 23.5 5 5 Zenith Media USA [Publicis] New York 215 189 14.1 6 6 Icon International [Omnicom] Stamford, Conn. 200 NA NA 6 6 MediaVest USA [Publicis] New York 200 167 19.7 8 8 MediaCom [WPP] New York 175 162 8.3 9 10 Novus Print Media Network [Omnicom] Plymouth, Minn. 150 NA NA 10 11 PHD [Omnicom] New York 141 113 25.0 11 9 Universal McCann [Interpublic] New York 140 130 7.7 12 12 Carat [Aegis Group] London/New York 118 NA NA 13 13 MPG [Havas] New York 91 80 13.3 14 14 Initiative [Interpublic] New York 80 70 14.3 15 15 Optimedia International U.S. [Publicis] New York 57 53 7.1 Outside the U.S. 1 1 OMD Worldwide [Omnicom] New York $560 $500 12.0 2 2 Carat [Aegis Group] London/New York 556 NA NA 3 3 MindShare Worldwide [WPP] London/New York 432 410 5.4 4 4 MediaCom [WPP] New York 417 373 11.7 5 6 Mediaedge:cia [WPP] New York 398 342 16.4 6 5 ZenithOptimedia [Publicis] New York 379 353 7.4 7 8 Starcom MediaVest Group [Publicis] Chicago 308 275 12.2 8 7 MPG [Havas] New York 288 277 4.1 9 9 Universal McCann [Interpublic] New York 270 225 20.0 10 10 Initiative [Interpublic] New York 196 185 5.9


16

Top 100 Global Advertisers in U.S., by Medium

Source: Advertising Age DataCenter, 2008; TNS Media Intelligence's Strategy World Association of Newspapers 2008-2009

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

Rank

Procter & Gamble Co.

AT&T

Verizon Communications

General Motors Corp.

Time Warner

Ford Motor Co.

GlaxoSmithKline

Johnson & Johnson

Walt Disney Co.

Unilever

Sprint Nextel Corp.

General Electric Co.

Toyota Motor Corp.

Chrysler

Sony Corp.

L'Oreal

Sears Holdings Corp.

Kraft Foods

Bank of America Corp.

Nissan Motor Co.

Macy's

Anheuser-Busch Cos.

Honda Motor Co.

Viacom

Berkshire Hathaway

PepsiCo

Nestle

Pfizer

News Corp.

Target Corp.

J.C. Penney Co.

McDonald's Corp.

Citigroup

U.S. Government

Home Depot

Wal-Mart Stores

Schering-Plough Corp.

Wyeth

JPMorgan Chase & Co.

American Express Co.

Yum Brands

Microsoft Corp.

Estee Lauder Cos.

General Mills

Kellogg Co.

Bayer

Dell

Kohl's Corp.

Deutsche Telekom

IAC/InterActiveCorp

Cincinnati

San Antonio

New York

Detroit

New York

Dearborn, Mich.

Brentford, Middlesex, U.K.

New Brunswick, N.J.

Burbank, Calif.

London/Rotterdam

Reston, Va.

Fairfield, Conn.

Toyota City, Japan

Auburn Hills, Mich.

Tokyo

Clichy, France

Hoffman Estates, Ill.

Northfield, Ill.

Charlotte, N.C.

Tokyo

Cincinnati

St. Louis

Tokyo

New York

Omaha, Neb.

Purchase, N.Y.

Vevey, Switzerland

New York

New York

Minneapolis

Plano, Texas

Oak Brook, Ill.

New York

Washington

Atlanta

Bentonville, Ark.

Kenilworth, N.J.

Madison, N.J.

New York

New York

Louisville, Ky.

Redmond, Wash.

New York

Minneapolis

Battle Creek, Mich.

Leverkusen, Germany

Round Rock, Texas

Menomonee Falls, Wis.

Bonn, Germany

New York

5,230.1

3,207.3

3,016.1

3,010.1

2,962.1

2,525.2

2,456.9

2,408.8

2,293.3

2,245.8

1,903.2

1,791.3

1,757.9

1,739.4

1,736.8

1,632.3

1,627.8

1,508.0

1,491.3

1,422.9

1,389.7

1,354.1

1,326.5

1,309.9

1,308.3

1,308.3

1,260.3

1,252.9

1,210.4

1,186.2

1,161.8

1,150.1

1,135.3

1,121.9

1,119.6

1,102.5

1,092.0

1,078.3

1,073.9

1,050.0

1,004.4

959.5

956.1

955.2

871.5

860.8

843.4

836.7

831.3

806.1

4,883.7

3,344.5

2,791.9

3,296.1

3,073.7

2,576.6

2,504.0

2,401.4

2,300.5

2,099.5

1,775.9

1,916.8

1,850.3

1,886.4

2,001.3

1,458.0

1,650.8

1,426.7

1,140.6

1,407.4

1,362.9

1,279.1

1,351.2

1,010.5

1,194.3

1,323.8

1,255.8

1,006.5

1,400.4

1,161.4

1,162.7

1,083.9

1,224.1

1,133.4

1,119.6

1,073.7

883.6

1,051.3

1,156.5

929.3

1,039.9

913.7

1,031.4

937.2

765.2

683.4

984.0

766.0

815.2

792.4

7.1

-4.1

8.0

-8.7

-3.6

-2.0

-1.9

0.3

-0.3

7.0

7.2

-6.6

-5.0

-7.8

-13.2

12.0

-1.4

5.7

30.7

1.1

2.0

5.9

-1.8

29.6

9.5

-1.2

0.4

24.5

-13.6

2.1

-0.1

6.1

-7.3

-1.0

0.0

2.7

23.6

2.6

-7.1

13.0

-3.4

5.0

-7.3

1.9

13.9

26.0

-14.3

9.2

2.0

1.7

1,529.8

962.2

871.7

948.2

1,224.6

872.0

1,269.9

987.6

905.8

1,335.5

590.0

734.4

685.6

591.4

764.2

850.1

867.1

425.5

1,088.6

469.6

372.0

879.4

477.5

500.6

536.4

418.7

567.1

501.2

363.1

455.6

686.4

341.3

684.4

471.2

542.9

549.8

589.7

643.2

700.8

526.2

266.2

516.0

792.9

286.0

309.3

387.4

295.2

397.2

224.4

313.8

3,700.3

2,245.1

2,144.5

2,061.9

1,737.6

1,653.2

1,187.0

1,421.2

1,387.4

910.3

1,313.2

1,056.8

1,072.3

1,148.0

972.6

782.3

760.6

1,082.5

402.6

953.3

1,017.7

474.6

849.0

809.3

771.9

889.7

693.1

751.7

847.3

730.7

475.4

808.7

450.9

650.7

576.7

552.7

502.3

435.1

373.1

523.8

738.2

443.5

163.2

669.2

562.2

473.5

548.2

439.5

606.8

492.3

964.1

59.4

92.3

373.6

280.6

300.4

387.1

402.1

207.7

278.4

46.4

124.9

186.1

182.6

140.7

324.4

62.5

499.8

22.3

193.2

87.3

38.2

196.1

79.1

102.1

174.9

159.0

225.2

78.2

107.9

71.4

51.3

157.7

126.6

64.0

114.3

54.4

94.7

6.1

103.8

4.0

165.8

131.6

90.0

142.1

102.5

187.5

31.6

3.2

19.5

Total U.S. ad spending

(US$ millions)

U.S. measured media breakoutfor 2007 (US$ millions)

1

2

5

3

4

6

7

8

9

10

15

12

14

13

11

17

16

18

31

19

21

24

22

41

27

23

25

42

20

29

28

34

26

32

33

35

48

37

30

46

38

47

39

45

56

59

43

55

52

54

Estim

atedunm

easured(U

S$ m

illions)

Head

quarters

Ad

vertiser

2006

2006

2007

2007

% chang

e

Measured

med

ia(U

S$ m

illions)

Mag

azines

213.7

328.3

686.7

149.9

311.6

131.5

13.0

50.9

185.2

31.6

460.6

200.7

34.8

120.8

127.8

34.4

200.7

55.6

116.0

38.8

609.7

11.1

56.8

104.6

29.5

23.7

50.3

33.3

168.1

159.6

159.7

4.5

52.4

29.7

97.2

31.9

6.0

9.1

93.0

56.9

3.4

25.9

1.1

95.8

9.4

16.1

124.2

148.4

152.3

3.7

New

spap

er1.8

108.6

63.7

45.2

54.3

18.2

0.9

4.8

48.0

0.4

60.5

28.5

23.2

8.1

20.0

0.8

1.1

0.9

8.0

16.3

2.2

36.8

5.5

25.1

23.3

13.8

2.9

1.2

20.1

8.9

0.3

45.7

5.7

8.5

1.8

1.2

0.0

0.4

15.7

7.8

5.5

12.0

1.5

0.1

3.2

0.9

0.9

0.4

8.3

1.4

Outd

oo

r

2,414.2

1,356.4

906.8

1,176.8

908.4

982.1

742.4

879.4

664.5

543.7

575.4

482.8

752.0

750.6

570.9

407.9

437.3

476.8

131.2

653.0

236.0

341.3

548.5

491.8

444.9

612.3

429.6

456.6

334.0

371.7

186.1

601.6

207.0

378.4

282.9

304.9

426.7

296.4

201.8

243.6

680.7

92.0

24.7

470.8

384.7

330.6

129.5

218.1

393.9

133.9

TV

26.0

256.9

205.9

104.4

84.2

57.5

14.2

34.8

140.6

9.5

99.1

141.2

18.9

33.1

41.7

2.7

35.6

13.1

53.6

18.0

71.3

36.9

13.2

46.7

146.3

36.9

25.4

11.3

120.9

15.1

36.1

78.5

8.1

49.3

117.3

56.8

6.1

19.8

21.9

7.8

37.2

5.6

2.4

2.6

1.2

18.0

3.1

34.2

17.2

19.5

Rad

io

80.6

135.5

189.1

212.0

98.4

163.5

29.4

49.2

141.4

46.6

71.2

78.9

57.3

52.8

71.5

12.0

23.4

36.3

71.6

34.0

11.1

10.2

28.8

62.1

25.9

28.1

25.9

24.2

126.0

67.4

21.8

27.2

19.9

58.2

13.5

43.6

9.1

14.7

34.7

103.8

7.4

142.2

1.9

9.9

21.5

5.3

103.0

6.9

32.1

314.4

Internet

Source: Advertising Age DataCenter, 2008; TNS Media Intelligence's Strategy World Association of Newspapers 2008-2009

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

Rank

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.

Hewlett-Packard Co.

Coca-Cola Co.

Eli Lilly & Co.

Lowe's Cos.

Capital One Financial Corp.

Merck & Co.

Mars Inc.

Nike

AstraZeneca

Comcast Corp.

Clorox Co.

Campbell Soup Co.

Novartis

Hyundai Motor Co.

Reckitt Benckiser

Best Buy Co.

SC Johnson

Visa

IBM Corp.

Allstate Corp.

Kroger Co.

Boehringer Ingelheim

FMR Corp. (Fidelity Investments)

Sanofi-Aventis

Apple

MasterCard

eBay

Safeway

Progressive Corp.

Washington Mutual

State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co.

Doctor's Associates

Mattel

Coty (JAB Investments)

SABMiller

Diageo

Circuit City Stores

Wendy's International

Gap Inc.

ConAgra Foods

Molson Coors Brewing Co.

Energizer Holdings

Philips Electronics

Burger King Holdings

Alltel Corp.

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer

DirecTV Group

Wells Fargo & Co.

Walgreen Co.

New York

Palo Alto, Calif.

Atlanta

Indianapolis

Mooresville, N.C.

McLean, Va.

Whitehouse Station, N.J.

McLean, Va.

Beaverton, Ore.

London

Philadelphia

Oakland, Calif.

Camden, N.J.

Basel, Switzerland

Seoul, South Korea

Slough, Berkshire, U.K.

Richfield, Minn.

Racine, Wis.

San Francisco

Armonk, N.Y.

Northbrook, Ill.

Cincinnati

Ingelheim, Germany

Boston

Paris

Cupertino, Calif.

Purchase, N.Y.

San Jose, Calif.

Pleasanton, Calif.

Mayfield Village, Ohio

Seattle

Bloomington, Ill.

Milford, Conn.

El Segundo, Calif.

New York

London

London

Richmond, Va.

Dublin, Ohio

San Francisco

Omaha, Neb.

Denver/Montreal

St. Louis

Amsterdam

Miami

Little Rock, Ark.

Los Angeles

El Segundo, Calif.

San Francisco

Deerfield, Ill.

796.3

786.6

776.8

774.2

757.1

757.0

751.8

715.9

702.9

697.4

692.6

683.2

670.3

665.6

650.9

601.3

598.3

591.9

580.6

558.7

536.8

506.3

505.3

499.0

493.1

491.8

488.7

487.5

473.7

459.7

445.0

431.2

425.7

424.6

421.2

419.7

414.4

401.8

404.8

394.2

384.9

382.8

375.4

365.0

364.0

363.8

363.2

356.4

355.7

355.4

690.6

828.9

755.1

511.1

838.8

864.9

1,024.2

660.1

654.2

1,066.5

628.5

660.1

559.3

950.8

809.0

471.6

572.2

621.3

580.5

571.4

500.8

508.3

191.8

334.1

490.8

383.7

500.9

453.3

507.7

368.2

443.0

360.7

425.5

415.8

331.6

422.8

382.6

410.9

435.2

489.4

298.2

406.0

361.9

309.8

357.0

368.4

228.3

359.7

393.7

306.4

15.3

-5.1

2.9

51.5

-9.7

-12.5

-26.6

8.5

7.4

-34.6

10.2

3.5

19.9

-30.0

-19.5

27.5

4.5

-4.7

0.0

-2.2

7.2

-0.4

163.4

49.4

0.5

28.2

-2.4

7.5

-6.7

24.8

0.5

19.5

0.1

2.1

27.0

-0.7

8.3

-2.2

-7.0

-19.5

29.1

-5.7

3.7

17.8

2.0

-1.2

59.1

-0.9

-9.6

16.0

420.8

379.5

365.7

425.8

319.0

475.4

375.9

322.2

518.9

418.4

221.6

208.1

148.8

366.1

208.3

132.3

194.3

177.6

188.4

348.0

166.4

364.8

202.1

154.7

246.5

172.1

177.3

313.3

319.1

137.9

271.9

112.1

63.9

204.7

210.6

188.9

241.6

134.2

100.1

52.3

148.2

197.1

166.0

241.2

89.5

172.1

109.0

67.7

271.5

120.1

375.5

407.1

411.1

348.4

438.1

281.5

375.9

393.8

184.0

278.9

471.0

475.1

521.6

299.5

442.6

469.0

403.9

414.3

392.2

210.7

370.4

141.4

303.2

344.3

246.5

319.7

311.4

174.2

154.7

321.8

173.1

319.1

361.8

219.9

210.6

230.9

172.9

267.6

304.7

341.9

236.7

185.7

209.3

123.8

274.6

191.7

254.3

288.7

84.2

235.3

158.3

114.6

59.8

47.2

39.3

6.1

125.4

107.1

86.2

196.9

29.2

183.2

193.7

65.3

74.8

43.0

28.1

18.3

105.0

93.8

40.3

0.7

63.4

45.9

113.3

16.3

28.0

15.4

0.6

2.2

0.9

11.7

0.7

13.5

183.6

18.6

41.3

0.6

8.9

91.0

60.5

2.0

64.7

47.3

4.4

0.0

3.6

16.7

6.7

23.8

Total U.S. ad spending(US$ millions)

158

51

57

70

50

49

40

61

62

36

63

60

69

44

53

77

67

64

66

68

74

71

171

102

75

89

73

79

72

94

81

97

83

85

103

84

90

86

82

76

118

87

96

110

99

93

152

98

88

112

Estim

atedunm

easured(U

S$ m

illions)

Head

quarters

Ad

vertiser

2006

2006

2007

2007

% chang

e

Measured

med

ia(U

S$ m

illions)

Mag

azines

6.8

86.7

12.1

1.0

87.5

5.3

13.6

18.3

1.4

3.2

79.6

3.5

31.4

31.8

5.0

67.3

124.6

67.4

21.7

10.2

18.9

64.4

0.9

57.9

1.8

0.7

9.6

3.5

18.1

1.0

53.7

15.3

2.3

5.1

0.0

1.4

3.9

107.1

0.6

15.9

30.5

1.2

14.4

2.3

0.5

37.5

68.5

28.8

15.0

89.4

New

spap

er

1.0

0.1

27.4

0.1

0.8

0.5

0.0

1.4

3.9

0.1

18.0

0.7

0.2

0.1

2.6

0.0

0.8

0.0

3.6

6.3

12.0

8.7

0.1

1.5

0.1

23.3

4.3

3.9

5.3

4.9

9.7

21.5

4.8

0.2

0.3

13.6

17.4

0.0

4.4

11.9

1.2

25.8

0.0

0.0

7.0

4.6

1.3

0.6

7.3

0.1

Outd

oo

r201.4

116.1

255.4

291.2

266.6

181.9

212.2

241.3

83.3

55.6

191.1

262.1

278.0

175.4

343.0

357.2

181.1

320.8

222.7

74.2

236.6

32.3

228.8

94.4

122.4

236.4

227.8

48.8

37.4

259.4

55.6

213.9

324.8

197.9

25.2

174.5

73.0

109.8

261.6

195.9

133.1

140.6

119.0

49.5

206.6

135.7

164.0

228.9

17.7

95.8

TV

0.2

2.1

26.3

3.2

29.6

8.1

0.3

8.6

0.7

2.0

102.0

8.5

12.9

14.3

7.3

0.4

5.7

4.2

18.4

1.6

49.3

34.7

2.2

1.8

0.2

10.7

23.1

7.0

92.1

10.2

23.9

15.5

25.5

1.1

0.9

19.1

7.9

2.2

20.6

17.1

7.4

13.7

3.4

5.1

54.6

4.3

9.8

10.7

19.4

18.3

Rad

io

7.8

87.5

30.1

5.7

14.4

79.6

24.5

17.1

8.5

21.3

51.1

17.1

5.4

12.6

9.9

1.0

63.6

3.5

20.7

24.5

13.3

0.7

7.8

142.8

8.7

32.4

18.6

95.6

1.1

44.0

29.3

41.2

3.8

2.2

0.7

3.7

29.4

47.9

8.6

10.2

4.1

2.3

7.9

19.6

1.4

9.6

7.0

3.1

18.1

7.9

InternetU.S. measured media breakout

for 2007 (US$ millions)

Top 100 Global Advertisers in U.S., by Medium


17

agencies to be more integrated physically andduring the media-buying process.

The top advertising agency capitals are Tokyo,New York, Paris and London. Advertising Age,the leading advertising agency trade magazinebased in New York, tracks the top global andU.S. agencies, and U.S. advertisers each year.Japans Dentsu is the top global agency, withUS$2.17 billion in revenue in 2007, whileBBDO Worldwide and McCann EricksonWorldwide, took second and third place,respectively.

Meanwhile, WPP Group is the top globalmedia buying agency, with almost $2.1 billionin revenues in 2007, followed by OmnicomGroup in New York and Publicis Groupe inParis.

Advertising Age also tracks the top globaladvertisers in the United States each year, ledby Procter & Gamble, AT&T and VerizonCommunications with overall advertisingspend. The top advertisers tend to fall in a fewindustries: consumer products,pharmaceuticals, telecoms, auto companiesand entertainment/media conglomerates.

The top global advertisers in the United States,spending more than $100 million onnewspaper advertising in 2007, were: telecomsAT&T, Verizon, Deutsche Telecom and Sprint;consumer products companies Procter &

Gamble and Unilever; car manufacturersGeneral Motors, Ford and Chrysler;entertainment and media conglomerates TimeWarner, Viacom, News Corp., Walt Disney,Sony and General Electric; department storesSears, JCPenney, Kohls, Target and Macys;electronics retailers Best Buy and Circuit City;and computer manufacturer Dell. The topnewspaper advertisers in the United Statesincluded three mobile phone operators(Verizon, Sprint and AT&T), three retailers(Macys, Frys and Sears), three mediaconglomerates (Time Warner, General Electricand Walt Disney) and one consumer goodsmanufacturer (Procter & Gamble).The top 10 U.S. advertisers for Internet displayare comprised of one telecom (Verizon); twocar manufacturers (Ford and General Motors);five Internet commerce and investmentcompanies (IAC, Apollo, E-Trade, Fidelity andScott Trade); one consumer data company(Experian) and one technology company(Microsoft).

Advertising Expenditure Advertising agencies worldwide control thevast majority of advertising expenditureworldwide. Over the years, advertising spendcontinues to go up, but for many traditionalmedia outlets, does not keep up with inflation.


18

Global Advertising Market: Internet vs. Mobile

Sources: PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Wilkofsky Gruen Associates World Association of Newspapers 2008-2009

12,42017,404

24,778

35,734

46,843

58,809

70,733

82,324

93,461

103,958

148 339 703 1,427 2,6484,382 6,418

9,165 12,77416,407

27.9

40.1 42.444.2

31.125.5

20.316.4 13.5 11.2

129.1

107.4103.0

85.6

65.5

46.542.8

39.4

28.4

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007p 2008 2009 2010 2011 20120

20

40

60

80

100

120

140US$ millions%

Internet Advertising (US$ millions)

Mobile Advertising (US$ millions)

% Change

% Change

2008-12CAGR

17.3

44.0


18

Further, the market share for ad spend ontraditional media, including newspapers,continues to slip around the globe.PricewaterhouseCoopers tracks and projectsadvertising spend across the globe, andprojects a dramatic climb in market share byInternet advertising.

From 2009 to 2012, Internet advertising ispredicted to grow from 14.6 percent to19 percent of the ad market. While traditionaladvertising spend is growing in single-digits oreven declining, Internet and mobile advertisingis predicted to grow in the double digits duringthe same period. Meanwhile, TV and


19

2003

29.4

4.7

2.8 2.5 2.3 5.6 2.4 -1.0 3.6

2005

43.6

3.4486.7 4.8 3.9 2.2 6.1 3.0 7.0 5.2

2006

45.8

6.4286.4 3.9 2.7 2.6 8.1 1.9 4.6 6.6

2007p

33.2

3.753.5 3.3 -0.2 -1.1 6.9 2.0 2.1 4.4

2008

27.7

8.630.9 4.3 0.5 -1.2 7.0 0.7 -0.4 6.3

2009

22.1

3.024.4 4.4 2.1 0.9 6.9 0.7 3.0 4.9

2010

18.6

7.313.6 5.6 4.0 2.5 6.9 1.8 5.0 7.0

2011

16.1

3.0 8.6 5.4 4.1 3.0 6.7 2.2 6.1 5.4

2012

13.3

7.5 7.8 5.9 4.2 3.8 6.4 2.5 7.5 6.8

2008-12CAGR19.5

5.916.7 5.1 2.9 1.8 6.8 1.6 4.2 6.1

2004

41.2

10.9

5.8 5.0 4.5 7.9 2.5 2.9 8.1

US$ million

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

% annual change Internet Advertising: Wired and Mobile Television Video Games Consumer Magazines Newspapers Radio Out-of-Home Directories Trade MagazinesTotal

Global Advertising by Segment, 2003-2012

Note: Newspaper, consumer magazine and trade magazine Web site and mobile advertising is included in their respective segments and in the Internet advertising segment, but only once in the overall total.Sources: PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Wilkofsky Gruen Associates World Association of Newspapers 2008-2009

373,406

472,569

563,449

373,406403,487424,451

452,625472,569

502,000526,734

563,449593,789

633,909

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2003 2006 2009 2012

Internet Advertising: Wired and Mobile

Television

Video Games

Consumer Magazines

Newspapers

Radio

Out-of-Home

Directories

Trade Magazines

Share of Global Advertising by Segment

Sources: PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. Wilkofsky Gruen Associates World Association of Newspapers 2008-2009

%

3.4

8.214.6

19

34.434.6 34.5

34

0.2 0.3 0.4

8.2

5.5

8.2 7.8

5.66.9

4.5

7.8 7.5 7.4

28.3 26.2

232321.6

5.5 5.6 5.96.1

45.9

67.7 6.9 6.15.45.4

4.7 4.5 4 4


19

newspaper ad spend, previously the No. 1 andNo. 2 advertising mediums according to PwC,will decline from 34.5 to 34, and 23 to 21.6,respectively, from 2009 to 2012.

When breaking down ad spend in regions of

the world, the strongest growth for newspaperadvertising spend is in Latin America, which isexpected to grow 7.8 percent from 2008 to2012, and will remain as the No. 2 advertisingmedium after television for the foreseeablefuture, according to PwC.

Asia Advertising by Segment, 2003-2012


0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

2003

49.9

5.8

4.1 4.5 2.9 6.4 6.1 -0.2 5.9

2005

59.6

4.0

4.3 4.9 3.9 2.2 4.9 7.6 6.0

2006

41.2

4.1400.0 2.1 5.7 7.2 6.4 0.1 3.5 6.3

2007p

39.5

4.540.0 0.6 6.3 2.8 5.4 5.9 1.2 7.1

2008

39.5

9.932.1 4.5 7.5 6.4 9.1 4.0 4.610.8

2009

27.0

3.021.6 3.1 4.2 3.0 7.2 4.0 3.2 6.4

2010

20.1

6.411.1 4.3 6.7 4.8 7.0 4.0 4.1 8.0

2011

16.9

4.810.0 4.2 6.0 4.8 6.6 3.9 4.8 6.9

2012

14.4

6.0 9.1 4.8 5.6 4.7 6.4 3.8 4.4 7.0

2008-12CAGR23.3

6.016.5 4.2 6.0 4.7 7.2 4.0 4.2 7.8

2004

57.6

8.1

5.1 5.6 5.211.6 5.7 1.5 8.4

US$ million


69,93275,777 80,311

85,40091,43491,434

101,298107,749

116,362124,399

133,105

Share of Asia Pacific Advertising by Segment


%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

2003 2006 2009 2012

1.8 1.7 1.5 1.4

5.7 5.1 4.79.3

4.6 4.1 3.8

29.4 28.2

5.9

0 0.1 0.2 0.2

7.3

1.7 1.5 1.4

6.26.55.7 5.1 4.7

9.8 9.7 9.59.3

4.84.6 4.1 3.8

29.4 28.226.6

25.7

5.9

0 0.1 0.2 0.2

39 37.435

33.5

2.5

7.3

14.318.6


Television

Video Games

Consumer Magazines

Newspapers

Radio

Out-of-Home

Directories

Trade Magazines


20

Comparatively, advertising spend for otherregions is projected to grow from 2008 to2012, including Europe, the Middle East andAfrica (EMEA), 4.3 percent; Asia, 6 percent;Canada, 2.1 percent; and the United States,declining by 0.8 percent.

During the same period, the Internet advertisingmarket share will rise dramatically in allregions, while market share for newspaper adspend will decline for newspapers worldwide,PwC has forecast. In Asia, it is expected todecline from 26.6 percent to 25.7 percent;


2003

40.3

4.8

1.0 -1.3 7.0 5.2 2.9 -3.8 2.7

2005

59.2

6.0

3.3 4.7 5.5 7.7 3.2 1.8 6.5

2006

63.2

6.5400.0 5.0 4.2 5.5 9.3 3.0 5.4 8.4

2007p

38.0

6.350.0 2.1 4.0 5.4 7.9 0.7 3.0 7.2

2008

30.1

7.433.3 4.4 4.2 5.0 7.1 0.2 4.7 7.7

2009

24.9

6.722.5 4.4 4.6 4.9 6.7 1.0 5.7 7.5

2010

21.5

8.116.3 5.1 4.5 4.7 6.3 2.0 5.5 7.9

2011

18.9

5.111.4 4.7 4.2 4.2 5.7 2.6 5.7 6.7

2012

15.7

6.210.2 4.8 4.0 3.7 5.3 3.1 5.4 6.7

2008-12CAGR22.1

6.718.5 4.7 4.3 4.5 6.2 1.8 5.4 7.3

2004

49.4

10.5

4.5 5.1 9.4 5.8 2.9 1.7 7.8

US$ million

115,340124,331

132,422143,496 153,880

165,727178,166

192,247205,202

218,865

EMEA Advertising by Segment, 2003-2012


0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

Share of EMEA Advertising by Segment


%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2003 2006 2009 2012

4.7 4.3 4.1

7.15.8 5.16.76.7 6.4

5.4 5.3 4.9 4.5

10.5 9.48.9

0 0.1 0.3 0.3

8.6

15.5

4.7 4.3 4.1

8.1 7.15.8 5.16.7 6.76.7 6.4

5.4 5.3 4.9 4.5

29.9 27.625.2

23.2

11.5 10.5 9.48.9

0 0.1 0.3 0.3

30.3 30.4 29.829.3

2.8

8.6

15.5

21.1


Television

Video Games

Consumer Magazines

Newspapers

Radio

Out-of-Home

Directories

Trade Magazines


21

EMEA share will decline from 25.2 to 23.2percent; Latin America will decline from 20.2to 19.4 percent; Canadas share will declinefrom 23.9 to 21.6 percent; and in the UnitedStates, share will drop from 19.6 to 18 percent.


22

Latin America Advertising by Segment, 2003-2012


0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

2003

4.2

7.8 6.3 2.7

-16.3 5.6 7.412.5 4.5

2005

46.9

21.116.012.315.427.717.011.518.6

2006

34.3

15.4 9.512.010.822.112.9 7.314.2

2007p

50.3

12.711.415.0 8.3 -0.912.2 9.212.9

2008

35.1

11.410.2 9.9 7.6 3.8 9.8 8.510.9

2009

28.7

6.1 9.5 8.0 7.0 4.2 8.5 7.5 7.4

2010

23.3

13.1 8.8 7.5 6.7 6.3 7.4 7.911.0

2011

23.6

4.9 8.6 7.2 6.2 8.7 6.7 7.6 6.3

2012

21.0

9.3 8.3 6.7 5.8 8.2 6.2 8.2 8.7

2008-12CAGR26.2

8.9 9.1 7.8 6.7 6.2 7.7 7.9 8.8

2004

46.5

20.111.9 7.712.416.415.210.115.8

US$ million

% annual change Internet Advertising: Wired and Mobile Television Consumer Magazines Newspapers Radio Out-of-Home Directories Trade MagazinesTotal

9,76111,308

13,408

19,170

13,40815,309

91,43417,29019,170

20,58222,851

24,30126,405

Share of Latin America Advertising by Segment


%

2003 2006 2009 2012

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1.5 1.5

5.2 5.0 5.0 4.71.9 2.2 1.7

6.6 6.1 5.6

23.0

19.9 20.2 19.4

7.8 7.0 7.0 7.0

52.5 56.2 55.756.3

1.93.6

5.2

1.5 1.5

5.2 5.0 5.0 4.71.9 2.2 1.7

6.6 6.1 5.6

23.0

19.9 20.2 19.4

7.8 7.0 7.0 7.0

52.5 56.2 55.756.3

1.93.6

5.2


Television

Consumer Magazines

Newspapers

Radio

Out-of-Home

Directories

Trade Magazines


23

2003

21.5

3.6

4.0 4.7 1.2 5.2 0.9 0.7 3.2

2005

30.9

0.0233.3 5.9 2.5 0.4 8.0 1.610.2 3.2

2006

35.8

6.4200.0 3.0 -0.3 0.2 8.0 1.2 4.2 4.9

2007p

27.2

0.966.7 5.0 -7.9 -5.1 7.6 1.0 1.5 0.5

2008

20.9

8.730.0 3.7 -7.7 -6.1 4.7 -0.9 -4.4 2.8

2009

17.2

0.026.9 4.5 -2.4 -1.9 7.0 -1.4 1.1 1.7

2010

15.0

6.612.1 6.3 1.2 0.4 7.4 0.4 4.7 5.3

2011

12.8

0.4 5.4 6.2 2.3 1.4 8.0 0.7 6.6 3.2

2012

10.0

9.1 5.1 7.2 3.1 3.5 8.0 1.0 9.3 6.6

2008-12CAGR15.1

4.915.4 5.6 -0.8 -0.6 7.0 -0.1 3.4 3.9

2004

33.2

11.9

7.1 4.5 2.5 6.0 0.8 3.8 7.8

US$ million

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000


U.S. Advertising by Segment, 2003-2012


170,245183,502

226,851

183,502189,343 198,650

199,705 205,272208,698

219,720 226,851241,725

Share of U.S. Advertising by Segment


%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2003 2006 2009 2012

5.7 5.8 5.5

7.26.8

3.4 3.9

9.98.3

6.77.3

0.2 0.4

34.9

8.7

5.8 5.5 5.7

7.6

5.7

8.2 7.26.8 6

3.2 3.4 3.9 4.3

11.2 9.98.3

7.5

27.1 24.8

19.6

18

6.7 6.77.3

7.6

00 0.2 0.4 0.40.4

34.3

34.936.5

36.8

4.3

8.7

14.9

18.4


Television

Video Games

Consumer Magazines

Newspapers

Radio

Out-of-Home

Directories

Trade Magazines


24

Canada Advertising by Segment, 2003-2012


2003

38.4

9.0

9.4 0.7 8.3 3.9 2.6 -6.4 5.8

2005

56.3

1.7

2.8 3.9 1.213.5 2.9 1.0 4.6

2006

81.5

4.0400.0 3.6 3.3 5.4 7.5 3.8 4.3 9.0

2007p

33.2

-1.530.0 5.8 3.0 4.7 7.0 3.2 4.6 5.0

2008

27.9

3.226.9 4.7 1.0 1.2 4.9 4.7 3.5 5.6

2009

24.9

4.721.2 4.2 1.8 2.1 6.2 3.9 4.2 6.5

2010

20.3

3.616.9 4.7 2.5 3.9 6.6 3.9 5.3 6.3

2011

17.7

3.213.9 5.3 2.6 4.9 7.6 3.6 5.4 6.3

2012

15.2

3.011.3 5.4 2.8 4.5 7.9 3.5 6.2 5.9

2008-12CAGR21.1

3.617.9 4.9 2.1 3.3 6.6 3.9 4.9 6.1

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

8,128 8,5698,967

9,77010,260

10,83311,539

12,26913,036

13,809

2004

54.2

4.8

6.0 3.3 3.4 6.8 2.9 1.0 5.4

US$ million


Share of Canada Advertising by Segment


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35%

2003 2006 2009 2012

2.5 2.2 2.1 2.1

9.7 8.9 8.5 7.9

3.2 3.5 3.6

13.412.3 11.2 10.7

26.7

23.921.6

7.0 6.6 6.4 6.2

0.0 0.8 1.4 1.7

32.429.8

26.9

2.8

10.2

18.3

25.0

28.9

2.5 2.2 2.1 2.1

9.7 8.9 8.5 7.9

3.2 3.5 3.6 3.7

13.412.3 11.2 10.7

26.7

23.921.6

7.0 6.6 6.4 6.2

0.0 0.8 1.4 1.7

32.429.8

26.9

24.8

2.8

10.2

18.3

25.0

28.9


Television

Video Games

Consumer Magazines

Newspapers

Radio

Out-of-Home

Directories

Trade Magazines

As any marriage counsellor will tell you, thereare always two sides to every story about arelationship. In order for a relationship towork, both parties need to feel respected andlistened to. The relationship betweennewspapers and advertising agencies is nodifferent. Over the decades of relationships,communication between the two sometimesgets lost, and needs to be revitalised.

Circa 2009, advertising agencies andnewspapers have a yin-yang relationship.While one cant exist without the other,friction continues to be caused by lack ofcommunication or accommodations for avariety of needs in the negotiating, buying,publishing and accounting processes. The SFNteam conducted a survey and personalinterviews with agency buyers and newspaperadvertising executives to determine how thetwo entities can forge a stronger relationship inindividual markets around the world. Here aresome of the findings:

If newspapers could change how they workwith agencies, they would improve a variety offactors, including how trading works, making

agencies aware of their value across platformsand having more transparency about clientsand their campaign objectives.If advertising-buying agencies could changehow they work with newspapers, they wouldimprove a variety of process issues and detailsof doing business, particularly regarding ratecards, invoicing, tear sheets and thedistribution of general market information.

If newspaper companies made it easier to buynewspaper advertising, it likely wouldencourage media planners to buy morenewspaper advertising, according to severalmedia planners interviewed by the SFN team.A variety of media buyers and planners fromadvertising agencies worldwide have assessedthe hurdles in working with newspapers. A variety of responses are listed heresignalling an opportunity to make changes toencourage a more lucrative relationship withagencies.

Buying newspaper advertising iscomplicated.

2. What Agencies Want from Newspapers


25

You cant do one-stop shopping (acrossnewspapers).There are too many rate cards.

Invoices are frequently wrong. Contract ratesare not always in the newspapers computersystems.

Sales reps arent always informed about ratecard prices or why prices have inexplicablyrisen.

Newspaper advertising prices havent caughtup with declining circulations.

Sales reps dont understand our clientsneeds.

Cross-platform audience information is good,but Im not sure how well use it.

Newspaper usage data must be about now,not six months old.

There are a lot of choices out there for mediaplanners. Newspapers need to become morecompetitive with new pricing and new offers ofvalue.

Editorial rules the roost in decision makingabout whether innovative ads will run or not.

Its hard to guarantee a position on a page.

Invoices are frequently wrong, and it takes along time to clear up the problem.

(Newspapers) don't seem to go with the market.

In analysing the media planners opinions onnewspaper advertising, the obviousopportunities for newspapers are:

To make buying newspapers simpler, withstreamlined, electronic processes and thecreation of networked buys across newspapersin a given region or country.

To create an accurate invoicing scheme withchecks and balances.

To create fewer rate cards, and to ensure thatthe rate cards are logged into the newspapersdatabase.

To assess advertising pricing, and to considerdynamic pricing schemes depending on theagencys annual or monthly contract volume.

Inform agencies in detail about cross-mediaadvertising opportunities through fresh,detailed statistical analysis.

To train sales reps more thoroughly aboutpricing, offers and newspaper audience reachbefore they call on advertising agencyaccounts.

Several planners and buyers report that somenewspaper representatives to agencies are notwell informed about their newspapers ownpricing, value-added features or commissionsto agencies. But it is the occasional passionatesales representative who is both enthusiasticand well-informed who makes an impressionon planners and buyers that pays off for hisnewspaper.Its all about relationships between people,says Fiona Hodges, print director forMediaedge:cia in London.The advertising and newspaper landscapescontinue to change separately and together.Many agencies and newspapers are workingtogether to improve relationships for the future.Historically saying, at least in Japan, therelationship between newspaper companiesand advertising companies is already very,very strong. But both of us should make effortsto innovate the newspaper industry. We couldhave a lot of to do, says Tomoaki Ide,research director for Dentsu in Tokyo, one ofthe largest advertising agencies in the world.Ad companies should advise more and moreto the newspaper companies. But adcompanies hesitated to do so. And especiallythe Japanese newspaper companies made lesseffort than western newspapers for themselvesbecause they could grow their business with adcompanies without much effort. They weredependent on ad companies to get ad revenueand did very little to innovate their own mediaitself with some Japanese ways of thinking. Idont want to deny the whole because Japanesecan have the Japanese own style. But at thesame time, we know that they have a lot ofthings to do to be stronger.While many planners and buyers suggestchanges should be made, there also is muchthat is right about the working relationshipbetween newspapers and agencies: Newspapers can quickly amass a wide reachin a community Local reach and targeted reach are easilyattained Value added features like Post-it notes,polybags, cross-media campaigns all arepositive differentiators


26

Excellent research has been done aboutnewspaper consumers about usage patterns andlifestyles that are valuable in the planningprocess Online newspaper reach is accountable andtargetable Builds high reach quickly Production costs are low compared with TV,radio and Internet Colour can create impact Credible environment Can offer direct response with coupons

The SFN team interviewed a variety ofadvertising agency planners and buyers. Thefollowing are excerpts from those interviews:

Starcom MediaVest GroupInterview with Kathy Heatley, vice

president, director of localinvestment, locatedin Detroit, Michigan, United States

Global Chicago, Illinois, headquarters United States

Parent company Subsidiary of Paris-basedPublicis Groupe

Web site www.smvgroup.com

Starcom MediaVest Group is one of the largestmedia, communications and event planningand buying groups in the world, with 5,800employees working in 110 offices in 67countries. The group works with some of theworld's top brands, such as Coca-Cola,General Motors and the Walt DisneyCompany.

Kathy Heatley works out of SMG's office inDetroit, the home of the U.S. auto industry,and works in the newspaper category withbrands in automotive, financial,telecommunications, packaged goods,electronics and retail sectors. She says shebelieves in the future strength of bothadvertising agencies we're strong andglobal and newspapers newspaper is thenew black. It's ripe for invention. It's going tobe around for a really, really long time it'sjust changing.From a buyer's perspective, Heatley, vicepresident and director of local investment, saysshe thinks the overall media buying landscape inthe United States is flexible, and the newspaperbuying landscape is very flexible right now,and a little scary, because there's definitely

concern about who's going to be in businessand who are they going to be owned by.

In terms of advertising, this means the biggesthurdle newspapers have faced in the past fiveyears has had more to do with their own badpress than anything else, she said. The badpress surrounding the financial and businessstate of the newspaper industry, exacerbated bythe global economic downturn as 2008progressed, has caused advertisers to be morewary of the industry, Heatley says.

Clients believe it and it hurts them, she says,adding that newspapers need to be their ownbiggest advocates, and market themselves toadvertisers. Stay connected to the localmarket that's where expertise and strength is.I think (newspapers) also need to continue tolook for multimedia partners in their localmarkets, she advises.

Newspapers, which have great content, are ripefor building multimedia packages foradvertising customers, which is exactly whatthey want, she says.

In the future, Heatley says pricing digitaladvertising on a cost per thousand basis, andbased on an audience measure, seems the mostreasonable. Pricing based on cost per inch,colour or premiums is nonsense, and doesnothing to sell actual audience, she says.

We should be buying audience. They make ittoo complicated, which is another reasonpeople don't like to buy them. In the future, itwould help if agencies and publishers couldpartner to figure out the best new ways tomeasure all platforms, then chargeappropriately for what the publisher can offer,and what the advertiser is getting in return, shesays. Newspapers need to recognise wedon't have a problem talking about readership,but you also have to come with the digitalcosts, and equalisation. Finding a way toreport on circulation by issue date would alsohelp, she adds.

Heatley says buying newspaper advertisingcould be smoother when it comes to:

Responsiveness: Some newspapers don'trespond, others do. Also, staff cuts and staffinglevels going down have also really affectedresponsiveness.

Rates: Newspapers are considered veryexpensive, she says. Although newspapers


27

seem to have improved in terms ofreproductive quality, rates are all over theboard ... they preach integrity of rates to keeprates high, (but) the market should drivethose rates, Heatley says. If you're in a softadvertising market, you need to make a deal.If you're not, keep your rates high, and wecan decide if it's a right rate. (Newspapers)don't seem to go with the market. Theadvertising market will be soft next year, butnewspapers will come up with rate increases it's crazy. They feed their sales people tothe wolves.

Look at clients individually: I think theyneed to look at each individual client on anindividual basis. One of the things I hear isthat they have to treat you the way they treateveryone else. I don't think so if anothercustomer doesn't have good buyers, weshouldn't suffer. They need to be flexible andprovide value.

Tear sheets, which seem like a small thing, canbe a huge headache. Heatley says that for a smoother process, everyone should use the e-tear system, but not all newspapers do.

There

building relationships with advertising agencies_8.2_p

Documents

media agency

advertising agency

agencies tojockey

horizon media

media groupwww

media scheduling

advertising expenditure

advertising budgets