Qualitative Evaluation
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
RECMA RUSSIA MARCH 2015 Domestic report Media Agencies Qualitative Evaluation Russia RECMA report – March 2015 Copyright © 2015 RECMA Reports | All Rights Reserved | Content Cannot Be Reproduced Without Written Permission RECMA SA Paris [email protected] •[email protected] - [email protected] – www.recma.com – March26, 2015 CONTENTS -T0- Structure of the industry in Russia A. THE QUALITATIVE EVALUATION C. MOMENTUM Methodology - T21a/b- Client portfolio values (CPV) at February 2015 (buying billings) Latest Qualitative Evaluation March 2015 - T21Gr- Client portfolio values (CPV) by Group - Key Findings an executive summary - T6a/Short- Industry shares growth as at February 2015 vs. - T100a- Short- Qualitative Evaluation 2011 (overall billings) Profile Assessment based on 18 criteria - T16- New Business Activity 3 years wins and unsuccessful participation (excl. retentions) - T100a- Qualitative Evaluation by Network - T40 - Changes to the top management over 18 months - T100b- Qualitative Evaluation by Group November 2014 - T41- Awards Benchmark – a 2 year comparison - T95a- Benchmark - March 2015 vs. Aug. 2013 D. RESOURCES - T95b- Benchmark – ranking by growth in points - short term - Specialized resources: methodology & process / definitions March 2015 vs. November 2014 - T32b - Digital staff spread Previous Qualitative Evaluations - T32 - Digital Resources & staff including Display and Search (upd Febr 15) - T100a- Qualitative Evaluation Nov. 2014 rest. March 15 - T33b – Diversified Services staff spread - T100a- Qualitative Evaluation Jan. 2014 rest. March 15 - T33 - Diversified Services resources & staff (upd Febr 15) - T34- International coordination (upd Febr15) - T100a- Qualitative Evaluation August 2013 - T8 – Share of non-traditional Activity - T100a- Qualitative Evaluation Dec 2012 - rest. March 13 - T36- Geographical coverage: number of offices - T100a- Qualitative Evaluation Dec 2011 - rest. March 13 - T37 Buying Structures (tbc) - T100a- Qualitative Evaluation Dec 2010 - rest. March 13 B. COMPETITIVENESS E. CLIENT PROFILE - Methodology Key Concept / Q&A - T20 -Big advertisers into 14 sectors based on the Top 150 (spending over $10m) - T18- Compitches grades calculation 2014 by agency: based on key wins & departures - T22 -Number of big advertisers by agency based on the Top 140 (spending over $15m) - T13a/b- Compitches Grades by agency 3-year score (mid- term view) and since 2004 - T23- Exposure to n°1 & top 3 clients (billings share out of - Archives T18 2013/12/11/10 Client Portfolio Values Nov 2014) - T24- Local roots amongst top 200 advertisers with ww HQ in Russia (115 advertisers) - T25 - Client Loyalty NEW Nov 2014 F. OVERALL ACTIVITY /BILLINGS - T0a Structure of the industry & -T0b Methodology - T1 Overall Activity 2013 by local brands - T2 Overall Activity by Network & by Group (released in April 2015) - T3 Overall Billings 2013 by Growth Rate Russia RECMA report – March 2015 Copyright © 2015 RECMA Reports | All Rights Reserved | Content Cannot Be Reproduced Without Written Permission • RECMA SA Paris [email protected] •[email protected] - [email protected] – www.recma.com – March26, 2015 A. THE QUALITATIVE EVALUATION Methodology Key findings – an executive summary New Qualitative Evaluation March 2015 T100- Short- Qualitative Evaluation – Profile Assessment T100a- Qualitative Evaluation by network based on 18 criteria T100b- Qualitative Evaluation by Group based on 18 criteria The benchmark T95a- The Benchmark, a 2 period comparison: March 2015 vs. Aug. 2013 T95b- The Benchmark, ranking by growth in points short term – March15 vs. Nov14 Former Qualitative Evaluations T100a- Qualitative Evaluation by network Nov. 2014 based on 18 active criteria – Rest. March15 T100a- Qualitative Evaluation by network January 2014 based on 17 active criteria – Rest. March15 T100a- Qualitative Evaluation by network Aug. 2013 - based on 17 criteria T100a- Qualitative Evaluation by network Dec. 2012 – Rest. March13 T100a- Qualitative Evaluation by network Dec. 2011 – Rest. March13 T100a- Qualitative Evaluation by network Dec. 2010 – Rest. March13 RECMA Research Company evaluating the Media Agency Industry- NETWORK DIAGNOSTICS Qualitative Evaluation Copyright © 2015 RECMA Reports | All Rights Reserved | RECMA Inc • New York • RECMA SA Paris-; www.recma.com – March 26th-2015 How are agencies classified in the Qualitative Evaluation? Explanation of the methodology. RECMA has defined 2 groups of performance areas: VITALITY = Competitiveness + Momentum, STRUCTURE = Resources + Client Profile. A set of criteria is used to determine the agencies' performance; a table of analysis is established for each (table number T in following pages). An agency can have a strong, rather strong, average or weak performance in each of the criteria: •a strong performance, highlighted in yellow, represents 2 points. •a rather strong performance is in brown and represents 1 point; •an average no point; •a weak performance, written in red, represents minus 1 point. The overall hierarchy is based on the total number of points. If equal points, on the Compitches classification and then on the balance of number of strengths versus the number of weaknesses. The total number of points determines the PROFILE classification: Dominant (from 20 pts), High (from 12 pts in average), Good (from 4 pts), Average (from minus 4 points) or Low See continued RECMA Research Company evaluating the Media Agency Industry- NETWORK DIAGNOSTICS Qualitative Evaluation Copyright © 2015 RECMA Reports | All Rights Reserved | RECMA Inc • New York • RECMA SA Paris-; www.recma.com – March 26th-2015 How are agencies classified in the Qualitative Evaluation? (2/3) VITALITY Compitches Weighs from 6/ 28 pts to 6/ 40 pts. Therefore Compitches are max 6 points directly impacting a maximum of 20% of the assessment. Yearly grades are assessed on the basis of a calculation table Table 18 (T18) with a classification of pitches and close reviews in two 2013 definitive groups (key -valued 3 points- and other valued 1 point) according to thresholds of the account move ad spends. Yearly grades are assessed on the basis of a calculation table Table 18 2012 definitive (T18) with a classification of pitches and close reviews in two Last year grades A+ to C groups (key -valued 3 points- and other valued 1 point) according to thresholds of the account move ad spends. Yearly grades are assessed on the basis of a calculation table Table 18 2011 definitive (T18) with a classification of pitches and close reviews in two Last year grades A+ to C groups (key -valued 3 points- and other valued 1 point) according to thresholds of the account move ad spends. Momentum 8 to 12 points Table 21a The Portfolio Growth CPV includes the full impact of the wins & losses of the year in buying billings until the date of Portfolio Growth m€/$ publication. year-on year. Strength-Weakness thresholds based on data distribution. Table 6 Industry share Based on Overall Activity Billings updated with CPV; thresholds: around + 1 point industry share growth is growth over 3 years considered as a strength or minus 1point as a weakness. Table 6 Industry share This data is indicated for information only; not a KPI for the (Client portfolio values) assessment. Table 3 Overall Activity Based either on agency client list ad spends or based on staff Billings growth (July 2013) or RECMA estimates. Extracted from the Billings report. Table 16 a/b- New business Includes pitches won (except retentions) and participation to pitches even unsuccessful ; plus major moves without pitches ; activity over 3 years Strength-Weakness thresholds based on data distribution. Table 41 Based on int’l Festival of Media + Media Lions Cannes + Awards over 3 years (2013) Effie + local reliable awards. Awarded advertisers listed. From “change” (departure) considered as a weakness for six months (minus one point) with exceptions when the Group Table 40 management is already involved in the client relationship Changes to the top (CEO still in the Group, change of MD/COO but CEO stable) management (heads in ; to “internal promotion” or “external recruitment” which are considered as a strength (+2 pts) during one year, and +1pt relation with clients) from the second year. After five years of stability (no point) begins a period of “proven stability” (+1pt); and after 10 years back to “stability” (no point) RECMA Research Company evaluating the Media Agency Industry- NETWORK DIAGNOSTICS Qualitative Evaluation Copyright © 2015 RECMA Reports | All Rights Reserved | RECMA Inc • New York • RECMA SA Paris-; www.recma.com – March 26th-2015 How are agencies classified in the Qualitative Evaluation? (3/3) STRUCTURE Resources Tables T32b and T33b compare all agencies with the ratio 8 to 14 points staff vs industry share. Table 32 Aggregates digital specialists: direct/ search/ social/ Digital specialists staff nbr mobile/ trading desk (internal or Group partners). With details by specialty: outdoor/ OOH; econometrics/ Table 33 modeling; Branded content/ entertainment/ sports; multi- Diversified Services staff nbr cultural; marketing consulting; bartering; etc. Strength-Weakness thresholds based on data distribution Table 34 Staff by hub with details of key clients and assignments; Int’l management staff nbr Strength-Weakness thresholds based on data distribution Table 1 This data is indicated for information only; not a KPI for Overall agency staff nbr the assessment. Extracted from the global Billings report. Table 7 Ratio between the overall specialized