Media agencies threaten Macinga to initiate a lawsuit
A dispute whether the revised methodology of calculation of TV commercial effectiveness was ignited in Slovakia (actual 4% decrease in effectiveness for clients) is or is not deception of clients.
Consultant Pavol Macinga insists that such procedure is, to say the least, immoral and clients should pay 4% less for TV commercials.
AMA (Association of Media Agencies) threatens Macinga with a lawsuit unless he withdraws the articles where he criticizes the practices.
The Association of Media Agencies (AMA) objected to publishing such article from February 4, 2017 headlined Slovak TV advertisers were deceived on the website macinga.com/blog. And the same article in English translation published on February 13, 2017 headlined Slovak TV advertisers were deceived on the website LinkedIn.
Subject: The call for removal of the article “Slovak TV advertisers were deceived“ from websites, apology for unwarranted invasion in the fair reputation of a legal entity and abstaining from unwarranted invasions of this kind.
The Association of Media Agencies (AMA) demanded removal of articles through legal representatives from July 14, 2017, abstaining from the use and publishing of content of the articles in question and an apology.
How PMT voted on the change to trade policy?
The only reservation that they presented was the vote at PMT. I did not even get to the issue of the vote in my article since I did not even have that information. It is crucial that PMT decided so and whether statutes stipulate the necessity to have 100% votes or 51%, or otherwise is irrelevant for the essence of the consequence of such vote. PMT did not provide information on the issue of the revised methodology even after repeated call. Nevertheless, I publish this information on the vote at PMT from the view of AMA without acknowledgement of PMT as a step towards the call of the Association of Media Agencies (AMA) through legal representatives.
90of PMT members voted for the change to GRPs methodology increased by guests. 11% TA3 (PhDr. Martina Kyselova), 16% JOJ (Mgr. Marcel Grega), 31.5% Markiza (Matthias Settele) and 31.5% RTVS (Ing. Vaclav Mika). The Association of Media Agencies (AMA) with 10% share voted against.
Nothing changes in the message of original articles. PMT revised methodology of calculation of guests in delivered GRPs and clients who did not sufficiently arrange (won through) consideration of this change during calendar year 2017, paid with 4% increase in costs on TV commercials from March to December 2017. Based on the size of a client, it can amount to 10,000 to 200,000 euros extra in costs or a loss, based on the accounting perspective.
Who profited from the change?
Clients – advertisers definitely not. But who did? Were it just TV stations with artificial increase in advertising inventory by 4%? Or were it media agencies which TV stations shared the 4% increase with as a reward for the fact that media agencies will not deal with the 4% increase across the board with each of their clients?
And my advice to clients who got a raw deal?
Take the 4% concealed increase in consideration in 2017 in conditions of the year 2018.
More on the deception of Slovak TV clients in the article Slovak TV advertisers were deceived.