The process of building the Promo 100 ranking is always an eye opener. Our editors keep their collective ear to the ground for agency developments throughout the prior year, but we count on a few surprises as we compile data for the June issue: companies that quietly slipped down the rankings (perhaps due to the loss of a major client) or soared to the top tier (we’re always delighted to find these). ▪ Since it was introduced, the Promo 100 ranking process has been refined in subtle ways, while always hewing to its core goal: providing marketing agencies with a competitive yardstick and brand marketers with a starting point in the search for the best agency partners. To that end, two years ago we phased out agency longevity as a factor, and began evaluating three examples of “typical” campaigns per agency. As 33% of the total ranking score, this component is a whole lot more than deciding which pretty campaign art we like; rather, Promo editors take a hard look at the results generated by the work, and the value generated for the client. We think this has significantly enhanced the accuracy of the ranking, providing a clearer indication of what a given agency can bring to a brand inititative. ▪ We’ve been challenged, however, to maintain the same standard of accuracy when it comes to the other two ranking components: last-year revenue and three-year growth. Since the passage last spring of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, publicly held companies have virtually stopped reporting the financials of any of their individual holdings. Fearing federal criminal charges if any executive within an agency shares inaccurate revenue data with the media, CFOs have passed the word: clam up. This is the ultimate in irony, since the law’s intent had been to provide investors and the general public with more — and more accurate — corporate information, not less. ▪ So for the second consecutive year, we’ve been forced to generate our best estimate of the revenue growth (or contraction) for many of the top agencies in our industry. You’ll see these indicated in the ranking by an asterisk, with a caveat. So far, this has impacted the verifiability of the past-year growth data. Next year, we may be operating with three year’s of estimated data, and that implicates the verifiability of the growth-rate ranking. ▪ We’re not happy about this. We prefer to report, not estimate. Further, it restricts those agencies we can confidently name as Agency of the Year or even spotlight in profile stories. So, here’s my plea to the CFOs of every media holding company out there: work it out with your legal counsel, and then let your agency execs talk to us. Let your potential clients — Promo’s readers — get the most accurate picture of your company. That’s a healthier approach for all of us.
Network
