Cameron's payment by result plan given cautious welcome by Pringle
The boss at the IPA Hamish Pringle says he would welcome a payment by results system of agency remuneration from a Tory Government, but adds that Governmental staff turnover would make this very difficult to implement.
The Conservative Party is planning to move move away from the current payment system for the social marketing work done by agencies for the COI to paying agencies based on the results that they achieve with their marketing campaigns, which would aim to get better value for money from its £232m annual marketing budget.
The new system would see agencies forced to specifically outline the changes in behaviour they are aiming to achieve and then being measured against those before being payed. However, Pringle says that for such a system to work at any time in the future a number of issues will need to be addressed by any incoming Government.
Speaking to The Drum Pringle said: "I would like to meet the people involved in developing this latest policy who have actually read the book 'How Public Service Advertising Works', published by the Central Office of Information (COI), in association with the IPA. I appreciate I may have a bit of a wait, but once they've got up to speed it would be great to have an evidence-based debate on their proposal.
"We welcome a payment by results component in agency remuneration schemes as long as the key performance indicators are based on clear, easily understood and achievable targets, the client still has the money in their budget in case of success, and remains in the job long enough to authorise the payment. How likely is this in the multi-factorial settings in which most Government Departmental campaigns seek to change social behaviour, when the Minsters responsible are reshuffled even more frequently than commercial sector marketing directors, and budgets are usually up for grabs annually, and definitely every five years?
Pringle also suggested that money is often wasted by Government departments who ditch campaigns prematurely, before they have had the opportunity to really affect social behaviour, adding that this needs to be stamped out if any PBR scheme is to work in the future.
"There's far more money to be saved by stopping Government Departments chopping and changing their campaigns than there is by forcing PBR remuneration on agencies," says Pringle. "Because political careers seem to be advanced by Department-hopping and the relentless announcing of headline-grabbing "initiatives" the great long-term behaviour-changing campaigns by Government are few and far between. As a result adstock is squandered and the chances of measurable improvement are diminished."
"Selfishly the IPA, the COI, and our member agencies on the roster would welcome a fair and proper PBR regime. This is because an IPA Effectiveness Awards-grade proof would need to be provided for each campaign in order to satisfy the National Audit Office. Under this forensic scrutiny the clarity of objectives would increase, as would the quality of strategic insight, channel planning and content creation. The better agencies would win more work and make more money, while crucial societal behaviour change would be achieved."
Pringle also commented on the current sitiation in Scotland, where the introduction of a Scottish Government framework last year has caused some unrest among agencies.
He said: "Clearly there is a waste of resources to be eliminated in Scotland too. It's reported that the new rosters imposed a year or so ago have resulted in over 150 mini competitions with up to ten agencies competing in each for an average assignment of £30,000. Is this really a cost-efficient way to do business? Is this any way to foster the Creative Industries in Scotland? Let's hope this inefficiency in the public tendering process is addressed before anyone starts copying Westminster and starts talking about PBR in Scottish Government contracts."