17202: Omnicom, IPG, FTC, WTF.

 

Adweek reported the Omnicom acquisition of IPG is closer to being a done deal, as the FTC approved a revised consent decree preventing the White holding company from denying advertising revenue to publishers based on ideological or political stances.

 

Interesting how Adland is not trusted in certain matters, prompting the need for governmental regulation and enforcement.

 

Yet even when DEIBA+ was considered an imperative, White advertising agencies enjoyed self-regulation—and abject failure was acceptable.

 

FTC Locks In Omnicom–IPG Deal With Stricter Ad Rules 

 

Consent decree bans Omnicom from denying ad dollars to publishers based on political or ideological viewpoints

 

By Audrey Kemp

 

The FTC has approved a revised final consent order tied to Omnicom’s $13.5 billion acquisition of Interpublic Group (IPG), explicitly preventing the company from denying ad dollars to publishers based on political or ideological viewpoints—unless a client expressly directs it.

 

In June, the FTC conditionally cleared the deal with a proposed consent decree barring politically motivated ad boycotts. That order is now final, with added oversight and a clarification of scope.

 

After a mandatory public comment period, the FTC revised the order to add a compliance monitor and ensure that the restrictions only apply within the United States. The commission voted 2-0-1 to approve the order, with Commissioner Mark R. Meador recused.

 

The FTC said advertising holding companies, including through industry trade groups, have at times coordinated boycotts of certain media sites, cutting off their ad revenue and weakening their ability to produce content.

 

The order bars Omnicom from keeping exclusion lists or ideology-based blocklists unless a particular advertiser asks for one—putting the decision back in the hands of its clients.

 

The merger also cleared a key U.K. review last month, when the Competition and Markets Authority declined to escalate the deal to a phase-two probe. The European Union remains among the regulators still reviewing the transaction.

 

Omnicom and IPG had already been under scrutiny by the FTC, which issued a second information request earlier in the year, signaling deeper antitrust review.

 

IPG’s Q2 revenue fell year over year, but its margin hit a record high as it cut costs in anticipation of the merger. Omnicom continues to expect the deal to close in the second half of 2025.

 

The decision shows regulators are paying closer attention to how advertising holding companies use their market power in ways that could impact the flow of advertising dollars online.

10496: Payday Loans Lament Laughable.

Campaign questioned the ethics of advertising agencies servicing payday lenders. Really? An industry that doesn’t hesitate to hype cigarettes, credit cards, liquor, pharmaceuticals, skin lightening products, junk food, politicians and an endless host of controversial crap is wringing its hands over payday loans? Hell, CashCall extended Gary Coleman’s career in the United States. Besides, the typical adman would sell his own mother if there was a chance to nab decent billings—or an award.

Should adland help payday lenders?

Is it unethical for shops to work with them and should there be an ad ban altogether, John Tylee asks.

With advertising cash to flash, payday loan companies such as Wonga.com and TxtLoan are in the process of finding out whether money can buy them love.

TxtLoan has signalled its intention to rival Wonga.com’s pensioner puppets with the appointment of VCCP and MediaVest to share duties on a £15 million campaign that is bound to fuel the debate about the ethics of what such companies do — and whether adland should be helping them do it.

They certainly polarise opinion. One high-profile critic, the Labour MP Stella Creasy, this week called on agencies to refuse to work with short-term loan companies until they clean up their acts.

Others, though, claim Wonga.com and its rivals herald a new era in financial services and fill a void left by high-street banks that have stopped lending.

So far, there has been very little to cause agencies much angst. The Advertising Standards Authority has fielded a modest number of complaints against four short-term loan companies so far this year. Among them was Wonga.com, whose TV campaign attracted 82 claims that the company did not state an APR. The ASA threw out the complaints.

“So far, we’ve found this advertising generally to have been decent, legal, honest and truthful,” James Best, the chairman of the rule-making Committee of Advertising Practice, reports.

Even Credit Action, the money education charity, which previously complained to the Office of Fair Trading about online activities by payday lenders, is not in favour of an ad ban.

“We wouldn’t want a knee-jerk reaction,” Michelle Highman, its chief executive, says.

This may explain why agencies have not felt the need to examine their consciences before taking on a Wonga.com-type client. Nicola Mendelsohn, Karmarama’s executive chairman, says she would not want one — but only because of the limited creative possibilities.

“If Wonga.com and the others can get their models right, then the financial services sector is going to become much more dynamic,” a leading ad industry figure says. “And that has to be good news for agencies.”

Some communication experts believe short-term loan companies have made it harder for themselves by not running a PR campaign addressing contentious issues and directed at opinion-formers before running significant amounts of above-the-line advertising.

They claim such a campaign would have made it easier to see off government threats to crack down on payday loans after an investigation by the OFT that remains ongoing.

Damian Collins, the former M&C Saatchi executive turned Tory MP, says: “Payday loans are among the most expensive ways of borrowing. Too much of the advertising suggests it’s cheap money.”

A major problem for payday loan companies is that they must comply with financial codes drawn up in a different era and under different circumstances.

“These companies are generally lending small amounts of money over short periods,” an observer explains. “In that situation, APRs of 4,000 per cent are meaningless.”

The results of the OFT probe could be the catalyst for a legitimised short-term loans sector, according to insiders, and could lead to a shake-out and a market dominated by a few respected players.

“Short-term loan companies are a sign of the times,” an agency chief who knows the sector explains. “They don’t lend massive amounts of money — usually no more than £500 — but there is an extraordinary demand for them.”

Best believes such companies have brought payday loans off the streets and away from intimidating loan sharks “whose techniques have been known to involve a blunt instrument”.

REGULATOR

James Best, chairman, Committee of Advertising Practice

“Short-term loans are a product category that some people feel uncomfortable about, so they will try to use advertising as a stick with which to beat it. However, such advertising is not only strictly regulated but, so far, has been pretty unobjectionable.

“Our codes are closely aligned with the Financial Services Authority rules, and if there was evidence that people were being misled or that vulnerable groups were being targeted, then action would be taken.

“Although the jury is still out, nothing has happened so far to suggest that the rules are being flouted.”

POLITICIAN

Stella Creasy, Labour MP

“Agencies approached by short-term loan companies should refuse to work with them until they get their acts together. I’m hearing from people all over the country who are struggling to repay such loans and agencies who run this advertising must be held equally responsible.

“I’m not in favour of an ad ban, although I do think the current advertising makes it very difficult for people to work out what a loan is going to cost them.

“More important is that the OFT starts to regulate these companies more effectively, cost caps are imposed and people get the same protection as their counterparts in many other countries.”

CHARITY

Michelle Highman, chief executive, Credit Action

“Banning all advertising by short-term loan companies would not be helpful in terms of enabling individuals to make informed choices.

“A far more sensible approach would be to ensure such advertising doesn’t target vulnerable groups such as people on benefits and students.

“It’s vitally important that ads for payday loans should make it absolutely clear what is being offered. People need to know what they are going to be charged when they take a loan, how long they will have to pay back the money and what will happen to them if they fail to do so.”

AGENCY HEAD

Nicola Mendelsohn, executive chairman, Karmarama; president, IPA

“Agencies will decide for themselves if they wish to take business from short-term loan companies, and most will make a judgment on a case-by-case basis. No agency is going to force staff to work on such business if they have strong objections.

“That said, it’s also true that the UK has one of the most stringent self-regulatory advertising codes in the world.

“At present, there is nothing to stop agencies taking such business if it makes commercial sense. The IPA would only need to re-examine the situation if the guidelines changed.”

10263: Bob Liodice Headlines Liars Meeting.

Adweek reported ANA President-CEO Bob Liodice appeared at a Senate hearing to hype self-regulation for online advertising. Politicians and advertising wonks in the same room makes for quite a showdown of liars. The elected officials, however, should be wary of the ad people for a few reasons. First, how can an industry be trusted to police itself in the digital space when the majority of its practitioners are clueless in the digital space? Talk about letting the inmates run the e-asylum. Second, is it smart to believe representatives from a field that created its own Code of Ethics, which have not been officially adopted by anyone? Hell, most ad people are probably unaware the document even exists. Finally, consider the fact that our industry has been regulating itself in the area of diversity. Nobody is claiming success on that particular matter. Indeed, one person who has publicly admitted to the failure is none other than ANA President-CEO Bob Liodice—and ironically, he did it online.

Ad Biz Tries to Convince Senate Dems Self-Regulation Works

Industry’s Liodice unveils new data in ad choices program

By Katy Bachman

The advertising industry Thursday rolled out the big guns and new data to defend its self-regulation program for online behavioral advertising to skeptical lawmakers on the Democratic-controlled Senate Commerce Committee.

They had to. Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) is pushing for a Do Not Track bill. He and the other committee Dems have expressed skepticism in several privacy hearings that the ad industry can police itself to protect online consumer privacy. They’ve embraced recommendations from the Administration that there needs to be baseline privacy legislation establishing a privacy code of conduct or bill or rights.

Taking the witness stand for advertisers, Bob Liodice, president and CEO of the Association of National Advertisers said that the ad choices program, covering 90 percent of the interactive advertising business, was working, giving consumers choice to opt-out of unwanted online ads.

More than one trillion of the ad choices icon is being served each month. More than one million consumers have opted out of ads. To promote the program to consumers, the ad industry’s education campaign and website designed by McCann Erickson Worldwide is generating more than one million uniques a month.

“We have demonstrated the industry can come together,” Liodice said. “With the system we have, we are able to get to cases and principles that the Federal Trade Commission may have missed,” he added.

But Microsoft’s breaking ranks with the industry with its default Do Not Track browser, fueled the skeptics’ conclusion that something more universal needs to be done.

“It’s unclear whether industry self-regulation, by itself, is a viable way to allow users to manage and control data collected and used about them by third parties,” said Alex Fowler, Mozilla’s chief privacy officer, who noted that the ad industry’s self-regulation program was developed only because the government put pressure on it.

Fowler also called the ad industry’s ad icon “confusing” and ineffective. “According to the industry’s own research the number of users who use the icon is low: 0.0035 percent clock, and only 1 in 20 of those actually opt out,” Fowler said.

The industry only got its act together when the government put the pressure on, added Peter Swire, professor of law for The Ohio State University. “We’re seeing industry digging in and doing something right now,” he said.

Liodice characterized the Digital Advertising Alliance’s work on developing the ad choices program differently. “Our self-regulatory mechanism has evolved with the encouragement of the Federal Trade Commission. And with their collaboration, we completed the system,” Liodice said.

GOP members echoed the industry’s fears that the government privacy regulation of the Internet may not be able to keep up with the fast-moving Internet.

“We must proceed cautiously and carefully before diving into any legislation,” said Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.). “Legislation could be outdated before the ink dries.”

At the end of the hearing, Rockefeller remained unconvinced. “It’s not in their self-interest,” he told reporters. “I don’t trust these companies to do what’s right when they’re up against the bottom line.”

Despite Rockefeller’s enthusiasm for a Do Not Track bill, even he admitted it’s highly unlikely because it’s a low priority on the Senate Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) scale. “I would like to see a Do Not Track bill this afternoon. If we go to next year, it won’t be because a lot of people don’t want it to happen. It’s so easy, it’s so right. I want the bill,” Rockefeller said.