After receiving more than 100 nominations for this year’s 30 Under 30 list the Media Week editorial team has compiled the 30 media professionals who best matched the criteria asked for. The list is a good representation of media agencies and owners with a sprinkling of clients and provides an insight into the future of the industry with many of the nominations exceeding what was expected of them for their age, while also demonstrating great entrepreneurial spirit.

The 30 who have made the list were chosen after demonstrating that they best met the following criteria:

•Greatest achievement in the media arena
•An example of problem solving for one of their clients
•What they hope to achieve in their jobs by the end of the year
•What contribution they have made to the media industry

This article originally appeared on www.mediaweek.co.uk on the 14th September 2011.

To see the article in full click here

Most media agencies were founded at a time when buying clout was paramount. In an offline TV-centric communications world, it was all about huge volume deals delivering reach and frequency.
Since then, the media landscape has transformed and agencies are not only planning and buying their clients’ ads, but are also co-owning content, creating their own distribution platforms and engaging in social media. This requires a wholly different skillset and levels of expertise across a broad range of specialisms, including PPC, SEO, content, sponsorship, activation and partnerships.

“Buying clout is most relevant in an analogue-centric world. Agencies now have to balance a broad spectrum of capabilities across a wide range of areas,” says Graham Brown, co-founder and director at MediaSense. The three core competencies of a successful agency are the ability to plan media that is paid for, owned or earned (already a much more expanded role than that of five to 10 years ago); data and insight, and intelligent and optimised buying.

Agencies are fundamentally distributors of content, but these days that content can be distributed via paid-for, owned or earned media. A key ingredient for agency success is the ability to balance these and leverage each effectively. This involves fostering sophisticated partnerships with media owners (owned/paid for); creating content channels (owned), and working in the social space (earned) in addition to traditional planning and buying.

Marketing has always been about data and business intelligence and data is all-powerful in a digital media economy. But the proliferation of measurable, digital media has led to a huge increase in the availability of data. Brown explains: “It’s like trying to quench one’s thirst from a fire hydrant. The real value lies in interpretation and utilisation.”

Traditional applications of data – such as trying to quantify an audience – are making way for cross-platform CPA modelling and demand-side platforms for automated buying and selling of digital inventory.

Dynamic planning is crucial for agency success. Strategies need to be fine-tuned on the go. Graham Brown says: “It’s no longer a linear process that fits neatly into the calendar. The ones that can adjust in real time using real-time information are the successful ones. It amounts to data plus interpretation plus activation.”

That’s not to say that size doesn’t matter. Harvey Goldhersz, chief operating officer of Mediacom Worldwide, explains: “It’s still about scale, but that scale relates to data. You need lots of data and you need to be able to apply it in an intelligent way.”

It’s not only quantitative data that’s important, as Mediacom’s global chief insight officer Mick Mernagh says: “Most plans now have 30 to 40 different touchpoints. It can be hard to measure and compare. It’s not just about whether something was watched or seen but whether it was impactful or important. In a world where there is so much more data, we need to be more qualitative about our approach.”

The availability of the sort of acquisition data that digital media can allow, means that media agencies can rise up the food chain and make the transition to being business partners with their clients. But this requires a new set of skills from client servicing.

Graham Brown says: “Many media agencies haven’t operated at the top end of a client business like their creative counterparts or management consultants. Agencies have bucket loads of specialist and executional talent. To sit at the top table, their client leaders need to be much more commercially astute.”

Andy Pearch, co-founder and director of MediaSense, adds: “A key issue is that many agencies continue to be rewarded on inputs rather than outputs. Agencies need to become their clients’ business partners and be rewarded for their contribution to business success as opposed to buying results.”

New talent is not only a key ingredient at the client servicing level, but throughout the agency. Helen Brown, worldwide chief talent director of Mediacom, says: “For any service company, talent is the only product that can differentiate us. It all leaves the building every evening. We need to ensure it comes back.”

Furthermore, there needs to be the right mix of talent to meet the demands of the new media world. She adds: “We looked at the structure of the business over the next five to 10 years and aligned that with what clients need, to give us an understanding of what we would need in terms of talent and specialisms. Each market has individual needs. And it’s about really understanding the economy and culture.”

Pearch articulates: “Clients do not always appreciate that talent can make the difference between the ordinary and the extraordinary.Clients should be prepared to pay for the top planners, researchers and data specialists, if they add value to their business.”

Smart agencies are taking on talent from outside of the media, such as economists.

This article originally appeared in M&M’s Q4 2010 supplement ‘Piecing together agency success’.

To see the article in full click here.

The centrepiece of the event was MediaSense’s  industry research, undertaken in conjunction with IPSOS, which exposed the tensions within the industry, and revealed what its stakeholders really think of their peers. Among those tensions were:

-          Media buying makes a relatively small contribution to client performance, yet is the most widely and successfully measured agency function

-          While agencies believe they are becoming more important for clients, media owners believe their influence is on the wane

-          While clients say strategic thinking is a pitch winner, agencies believe buying guarantees are the clincher

-          While a majority of clients believe agencies act as long term business partners, only the minority thinks their agency understands their business

-          Whereas most clients think media auditing improves performance, very few agencies and media owners agree

There was, however, a lot of common ground among attendees at the Design Council last week. The industry as a whole is preparing to say farewell to old metrics like reach and frequency and costs per thousand, and is looking forward to replacing them with outcome-based metrics. There was universal acceptance that media agencies are the logical guardian for the media communications process, so long as they make the necessary investments in time and skills. Everyone recognised the growing importance of data insight and “machine marketing”, and the need for agencies to keep up in this area.

The current “best practice” model of agency remuneration was called into question by Andy Pearch, who argued that agency incentive targets lack relevance and can be counter-productive:  if media agencies continue to be paid by the media “yard”, they will never become strategic partners. For clients, the big issue remains integration – with clarion voices calling for more collaboration between agencies and media owners in developing joined-up communications solutions.

Every speaker brought an anti-commoditisation message to the table: in the words of one delegate, “it feels like the industry wants to re-invent current remuneration, evaluation and engagement models, but needs help getting there”.

1. While 58% of media agency folk believe their role is becoming more important, only 25% of media owners share this view. Media agencies are not yet becoming dis-intermediated, but will do much better work if they take down the barriers between clients and media owners. Clients want agencies to push them into taking more risks. Chris Maples of Microsoft thinks media owners need agencies to provide better and less prescriptive briefs.

 2. While 70% of the industry see engagement and outcome-based metrics growing in importance, only 8% of the sample saw media cost and quality metrics growing in importance for their businesses. A new breed of client is comfortable with growing volumes of data, value-based metrics and is keen to test and learn more often. Media-centric metrics are losing currency, as digital media in particular are enabling greater visibility and accountability in media activity. We are guilty of measuring what we can measure, rather than what is useful to measure.

3. While 61% of the industry agree that media auditing has lowered client media costs, only 10% agree that auditors are measuring the right things. There is genuine frustration about the contribution from, and messages coming out of the auditing community. Media trading is set on a downwards cost spiral, and genuine differentiation is eroded by over-measurement. Small differences in performance are magnified into bigger issues, yet the real opportunities for step-change value across multi media channels  are being overlooked.

 4. While 81% of clients believe their agency acts like long term business partners, only 56% of them believe their agency understands their business, and only 11% believe their agency can help them navigate the digital landscape. There was a distinct feeling that client/agency relationships have weakened, in no small part due to cost-based remuneration models. Media agencies continue to be rewarded on input measures rather than outcomes. Pearch reckons this discourages alignment and risk-sharing, which are the foundation for client loyalty.

5. The industry ranks the development of integrated media strategies as its biggest performance driver, while holding a pitch ranked the weakest performance driver. According to Phil Georgiadis of Walker Media, the key to integration is coherency – integration doesn’t mean using 10 media channels to deliver a number of messages. Planners are encouraged by touchpoints research to ranks media, but in reality all media are primary. There is nothing wrong with doing less, or sacrificing reach, in order to deliver a clearer message. Results are what count.

This article appeared in Campaign’s ‘All About’ section on 18/11/2010.

To see the article on Campaign Live, click here

Which way now? is a summit for leading influencers from the media industry to share new thinking on the measurement of media performance, the management of agency relationships and strategies for managing change.

An impressive cast of leading industry speakers presented to a full house and provoked much lively and topical debate.

Our speakers were Justin Gibbons, Partner, work research, Rupert Day, Global COO, Group M, Chris Maples, Commercial Director, Microsoft, Phil Georgiadis, Chairman and CEO, Walker Media, James Hilton, Joint CEO, Inside Mobile, Andy Pearch, Co-Founder, MediaSense and Dominic Grounsell, Marketing Director, Capital One.

To compliment the event, we commissioned work with Ipsos to poll 250 industry stakeholders to gauge the temperature of the industry regarding these issues. The key findings were unveiled on the day.

Key issues discussed included:

Is the industry overly obsessed with price and execution over success and innovation?

Can the industry reverse out of commoditisation?

Is media auditing still relevant for today’s media marketplace?

Can media agencies ever be strategic partners to clients?

Should clients share all their data with agencies?

Are media owners disintermediating agencies?

Does the balance of risk and reward bring out the best in agencies and media owners for clients?

….and of course, much, much more!

Justin Gibbons summarised the key findings from our new research and concluded that as an industry, we value what we measure but we are measuring the wrong stuff; not what drives performance.

Rupert Day picked up on this issue and stated that the media industry over-values what can be measured. He explained why we must optimise on objectives rather than by media channel, and why media companies must get into the tech co segment.

Chris Maples, talked from the media owner perspective, reminding us that the fundamental purpose of good media placement is still to put the right ad in front of the right person, in the right environment and at the right time. Chris admitted that 99.9% of all online display advertising is direct response-led and that this has become a self-fulfilling and limiting process, but implored clients and agencies to work more collaboratively with media owners.

Phil Georgiadis argued that the industry spends too much time worrying about the next big thing as opposed to fully understanding how to exploit the current big thing. As examples he suggested that Touchpoints surveys encourage the wrong planning behaviours, and digital media’s importance in media planning has been exaggerated. Where change is required however is in the media trading market, which needs to overhaul its habits.

James Hilton gave us a perspective from the rapidly growing mobile sector. He suggested that the continued success of mobile marketing depended on their metrics being consistent with those of other digital channels. He warned that the rush for the ‘app’ has only a limited shelf-life and is only part of the picture in mobile.

Andy Pearch stated that the current models of performance evaluation, relationship management and remuneration have each failed to reflect that changes in the media landscape, in communications technology and in consumer empowerment over the last 20 years. He suggested that current ‘best practice’ is sometimes counterproductive and discourages agencies from taking commercial or creative risks for their clients. The industry needs a reboot.

Over aggregated data has caused problems elsewhere too. In the past, a client employing a media auditor was could be pretty confident their average pricing was c.6% better than the market. With it’s focus on traditional media and the averaging of general measures in what are now very complex markets, that advantage has completely eroded.

The near-universal availability of competitor information has meant that media buying strategies are highly visible and have become more alike. Small differences in profile become magnified by the auditing and evaluation process into big differences, maintaining a semblance of a dynamic market.

Dominic Grounsell closed the session and offered us a client viewpoint. He suggested that clients’ requirements from their media agencies had changed massively. He argued convincingly that this is the age of machine marketing, and agencies need to understand and apply the right metrics to a client’s business, such as cost to acquire and net present value by channel and by customer. Reach and frequency are useful to know, but not what drives performance. Dominic wants his agencies to be advisors, welcoming a constructive dialogue with media owners. Agencies need to push clients to take more risks but in an environment that is safe and secure.

Feedback from the audience was exceptionally good. Here are just a few examples:

“Thank you for a very interesting session today. Great speakers with content right on the money. I thought the research was dynamite.”

“Very good content…refreshingly challenging and controversial”

“ Very interesting to hear views from all sides of the industry; clients, agencies, media owners and consultants.”

“We hope it becomes a regular event, a sentiment echoed by our client who also attended. The research provided some strong independent evidence of the key issues that we know are now facing the industry”.

We are already planning a follow up event for Spring 2011. Watch this space!

“The word ‘integration’ seems to bring about feelings of great despair in most advertising and media people. As researchers, we regularly look at integrated campaigns and we know that, come 6pm the various people responsible will arrive at the groups looking disorientated and anxious. Not only with the work they have produced but with precisely who has produced it; clients have done the media buying, media planners have done the account planning, creatives the channel planning, digital experts talking TV and the PRs have come up with the big idea. They have become detached from their core disciplines, distracted by new umbrella jobs that don’t make sense. Everyone feels like they are picking their nose with rubber gloves on

Integrated communications is what everyone wants, and what our industries have been coalescing around for years. And yet if we’re honest we haven’t cracked it, the signs of failure are all too evident.

Planners have been dragged from their disciplines in search of integrated manna, and have become less focussed, less confident, less skilled. Like the final scene in Reservoir Dogs, everybody is left pointing at each other; ‘you?’, ‘me?’, ‘him?’. In simpler times planners of all flavours stood tall, their claim staked, their clients awed. Now they are pygmied, strategically emasculated by the holes in their experience. And in their confusion they have become more competitive, less willing to compromise. There’s a bizarre turf war going on, everyone competing for territory they don’t really want, it’s like everyone invading Belgium.

I don’t think the work has improved as a result of integration either. Too often the creative device is stretched paper thin as it is given an unsympathetic 360 degree once-over out back; expansive ideas pruned and squashed into little spaces; untouchable, statuesque treatments forced unhappily into the spotlight of social media; cute, tactical opportunities forced to labour under the weight of big idea badging. And that’s the relatively logical stuff. Other campaigns have found themselves the victim of ‘integrated planning as excuse for chaos’; outlandish stunts from blue chip brands that end up looking like they have just woken up naked in the hotel foyer, ad funded content from brands with nothing to say, horrid looking sponsorship credits, the list of casualties goes on.

And clients can’t, and don’t, look at this and see success. They don’t think we get it, they don’t think we believe it, and consequently aren’t willing to pay for it. As one client recently confided to me, if you want integration, you have to do it yourself. They’re not talking here about checking the historical stock levels in Wales, or the promotional codes in the Swindon Gazette, they are taking back ownership of the communications architecture. That should be our bit and we’re about to lose it and become picture drawers, spot buyers, release writers and flash geeks.

So what’s the problem, why has nobody got this right? Firstly, I think it’s because we’ve become lop sided in our thinking. Good advertising is built on three things; brand understanding, consumer insight and a great idea. No more no less, forget the company manifesto about transforming communications exchanges or building engagement platforms, this is what we really do. And the drive for integration has created an imbalance in how we do it. Agencies of all flavours have become besotted by the big idea and have neglected the other members of the holy trinity. Ask a planner what the consumer insight is behind their latest campaign and you will be met by blank stares, and that disorientated look I described earlier as they search in vain for a PR exec to point at.

Secondly, by over egging the big idea pudding, we have made our jobs executional rather than strategic. By which I mean that integration has become a process, and often a tiresome, difficult one. We have become builders rather than architects. When faced with the challenge to do integration, we have responded by exploring the ‘how’. And the result has been the dysfunctional phenomena of all agency status meetings, dodgy processes that pass ideas through prisms and the spectre of ‘T shaped people’, whatever that means. The question we should have been asking, and which reframes integration and makes it achievable, isn’t ‘how’ but ‘why?’.

Why did clients suddenly want it? Put simply, they suddenly had lots of agencies and they wanted to feel like the effort was aligned. They wanted to make their money work harder, not low prices but maximised bang for buck. They wanted navigation through the changing landscape. They didn’t ever mention wanting campaigns that could run in every channel known to man, or a lead agency, or one big idea. Integration is about harmony, value and innovation.

Integration can save advertising if we start to think of it as an outcome not a process. You can’t build it and hope they’ll come, you have to aim for it, make it your ambition, let it seep through your veins and become part of your operating system rather than an app to be switched on and off. We need to let integration become its own reward. And it’s the punters who will ultimately see and decide if it’s integrated or not. We should ask one more question; why do people want integrated campaigns. For harmony, value and innovation read clarity, something which is valued, and exciting.

People out there in the real world don’t see the 360 degree plan, or experience every nuance of the carefully crafted campaign. They see fragments, they join up the dots, interpret and deconstruct. ‘Ask not what your advertising does to people, ask what people do to your advertising’, is a retro ad phrase about to come back into fashion.

If we believe in outcomes over process, then there’s a massive evaluation point here. We should be finding clever, consumer centric ways of picking up people’s different experiences of a brand’s communications. We spend too much time measuring out campaigns in the coffee spoons of impacts and ratings, and not enough time seeing what the consumer sees. The metrics of integration are not awareness, recall or impact; the magic formula is an understanding of ‘what do they value (and how much)’, ‘how interested are they (and what have they done)’ and ‘what’s the point (clarity of purpose)’. Measure those three things, do something clever with the numbers and finally we can all stop being bullied by A.I.s and blunt, boring, unreal tracking studies.

The good news is that we can get this right. Firstly, we need to re-balance the effort of our collective endeavour and focus on consumer insight again. Then, we need to walk away from the processes of integration, those curiously worded ‘new planning’ mantras, and get back to the basics of our disciplines and our craft. Finally we need to be a bit more like the consumers we are trying to talk with; chaotic, unpredictable and inconsistent. Here’s the alternative guide to integration:

• The simple insights are the best. I’m all for a bit of complexity and there’s no doubt we’re surrounded by it in the digital world. But sometimes I think we overlook the really straightforward, undemanding truths because they are, well, a bit undemanding. Here’s another way of looking at it; start with a simple truth and do some laddering, ask why and why and why and you tend to find a world of richness and insight lurking away there. Loads of texture rooted in a simple insight, not nonsense clinging to more nonsense.

• Get up close and personal. Observational research is back in fashion. Thanks to behavioural economics and neuroscience-lite, there is new found value in observing the consumer traits that punters can’t tell us about. Evenings in pubs, afternoons in supermarkets, eye tracking and spying are all back on the menu. In a recent study we researched the topic with mums first and then talked to their kids to find out the real truth. Intrepid planners need to find their sense of adventure again.

• Research isn’t the same as insight. We are all oversupplied with research, sitting at our desks not waving but drowning in data. And much of this data is commodity level stuff, building blocks and currencies used and produced with equal lack of imagination. Smart organisations of the future will provide insightful frameworks for interpreting and analysing information. Make friends with a dashboard developer today.

• Silos are the enemy. When our view of the consumer becomes blinkered the game is up. Each discipline has its own source of consumer research; planners have their groups, media people their currencies, DM their data, digital their traffic analysis, and so on. There’s no wonder they can’t be successfully knitted together at the end if they all start from different places. Find a shared starting point, nobody ever conceived in separate beds.

• Rubber gloves off. I have never, ever met a superplanner who has divided their career equally and successfully between every discipline. People love working with talented specialists who know what they are doing. Return to source, sometimes it feels like we’re all a bit embarrassed by our core skill. And it’s a happier way to live.

• Walk away from the process. To paraphrase a saying originally aimed at econometric models, ‘integrated campaigns are like sausages, you don’t want to see them being made’. The processes I’ve seen are too rigid and too uncreative to allow great things to flourish. Comedians are funny, they don’t have a funny process. Outcome not process.

• Normal people don’t care about advertising. This doesn’t mean that we should stop caring, but this insight can lift at least one neurosis from our furrowed brow. No consumer has (or will) ever complain that the print work is tonally inconsistent with the TV ad, or that the testimonial strategy is off brief in digital. In fact consumers are playful creatures when it comes to advertising and they are happy to be treated to a chocolate box of brand delights. Matching luggage is our original sin.

• Cupboards should be organised, not communications. I think we are in danger of over planning. Firstly life isn’t that neat, secondly we create a model of effect which is unrealistic, and thirdly our business has become faster and more opportunistic which calls for fleetness of foot. Somebody clever once said that the map is not the territory, and sometimes it feels like the comms laydown is confused with reality. It isn’t real.

• Consumers are mad. That is, irrational, illogical, untruthful. And yet we play them with a straight bat. Keynes once said “there is nothing so disastrous as a rational investment policy in an irrational world”. Mirroring is the strongest sales technique and we should be meeting our target market with a glint in our eye and pencil up one nostril. Brands should be unexpected, surprising, challenging. Integrated communications all too often produces the opposite; more of the same, yawn, consumer coma.

• It’s time for remuneration. We need a model which values what we do. The current model is barmy; production mark ups, media kick backs, free planning, loss leaders and more (or less depending on how you look at it). One agency we work with is looking for a Return On Idea formula, that’s the way to go and good luck to them. Clients are culpable in this, you get what you deserve.

The top tips:

Why does your client want integration? Their desired outcome holds the key to this and yet I bet nobody has ever asked that question. Harmony, value, innovation.

Why would a consumer want integration? What is the outcome as seen from the couch and the aisle and the laptop. Clarity, valued stuff, excitement.

One big insight, not one big idea. Not lots of little ones that get you nowhere. Gorgeous things can grow from the big ones.

This was meant to be fun. Advertising’s magic is that it is the fun bit of business. We over-plan ourselves into procurement departments.

Think outcome, measure outcome. There is a new evaluation standard out there and the sooner we drop yesterday’s tools the better.”

Prior to Joining MediaSense, Ryan was Principal Consultant with Billetts and Account Director at Profero, the leading independent digital agency.

Graham Brown commented: “We are delighted that Ryan is going to be working with us. He is a first-class operator, highly rated by clients and agencies alike. Most importantly, he understands the limitations of applying a traditional auditing approach to the evaluation of digital channels, and is excited about the prospect of building a different and more relevant service”.

Ryan Kangisser commented: “I am very excited to be joining MediaSense. They are developing a fresh and potentially transformational approach to managing performance in digital channels. It’s a great time to join them and I’m looking forward to putting new media at the heart of their offering and to leading their digital charge.”

To see the story in Media Week click here

Clients have been forcing media agencies to pitch for accounts based almost solely on the low price they claim they can negotiate from media owners.

Media owners are in turn rebelling and refusing to give extra discounts.
Increasingly clients are able to go direct to data-rich media owners and technology makes this easier.

The debates were heated and few punches were pulled. In conclusion, there were a number of interesting suggested actions put forward by the panel:

1) SET UP A MEDIA REGULATOR

There is a case for setting up a media regulator, with the Financial Services Authority as a model, to monitor media buying and selling. The client body ISBA is the most appropriate organisation to drive the establishment of such a regulator.

2) EXAMINE THE ROLE OF AUDITORS

In tandem with this, the role of media auditors in negotiations needs closer examination to ensure a fair price is being paid for media.

3) AGENCIES NEED TO DEVELOP A SOUNDER BUSINESS MODEL

Urgent action is needed to ensure the future of media owners and agencies, in particular to develop a sound business model for media agencies that are in danger of disintermediation.

4) FIND A CLEAR MEASURE OF MEDIA VALUE

Faced with being viewed as a commodity, the media sector (owners and media agencies) needs to act in unison to redefine its category and develop a clear measurement system of the value it creates.

5) CLIENT EDUCATION

Clients have a role in educating their internal stakeholders on the value of media and to support the development of a more precise measurement and fairer remuneration system.

6) GREATER CLIENT UNDERSTANDING BY AGENCIES

Agencies must realise the time pressures clients are under and make only relevant proposals to experiment with media choices.

All in all a clear clarion call for change in the media industry and a number of areas of significant overlap with our own views on the current status quo.

To read the full report of the debate and view a video clip summarising the conclusions click here

In his speech he argues that transformational change is required now in the marketing communications industry to ensure that clients and agencies maximise the opportunity for brilliant and effective work.

In summary, he believes that there are eight areas that in combination, the response to which by the agency word could lead to transformational change for the industry:

-the changing role of consumers
-ownership of the strategic agenda
-the relevance of the line – ATL/BTL/TTL
-open sourcing for ideas
-the impact of digital
-outcome based compensation
-new advertriser-media owner relationship model
-increased pressure on overheads

He also identifies five opportunity areas for clients to address to help create an environment in which this transformational change can take place:

-invite agencies into your world
-clarify purpose (what, who and how)
-work at the relationship
-set and stick to best practice
-address the emergence of procurement functions

We couldn’t agree more!

To read the whole speech, click here:

At MediaSense, we believe that a more structured and collaborative approach to managing media agencies is long overdue.

We are no longer convinced that managing relationships through the outcome of cost-centric benchmarking and go-to-market account reviews best serves the interests of clients or agencies because they are so disruptive to the overall relationship.

MediaSense will now offer the Aprais system as a key part of our Media Governance service portfolio to clients both in the UK and internationally.

For brand owners, using Aprais helps improve relationships and performance over time; embeds strong and consistent agency management processes; and it reflects a client’s commitment to long term, open business relationships.

For agencies, Aprais enables clear and consistent management of client relationships; it ensures that fair, objective PBR metrics are in place; it aids account tenure by flagging issues early on and it can also help improve client behaviours, by providing a transparent environment for relationship assessment.

Andy Pearch, co-Founder, MediaSense said: “Core to our offering is the belief that constructive and collaborative management of relationships is long overdue in the media services industry, where audit and pitch have become the default mechanisms for relationship management. Our new partnership with Aprais provides MediaSense with a robust platform from which to practice what we preach.”

Libby Child, Managing Director, Aprais UK said: “We are delighted to have formed this Partnership with MediaSense who share our view that the best work is usually grounded in the strongest relationships. They are deeply immersed in the media industry, so the opportunity to extend the reach of Aprais into this underserved area is very exciting for us.”

To see the story on Brand Republic, click here:

http://www.brandrepublic.com/News/992781/MediaSense-announces-client-management-deal/

In a nutshell, this is MediaSense’s business mantra!

To see the story in Advertising Age click here

http://adage.com/cmostrategy/article?article_id=142261