Accountability vs. proof of performance
The article on media shops tracking accountability [National News, July 28] confuses the issues of accountability and proof of performance. While the story mentions that the ad industry is being called on to provide empirical evidence that it is doing what it is paid to do, this concern is not new. In fact, this task has been around for some time. More important, this is not accountability: Accountability means asking the agency to prove that it has chosen the most effective path for the client, from the first creative brief to the last measurement of results. What this article is really talking about is proof of performance.
Accountability is what we have been showing clients in direct marketing for the last 40 years—proof of performance, plus a lot more.
All of us verify or audit that the correct creative runs on the right networks/stations. At Wunderman, we input that information into our proprietary system, BRAD, which matches telemarketing/response data and cost data. We then use the system to see which parts of our buys are most effective and optimize those buys to give our clients the information they need to be successful.
Our accountability process is like AudioAudit on steroids. It's a proven and established system that takes proof of performance to the next level.
For the Record: A story on the rise of creativity in drug advertising [Aug. 4] misidentified Prevacid as a Pfizer medicine. It is developed and marketed by TAP Pharmaceuticals.
Adweek welcomes letters. Send them to Tim Nudd: E-mail firstname.lastname@example.org or fax (646) 654-5365. Include name, title, company and location. Letters may be edited for length and clarity.