It took some time for Diversified Recruitment Advertising to fully comprehend the death sentence warranted by the Review Journal. We went through the expected stages - from disbelief, to denial, to anger.
After a few days, I replied back to Sherm Fredrick, publisher of the Las Vegas Review Journal with a plea for reconsideration. I requested a meeting, not expecting a response. Surprisingly, he granted a meeting.
In the meeting was Sherm Fredrick, publisher, Jack Harpster, Advertising Director, and Randa Todd, Classified Advertising Manager.
Brief introductions were made and I was asked to present my case. I started with the history of our advertising agency, dating back to 1995 when Jack had called Ted Stepien to open up a branch office for Classified USA. I expanded with the history of Ted placing the first help wanted ads in newspapers in 1947 when he opened Nationwide Advertising.
We discussed the RJ’s history of once recognizing, and then not recognizing, agency commissions. I emphasized that the offer (and deal) for the ad agency opening in Las Vegas was predicated on the RJ recognizing agency commissions. We even discussed the promise made by the RJ not to remove commissions as they did back in the 1980s forcing several advertising agencies to close their offices in Las Vegas.
We discussed the extensive relationships that existed between Diversified Recruitment Advertising and our clients, as well as their reliance on our professionalism to ensure their ads were placed properly.
As my presentation proceeded, it was evident that the RJ executives had no desire to change their position; the meeting was simply a formality to say they heard our position. Finally, I stopped and asked the RJ execs point blank: “Why are you removing the commissions?”
Their general response was that ‘agencies’ were responsible for the decline of revenue in the classified section of the newspaper and they had no obligation to honor their past promises. Obviously, they did not want to accept the fact that newspaper readership, as a whole, had been in steady decline and employers were getting results elsewhere.
Just to prod a little deeper, I asked that they expand on their beliefs as to why ‘agencies’ were destroying their business when, in fact, we were the ones managing the relationships and bringing them business.
The response delivered by the newspaper execs was one that I did not expect. They went into a 10-minute rant of how there were once only a few agencies, but now the newspaper was doing business with over 350 different agencies, all of which were extended an agency discount. And now these agencies competed against them for the same business they once controlled.
Knowing that there were not even 350 recruitment advertising agencies in the entire United States, let alone Las Vegas, I voiced my disagreement. They then read a laundry list of their ‘agencies.’ That list included Manpower, Eastridge, Appleone, Kellly Services, etc.
I interrupted and attempted to explain that those folks were ‘staffing’ agencies and not advertising agencies. The RJ execs clearly did not understand, or want to comprehend, the difference. They stayed on target with their ‘all agencies are evil’ mentality.
Seeing that they were not going to debate me as to the difference between an advertising agency and a staffing agency, I chose to deliver a line of questioning to better understand their overall position. My next question was as direct as my first, “How can an advertiser (client) that pays you money, be a competitor at the same time?”
The response delivered was actually somewhat logical. They stated that the agencies competed against their other advertisers for the same applicants. And because the agencies had sophisticated candidate management systems, they were building a database of all the jobseekers in Las Vegas by simply placing ads in different categories each week, to field applicants from all disciplines and industries. They would then database those candidates and not have to place ads in those categories as frequently. And when they did advertise, the ads would not have to be as large, because all they were doing was capturing new candidates that they had not already databased.
At best, it was an interesting conspiracy theory. However, I really don’t think the staffing agencies have the time to conspire such a plan. But nonetheless, I knew that if I wanted to salvage the relationship we had with the Review Journal, we would need to prove that Diversified Recruitment Advertising was not a staffing agency, and was not building a database of their readers.
In a final attempt of resolution, I asked if I could present evidence that would prove that we were simply managing our clients’ advertising budgets. And if that evidence supported that we were in fact not building a resume database, and not competing with the newspaper, if they would reverse their decision. Shockingly, Sherm said if we could produce such evidence he would reverse his decision.
Within 2 days I produced a report that detailed each client, their monthly expenditures with the Review Journal and our agency billings that demonstrated that we simply were an ‘advertising’ agency and not a staffing agency. I felt it was enough evidence for any logical person to understand that a wrong decision was made.
I was wrong. The response received was: We stand strong on our position. Effective January 1, 2002, we will no longer recognize agency commissions.
That day, the death sentence warranted by the Review Journal was confirmed.
Diversified Recruitment Advertising would die an unnatural death. During our short life span (1996-2001), we grew to become the leading recruitment advertising agency in Las Vegas and the largest client of the Review Journal in their classified (help-wanted) section. But it was that growth that killed us. Not because the growth could not be managed; but because the daily newspaper felt we were encroaching on their territory and were a competitive threat.
{ 0 comments… add one now }