What Do You Think of the promo 100?

I got a call last month from an agency executive looking to speak about the promo 100 – or, more accurately, to speak about his agency’s performance in this year’s promo 100.

We first discussed the factors used to calculate our annual rankings – net revenues, two-year growth, number of years in business – and the probable reasons why his agency didn’t fare so well this year (at least compared with 1999). Then he asked me what the purpose of the promo 100 is, and what I thought readers should be gaining from it.

To be honest, I had a little trouble immediately responding to him, because it was a question I hadn’t considered in awhile.

What I eventually told him was that, first and foremost, we want to give our readers – 80 percent of whom are brand marketers – an accurate and informative look at the quality and quantity of promotion services available to them. Secondarily, and only secondarily, we want to provide a forum that recognizes the performance of some of the industry’s best agencies, I said.

Yes, the promo 100 can look like a racing form on first blush. That is not the intent. The promo 100 does not – or, at least, should not – imply that an agency which ranks No. 5, say, is 20 times better than an agency which ranks 100th. Its purpose is to highlight all 100 agencies, each of which has its own merits.

Of course, there needs to be some way of differentiating among the agencies on the list. In launching the promo 100 in 1993, the magazine’s founders decided a typical listing of companies by revenue offered little value – “the equivalent of a New York City parade [that is] vastly more important to those taking part in it than those who are looking on,” in the words of then-editor and publisher Kerry E. Smith.

So they devised the existing formula, which does pay service to the largest players in the industry, but also rewards the ability of smaller shops to grow at a faster rate – provided they have the desire and, of course, the talent to do so. The age factor is used to give a nod to established, mid-sized agencies that don’t quite have the revenue heft of some peers, but also don’t have the entrepreneurial nimbleness of others (as well as to keep fly-by-night shops from stealing some attention from worthier companies).

YOUR THOUGHTS HERE

But since the promo 100 is an editorial service for readers, I’d like to open up the discussion with the readers. We want to know what you think.

Marketers: What do you get out of the promo 100, and how do you use it? What information do you consider most useful? What data should we be highlighting more, or highlighting less?

Most importantly, what do you think are the most important characteristics of a good agency – an agency you’d like to work with? How should we reflect that in the promo 100?

Agencies: Answer the same questions, based on both your own perspective and what you’ve heard from clients. Be objective, taking the industry as a whole into consideration and not just your own personal goals. (“We dropped 10 spots in the ranking. You should change the formula,” is not an objective response.)

We’ve heard a lot of suggestions over the years on how best to rate an agency – strength of client list, quality of top executives, strategic vision, business efficiencies, diversity of services. These certainly are factors we use in determining our Agency of the Year and the other shops we profile each June. But they are not quantifiable determinants that can be used in a ranking.

There may, however, be other things we’re overlooking. You’ve got your opinions. We encourage you to voice them.

I’d like to thank the Promotion Marketing Association for graciously allowing us to present the second-annual Entertainment Marketing (EMMA) Awards at its Star Power conference in May. Judging by the number of EMMA winners on the attendee list, the event in Los Angeles was a great forum at which to hand out this year’s awards.

I’d also like to thank this year’s winners, as well as the many entrants that didn’t take home a prize, for making this year’s program such a success. We launched the EMMAs to recognize the importance of entertainment marketing within the promotion industry; it’s gratifying to see the program receive such support in return.

However, I would like to clear one thing up. A couple of my promo colleagues sheepishly told me after our presentation that I had uttered an embarrassing malaprop during the proceedings.

For others in the audience who may be under the same impression, I’d like to defend myself: The well-known (but oft misquoted) line from William Congreve’s poem, The Mourning Bride, is: “Music hath charms to soothe a savage breast, to soften rocks, or bend a knotted oak.”

So there.