Recently, the advertising circle has "** up." On October 24, in response to the recent continuous fermentation and diffusion, WPP Dabang issued a statement:Announced the termination of the employee's contract and assisted in the investigation. The executives involved are believed to be GroupM China's chief investment officer, Di Fei. (EventWang is a creative platform for advertising marketers).
It is reported that Downfly left GSK in 2015 to join GroupM China, and was promoted to Chief Media Investment Officer in 2017. The other former executives who have been criminally detained are Yao Lan, former managing director of Digital ** Buying, and Diana Hong, former general manager of OTT and East China Buying. At present, it is not clear which merchants are involved, nor which customers are involved in media purchases. However, the aftermath and consequences of this incident are unimaginable.
"Eat rebates" have become a rule, and the rebate rate can be as high as 30%.According to the market research survey of the relevant departments, some corporate advertising department procurement personnel take kickbacks from sales representatives, and some actually take possession30%-40% of advertising costs。However, most companies have a clear understanding of the problems of this kind of "advertising rebates", but to a large extent, it is difficult to avoid, and it is even more difficult to solve the common interest mechanism in the sales process.
In fact, eating kickbacks has long become a "rule" in the advertising circle. Some media buying companies also charge "rebates", which take a percentage of the advertiser's advertising costsGenerally, it is around 5%-10%, and some of the proportion is as high as 30%.
Some people say,From the phenomenon of rebates and rebates, we can see layers of exploitation, which eventually leads to creativity having no money to pay, so it can only be copied back and forth, which truly reflects the current situation of the advertising market.
The existence of this phenomenon not only harms the interests of advertisers, but also undermines the level playing field in the advertising market. The occurrence of this WPP incident is undoubtedly a serious blow to the advertising circle.
In fact, in addition to the advertising circle, in fact, the same is true in the public relations and event circles.
Party B's model of earning the price difference leads to the chaos of "eating rebates".In the advertising, public relations, and activity circles, generally the cooperation between Party A and Party B is: Party A hands over the project to Party B, Party B sells part or all of the services to Party C, and Party B earns the price difference.
In this context, the "price difference" has a lot of room for operation, and we usually have a derogatory "eating rebate" in the Party B industry can also be called "rebate", the wording is neutral, and the attitude of the industry is also flickering.
It can also be understood as:: Eat rebates, the means is to ask the next family to give profits to themselves on the basis of the transaction price.
Party A takes the initiative to ask for the rebate ratio. In the process of cooperation, because the person in charge of Party A can play a decisive role, in order to get benefits, he will directly or implicitly ask Party B for the rebate ratio of the project, and Party B has to give a certain percentage of the rebate in order to get the project order.
Party B takes the initiative to ask for the rebate ratio. When Party B obtains Party A's project, the part involved in purchasing from Party C will find the corresponding downstream supplier for procurement, and here, Party B's company or individual also takes the initiative to ask Party C for rebates, for example, when the media purchasing company purchases advertising services from Party C (KOL, MCN), it will take the initiative to tell Party C the rebate ratio or ask Party C what the rebate ratio is.
Ethyl C is given upwards to the rebate. The above two are both active request types, and there are also C and B who have to take the initiative to provide rebates to the upstream (Party A) for the continuous operation of the company, which can also be understood as benefit fees.
In May this year, Li Xiang, the founder of Li Auto, exposed on Weibo the marketing chaos of some brands in the car circle getting a large proportion of rebates: there are brands and specific people, and the rebates can be as little as 10 and as many as 50. However, the post was deleted shortly after it was posted.
There is also a case that once caused a sensation in the car circle, "Shi Tao, the former executive deputy general manager of FAW-Volkswagen Sales Company, was sentenced to life for 33.03 million yuan, involving 48 bribery units", which caused a big deal in the industry.
According to the verdict at that time, Shi Tao was identified with 48 **, the largest of which was as high as 4.86 million yuan. Among the 48 bribe-givers, 10 bribe-givers were dealt with separately. Shi Tao was identified as **33.03 million yuan, and another 26.74 million yuan of huge property** is unknown. The bribes were offered to advertising companies and automobile companies. Among them, there are 14 public relations, advertising, media, exhibition and event companies.
DMG Entertainment Media (Beijing)** bribed Shi Tao with 1 million yuan to be responsible for the Golf, Suteng, and CC model advertising business projects**, with a cost of 19.5 million yuan; Beijing Daguan Zhanchuang Exhibition and Exhibition Co., Ltd. paid a bribe of 600,000 yuan, and was responsible for the production and construction of booths of FAW Audi, FAW-Volkswagen and other brand auto shows; Beijing Oriental Rende Advertising paid 6 bribes to Shi Tao before and after, totaling 2.4 million yuan, plus 3,000 euros, to fully develop Jetta's brand communication business; Changchun Jiguang Media Group *** bribed 550,000 yuan; Sichuan time-sharing advertising media*** paid a bribe of 3.85 million; Beijing Haichen Hengye Media Advertising Company paid a bribe of 500,000 yuan, and FAW-Volkswagen Sales Company was a provider of product publicity and crisis public relations business
It's not hard to see,The amount of bribes received by the advertising business is relatively high. Many of the above-mentioned Party B companies involved in bribery have either been pulled into the permanent blacklist of ** merchants by FAW, or have "disappeared" in the industry. The marketing communication department of the car company, which has huge marketing expenses, has become the hardest hit area for accepting bribes.
In 2021, Xu Feng, assistant director of BAIC New Energy Marketing Company, was sentenced to 7 years for 1.43 million yuan.
Between 2019 and 2020, in Company A's contract for Company B's "EX3 Project" and "EU5 Project", Xu Feng took advantage of his position as the assistant director of the company's marketing and communication department to work with his wife Li Zhenran (handled in a separate case) to use Li Zhenran's account to accept a transfer from Bai, the actual controller of Company A (handled in a separate case).The benefit fee is RMB 1.43 million
And 2021,Former 4 leading cadres in the field of marketing and advertising of a vehicle unit of Dongfeng CompanySuspected of ** crime, these four people are leading cadres in the marketing field of Dongfeng Company, responsible for vehicle sales, after-sales, key customers, advertising and other businesses. Some of them do not refuse cash, gifts and gifts given by dealers, advertisers and other management objects, and some invest in dealers and advertisers.
In recent years, there have been many anti-corruption cases involving senior executives of car companies and some heads of public relations, marketing, and marketing. InThe Internet, medical and other fields are also often caused by advertising business