Although I’m very fuzzy on how the compensation models are set up, I’ve been intrigued by agencies like Anomaly that have pursued other means of revenue than writing ads.
This story in Adweek mentions that Anomaly has lost Virgin America, but because of the unusual business arrangement, things sound complicated:
Virgin America’s split with the incumbent will take effect in January, said Jason DeLand, a partner at Anomaly.
“We decided to amicably part ways and wish them nothing but luck. We loved working on the business with them,” said DeLand. “The split was due, though, to taking away key business model opportunities where Anomaly could profit in a entrepreneurial way.”
Previously, Anomaly got a portion of the revenue generated by the sale of certain Virgin America products, on-board entertainment and entertainment sponsorships that the independent shop developed, DeLand said.
Can anyone shed some light on this? Does this mean Anomaly no longer will get money for “products” or other things they’ve created? Can you cut off a relationship like that just as easily as firing an agency?
This issue fits perfectly with the compensation issues I wrote about recently. If ad agencies get more involved in other parts of a client’s business, to the point of creating things that have a longer shelf-life than ads, who controls the revenue? If clients like Virgin America can pull the plug on an agency without warning, It certainly sounds like ad agencies would be discouraged from doing deals like this in the future.
