Business Performance League 22 July 1996

Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO’s pounds 4 million Granada Retail win last week has put some light between AMV and Ogilvy and Mather in the battle for second place. O&M had a pretty good week itself, though, hanging on to the pounds 7 million Eagle Star business.

Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO’s pounds 4 million Granada Retail win last week

has put some light between AMV and Ogilvy and Mather in the battle for

second place. O&M had a pretty good week itself, though, hanging on to

the pounds 7 million Eagle Star business.

Other notable successes last week included Pillsbury and Labatt’s wins

for Lowe Howard-Spink and Bartle Bogle Hegarty’s Rolling Rock coup. The

latter two accounts both came out of Walsh Trott Chick Smith, the victim

of Whitbread’s acquisition of Labatt Brewing UK in March. Both Lowes and

BBH are established Whitbread agencies.

For Lowes, the wins are especially welcome, firing a salvo or two in the

direction of those who have been critical of the agency’s new-business


BBH remains outside the top 30 following its W. H. Smith loss, but a

number of budgets on wins such as Ray-Ban and Wallis are still to be

confirmed as the agency claws its new-business billings account back

into the black.


Business Performance League 22 July 1996


Rank Rank Agency               Latest          Total    Total    Net

this last                      account gain   billings billings billings

week week                                      gained   lost    gained

                                               pounds   pounds  pounds

                                                  m       m        m

 1    1   M&C Saatchi          PC World         70.0      -      70.0

 2    2   Abbott Mead          Granada Retail   45.2*    6.1     39.1*

          Vickers BBDO

 3    3   Ogilvy and Mather    Helene Curtis    36.7     3.0     33.7

 4=   5   Euro RSCG Wnek       Vidal Sassoon    25.6*    5.0     20.6*


 4=   4   Foote Cone Belding   Andrex Ultra     21.4     0.8     20.6

 6    6   Saatchi and Saatchi  Calder’s Ale     32.0    12.3     19.7

 7    7   Publicis             Canadian Tourist

                               Commission       27.0     7.4     19.6

 8    9   Cowan Kemsley Taylor Gateway 2000     14.0      -      14.0

 9   10   Young and Rubicam    Canderel         19.0     6.0     13.0

10    8   Walsh Trott Chick    NetStation       16.5     4.0*    12.5*


11=  11   McCann-Erickson      Midnight Sun     17.0     6.3     10.7

11=  15   Banks Hoggins        Referendum Party 10.7*     -      10.7*


13   12   Simons Palmer        Golden Eagle     10.15     -      10.15

          Clemmow Johnson

14   13   St Luke’s            Eurostar         10.0      -      10.0

15   14   Bates Dorland        Regaine          12.9     3.4      9.5

16   27=  Lowe Howard-Spink    Labatt’s         16.7*    7.7      9.0*

17   16   Rainey Kelly         Emap             10.0     1.2      8.8

          Campbell Roalfe

18   17   Lansdown Conquest    Granada Sky       8.0       -      8.0


19=  18=  BST-BDDP             First Alert      12.0     5.0      7.0

19=  18=  Advertising          Airtours          7.0       -      7.0


21   20   J. Walter Thompson   Law Society      14.0     7.2      6.8

22   21   McCann-Erickson      DSS Smartcard     7.0     0.3      6.7


23   22   Mortimer Whittaker   Daily Mail Group  6.2       -      6.2

24   23   Grey                 Taunton           7.0     1.2      5.8

25=  24=  Poulters             Redrow            5.5       -      5.5

25=  24=  Bedrock Advertising  Proton            5.5       -      5.5

27   26   Da Costa and Co      Talkland          5.2       -      5.2

28=  27=  SMI Group            PSINet            5.0       -      5.0

28=  27=  Leagas Shafron       Tomy Toys         5.0       -      5.0


30   30   Mitchell Patterson   Harley Street     4.9       -      4.9


Source: Campaign (wins reported in 15 Dec 1995 issue, or since)

*Amended figures. Queries to John Owen on 0171-413 4229



CAM # 26:07:96






Photograph (omitted)

Is it just me, or is everybody obsessed with sex? The Advertising

Standards Authority is getting hot under the collar with a debate on

Taste and Decency this week, while only a few days ago even that dusty

old organ, the Marketing Society, turned its attention to matters of a

saucy nature.

The Marketing Society, bless ’em, took a ‘not too solemn look’ at

advertising morality, sharing a few titters over the Wonderbra and Club

18-30 ad campaigns before hearing how darn successful they were.

According to the tide of debate, sex can be jolly effective if it’s

relevant and humorous. Sales go up, PR adds to awareness and everybody’s

happy. Yet another informative and useful talk chez MS.

Then along comes the ASA to put a damper on things. The ASA is not quite

so sure that the public shares the ad industry’s generally liberal views

on sexy ads and is worried that it might be a teensy bit out of touch.

The question is whether there’s a growing gap between what the public

finds tasteless and what the ad industry feels is acceptable. The

answer, of course, depends on who you’re talking to. There are consumers

out there who couldn’t give a damn that a Club 18-30 ad has the

strapline, ‘beaver espana’, and are possibly more likely to take up the

offer than if they were promised continental brekkie and a heated pool.

The responsibility for protecting the innocent, surely, lies squarely

with the media people. We all know that good media buying is

fundamentally about hitting the target market with as little wastage as

possible. In the case of potentially controversial ads, that means

ensuring that they are positioned in such a way that your average ageing

aunt won’t have them shoved in her face every time she pops out to Kwik


The ASA should look more closely at the care with which such campaigns

have been planned and bought to minimise exposure to those likely to

take offence.