I am a big admirer of Tim Broadbent but I do feel both the analysis and the rather depressing conclusions of his article (Campaign, 24 March) need to be challenged.

It is not the case that the new industry remuneration guide is going to be published by ISBA ("clients saying what agency charges would please them"). The guide is a joint effort by ISBA and IPA. I know because they jointly commissioned me to author it.

We also consulted other trade associations. Nor did David Haigh, in his 2004 report for the IPA, say agencies can only make profit by drastic cost-cutting. WPP's results were impressive and I don't recall slash and burn there.

It is simply not true that "ad agencies are different from other consultants because they execute strategy too". Most of the consutling giants make far more revenue from project management and implementation than from providing consultancy advice. Broadbent writes:"For 100 years, agencies themselves said they (agencies' strategic and creative services) should cost nothing at all." He knows, as we all do, that in the pitch process at least, that is still true.

My analysis of why the industry is in a bind on remuneration would definitely include the way pitches have grown more extreme. The analysis would also include, as Tim did, the growing influence of the procurement function. I absolutely don't see this influence as malign - it is the job of the buying specialists to look at three things above all: value, quality and continuity of supply. Value is difficult to assess with the prevalent "people hours" fee system - a measure of input, not output or deliverables.

This bring me to my third factor: payment by results. To me, the main problem with PBR is that a year is not long enough to judge whether most campaigns have worked. So why would clients and agencies be prepared to gamble more than half of the agency's "salary" on a favourable short-term outcome?

I do wholeheartedly agree with Broadbent that agencies "need to develop new payment systems". But I strongly believe the new systems will only work if they are jointly developed, jointly negotiated and jointly implemented. The guide is not going to stake all on one miracle solution.

We are arguing for a more constructive negotiating process, which accepts both sides should be striving for efficiency, and both sides, in their respective businesses, should be seeking to maximise their profitability, provided they meet their customers' needs. The ad agency of the 60s was a generalist deparment store. All agencies in the new century, even creative agencies, are specialists. Specialists offer badly needed expertise and that expertise has to be paid for properly - with the best practitioners commanding the higher prices.

DOWNLOAD