Verizon Drops McCann for McGarry - Research Paper Example

Verizon Drops McCann for McGarry Bank of America (BofA), recently made changes in its global advertising and marketing agency. Following a review on advertisement agencies, the bank settled on WPP and dropped BBDO, which was responsible for marketing and advertising BofA worldwide. The need to make this change was a result of the institution’s resolve to restore a positive image to its customers and other people (Elliott). As earlier mentioned, Bank of America had carried out a review on the company’s advertisement agencies that necessitated the consideration of its advertisement account.

The bank carried the review in the wake of a financial crisis and recession that occasioned a rough time for recovery. In addition, the bank had earlier suffered from damaging publicity following a decision to charge a $5 fee for the use of its debit card (Elliot). The review was a determination of the agencies that BofA would use to propel its image to the public in a positive manner. Therefore, the bank invited all the agencies that handled its advertisement and marketing accounts as well as those that did not handle these accounts.

After the review, the bank agreed on having WPP handle its $2 billion global advertisement account and consequently cut its relationship with BBDO that started in 2006 (Elliott). Along with dropping BBDO, the bank consequently dropped the tagline “Bank of Opportunity” that was a creation of BBDO (Elliott). However, it is crucial to point out that WPP did not take over the worldwide marketing and advertisement of BofA from a newcomer’s perspective. In this case, WPP took over these roles from the bank as an expansion of its earlier relationship with BofA since it had an existing relationship with the bank as it conducted the bank’s branding responsibilities (Elliott).

The fundamental difference between WPP and BBDO lie on the approach of the holding companies’ pitches. The CEO of Omnicom, whereby BBDO is one of the holding companies, observed this difference. He noted that Omnicom gave its principal agencies, like BBDO, the responsibility of playing the key role in a new business (O’Leary). On the other hand, WPP ensured that the holding company was supported throughout the process of acquiring a new business. In addition, WPP’s holding agencies collaborate while pitching for a new business while BBDO’s approach does not encourage collaboration (O’Leary).

The main reason given for the change was the bank’s objective to position itself strategically to consumers and Wall Street while signaling a new dawn, which will help the institution repair its stained image. In addition, the institution wanted to shed the tagline “Bank of Opportunity” since it did not resonate with the prevailing economic conditions in America characterized by low consumer spending, recession, and crippled operations of small business (Parekh). Based on the aforementioned, the change in advertising agencies was inevitable for BofA.

In the wake of the “Occupy Movements” that targeted the bank, it was important for the bank to change its global marketing and advertising agency in order to project a positive image to the public. In effect, BBDO does not have the capacity to implement this objective due to its approach to operations of handling companies. Hence, BofA requires an agency that will ensure creativity in the advertisement and WPP appears ready to meet this challenge. Works Cited Elliott, Stuart. Bank of America Goes With WPP as It Changes Ad Agency Lineup.

New Yorker. 3 May .Web .1 Nov. 2012.. O’Leary, Noreen. Changing the Nature of the Beast. Adweek. 28 Feb. 2005. Web. 1 Nov. 2012. . Parekh, Rapul. Bank of America Moves Brand Advertising From BBDO to WPP. Ad Age News. 3 May 2012. Web. 1 Nov. 2012. .