Lack of info why council members opposed ad deal

(Nov. 6, 2009) When Ocean City officials voted last week to designate the resort's advertising agency for next year and spend up to $3.9 million, at least some council members did not know how that money would be spent or where.

The members who opposed renewing the contract with the current advertising agency, MGH, did so because they felt the council was not given all the information regarding the prices charged by the competing firms, nor the chance to question the firms on their costs.

In a decision designed to have the city choose a firm based primarily on who had the most creative ideas for marketing the resort, the fees proposed by the firms were not viewed by the decision-makers until after the firms presented their ideas.

What City Council members received was a one-page list of each agency's total fee, not the actual bid packages or an explanation of how each planned to spend the remainder of the $3.9 million advertising budget. The bid packages remained with Director of Tourism Debbie Travers.

Neither was there an opportunity for the council to question the firms on how they would spend the city's money. The council was asked to make a decision days after receiving the summaries and with no further discussion on the costs.

The fees charged by the agencies range from $275,496 for MGH Advertising, the city's current and winning bidder, to more than $1.5 million for Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide.

"We didn't get to ask the companies about their fees and price details during the presentations, so I wanted to talk to them and ask why they gave us different prices and what exactly they would give us for the money. I don't know if we were comparing apples and apples," Councilman Jim Hall said.

On Oct. 27, the council voted 4-3 to stick with MGH Advertising, which has been the city's advertising agency for seven years, instead of switching to any of the seven other firms that also vied for the contract. Those council members who disagreed with the decision said they were not given sufficient information on the agencies' fees or enough time to review them to comfortably vote on a contract.

"I think it was a very long and important process, but I think we cut it off short at the end. We got a single sheet emailed to us with the prices and no explanation. That's why I wanted to talk to some of the firms some more," Councilman Joe Hall said.

The eight agencies made presentations to the council and Tourism Commission concerning their take on how to best market Ocean City as a vacation destination on Oct. 20 and 22. The following day the Tourism Commission met in closed session, opened the bids, held a discussion and recommended the city stick with MGH. Council members on the commission received the fee list at the meeting and the remainder got it via email that evening.

With no further opportunity to question the agencies, the council was asked to pick one four days later.

"I couldn't understand why somebody was $1 million dollars when somebody else was less than half that, so I wanted to question them," Councilwoman Margaret Pillas said. "All I wanted was the chance to talk to some of these people to find out what the value was they were offering for the money. They could have been offering something we could have used, and we'll never know."

Councilman Doug Cymek, who supported the continuation of MGH's contract, said he was shocked by the extreme differences among the agencies' fees but felt comfortable in accepting the Tourism Commission's recommendation after its discussion on the matter.

"For me, it was very simple. The Tourism Commission evaluated all the candidates, came back with a recommendation and rated [MGH] No. 1 in technical ability, and they were the low bidder. We had bids that were five-plus times higher than MGH," he said.

Though Joe Hall was the only dissenting voice whose negative vote was a vote against MGH and not against the process, he said it is time to move forward now that the decision has been made.

"I have not seen the results that I would like to see from them and I was disappointed we weren't going to explore some of other agencies proposals further, but now it's time to move forward and prepare the town for 2010. We'll have to work with MGH the best we can," he said.

TOTAL ANNUAL FEE SUBMITTED BY ADVERTISING AGENCIES

z MGH Advertising, Owings Mills, Md.: $275,496
z Hermann Advertising/Design/Communications, Annapolis: $315,000
z Siquis Ltd., Baltimore: $351,750
z Gray Kirk/VanSant, Baltimore: $400,000
z Williams Whittle, Alexandria, Va.: $577,788
z Pulsar Advertising, Washington, D.C.: $593,320
z Mullen, Pittsburgh: $648,000
z Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide, Washington, D.C.: $1,501,295