İspiyoncu çalışan Leo Burnett’ten “%17,65 komisyon” kaptı!
Leo Burnett, hakkında açılan yolsuzluk davasında sulh yolunu seçerek, ABD Ordusu’na 15.5 milyon US$ tazminat ödemeyi kabul etti.
Leo Burnett’in başı büyük dertte. Aşağıdaki AdAge haberinde, Leo Burnett’in eski müşterisi “US Army”yi (ABD Ordusu) dolandırdığı iddiasıyla aleyhinde açılan kamu davasında anlaşma yolunu seçerek 15.5 milyon US$ tazminat ödemeye razı olduğu anlatılıyor.
Olay şöyle gelişmiş, 2004 yılında işlerine bir şekilde son verilen (burası kesin değil, sadece öyle olduğunu tahmin ediyorum) Leo Burnett eski Başkan Yardımcısı (finans) Greg Hamilton ve Finansal Kontrolör Michelle Casey, “vicdanlarının sesini dinleyerek” yargıya başvuruyorlar ve ajansın müşterileri US Army’ye yaklaşık 3.4 milyon US$ fazladan geçirdiğini belgeleriyle iddia ediyorlar. ABD hukuk sistemindeki “whistle-blower” (düdük çalan) “muhbir/ispiyoncu vatandaş” yasasından faydalanarak 2004′te açılan davadan tam 5 yıl sonra 2.79 milyon US$ yani tazminat tutarının %17,65′i kadar komisyon alıyorlar. (Aslında tam olarak %18, ama kesintileri düşünce eminim %17,65′e denk gelir. 
)
Leo Burnett CEO’su Tom Bernardin, suçlamaları şiddetle reddetmiş ve yiğitliğe de bok sürdürmemek için aslında hakkımızı arardık ama dava uzamasın diye sulh yolunu seçtik gibilerinden zırvalamış. Dava zaten 5 yıl sürmüş, daha ne uzayacak? Gerçi Bernardin, Leo Burnett’e galiba 2006′da CEO olmuş, yani bu olaylarda pek dahli olmayabilir. Yine de şirket geçmişini savunur pozisyonda kalarak bu iddialara “sözde yolsuzluk” olarak davranması başını yiyebilir. Bu arada muhbir, ispiyoncu, “whistle blower”, Greg Hamilton halka açık bir biyoteknoloji şirketinde hala para pul işlerinden sorumlu dürüst adam olarak tutunabiliyor. Artık 2.79 milyon US$’dan payına düşen %’50′yi de çatır çatır yer. Boşuna dememişler Amerika’ya fırsatlar ülkesi diye… Bizde olsa çoktan zorunlu emekli olup Gökova’ya yerleşmişti. Zaten bizde kimse ekmek kapısına ihanet etmez!
Leo Burnett’iyse ABD devletini, hatta daha da vahimi “vergi verenleri” kazıklayan, hem de bunu McCann gibi üçüncü dünya ülkelerinde değil de, ABD sınırlarında yapan bir reklam ajansı olarak oldukça zor günler bekliyor olmalı. Publicis hızlı bir numara yapıp Leo Burnett’i başka bir markayla everirse şaşırmayın. Zira ABD’de ”Corporate Governance” sonrası dönemde halka açık şirketlerin, özellikle vergi veren vatandaşın parasını çalmakla itham edildikleri bu tür skandallarına cinayet kadar kötü gözle bakılıyor.
“Leo’nun kemikleri sızlıyordur, yattığı yerde ters dönmüştür” falan diyemeyeceğim zira o da yapmıştır, hatta alasını yapmıştır. Ama MadMen dönemi böyle şeyler zaten pek mübahmış. Hoş bizde hala mübah değil mi? Neticesinde Leo Burnett’in yaptığı iddia edilen fena şeyler “ajansın içinde yapılanmış olan internet departmanını tedarikçi gibi göstermiş” olması ve “diğer tedarikçilerin faturalarını şişirmiş” olması. Size bir yerlerden tanıdık geliyor mu? Şu Ergenekon savcısı eli boşalınca bizim sektöre bir el atsa ya…
Cem Argun.-
Leo Burnett Settles ‘Army of One’ Suit for $15.5M
Agency Continues to Deny Army’s Claims of Overbilling for Campaign
By Jeremy Mullman
Published: January 06, 2009
CHICAGO (AdAge.com) — Leo Burnett will pay $15.5 million to settle allegations that it overbilled the U.S. Army for work on its “Army of One” campaign, the Justice Department announced today.
Tom Bernardin, CEO, Leo Burnett
The suit was a result of whistle-blowing by two former Burnett employees. Among the allegations in the lawsuit, filed in 2004: Burnett was treating the work of its own internet unit as if it was performed by a third-party contractor, as well as inflating the costs of subcontractors it worked with, in order to increase its profits.
“The American people trust us to ensure their tax dollars are spent appropriately and we will continue to aggressively seek out and investigate those who intend to defraud the Army and the American taxpayer,” said Brigadier Gen. Rodney Johnson, commanding general of the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command, in a statement.
Denies wrongdoing
Burnett in a statement denied any wrongdoing and noted that it did not admit any liability as part of the settlement. “Leo Burnett strongly denies the claims in this civil proceeding and believes the government’s claims have no merit,” Burnett CEO Tom Bernardin wrote in a memo to the agency’s staff that was provided to Ad Age by an agency spokeswoman. “In fact, we seriously considered fully litigating the matter. But litigation can be a long, expensive and uncertain process, and the time devoted to the lawsuit would be better spent serving our clients and managing our own growth.”
As a result of agreeing to a settlement, Burnett avoids the risk of being barred from future government contracts.
The agency also noted that the amounts involved had been previously accounted for and therefore would not have any impact on the earnings of its parent, Publicis Groupe.
The whistle-blowers, ex-VP Greg Hamilton and ex-Comptroller Michelle Casey, will receive a $2.79 million share of the settlement.
As part of the settlement, the government is joining the settled civil whistle-blower lawsuit rather than seperately pursuing its own civil or criminal case, effectively ending the matter.
Burnett had the U.S. Army’s ad account from 2000 through 2005. Though the suit was filed in 2004, Burnett did try to defend the account in a review that took place in 2006 but ultimately lost the $1 billion account to Interpublic Group of Cos.’ McCann Erickson.
~ ~ ~
Ira Teinowitz contributed to this report.
No related posts.
Benzer yazı sizi Yet Another Related Posts Eklentisini kullanarak getirdi.
AdAge Update: http://adage.com/agencynews/article?article_id=133688
Leo Burnett tainted by army billing fiasco
CEO Is Unperturbed, but This Can’t Be Good for the Agency, Say Search Execs
CHICAGO (AdAge.com) — Leo Burnett’s $15.5 million payment to the U.S. Army to settle over-billing claims last week puts the matter to rest legally, but still stirs up issues for the agency’s increasingly urgent pursuit of major new-business wins.
The suit, filed by two former employees and later joined in by the government, accused the agency of manipulating its billings by leaving out cheaper third-party contractors when calculating its average hourly cost, and also of treating its own affiliates as contractors.
Burnett admitted no liability, saying it agreed to settle only to avoid the cost and hassle of litigation. It also said it first brought the issue to the Army’s attention back in 2002, and noted how “complicated” the Department of Defense’s contract provisions were.
Still, being tied to the “National Procurement Fraud Initiative” can’t be good for business, can it? “It’s not a concern at all,” said Burnett Worldwide CEO Tom Bernardin. “Anybody who has even a superficial concern about it would take the time to inquire, and when the inquiries come I’m prepared to argue very easily why we chose to settle vs. incite.”
“One hundred percent of [current clients] were not concerned,” Mr. Bernardin said. (Ad Age called several major Burnett clients to gauge reactions: Philip Morris and McDonald’s declined to comment, while Hallmark and Allstate didn’t return phone calls.)
‘Going to be an issue’
But veteran agency search consultants disputed that view. “Yes, it absolutely is going to be an issue,” said veteran search consultant Jane Bedford. “Prospective clients are going to read about it, they are going to note it and they are going to bring it up. They may ultimately decide to go forward, because Burnett is a fine institution, but it’s going to be an issue.”
Another veteran consultant said it’s the last thing an agency needs in a downturn, when CMOs are even more skittish than usual about having to explain any hire with a hint of public scandal — even a resolved one. “You know that old saying about how nobody ever got fired for hiring IBM?” the consultant said. “Well, Burnett is not IBM anymore.”
While the shop did post growth in North America last year, much of that was fueled by a major increase from longtime client General Motors, a development that made the shop more dependent on its most precarious client, which has pledged to cut $600 million in marketing expenses by 2012.
The agency suffered only one significant loss last year, PetSmart, and managed to win a number of smaller accounts, including Harrah’s Caesar’s brand, the International Sleep Products Association and the vacation club Exclusive Resorts. But none of the new accounts are particularly material at a place accustomed to handling the likes of GM, Philip Morris, Kellogg, Nintendo and Samsung.
Major government accounts such as the $1 billion U.S. Army business — for which Burnett produced the “Army of One” campaign from 2000 to 2006 and which subsequently decamped for McCann — are on that scale, of course. In settling with the Army, the Publicis Groupe agency may have kept future government work an option as well, although in recent years ad agencies that have had issues with government contracts — Ogilvy & Mather’s time-sheet flap with the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy earlier this decade and N.W. Ayer with the U.S. Army during the 1980s — found future federal business elusive.
‘Radioactive’ Draft
They also found general business accounts elusive, at least in the short term. Ogilvy struggled to land in account pitches for a period after it was busted for an overbilling scandal with ONDCP. That case involved criminal convictions, but even non-criminal scandals, such as DraftFCB’s split with Walmart following what was deemed to be inappropriate contact between the agency and Walmart Senior VP Julie Roehm during the review, made Draft what consultants called “radioactive” for a while with many would-be clients.
Burnett’s settlement ended any possibility that the agency itself could face criminal or civil penalties but leaves open the possibility that the Army could “debar” the agency from competing for government work.
Government contracting rules say only “responsible contractors” can bid, and a government agency can keep contractors from bidding if they are deemed irresponsible. That rarely happens, and the periods for which contractors are debarred vary. (Ayer, which created the “Be all you can be” campaign, was suspended for two years over accounting and billing improprieties, but the ban was lifted after the case settled.)
Scott H. Amey, general counsel for the Project on Government Oversight, noted that Burnett’s agreement states it doesn’t release “the suspension or debarment of rights of any federal agency.” Army spokesman Paul Boyce declined to say whether the Army would pursue any debarment.
A more likely outcome, according to contracting officials, is that the settlement could make other federal agencies wary of awarding Burnett new contracts, at least in the short term.
“Independent of the technical slap on the wrist, this is a negative impact on their brand equity for government work,” said Al Martin, former director of accession policy in the office of secretary of defense and a consultant for advertising agencies on Defense Department business for 25 years. “It’s a near-term image problem.”