GlobalHue Defends Handling of Bermuda Account; Suggests Criticism is Racially Motivated

GlobalHue, the agency at the center of allegations that its billings on the Bermuda Tourism account were excessive, has spoken out to defend itself — and to criticize BNET for suggesting that spending more ad money on minority interest channel TV One that it did in The New York Times was “weird.” The agency also hinted, as it has in the past, that criticism of its billing and expenditures is driven by racism.

In a long note posted in the comments section of BNET’s coverage, GlobalHue wrote:

… the article itself only focused on specific expenditures found to be “weird” or essentially those directly targeting African Americans as opposed to the general market. The article completely overlooked the vast majority of expenditures targeted toward other consumer segments. We wonder if these were deemed “weird” because there is a belief that they would be ineffective in delivering an effective growth in tourism volume and spending in Bermuda.

On whether its spending in minority media was proportional compared to its spending in mass and mainstream outlets, GlobalHue wrote:

Expenditures on Gospel Music Channel and the Baptist Voice represented only 2.2% of the overall media budget … Expenditures on minority-targeted media TV One and Latina magazine represented only 7.5% of the overall media budget.

The backstory: Bermuda’s auditor general produced an audit report in February detailing GlobalHue’s expenditures and billings on the Bermuda Tourism account. The report said that the account was overbilled by $1.8 million; that commissions on some media buys had gone as high as 181 percent (media commissions are usually less than 10 percent); and that the agency had not returned discounts and credits to the client. GlobalHue later produced a breakdown of its adspend that showed media commissions at 16 percent. That breakdown showed that GlobalHue had spent $200,000 advertising Bermuda on the Gospel Music Channel, $525,000 on minority interest channel TV One, and $87,000 in Latina magazine. By contrast, $357,531 was spent in The New York Times, $308,270 on Time Warner’s Manhattan cable network and $44,983 in bridal/honeymoon magazines.

BNET’s take: Readers should follow the links in this item and in BNET’s coverage and decide for themselves whether GlobalHue’s handling of the Bermuda account is legit or not. The links will take you to BNET’s previous coverage, and also to coverage in the local Bermuda press. You’ll also find GlobalHue’s full statement (and some corrections made at GlobalHue’s request); the original audit report of GlobalHue’s billing; and GlobalHue’s own breakdown of its billing.

In addition, note that GlobalHue’s statement accuses me of racism for questioning its expenditures:

… perhaps you consider that these ethnic targets lack the interest or ability to travel to Bermuda. Or maybe there is the notion that … targeting African Americans may not actually have any basis in legitimate marketing.

For the record: There is nothing wrong with targeting African Americans with tourism ads (as if that even needs to be said). What is at issue is whether the money spent is proportional to the return it earned in terms of driving tourists to the island. Put simply, are Bermuda visitors more likely to be Gospel Music Channel watchers or New York Times readers?

At every step of this controversy, when GlobalHue’s handling of this account has been criticized, the agency has suggested that its critics are driven by racism. I’ll repeat what I wrote in March: This behavior is repugnant. Clients and taxpayers have every right to examine agency books; they should not be implicitly accused of racism when they notice that an agency’s numbers don’t add up and the shop happens to be owned by a black man.

• See BNET’s previous coverage of GlobalHue:
• GlobalHue’s Weird Bermuda Ad Expenditures
• iCrossing Lays off 30 Despite Landing Troubled Bermuda Account
• GlobalHue Accused of Overbilling Bermuda Account; Agency Plays Race Card