Pages 69 to 80 of this weekend’s New York Times Magazine comprise a 12-page
advertorial from
Rwanda. The web address given should you want even more information is www.rwandatourism.com
– yes, Rwanda Tourism. Somehow I doubt that the amount of money that Rwanda
is going to make from tourism is going to come close to justifying the cost
of a 12-page advertorial in the New York Times Magazine.
The advertorial comes with a credit: it was "produced and sponsored by
Summit Communications", a company
whose sole purpose seems to be to publish advertorials in the New York Times.
Some advertorials, like that for Libya,
for example, are even on the web at nytimes.com.
So far this year, Summit Communications has produced advertorials for Rwanda,
Congo, and Sierra Leone. Last year it did Saudia Arabia, Kuwait, and Libya –
twice. Most of these countries come very low on transparency indices and very
high on corruption indices. Most of them, too, are unlikely to benefit greatly
from this type of exposure.
One can’t help but wonder how Summit Communications persuades these ministers
from highly corrupt countries to pay large amounts of money for advertorials
in the New York Times.
Now it’s true that the fee that Summit Communications charges has to be significantly
greater than the amount that Summit Communications has to pay the NYT. That’s
right and proper, of course: Summit has to produce the report, and make some
money for itself. But maybe – just maybe – some of that fee finds
its way into an offshore bank account controlled by the minister in question?
That can’t be the case: such a practice would make it easier to sell these advertorials,
but would also violate the Foreign
Corrupt Practices Act.
So how does Summit Communications – none of whose principals are named
on its website – manage to keep its sales going? I have no idea.
Felix, this is awesome, you have to go to their site and check out their ).
What weird people! What odd syncophantic questions! What bizarre business partners for the NYT! This isn’t like accepting advertorials from Milosevic revisionists — it’s much worse: Taha is in a league of his own.
Come on, Felix. Of course you know how they do their business. You write for (far better) publications that often engage in similar exercises.
I don’t think any corruption is necessarily involved (but who knows). Their salespeople,probably with grand titles like CEO or President, go to the country in question, or nobble them at the World Bank Annual Meeting, and tell them their country needs to raise their profile with serious decisionmakers. What better venue than The New York Times.
The difference in cost to just taking the ads themselves is justified by the “editorial” work to put the section together. And I’ll guess that Summit gets a reasonably good detail from the NYT Magazine because it takes multiples of pages every year.
But you knew that.
Hi guys, just read your posts and have some INTERESTING things to share with you all on who Summit Communications really are, how they operate, and their relationship with the media, as well as their other ‘media agencies.’
I didn’t come on this post by accident- rather it is part of an investigation into their activities, as a result of bizarre signs coming from their people.
First, i invite you to take a look at these sites:
http://www.unitedworld-usa.com, http://www.summitreports.com, http://www.universalnews-us.com, http://www.pmcomm.com,www.worldreport-ind.com, http://www.intercom-ltd.com, http://www.globusvision.com, http://www.images-words.com, http://www.pressemedia.com, http://www.interfrance-media.com ( this site is actually down)
You’ll see the common theme- they’re all ‘independant media agency’ outfits, all purely made to produce ‘special reports’ as they call them repeatedly in different publications.
Summit Reports-NY Times, United World-USA Today, Universal News- US News & World Report, PM Communications- The Telegraph, World Report- The Independant, Intercom- IHT, Globus Vision- Capital (German Business magazine), Images, Words – The Observer, Presse Media – Handelsblatt, Interfrance Media – Le Monde (actually seems to have failed)
Now, whats all these seemingly related companies all producing reports for known and less known newspapers and publications have in common?
Well- surprise- surprise- they are actually all owned by the same people, and are all registered in the UK on the same date, using dummy nominee company secretary and directors called ‘Joint Secretarial Services’ and ‘Joint Corporate Services’, who also use their address as the address of these dummy companies, including Summit Communications.
Getting fishy yet? There’s more.
All the above named websites and companies were registered this way in the UK using nominee directors and secretary, whether in the US, UK, or Germany.
If you do a whois search, you’ll find all websites registered using the same exact ip location (Fujitsi Internet Spain).
Things get weirder and more eyebrow raising comes.
All these companies had shares transferred from the entity AFA Press, which is also the’parent company’ (note my word entity well, as it and the others are all offshore constructs).
Note that no names or shareholders are listed on any of these companies documents( I’ll get back to this after finshing my argument…)
AFA Press is likewise registered in the UK with the same dummy nominees and dummy address, and whose documents state the above ‘media agencies’ are subsidiaries of AFA Press.
AFA Press’s documents then show that it had ‘shares’ transferred by Missions World, a company registered in the British Virgin Islands, and further the ultimate parent undertaking is the Cresent Trust (trust , not company…).
So to connect the dots – Crescent Trust owns Missions World (both British Virgin Islands Companies) which then transfers shares to AFA Press (uk registered) which then transfers share to its ‘subsidiaries’- including all named companies and including Summit Communications.
Now after following this extremely suspicious and suspect corporate setup ( money laundering nudge tax evasion nudge fraud corruption nudge nudge)the first thing noticed is that in all documents the real beneficial owner was very careful to hide his identity behind a classic web of offshore constructs and entities and make it difficult to trace his identity, including opening bank accounts in those companies name, which incidentally, are all by a Spain based bank called BBVA, which has a New York branch.
Remember all websites registered in Spain and banking conducted by a Spanish bank, which helps them out in their racketeering and money laundering activities- including circulation fraud and bribery of advertising department officials.
The real benefciary had 11,000,000 USD transferred from the trust, and concocted the scheme to launder the obvious ill gotten money and visit third world countries overcharging advertisers with mediocre reports ( some of their outfits are more professional, with Summit Reports being the more successful), while United World, which claims a long relationship with USA Today, is accused of circulation fraud and racketeering in league with top USA Today officials including Vice President of Advertising and Vice President of Advertising Administration and Ad Operations.
How did I get all this information? You’ll be surprised at what you can do with the internet today, including buying corporate records.
I originally investigated United World on behalf of a client, and then stumbled on this whole incredibly fishy setup and the secrecy behind the real owner, which is locked up in the British Virgin Islands, but which can be obtained if a serious investigation is carried into their activities.
You’re absolutely right about these suspicious fellows- they obviously have alot to hide and they are being uncovered as we speak by the Audit Bureau of Circulations and other bodies who were asked to look into it.
If you would like copies of corporate records documents, or interested in exposing these guys, just contact me, all incriminating documents will be freely available to all.
Cheers,
Ray Corbis
I used to work for these unsavory characters. I commend you are on you research. This is as you mention a network of companies all dircted by one extremelly paranoid and mafia Argentine named Alberto LLyarora. The purpose of creating so many companies is to deceive the governments he licks ass to in order to send back team after team but without having to explain the terrible quality of the reports he produces. This man is worth an investigation and should be in jail!
For more info, send me an email.
hahaha! great! well done for the research, ray!
i have a couple of things to add myself.
i also used to work for them but after some time, my conscience didn’t allow me to continue, so I quit.
1. they call themselves journalists and claim that they want to “portray the positive image of country XYZ” while all they care about is to make as much money from advertising as possible, while being more than willing to compromise their “independent reporting”.
2. they charge horrendous advertising prices for no value whatsoever.
3. their reports are not only terrible in physical quality (the paper, the printing etc.) but also in terms of content. they really make no effort whatsover.
4. they claim the readership of the magazine/newpaper they distribute with ie. 2.7 million readers for the NY Times, but they don’t audit their own readership at all. it’s ridiculous, no one reads their crap.
5. they get their clients by meeting them for “interviews” where the (always male) journalist doesn’t care at all about the response to the questions. it’s all a show in order to hide the real intent of the interview, which is to sell the adverts.
6. they always say that participation for the ads doesn’t depend on participation in the “promotional aspect of the report” (the euphemism for adverts that they teach their employees in some brain washing training camp in madrid before they start working there) while it certainly does. no advert, no published info about the company. fullstop. very simple.
7. they ususally promise that they will feature the whole interview which is something they never do.
8. they never go to the same country twice with the same publication (at least not within a time frame of 5 or more years) and they hardly ever send the same person to the same country again within their career in the company. why? because then you would have to deal with unhappy clients that paid huge amounts of money for no return. you basically couldn’t show your face anywhere again. they obviously don’t want that.
9. all of their publications are under one umbrella company called AFA. they claim “exclusive” collaboration with the magazines, because every subcompany only works with one publication. very tricky way of putting it.
10. the headquarter is in madrid, for all of them. it moved from madrid to london and then back to madrid. but when Summit Communications refer to the headquarter, they claim it’s in NY. with some address that doesn’t exist.
that shall suffice for now, maybe I can come up with some more later…
keep digging, those companies are so full of s**t, it’s painful to watch how even reasonably smart business people fall for it. no one has ever asked me whether we monitor the circulation at all…. but i have to say one thing: that company, AFA, that is mentioned above and the one i worked for, is certainly still the best out of all of them! i have heard much worse business practices from the competition. there is one company, for instance, called MEDIA PLUS, they tell all their clients during the sales pitch that they are leaving in a couple of days, so that they feel pressured into signing… and they also ask in their admission test, whether you feel comfortable lying to people to make a sale. i have seen and heard it with my own eyes and ears, so take it from me. they should get banned.
You should google the head of this group, Alberto Llaryora, and you will be surprized with some of this activities. People say that his “arms” in Spain are his lovers / secretary women named Carmen and Miriam.
He should be in jail or at least banned from entering the EU as three of his children are.
They are a bunch of crooks. The employees dont know half of the stories behind the company which is just money laundering.
I am appaled by this terrible “research” that is slandering the good name of a fabulous and truly regarded news establishment. Summit Communications are the last word in concise, insightful, objective reporting. Everyone knows that Rwanda is next year’s must-visit tourist location, surely. I hear that North Korea is a beautiful country full of charming people too.
Exactly on which grounds do you people call Alberto Llaryora a mafia person???!!!! Do you know him? Probably not. Well, I do, and I do know he’s a smart businessman who runs his offshore business like so many other millions of people around the world do. Not more and not less. If his practices were as obscure as you claim, he would have already been investigated beyond your blog. But he hasn’t, so stop your conspiracy theories. As for those “women in Spain” comment, what kind of “serious” information is that?? You’re all just jealous he makes money and you don’t. Regarding your judgement on the interview with Ali Mhd. Taha of Sudan as the “architect” of war, i’m sure the writer of this posting is american. Indeed how very american to ignore the full context of a situation they dont even understand. There were many architects in the Sudan civil war, sir. Take a trip, it helps.
Hi Veronica. Actually, I’m Belgian, and I’m quite well read up on Darfur. What else are you sure about?
Veronica, you are so charming! Oh, ignorance can be such a blessing…
I think you might have misunderstood the critique that is being targeted at Mr Llaryora. I don’t think anyone is really criticising the fact that people have offshore companies. I also don’t think that anyone is jealous of how much money he makes. I personally believe that a conscience cannot be weighed up in monetary terms. But that’s beside the point.
The point is that he claims to offer a service that companies pay lots of money for, a service he does not deliver and that is entirely fraudulent. I am sure you agree with me that if a peanut pack claims a content of 200g of peanuts and it ends up containing only 10g, there is something wrong about that. To put it lightly for someone who seems to misunderstood the complexity of things.
For issues like the peanut example, we have something in Europe and in the US called Consumer Protection, the concept might sound familiar to you. However, in AFA’s case, there is no Consumer Protection for the clients, while the magnitude of the operation and the fraud is certainly far larger.
Whether he’s personally speaking a nice chap to have a beer with on a mellow evening is something neither the companies that got ripped off, nor we on this blog, nor the investigators will care about. I am sure all those Enron guys were nice guys too.
Oh and Veronica, you did not defend any of the accusations that Tierry and Flimsy made, for instance, people that worked for the company before. Unless you work for them and are blind, deaf and highly stupid, you have no defense at your disposal. Oh, yes, I forgot… ignorance is a blessing. Good Luck.
Let’s bring your attention to one thing about these reports, whether you like to accept it or not. There is no such thing as negative publicity. Where do you think the money comes from to pay for these publications? Do you think that with the natural resources of these countries that they do not have money? Would you prefer the money to go towards an offshore account as you say, or to perhaps create some sort of exposure to what these countries can offer? I know the response, you would prefer it to go to the population, to creating and infrastrucutre, to providing for the public, but this is not always the case and you are very naive if you think so. At least this way there is some chance that with the added exposure that these countries are getting, it may generate some sort of revenue through tourism or investment. It goes some way to highlighting what these countries have to offer. Before reading these reports, were you aware of the strenghts of countries like Sudan and the DRC? Do you think that the interviewees and the governments are actually forced to hand over cash, do you think their arms are twisted so hard that they have to pay? No, and they know what they are getting, they are not ignorant and to treat them as so, shows a huge disrespect for some of the people who have been interviewed.
There have been supplements, country reports around for over 25 years. Have a look in the Economist, have a look in every single newspaper and magazine, you will find features on countries as at the end of the day, all publicity is positive. And within all of these reports, is advertising. Remember, there is no such thing as negative publicity, and by Felix bringing our attention to the Summit Communications feature on Rwanda Tourism, he has generated more interest in Rwanda, and for that matter in Summit Communications, Sudan and the DRC, so I must thank him for doing so.
What is also quite annoying is that you criticise young professionals working, starting off in their careers within media and publishing. I speak from experience, it was an excellent opportunity to meet some very interesting people, visit some beautiful countries, and word of mouth is an excellent way of promoting a country. Can many of you speak first hand about the beauties of countries like Sudan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, DRC and Rwanda, or do you just believe everything you read? Are the blinkers on so that you do not believe that the locals might be very kind and generous? Through recommendations I made, people came to visit me, or went to countries they would never think of going to, and have come away with some truly wonderful experiences. All this has generated revenue for these countries, which is what we all want. Is it not? You may believe the government’s to be corrupt but is this a reason to punish the population?
And to call the interviews odd and sycophantic, when you meet someone, do you only like to talk to them about yourself or are you interested in hearing something about their countries, themselves and their achievements? If you only talk about yourselves and there is no interaction the conversations must be rather boring. If the people being interviewed have granted you their time, it is only polite to show an interest in what their country can offer, what they have achieved, whoever it may be.
But at the end of the day, what this has done is generated interest in Summit Communications, in its reports, and in the countries that it has visited, so bravo, job acomplished!
Whatever your opinions are of Mr. Llayora, it is a free world, but he has given a lot of people a chance to get off to a good start in their career and I doubt you begrudge that, or do you?
In regards to Flimsy and Tierry’s comments, it must be nice to have such a lovely view on the world looking down from such a high horse! Come down!
Let’s bring your attention to one thing about these reports, whether you like to accept it or not. There is no such thing as negative publicity. Where do you think the money comes from to pay for these publications? Do you think that with the natural resources of these countries that they do not have money? Would you prefer the money to go towards an offshore account as you say, or to perhaps create some sort of exposure to what these countries can offer? I know the response, you would prefer it to go to the population, to creating and infrastrucutre, to providing for the public, but this is not always the case and you are very naive if you think so. At least this way there is some chance that with the added exposure that these countries are getting, it may generate some sort of revenue through tourism or investment. It goes some way to highlighting what these countries have to offer. Before reading these reports, were you aware of the strenghts of countries like Sudan and the DRC? Do you think that the interviewees and the governments are actually forced to hand over cash, do you think their arms are twisted so hard that they have to pay? No, and they know what they are getting, they are not ignorant and to treat them as so, shows a huge disrespect for some of the people who have been interviewed.
There have been supplements, country reports around for over 25 years. Have a look in the Economist, have a look in every single newspaper and magazine, you will find features on countries as at the end of the day, all publicity is positive. And within all of these reports, is advertising. Remember, there is no such thing as negative publicity, and by Felix bringing our attention to the Summit Communications feature on Rwanda Tourism, he has generated more interest in Rwanda, and for that matter in Summit Communications, Sudan and the DRC, so I must thank him for doing so.
What is also quite annoying is that you criticise young professionals working, starting off in their careers within media and publishing. I speak from experience, it was an excellent opportunity to meet some very interesting people, visit some beautiful countries, and word of mouth is an excellent way of promoting a country. Can many of you speak first hand about the beauties of countries like Sudan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, DRC and Rwanda, or do you just believe everything you read? Are the blinkers on so that you do not believe that the locals might be very kind and generous? Through recommendations I made, people came to visit me, or went to countries they would never think of going to, and have come away with some truly wonderful experiences. All this has generated revenue for these countries, which is what we all want. Is it not? You may believe the government’s to be corrupt but is this a reason to punish the population?
And to call the interviews odd and sycophantic, when you meet someone, do you only like to talk to them about yourself or are you interested in hearing something about their countries, themselves and their achievements? If you only talk about yourselves and there is no interaction the conversations must be rather boring. If the people being interviewed have granted you their time, it is only polite to show an interest in what their country can offer, what they have achieved, whoever it may be.
But at the end of the day, what this has done is generated interest in Summit Communications, in its reports, and in the countries that it has visited, so bravo, job acomplished!
Whatever your opinions are of Mr. Llayora, it is a free world, but he has given a lot of people a chance to get off to a good start in their career and I doubt you begrudge that, or do you?
In regards to Flimsy and Tierry’s comments, it must be nice to have such a lovely view on the world looking down from such a high horse! Come down!
Let’s bring your attention to one thing about these reports, whether you like to accept it or not. There is no such thing as negative publicity. Where do you think the money comes from to pay for these publications? Do you think that with the natural resources of these countries that they do not have money? Would you prefer the money to go towards an offshore account as you say, or to perhaps create some sort of exposure to what these countries can offer? I know the response, you would prefer it to go to the population, to creating and infrastrucutre, to providing for the public, but this is not always the case and you are very naive if you think so. At least this way there is some chance that with the added exposure that these countries are getting, it may generate some sort of revenue through tourism or investment. It goes some way to highlighting what these countries have to offer. Before reading these reports, were you aware of the strenghts of countries like Sudan and the DRC? Do you think that the interviewees and the governments are actually forced to hand over cash, do you think their arms are twisted so hard that they have to pay? No, and they know what they are getting, they are not ignorant and to treat them as so, shows a huge disrespect for some of the people who have been interviewed.
There have been supplements, country reports around for over 25 years. Have a look in the Economist, have a look in every single newspaper and magazine, you will find features on countries as at the end of the day, all publicity is positive. And within all of these reports, is advertising. Remember, there is no such thing as negative publicity, and by Felix bringing our attention to the Summit Communications feature on Rwanda Tourism, he has generated more interest in Rwanda, and for that matter in Summit Communications, Sudan and the DRC, so I must thank him for doing so.
What is also quite annoying is that you criticise young professionals working, starting off in their careers within media and publishing. I speak from experience, it was an excellent opportunity to meet some very interesting people, visit some beautiful countries, and word of mouth is an excellent way of promoting a country. Can many of you speak first hand about the beauties of countries like Sudan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, DRC and Rwanda, or do you just believe everything you read? Are the blinkers on so that you do not believe that the locals might be very kind and generous? Through recommendations I made, people came to visit me, or went to countries they would never think of going to, and have come away with some truly wonderful experiences. All this has generated revenue for these countries, which is what we all want. Is it not? You may believe the government’s to be corrupt but is this a reason to punish the population?
And to call the interviews odd and sycophantic, when you meet someone, do you only like to talk to them about yourself or are you interested in hearing something about their countries, themselves and their achievements? If you only talk about yourselves and there is no interaction the conversations must be rather boring. If the people being interviewed have granted you their time, it is only polite to show an interest in what their country can offer, what they have achieved, whoever it may be.
But at the end of the day, what this has done is generated interest in Summit Communications, in its reports, and in the countries that it has visited, so bravo, job acomplished!
Whatever your opinions are of Mr. Llayora, it is a free world, but he has given a lot of people a chance to get off to a good start in their career and I doubt you begrudge that, or do you?
In regards to Flimsy and Tierry’s comments, it must be nice to have such a lovely view on the world looking down from such a high horse! Come down!
I agree with Veronica/SH#7: These dictators are getting “their” money’s worth when it comes to paying for rehabilitation attempts in the first world’s press. I already hold the dictators in contempt, but I also extend my disgust to those cronies and sycophants like Veronica who willingly help perpetuate such regimes for cash. By working for, instead of against, corrupt dictators who are actively setting back the prospects of these promising countries by decades, they too are
responsible for the misery these places have to endure. It’s an immoral pursuit by any measure.
But in the end, it also takes the first-world press to publish such drivel, which brings us back to the NYT, and their lamentable decision to publish the Taha interview.
Can’t wait for the Mugabe special insert. Or did I miss it already?
And I’ve heard the rulers of Myanmar would like to show you their posh new capital in the jungle. Maybe you could approach Architectural Digest for a special insert?
Maybe Popular Mechanics would be amenable to a pictorial of North Korean missiles, built under the genius leadership of our Dear Leader?
And how do you suggest we work against dictators? Shall we go to war against them all?
May I ask Stefan how he suggests a country that is constantly in the press for the wrong reasons goes about attracting foreign investment and tourism, or because of their governments, is this not an option? Should we go to war against all dictators to remove them from parliament and then install a democratic government, and then allow them the opportunity to grow? Or maybe not tarnish everyone with the same brush and give people not in power a chance to do something with the limited resources they have?
I must admit though, that on this dull and dreary Friday afternoon, you have made me smile with your suggestions.
And how do you suggest we work against dictators? Shall we go to war against them all?
May I ask Stefan how he suggests a country that is constantly in the press for the wrong reasons goes about attracting foreign investment and tourism, or because of their governments, is this not an option? Should we go to war against all dictators to remove them from parliament and then install a democratic government, and then allow them the opportunity to grow? Or maybe not tarnish everyone with the same brush and give people not in power a chance to do something with the limited resources they have?
I must admit though, that on this dull and dreary Friday afternoon, you have made me smile with your suggestions.
And how do you suggest we work against dictators? Shall we go to war against them all?
May I ask Stefan how he suggests a country that is constantly in the press for the wrong reasons goes about attracting foreign investment and tourism, or because of their governments, is this not an option? Should we go to war against all dictators to remove them from parliament and then install a democratic government, and then allow them the opportunity to grow? Or maybe not tarnish everyone with the same brush and give people not in power a chance to do something with the limited resources they have?
I must admit though, that on this dull and dreary Friday afternoon, you have made me smile with your suggestions.
What has war got to do with this? Not doing anything is already better than aiding and abetting tyrants or venal corrupt dictators, but as a supposed journalist you could also put your talents to work exposing corruption; others can provide direct humanitarian aid to civic society, bypassing the corruption if possible; you could also work to support a free press, or liberate political prisoners.
Hailing the likes of Taha is a bizarre way to make the world a better place.
How interesting!…Ray, you did some impressive work, keep it up. I’m willing to help if necessary, don’t hesitate to contact me.
As a former AFA-salaried crook, I have long wondered how this con can actually go on — the legend has it that almost 30 years ago, Mr Llaryora realized that he could get in the office of virtually any CEO by making them believe he was going to interview them for a “special report” — actually a special advertising section — in a famous foreign media, and that this hope could actually entice them to spend $50,000 (and sometimes much more) for an advertising page — especially if the salesperson happens to be a sexy young lady…
As for your righteous reaction Veronica, fair enough, I guess you are still in the business. But please, try to envisage that there are people in this world that have other motivations in life than just money (and luxury, and comfort and the like). Interestingly enough, the people who seem to be most jealous of the money this man has made over the years are his employees, who often quit only to set up their own company in the same line of business — probably that’s your case Veronica? Don’t want the goose that lays golden eggs to get killed, do you?
Well I have good news for you: there is a life after AFA! No more ass-licking corrupt bigwigs, no more playful “how interesting, dear Mr X” between two stifled yawns, no more contortions about readership stats and return on investment, no more arm-twisting and deception, no more PR dinners with sleazy influential bastards…
As for the reason why AFA and its former employees’ spin-offs such as Vega Media, Media Plus, Impact Media and the like, tend to focus on countries with very low human development and very high corruption, it isn’t so much because they need to corrupt officials to get their contracts signed — usually they don’t, although they do offer fat commissions to well-connected locals willing to rent their address book — but simply because of the lack of accountability (and often lack of competence). Sadly enough, it is relatively easy in such countries to get an appointment with a minister by brandishing the NYT under his secretary’s nose. Try that is the UK… Then all you have to do is to boost his ego, so he feels confident, get him to say, during the so-called interview, that his country deserves to be better known, and use this to have him write a letter of support, or even call businessmen in his economic sector himself. Last step, show this letter to CEOs to get them to sign — “You see Mr X, the minister really wants you to support our project…” The twist is that most ministers, at this stage, think you’re a journalist, and they have no idea what the word “support” actually means — big bucks. Some ministers have such a big ego (or so little brains, or simply no scruples) that you can even get them to sign for an advert of their own on top of it!
I guess you can call it corruption though, because even though you don’t actually bribe him in cash, you do offer him for free something he wants in return for taking action in your favor: you offer him his picture in (an advertising supplement in) the NYT.
If you look at the countries where the con works best, you’ll realize they’re the ones that care less about good governance and accountability and have the most natural resources, hence hard currency (Nigeria, Angola, Algeria, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Equatorial Guinea…) or benefiting from massive international aid, hence hard currency (such as Rwanda, Zambia, Sudan until recently…)
In a nutshell, I would say that the reason why successful “special reports” and corruption seem to be correlated is essentially because these two variables are both directly proportional to the extent of bad governance, the lack of accountability and the amount of natural resources (or international aid) in a given country.
Where there is a rent to be protected, there is a “special report” to be made — and another one, and another one…
Again, I’m willing to help anyone willing to bring these swindlers down.
Interesting debate; congratulations Felix for your much needed research – and keep up the good work!
I am a former employee of Global Press, another umbrella copmany in the sector, whose name changed to Plana Editorial around 2000. Its headquarters where in Madrid but the company was incorporated in Madeira. It used different names such as Intermail, Insert Media, Welt Spiegel depending on the media where the report was published and on the country they were visiting. Operating with different names allows them to offer advertorials in different media simultaneously in the same country. It also makes them less tracable. They have published their advertorials in The Washington Post, Fortune Magazine, Frankfurter Rundschau, and others.
This is indeed a crazy sector dominated, at least in the 1990s by 2 Argentenian brothers operating from Madrid, the abovementioned Alberto (AFA/NOA) and Rodolfo Llaryora (Global/PLana). Global/Plana now seems to have closed – finally – and other players such as Winni and Vegamedia have emerged. The 2 brothers started their business together but later became fierce competitors. Rodolfo’s schizophrenia and paranoia may have contributed to their separation. Although I have not heard of brides, their business model is very untiethical, as you guys have very rightly described above.
I can’t understand how businessmen fall into this scam. Some of them even buy several times!
However, I believe some of the smaller companies are doing a better job in recent years. If done professionally, this is a good product to offer and may be useful to some countries (certainly not for tourism in Rwanda).
I think outsourcing country advertorials is too risky for newspapers. If you want to benefit from this type of product, it’s better to produce them internally, such as in FT.
Impressive blog where somehow all opinions, especially from ex-NOA (AFA) -ites seem to converge in the same direction. While I see little need to add to the accusations (they are powerful enough on their own), I could add that on top of fooling their “customers” into paying big bucks for little exposure in return with doubtful methods, the company also engages in very questionable practices with its own employees. I counted myself among them once upon a time and can testify to a number of occurrences where employees and ex-employees where downright cheated. If anything at all, this would also indicate to a work ethic and philosophy in line with that of its business model…
your blog is quite interesting to me since i almost took a job doing this advertising-journalism adventure. however i don’t see that it should be such a big deal, this kind of thing and much worse has been going on in 3rd world countries since the beginning of time. Our own governments and corporations use all sorts of dodgy tricks and techniques for commercial gain at astronomical margins, so this industry of what i understand to be less than a hundred million dollar a year should not exactly tip the balance in any direction. you guys should travel a bit more.
Dear People of Felix Salmon,
My name is Alvaro Llaryora. I am indeed the youngest son of Alberto Llaryora and I am currently working in AFA Press as the media manager.
I am writing to you all in order to put some sense/facts into this debate.
First of all, I think that you should all realise the gravity of making accusations without any proof, and judging a man whom you do not know and obviously don’t even begin to understand. I feel obliged to write this letter to defend the good name of my father, and to clarify some points about the ongoing debate on your blog about AFA Press.
Here are some points that you should take into consideration:
1 All the circulation of AFA Press are measured by the ABC (Audit Bureau of Circulation). Our reports usually come as inserts within newspapers and therefore are measured at the same time as the publications.
2 Our sales people never play with circulation figures. It would be a good idea, perhaps, for some of you to learn the difference between circulation and readership.
3 The quality of our product, despite what some of you might think, is extremely high, otherwise how do we explain that publications such as the NYT (99 Pulitzer prizes), The Economist (one of the world’s most prestigious publications) or even The Daily Telegraph (which enjoys the highest UK circulation) accept them for publication and distribution.
4 Our prices are higher than normal news paper; this is due to the fact that our costs are significantly higher than newspapers.
5 No one is forced to buy advertising in our reports, people choose to do so! Presidents, Ministers, CEOs, and Marketing Managers choose to appear in our reports because they value them as a fundamental part of corporate communication and nation branding.
6 Furthermore, there is no such thing as corruption in our reports; this is not the “Da Vinci Code”. Let’s stop making up conspiracies.
7 AFA Press and all its agencies are UK-based companies and we unfortunately have to pay tax on benefits. I invite you all to review the company tax returns and you will see that what I am telling you is the truth.
Should you have any further query before posting any further inflammatory comment, please don not doubt to contact me beforehand at avllaryora@afa-press.com .
Best regards,
Alvaro Llaryora
I imagine that as a media manager responsible for reports that enter into some of the world’s most prestigious media you are highly qualified and well studied in all aspects of international affairs, economics and politics. Or do you have a job simply as a result of the type of nepotism and “closed door deals” that this company seems to be famous for? I’m sure you make your father very proud.
HOW IS IT DIFFERENT, AGAIN???
Dear all,
I’ve been reading this ongoing debate with curiosity and some amusement.
My wish was to remain a spectator but I always wondered who exactly was this Felix Salmom and what were the reasons behind his postings. Now, browsing through the internet I found the following that should clarify the reasons behind his motives. The following is an excerpt of a radio interview transcript on this matter broadcasted on Democracy Now radio channel on March 27th 2006:
“AMY GOODMAN: Now, you, Felix Salmon, work for a publication called Euro Money?
FELIX SALMON: Yes, I do.
AMY GOODMAN: How does that operate? And does it have similar supplements that are paid for by, well, governments like the Sudan?
FELIX SALMON: It has supplements, which are paid for by governments; I’m pretty sure that Sudan is not one of them.
AMY GOODMAN: And does it work in the same way?
FELIX SALMON: It does most of its — well, most of its supplements come against editorial. So if there’s going to be a supplement on a country, the advertising is going to appear against independent editorial about that country.
AMY GOODMAN: In the same issue?
FELIX SALMON: Yes.
AMY GOODMAN: So, they look at the ad, and they respond to it in the magazine?
FELIX SALMON: There’s independent journalism about the country, and then there is also the advertising about the country, and they appear together.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about how you feel the New York Times is different?
FELIX SALMON: The New York Times is different because it does not feel any need to match editorial content against advertising, which in many ways is a good thing, because it means that the editorial content is dictated entirely by the views of the editors about what is newsworthy and not so much by the contents of the advertising. On the other hand, that means that if you get these supplements about countries like Sudan or Libya or whoever, then they appear on their own, without any enveloping context explaining that this is really just government propaganda and that there is another side to the story.”
So, what is the conclusion Felix??? NYT is different from the way that Euromoney operates so that is in many ways a good thing? Or is it just Government propaganda? So, what is Euromoney doing that is so different? Please clarify me; I thank you in advance for your enlightenment.
Best regards,
Marcos Melo
Regional Manager -AFA Press-
Dear Marcos, the least i can say is that you seem to forget what you were saying and thinking about noa (now afa press) at the time they were willing to fire you!
After Noa crashed and so many good sales people left the company they had no other options to keep people with low sales skills and low sales result like you on board and even to promote them. I also like reading your position when we know that you just try to keep the teams together and try to increase the sales volume of their promo knowing the fact that you never did one successful promo in your entire carreer on the field.
One has to admit that Alberto is a smart businessman with no morality but do us a favor Marcos, don t defend the quality of the reports when we all know that you were calling them yourself “a piece of shit”.
Valerie Favier
Terra Nueva
I’m still waiting to hear what Felix has to say for himself!
I seem to remember you did quite a good report in Greece Marcos, which is not such an under developed country.
Anyway, enough of that, let’s hear what Felix has to say about Euromoney and their policy. As you know so much about how things work at AFA Press, I am sure you know whether Euromoney runs reports on countries paid for by Governments such as the Sudanese one! You may be pretty sure they do not, but to me, this is a bit of a cop out. I would prefer a more confident and concrete answer.
I’m still waiting to hear what Felix has to say for himself!
I seem to remember you did quite a good report in Greece Marcos, which is not such an under developed country.
Anyway, enough of that, let’s hear what Felix has to say about Euromoney and their policy. As you know so much about how things work at AFA Press, I am sure you know whether Euromoney runs reports on countries paid for by Governments such as the Sudanese one! You may be pretty sure they do not, but to me, this is a bit of a cop out. I would prefer a more confident and concrete answer.
I’m still waiting to hear what Felix has to say for himself!
I seem to remember you did quite a good report in Greece Marcos, which is not such an under developed country.
Anyway, enough of that, let’s hear what Felix has to say about Euromoney and their policy. As you know so much about how things work at AFA Press, I am sure you know whether Euromoney runs reports on countries paid for by Governments such as the Sudanese one! You may be pretty sure they do not, but to me, this is a bit of a cop out. I would prefer a more confident and concrete answer.
Dear Valerie Favier,
Isn’t this an entertaining forum??? I do not recollect ever meeting you or even hearing your name before. So you can imagine my bewilderment when I saw your personal attacks on this site.
It was my intention since the beginning not to enter the personal debate but when my good name is at risk you leave me no choice.
As you can see from my initial posting I like to state facts and reproduce factual data so that one can have an intelligent exchange. I was expecting someone Felix? you? someone to explain to me HOW Euromoney reports are different from the NYTimes special reports; Have a valid discussion about these reports and their value, how can the media (and all the media today have these reports out of necessity) can do good use of them, if indeed there are some countries out of bonds for these reports and if indeed every country, regardless of their Human rights Index, have the right to put their point across. It’s a philosophical, editorial discussion that is well worth having and where I was truly looking for opinions, feedback and constructive ways forward.
Instead I got your series of your groans and moans. Let’s analyse those, shall we?
If ever was the intention of the company to fire me that intention was never transmitted to me. I’m not denying it, I’m just not aware of it. I also find it very strange that you in your position had ever knowledge of it but again it is possible.
Then you state that after NOA crashed… well, that’s an interpretation just there. Some will argue that it crashed; others will say that it was an effort to reduce costs. Then let me assure that no good sales people “left”…. all sales people were fired; regardless if they were good or bad.
Then you start in a series of personal accusation where I have a bad track record in terms of sales and projects. Shall we look at those, shall we? Even better shall we compare them with yours? After all, there is nothing like facts to set us apart.
For your record I concluded 9 different projects as a director on the field, those were, Switzerland, Morocco, Shanghai, Angola, South Africa, Jamaica, Macau, Spain and Greece. Some with more success then others, all published with the exemption of Shanghai.
Then, you were a director in Jamaica with Newslink (Special reports for the Miami Herald) in October 1996 and it just so happens that I went back in 2003 to Jamaica with the same Newslink. Your report 12 pages, mine 16 pages. Again: FACTS.
Then, what exactly amuses you in reading my position as the regional manager for AFA Press??? Keeping the teams together? What makes you so much better then the people today on the field? Why were you in 96 so good and people now are doing such a horrible job???
But you know what? I respect the time of the company before I was here. There was a past and with that we try to build a future.
That is the main reason why I write these lines, for the people that are today starting this job for the first time and might come across this website and people like you. You have nor right, nor the morale to destroy a career that is about to start in a job that gave so much to so many people including yourself.
Why can you not move with your life? Why, and this goes for all of you out there that participate in this forum (Even those that do not sign with their own names) are you so bitter?
Maybe I have a clue in your case Valerie why you are so bitter…
Correct If I’m wrong and if you feel unjustified do take me to court but are not the following facts correct:
-You worked on the field for AFA, that company that is so mean and immoral as you say, from July 1995 to December 2000; amazing almost 5 years doing a job for a smart business man with no morality. No wonder you are bitter but hold on…
-You then integrate the headquarters in Paris and move to a managerial position of AFA (Yes that some AFA that was crashing). You negotiate in the name of AFA with Elle magazine the possibility of doing reports for them but guess what? The entire deal goes down when you screw up on the final stretch.
-I can only imagine the bitterness now, but if that is not enough the agency that you represent that produces reports for Le Monde and that belongs to AFA (Thus your position within AFA) Interfrance Media is now in a delicate position due to the internal turmoil inside Le Monde…
WHAT DO YOU DO AT THIS POINT???
As the representative of Interfrance Media you sell the info about Interfrance Media to the authors of a book entitled “La face cachee du Le Monde”. For those of you wondering this book roughly translated into English means “The hidden (Dark) side of Le Monde” its an attack to the editorial line of Le Monde and has 6 pages inside about Interfrance Media.
… Enough for bitterness but I guess the most interesting part comes now:
At a time, where after reading your posting, one could only imagine that you are doing something else with your life (after all you are now almost 40 and I would imagine married and with kids) I remain a little surprised when I hear that you are doing exactly the same for Le Monde 2.
So, it seems that another personal, innocent attack on the AFA press is from a previous employee that after a managerial position created its own spin off company and feels threatened about the successes and failures of Afa Press.
I remain as always at your disposal for any clarification but I do strongly suggest that people start moving on with their lives after AFA,
Yours truly,
Marcos Melo
Well, if Felix’s aim was to get information through stirring bitter feelings from AFA Queens and Kings, he did succeed.
Congrats.
Still, as always in blogs, we read lots of accusations and newsworthy stuff, but are lacking tangible information and proofs.
Not good for all those claiming here to be thorougly and deeply investigating.
-Any explaination from Felix on his past or present activities within Euromoney reports and motives for such a controversial topic?
-Any documents available from Ray Corbis on alleged AFA fishy activities (Money laundering, Tax evasion, fraud, corruption..)?
-Any documents prooving that Valérie sold information to the Authors of “Le Monde” book?
Otherwise, the interest that site draws within the industry is vastly overrated, as the rest (markets, modus operandi, prices..) is public knowledge.
Dear Marcos,
You never heard from me: for somebody that hever heard from me you seem to be able to give my resume with noa/afa but no problem with that.
euromoney/nyt report: as you said yourself when you were on the field, you never read those reports, so it must be hard for you to make the difference between those two, however i read them, and it terms of quality euromoney is far better.
Me revealing infos to La face cachee du Monde: prove it!
doing report for le monde 2: wrong
negociating with Elle for AFA: obviously you did not learn your lessons by heart and forgot a big part of the story.
not aware that the company wanted to fire you? well you re the only one then, you say you love facts and figures? you drop the name of the countries you went to correctly but what about the turn over of those? what about your desastrous productivity? less than 10 000 usd a week?
When i see your position and when we know how able you are to sell a contract, yes i find that amusing, it s like seeing the owner sons in charge of sales department when they never sold a contract themselves? what is your credibility when we know your real stats when running a project?
I worked with noa and afa for about 5 years and from day one it was obvious the owner had no morality, and at the time you were struggling to sell contracts on the field some people got fired in Madrid (only the management), everything had been moved to London on a week end and on monday morning they all had the surprise to see that a lawyer and some guards were escorting them to their belongings with no explanation from anybody except this lawyer trying to make sense to all of this.
One of the reasons why some good sales people left the company was also because the company was not paying commissions and sometimes not even salaries to their employees. Why do you think the company tries to call some old directors desesperatly? why AFA if it was so successfull went from 95 teams to hardly 20 on the field today?
Those are good questions that deserve to be answered, yourself tried to negociate with Miguel as a partner, also with Lucas Buggialli. At that time you were calling the owner a “bastard” and the company a “dying one”.
Also, can you deny when you go to visit your teams you approach some of your directors to see if they d follow you if you d leave AFA and start your own company?
I have nothing personal against you but when you say things you don t believe in it just makes me smile for not saying more.
To conclude and as a sales person, your good name will never be at risk, but always perceived as a joke in this industry.
Valerie Favier
Terra Nueva
Dear All,
To start with, I’d like to share with you my profound disappointment regarding the way this discussion is evolving. It now looks more like a childish quarrel between angry and frustrated ex-NOA’s (even though some might have tangible reasons to feel this way) against a current management trying to prove each and every argument wrong. I believe this discussion should question personal commitments and involve personal feelings, since this job implies much of it, and it should answer why this industry has such a bad reputation. It should NOT be based on attacking people on their performance or their professionalism. (“I had a better productivity than you in 1995″…who cares??? This is really veeeeeery low)
This job is not about the management (where ever it is based) or what Mr. X or Y (who ever he is) is doing with the profits generated, whether it is money laundering or corrupting officials. It’s so easy to accuse a management who allows young people to make good money without paying tax and give them a good start in life. Obviously the set up of the company cannot be a traditional and transparent one. But every one knows that and it is made very clear at the beginning…and it seems it didn’t bother you guys at the time. Right? So what’s your point? So easy to criticise afterwards. And if, it represents ethic problems for you or you cant deal with it…then DON’T. we are all aware from the start of the lack of substance of the contract we sign with these companies and that from way day to the next we can be out, and many times, in again, however adjectives such as “crooks, thieves” or whatever else has been mentioned are way over the top. I know what am saying, I ve met a number of them…just trying to make money really, like anyone else in this capitalist world…
This job is about 25-30 year-old youngsters who travel the world trying to make the best project possible, which also means as much money as possible (no one will deny that). What do you think happens when the youngsters start making 80, 90 k a year? For most of us, it is a first job because either we had no clue what we wanted to do, because we were still hungry for experience or because we didn’t want to end up in a bank/consulting/adv agency/… And when comparing to our friends of the same age, we probably earn double what they can dream of getting in a 9 to 5 job anywhere. Of course, this pushes irresponsible ones to do pretty much anything to reach these figures, including lying, not fulfilling their engagements or lacking any kind of commitment. I do condemn such behaviour since it contributed to “burn” many markets where it is now very difficult to work. But, once again, you are out there dealing with African ministers, south American CEO’s or Asian magnates whom you need to meet to only get the opportunity to introduce your product. And I call that strategy. Everyone would agree that regardless of the job, human relationship plays a crucial role! After all, isn’t it a sales job?
The management gives me tools and funds, which are going to help me produce the best report possible. I have no problem sleeping at night since I am having a great time in a great country with great people. Plus and most importantly, the executives I meet are very happy with the service we are rendering them, and, (cut the naivety please!) they know exactly what our product is about, and they keep on receiving us over and over again because they understand that positive international communication is key. For them and for their country. And not all companies buy because their ministers tell them to do so!!!! In most countries, that era is over! A budget is a budget.
On top of this, we are involved economically, not politically. No matter the government’s ethical actions, it shouldn’t deprive a country of developing economically and having an opportunity of attracting FDI. Most of our interviewees are more than happy to have some “positive advertising” (which is crucially lacking these days). I really don’t think that e.g. Sudanese Sugar co. has many occasions to expose its name to a larger audience. However, I would be very interested to see the results of a study giving a precise idea on the return on investment they get from these ads. As for the quality of the reports, one can only blame the teams on the field, which, in the end, decide on the way the companies are portrayed and on how it is done. Again the people producing the final report can only work with what they are given and the management has nothing to do with that. (even though they should use their experience on the field to impose more professionalism amongst teams when sending through the final editorial guidelines!!!!)
This industry survives on a paradox. On the one hand, you cannot expect young and work inexperienced people to produce a “Thomas Friedman” type of report. On the other hand, they are the only ones willing to live this life… The challenge comes in the end, when they return to “reality”. That is probably explains partly why there is still some anger and bitterness left in many of this blog’s commentators…
Once again, it all boils down to the teams on the field who (and you know it!) work very hard for this kind of money. Personally speaking, I am very glad to be a public-reporter (not a journalist!). This has allowed me to visit places I would have never thought of going, meet amazing people, being challenged and face hard situations far away from my familiar marks. It is an outstanding formation that I recommend to everyone as long as you do it the proper way. I think no one can say the contrary. Talking about facts…This is a fact.
PS. Valerie, your remarks and personal attacks are full of interest ;( You are obviously very bitter, but please, if you feel the need to attack personally, just send personal emails instead of sullying a conversation/debate that, finally, is taking place publicly. Let’s get back to the main topic. We really don’t care what it is you think of Marcos Melo. You are a ghost in this industry while we are on the field living each and every moment 100%! Aren’t you missing it?
PS2: So, Felix, you, who has created such a animated debate, coming back to your original question (which should be the main theme of each comment, but is obviously not anymore). “So how does Summit Communications manage to keep its sales going?”. The answer is: we are working on it!
PomKa
PROUD CONTENT
Vicious comments from incognito bloggers over the past week only proved two things… 1. they either don’t understand the nature of our business, 2. have quite simply, miserably failed within our business and /or have faaaaaaaar too much time to spare on criticising other people’s practices, when perhaps they could take an inner look into what they are up to… which was beautifully confirmed by the past two days’ stinging attacks from frothing Ms Valérie Favier.
I can state the above with complete conviction having worked successfully on the field for almost five years. From a journalist background holding a Marketing & Sales degree I went from completely ignoring the product and industry to obtaining great satisfaction by producing some very decent, timely publications that not only makes the company proud, but the people featured within, and whom have since quite happily supported the reports time and time again. As a journalist I must admit that to start of with I was rather startled at the way this industry went about obtaining interviews followed by an on-the-spot advertising commitment. I was taken aback and could not understand how dare “non-journos” expect to get a payment for their interview?? And I am not talking about deluded Journalist Wannabes thrusting themselves upon brain-dead Presidents, Prime Ministers and CEOs of the countries flagship companies, and violently twisting their arms into signing for overrated advertising (…. Who has ever REALLY lived such scenarios are clearly linked to poor tragic-comedy soap opera productions) I am talking about ambitious and well trained Communication Executives discussing powerful campaigns in leading media, which certain countries and/or companies would otherwise not be in touch with for meaningful ongoing purposes such as the change of government in Spain, the Olympic Games in Greece, the end of a 70-year dictator-style government in Mexico, business focus on Canada, the creation of an I.T. hub in Ireland and Turkey’s economic involvement in attaining EU standards… none of which countries, please correct me if I’m wrong, fall into the category of very low human development and very high human corruption…..
An avid anxiety to sponge in and iron out the differences of this world coupled with a sharp learning curb made me soon realise that the people we were dealing with were completely aware of what we were doing…and were educated into the very powerful concept of BRANDING, their nation as a whole and their economy through their most prominent sectors and companies. It hurts me deeply to think that former employees that have been given the opportunity to visit the world with this job, furthermore share 45 minutes with some of the most fascinating intelligent personalities on the planet brand them as IGNORANT, corrupt, gloating pigs that would be mesmerized into signing anything in front of a pretty woman…. Ehem!! How can anybody make such racial comments when most of these people have much better education in the leading Western Universities than most of the participants on this blog -including myself!! And regardless of their efforts in assisting their country and people it wont be through the $50k they contribute to the report. Furthermore how dare you suggest that they are not fully aware of what we are proposing to them from the beginning?? This sort of ignorance, as one of you bloggers put it, is not bliss, but certainly racist and very dangerous.
Obviously as in most industries, time demands change, and the style and methods in which the industry operated has moved up and on. Whereas the beautiful dumb bitch saleswoman initially worked very well within the incepted formula, nowadays, and as POMKA quite rightly put it its entirely up to the capabilities and credibility of the hard-working team on the field. The same way certain sectors are dominated by monopolies until liberalisation, each media was presented as to belong to a different agency. Now the industry has been educated and many clients rely on our reports in all or some publications, as a media powerhouse, to provide an integrated solution for them. The same way lots of other leading newspapers have decided to do their own special reports, using exactly the same method and similar prices, the market has also proliferated into TV and even Business Conferences… which I hasten to add is another very successful, high revenue stream that the Economist, FT & even EUROMONEY (funny how it keeps popping up!!!) has mastered and cashed in considerably by requesting sponsorship in the region of tens of thousands of dollars for the guest of honour’s prominent speaker’s companies to fork out FOR .. .surprise surprise PROMOTION!!!!
And last but not least… after following the first of such spamish bloggishness for almost a week now, I must give the winning prize to ZEB’s comments… keep UP the GOOD WORK ol’ boy!
Raquel Picornell
Funny (or depressing?) how some people in this blog have written things that seem to be in total opposition to what they say – or used to say…
How can people go to such lengths just for the love of money (or call it “success” if you will)…If I were Kabylian, I guess I would feel such venal hypocrisy deserves a massive headbut right in the chest.
Of course, it wouldn’t make a big difference. But still, it would be well deserved!
First of all, a very interesting blog. I won’t take up much of your time and I only have 2 observations.
1) How can some people (Valerie), who worked in the field for 5 years turn around and rip it apart like that? You call this an immoral and dirty job, well then how did you look in the mirror for 5 years? Don’t you feel like garbage now? I’d assume you just didn’t hack it very well in the industry and are bitter towards certain people.
2) It is important to differentiate between the credibilty of the various companies doing Special reports. The has been a lot of criticism of AFA (NOA), much of which was definitely well-deserved. Not withstanding, the seediest, dodgiest and least honourable company in the industry is certainly MEDIA PLUS. I mean, these guys are taught from training, but the cult-like company leader, how to lie and cheat to earn a living. This guys isolates them in some dead town in the North of Belgium and indoctrinates them on the trickery of the industry. He then goes on to pay them nothing compared to other companies in the industry and burn markets by loading dozens of teams upon them. On top of that, they represent the lowest media’s out there. I just think that, well by all means, fire away at the other companies in the industry, the lack of scruples as a company policy at MEDIA PLUS must be highlighted. To cover my grounds, I think it worth stating that I am speaking not from any rancour in my heart, but from an objective viewpoint having seen the inner-workings of several companies in the industry.
Like others who have posted intelligent comments in this blog, I am a little appalled at the amount of personal sludge that is being poured into it…
Likewise, attacks on the product itself, though sometimes valid, don’t make this progress very much. Whether good or bad, newsworthy or full of propaganda, the simple truth is they are sold and bought with very little extorsion. One can choose to believe in the power of branding/advertising or to think that it is pointless to pour excessive amounts of money into these type of reports.
In the end, no one is forced into buying and only in the most (exceptional) unscrupulous cases, has participation in these reports been achieved through lies or deception. Admittedly, some sales people did lie, abuse relationships, threaten and/or use questionable methods to sell. In itself, given the world we live in, that is hardly shocking. You could regret the fact that the very few salesmen and women we all knew to be unscrupulous were hailed as heroes in the eyes of management but it does little to change a hard fact: that these products exist in varying degrees of quality and that people choose freely whether to support them or not.
After that, it is your personal choice to involve yourself and to earn money through it. How far you go to sell will again only determine how good you feel with your own morality afterwards.
Anyhow, I’m drowning the point… And that is that I thought this blog to be interesting only in so far as it investigated the unseen side of the industry. Personal attacks or attacks on the product are quite sterile. I thought that a closer look at how the industry organizes itself and why was more worthy of interest. We have long suspected that this industry (AF/NOA in particular) could have served to cover laundering activities, corruption practices and so on but have never seen any kind of conclusive evidence.
In the early stages of this blog, I had the impression that this is were it would be headed and I was quite curious to see the results (whether to confirm or deny suspicions I must add). It is one thing to be perceived as “abusive” in terms of sale methods and quite another to be downright criminal. That is why, for example, I was more curious to dig into the way former employees have often been treated after being disposed of (see previous posting). Anybody feel like contributing to this rather than the petty squabble exchange? Of course, it would take some real investigation that few of us are capable of undertaking. But, if it comes up, I’ll be the first interested reader. Until then, please stop squabbling kids.
Pincheeeeeees!!!
hi again everyone. the plot truly thickens… good to see we have done away with the cheap insults and read some true debate finally.
Raquel Picorell your comments are the most sensible ones here, I think every industry needs positive people like you. only people with your beliefes can get anything serious done. do you have a company? can I work for you?
i would love to email you my curriculum
Clement
Interesting discussion that has become an idiotic and childish “so were you” tantrum on the side of some and a hypocritical “been there done it but did not approve it” by others contributing here.
It is amusing to see passions being hiked to the degree of personally attacking each other between ex-industry employees become good business practice neophytes. For those who once were within the sector and are now criticizing it, and by the likes of this discussion there are many, this only means one thing, that you surely have not forgotten your stint in NOA/AFA et al. and it has left an impression on you whether you like that hard fact or not.
But one truth remains above all: that you (ex-employee now criticizing), from day one participated in it. And unless you stand up in this discussion and say that you resigned the very minute you realized what the job entailed, you were just as part of it as the rest.
In saying this, I don’t want to insult anybody but rather stress a point: Yes, the reports left much to be desired on the side of quality of editorial, design and artworks but, people, let’s be frank: how many of you accepted the job for the purpose of embarking on a holy mission to save the third world by the means of reporter journalism? If you did so, then you got it all wrong from day one of your training and if you went ahead still believing this, then you were deceiving yourself big time.
We all like to feel well about what we do with our professional and personal lives but let’s face it; few companies will offer you what the industry, especially NOA/AFA, offered to so many people who otherwise would have lived anonymous dull lives in a London, Paris, Madrid, etc… suburb. The chance to interview very interesting people or spend amazing weekends in places you would have never dreamed of is not something you will get by clocking in your hours in your supposedly “good ethics” company, if that truly exists.
Those of you who are now ranting against NOA/AFA and the industry will probably never get another chance at living the experiences that that job provided to lots of people who are now probably on 9 to 5 metro-boulot-dodo life missions. And many of you probably have gone to other companies in the sector and don’t want to acknowledge it but nevertheless feel an urge to smear NOA/AFA.
Yes, there is a life after NOA/AFA but it is a very different one. We move on, our lives change and evolve for better or worse and we have to face what we get. NOA/AFA is all about a certain period of our lives and if you have a measure of dignity and respect (without saying education) you tend to look back at those years with a smile and feel gratitude towards a LIFESTYLE that offered you what you otherwise would never had felt, seen, heard or done.
Lastly, let me just remind something to those that seem to ignore what I believe should be an essential part of this debate: this industry is a wholly commercial affair dedicated to producing a product, advertorials (whether of quality or not is another issue), and as such, in a free market society as ours, has the right to make money. As to its antics, how different is selling this product from selling tobacco, or alcohol or even shoes? Selling is selling. As to the big bucks and the rates, they are being paid by the corrupt local officials who will continue making them for themselves regardless of how many Samaritan NGO’s and United Nations agencies we send to their countries to try (unsuccessfully in most cases) to end wars, famine and diseases. Nobody puts a gun to the head of these corrupt government and business leaders to force them into buying advertisement. For most of them this means a blimp in their Swiss bank accounts. Whether the money spent in producing these advertorials was justified or not is another issue and one that you, as an ex-employee participating in this forum, nonetheless contributed to.
One of the crucial matters back then was to whom you sold and how you sold. Whether you were capable of recognizing who could not really afford the product and knew when to stop was part of the job for those ethically minded, and to my knowledge nobody from headquarters ever forced a sale if it could not happen. The only people forcing the sales were those acting in the country as directors/salespersons without a measure of respect towards their counterparts, regardless of the instructions they got back from headquarters. Not pressuring clients into buying and not bullying them was the responsibility of those present and self-dignity, ethics and responsibility came to play here. Ms. Favier probably knows what I am talking about as she herself was an industry standard and a reference for so many “wannabe successful” in the company.
Lastly, it is up to you whether you assume the experiences and learn from them as well as store them to enrich yourself personally or try to liberate yourself from your guilty conscience by vomiting your ill-feelings towards NOA/AFA on this forum.
just one thing in order to improve this debate.
Girls working for AFA are very hot, incredibly hoooooooooot!!!
We all should work for them, pa la gran chucha!
ahueeeao!!!
A sincere comment at last…thanks for the effort brother Moh!
Anyway, I have to say this discussion is a perfect illustration of what the industry is really about: talented people wielding sophisticated rhetoric (and often blatant lies)…just for the love of money — or maybe to repress their bad consciousness? Seriously, who are you really trying to convince…the rest of the world, or yourselves?
For those who like movies, check out The Boiling Room (about wannabe-golden boys using NOA-style techniques to sell fake stocks…they don’t really know the stocks are fake, but they should understand the money they’re being snowed under is dirty, and guess what? nobody cares as long as they get their share — until the hero comes, of course). I quit after seeing it.
The remarks above by brother Lobster actually give a couple of good hints as to the ethics of the industry. If this were even just decent, one wouldn’t have to resort to such hypocrisy to defend it. Saying the headquarters don’t force anybody to lie is in itself a lie of omission, as we all know the headquarters don’t give a damn about what the teams are doing in the field as long as the money comes in. As a trainee, I remember having sent e-mails to both of my managers in the office about my director’s highly unethical conduct in SE Asia, which implied lying on a daily basis (about circulation, about other contracts signed, apart from the usual “small” lies I will mention next) and even threatening people to sue them, just to speed up payments. Their answer was basically “how dare you question his professionalism?”…of course, they were getting commissions too. The managers don’t even have to tell their staff to lie (although they do), as the staff see that those who succeed are usually those who know how to lie, so they either choose to do the same, or simply enjoy the nice aspects of the job (the traveling, the encounters, and – yes – the money) for a while, like I did.
The very structure of the business (as highlighted way above), with teams not going to the same country twice, and field staff switching from one company to another, is an incentive to unethical, or even predatory behaviour, as there is no accountability whatsoever.
Then about the fact that directors in the field alone are responsible for choosing the right targets (those who can afford it), again it’s a lie. I remember telling my boss in the headquarters we should forget about a state-owned urban transportation company in a small African country as it had made only losses since it was created in the 70’s and couldn’t even pay its staff — apart from the fact that it had no reason on earth to advertise in the NYT. His answer was that our job was to make them sign, not to wonder whether they can pay, as the company has a specialised department to make them pay, once they’ve signed. He added I should tell them the minister of transport, whom we had met the week before, wanted them to support the project…
Seriously, how can you pretend that lying is not a key plank of the business model? Let me remind you…that most teams present themselves as journalists — orally at least, as they know that writing it down may get them into trouble…that most successful sales executives in the field started as “photographers”, although some hardly knew how to operate a reflex camera, while they were actually trainees learning the tricks. That the girl always carries the “Project Director” business cards, even when the guy is actually the director. That the usual trick to get a prospect to sign on the spot is to lie that the team is leaving the country imminently. That inexperienced — or sometimes experienced — salesmen tend to inadvertently say they will send the “editorial” material to Madrid, instead of lying that it’s going to NYC, Paris or London as they were taught to (professional misconduct!). That in the most burnt countries, teams often have to swear to secretaries and press officers that they won’t propose advertising — although they do, in the end. And the list goes on…
Not to mention the fact that many, in the field, go much further than this usual litany of “small” lies — cut the bullshit, you know it’s true. And again, they’re enticed to do so from day one…
You guys can try to persuade outsiders that these are just black sheep, but I’m not buying it. That’s what the system wants, that’s how it’s been built and how it has grown. Yet there is a way back (redemption?)
To conclude on a positive note, there are some smart and reasonably well-intentioned people in this industry — yes, I have met a few. They have started to move away from the fake-journalist model and are starting to present themselves as what they are — communications professionals offering communications tools. This allows the clients to know from the beginning what they’re in for, and to get much better value for their money, as the teams can focus on the product instead of spending months trying to swindle people to get money, and doing fake interviews that go straight to the trash bin once the prospect has said no.
In a nutshell, it’s not so much about the product, but about the way you sell it. The point is when you know the product is shit, you have to resort to such tricks to sell it. A pity to see so much talent ill-exploited…
Last but not least, having gone through the ups and downs of the job — or what you call the high life – for a couple of years does NOT make me liable for anything…between the bitch and the pimp, who would you say is the bad guy? I have a tip for you: usually it’s the one who makes the most money, and whose success rests on his ability to entice others to become his whores…
This might actually explain why many ambitious field staff decide to set up their own company after a while, and usually resort to the same old methods…
Fun forum. If you want to see an alternative and maybe more sustainable approach to the industry, check out media planet at http://www.mediaplanet.se. Great people doing a great job and growing faster than anyone else in the sector.
The above is not true. It’s the same stuff with a different face.
Hello all,
I must say that it has taken me well over an hour to read through all of your comments and I agree and disagree with a lot of you.
I have recently started in this business (27 days to be exact) but entered the business well aware of what I was getting myself into as I knew quite a few people inside and outside the club. However since being inside my doubts about whether I can do this have become stronger and stronger. I am not interested in making lots of money, mostly because I dont really need it right now. I am also not interested in the lifestyle, since my whole life has consisted of living abroad in many different countries that were not my own (Venezuela, Colombia, Germany, Spain, Hong Kong, China, Japan).
I am interested however in getting to know interesting people, business leaders in their fields to learn from them them which is definitely an advantage to the job that I am getting.
However the business model and the tactics imposed on one during training are pushing me further away from the job. I just dont want to be a quitter after such a short period and hold on a little bit longer.
I have found this blog very entertaining and insightful (except the childish i-am-better-than-you-prove-it-show-me-facts-debate) and maybe Felix meant it to be a tool to exchange information on the industry. So here goes my question:I see that most of you are or have been within the industry for quite some time so I would appreciate if anyone could give me feedback on my dilemma : Should I stay or should I go?
Thanks 🙂
Raquel….hijita…vuelve a casa eso no vale nada…
Tu papa te quiere (Deja a los Griegos no valen nada tampoco)
Raquel….hijita…vuelve a casa eso no vale nada…
Tu papa te quiere (Deja a los Griegos no valen nada tampoco)
jaja, no soy Raquel, Papito, pero gracias por tu consejo 🙂
Well said BenJ!