I had a chat with the customer rep there (I’m a happy customer with USAA). So, for a number of years, they’ve had a advertising policy of not putting ad’s on any type programming that involves religion, news, or opinionated shows. As the person pointed out...this was to prevent the exact episode that occurred. For some odd reason in the past year....either through a new employee or some misunderstanding within USAA...someone started contracts with a couple of news-related shows. This episode popped up, and the folks at the top asked when did policy change because they didn’t sign up news shows of any kind in their long-term policy.
Long-story short...every single contract with all news organizations will come to end shortly.
I would suggest that people evaluate their situation. I’ve had accounts with three exceptionally lousy banking organizations over the past decade. One of them (Prudential) practically did everything possible to chase me away from their services. For three years, USAA has done precisely what I requested....friendly service....and absolutely no screw-ups. Running away from them means you have to find a replacement service, and I’m not that confident that you can find a decent service or competent organization.
I am pretty much in agreement with you regarding their service, assistance and reasons for this monumental screw-up BUT have you noticed the recent ad profiling that emphasizes the life stories of minority members? As Seinfield would say, ‘not that there is anything wrong with that” but advertising emphasis that for the most part endeavors to impart both a commercial and PC message makes one question the credibility and purpose of both messages. This is particularly true for a company like USAA who really does not need to do advertising of this type, rather stick to a less “inclusive” type message that is more appealing to their military family base....or at least doesn’t piss that base totally off.
I only get car insurance from USAA.
Still, I have to make my point as much as the David Brock followers do.
That point is do not get involved in controversies that slander your customer base.
NOTHING less than a full apology will do. If what you say is true, and it’s not that I’m doubting you, why aren’t they out there yelling this to everyone right now? Their silence is implying they agree with the CAMPAGN to stop advertising on Sean Hannity specifically. If this is not the case, they need to be saying so from every roof top.
Michael Jackson was once asked why he didn’t help the Clinton campaign like other wealthy black athletes were. He replied, “Because Republicans buy sneakers, too.”
On Monday, I’m switching over my car insurance to Armed Forces Insurance, who does my homeowners policy. AFI is a real stalwart for helping GIs. I’ve been a customer for 30 years.
From the article: “USAA told ABC News that it aired ads on the three shows by accident, . . .”
Having been the client of a large advertising agency and having approved media plans and advertising buys for large corporations the “accident”, “mistake”, or “misunderstanding” excuse is not believable to me. USAA spends tens of millions of dollars on advertising (over $100 million annually by some accounts. No corporations makes expenditures of this size without several control points for management review and approval.
Advertising buy plans (media plans) are developed by an advertising agency and reviewed with management of the client company well in advance of the actual ad buy. The plans take into account company policy — if the company policy says no political ads, no political ads are presented by the advertising agency when it makes its recommendation. In addition companies often have special requests — they may ask for no advertising to be placed on a particular network or they may ask for extra weight on a particular show or against a particular demographic. The agency creates the plan and recommends a buy based on all of these criteria. Should the agency recommends a buy involving an exception to company policy and direction, that exception is called out clearly in the presentation of the plan and must be approved by company management.
When plans are presented to middle management at the client company, more than one member of management sits in the presentation so a “new employee” would not be able to approve the plan. The review is conducted program by program so anyone with knowledge of company policy is in a position to object should a show be recommended inconsistent with policy.
Once the plan is vetted by client company middle management, it is presented to executive management in detail. I’ve sat through many of these senior management review meetings and have found senior executive scrutinize the buys in details and ask many questions. After all, a significant amount of money is involved. It is not uncommon for the CEO or COO to approved the final plan, not just the executive responsible for marketing.
At the point the media plan is approved by the executives of the client company, there have been at least 3 review points — the advertising agency itself, company middle management, and company senior management. If the plan is changed after this point, those plan changes also have to be approved by company management. However, there is an additional check.
At the time the advertising is actually purchased, the agency will submit sign-offs for the buy itself. These sign offs are essentially purchase orders, an authorization to actually make the purchase of each individual program. These authorizations are not delegated to new or inexperienced employees as they involve the expenditure of millions of dollars. Minimally seasoned marketing managers or executives sign these authorizations. It is inconceivable the managers or executives signing the purchase authorizations have no knowledge of company policy.
I am a 30+ year member of USAA. I’m sad to say my personal experience as a senior marketing executive, and corporate COO, makes it difficult to believe the purchase of millions of dollars of advertising conflicting with company policy could have been a “mistake”.
The only instance I can think of in which an advertising buy can be a mistake is if USAA management has been negligent and not properly reviewed the buy. If it is the case millions of dollars of company money has been misappropriated, the executives responsible should be fired.
The explanation appears to be an obfuscation, a desperate attempt to kill a controversy without admitting the truth. To anyone with knowledge of the advertising buy process there are only two possible explanations:
1) USAA management’s explanation was correct, the buy was a mistake. If so, management is admitting its internal control processes are weak, being ignored, or begin circumvented and millions of dollars are being spend by the company without proper review and approval. In this instance, management is admitting incompetence and should be fired.
2) USAA management approved the ad buys on Hannity, Maddow and other shows. USAA managers approved the individual program authorizations at the time the media was purchased. Media Matters then put pressure on USAA management to pull the advertising it had approved and management caved to the pressure of outside social activists. When policyholder owners expressed outrage, the company floated the “mistake” explanation in an effort to quell the public relations crisis. If this is what really happened, the company’s management deliberately lied to its policyholder owners and should be fired.
At this point USAA management lacks credibility with many of its policyholder owners. Those owners are expressing outrage in social media and directly to management. Many are choosing to take their business to other companies. To restore credibility USAA needs to provide a detailed explanation of what exactly went wrong internally. If management succumbed to outside pressure, it needs to admit it. If an internal policy was violated there needs to be a detailed explanation of how the company control processes were violated and the managers involved must be fired for incompetence or deliberate violation of policy.
Note that as of 10:30 am Sunday morning, USAA management has not issued a communication to the member owners addressing a significant public relations crisis that has been discussed in the media for several days. If management should be trusted by the owners, why no communication?