MEDIA FORUM: Are multinational outdoor media deals the future?

Is outdoor the first multinational cross-border medium? And what implications will this have for the industry's structure? Alasdair Reid asks.

The marketing department at Masterfoods has been absolutely flabbergasted at the level of interest there's been in the deal it announced last week with JCDecaux. In fact, if it had known that there was going to be so much interest, it certainly wouldn't have ticked the box in the contract allowing JCDecaux to press release it. But it reckoned that the combination of the words 'outdoor media' found in close proximity to the term 'pan-European' (an eye-glazer at the best of times) would prove to be lethal.

Which was either careless or disingenuous on Masterfoods' part, because it is up there with an elite few advertisers that not only believe that this is where the future lies but are also prepared to put a bit of effort into making it happen. This select group also includes the likes of Unilever, which signed a similar deal with JCDecaux almost exactly a year ago. That agreement extends for five years, covering 22 territories across Europe and is worth pounds 68 million. The four-year Masterfoods deal is worth pounds 41 million and will embrace all of the company's international brands, including Mars, Snickers, Pedigree, Sheba and Whiskas.

The litany almost certainly won't end there. Other similar outdoor deals are believed to be in the pipeline and, indeed, as the big multinational advertisers have been in prolonged talks with other global media owners such as AOL Time Warner and News Corporation over recent years, the notion is not exactly new. But isn't it becoming apparent that it is only in outdoor that the talk can be walked? Multimarket deals in television, radio or even press might sound impressive in theory but the practice is clearly somewhat problematic. Has outdoor emerged as the only true multimarket sale that media owners can come up with?

Jeremy Male, the chief executive of JCDecaux UK and northern Europe, agrees no other medium can offer what outdoor can in terms of breadth of geographical coverage and consistency of asset. Which is all very well.

But surely this sort of deal, nice as it is in public relations terms, carries huge risks from a media owner point of view? Advertisers are motivated to take part only because of the prospect of ever greater levels of discount, aren't they?

Not necessarily, Male says: 'Deals are primarily about growth in share and they certainly make sense from our point of view. There are a relatively small number of companies that have the degree of central control needed to make this work and we wouldn't contemplate doing it with a company that couldn't make it work. But agencies are supporters of this and clients are saying to everyone 'look guys, you have to start delivering a service that meets my requirements'.' Also, it's true that they tend to be 'umbrella' deals that merely recognise the sum total of activity that continues to be managed locally at a grass-roots level.