KICC agreement with Samsung is a fair compromise

The Samsung billboard on KICC that has been the source of controversy the last few weeks. FILE 

By MARVIN SISSEY

In Summary

• Incident creates perfect time for a healthy debate about regulation of outdoor advertising.

Three weeks ago, I opined in this column my displeasure at the adornment of a new ill-fitting necklace on the top of the Kenyatta International Convention Centre (KICC) all in the name of advertising.

I was horrified at the insidious interference of the architectural elegance of what many consider an iconic heritage site.

While I can’t claim to have been the first to voice those sentiments, I was especially encouraged by the heavy public debate that ensued the publication of that opinion piece.

Online forums went abuzz as many Kenyans supported or opposed KICC’s move. Such interrogation of an issue of national significance is a sign that we are properly using our democratic space.

Indeed, the level of public uproar against the advert grew to such a momentum that the management of KICC was forced to rethink their decision and order the billboard to be pulled down barely a week after the article ran.

As was expected, the ad company behind the billboard, Alliance Media, ran to the courts accusing KICC of not meeting their contractual obligations. This court case revealed more shocking details.

Besides the fact that KICC had actually pawned its outlook for a whole of three years, the deal also happened to have been ludicrously cheap — barely worth the 30 pieces of silver Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus with.

With quarterly payments of approximately Sh1.3 million as revealed by the court documents, it was technically more expensive to place a full page advert in a leading local daily for one day than advertise on top of KICC for a whole month, notwithstanding the unparalleled exposure that the latter offers in comparison.

Not only had the KICC management been misled to make what seemed to be a wrong decision on face value, ‘conned’ would come closest to describing the economic nonsense of that deal.

Fearing that a protracted court battle would cause more harm than good to their brand, Samsung decided to negotiate directly with KICC out of court.

Earlier this week, it was announced that they had arrived at an out-of-court settlement that would see the billboard remain for a year but at a more enhanced consideration of Sh41 million, which equates to a mind boggling eight times the value of the previous deal.

The current arrangement is slightly acceptable, albeit with a pinch of salt. I have a few reasons for softening my stance.

The KICC management entered into a three-year contract with Alliance media offering a whole three year advertising deal worth Sh5 million per year.

To be fair to the KICC management, when they made the decision, they did this with the noblest of intentions and probably did not have a clue just how huge a can of worms they would be opening in terms of public opposition.

They were looking at tax payers’ interest hence their creativity to think of an extra income earning mechanism. Tom Peters is famous for his management advice, that as a leader, you should reward spectacular/excellent failures and punish mediocre successes