Fallout from the Publicis/Omnicom merger

July 29, 2013

Richard PinderBy Richard Pinder

When first hearing the Publicis and Omnicom merger rumours you could have been forgiven for thinking it to be some silly season gossip.

But as we know POG is not a passing fancy, it is for real. Hats off to Maurice Levy who has consistently shown his ability to be daring, decisive and dynamic just when people least expect it.

So what drove it? And who are the winners and losers? First, two sets of observations:

The announcement was made in Paris, not New York. The Group will be called the Publicis Omnicom Group, not the Omnicom Publicis Group. The revenues of Publicis Groupe are some way below those of Omnicom Group though their market caps are much closer, but it will be a merger 50/50 owned by the two companies shareholders.
After the dust has settled and the merger is done, the silly co-CEO thing is finished with and the company starts to operate normally, the CEO will be John Wren, from Omnicom, the CFO likely to be Randy Weisenberger from Omnicom, the ticker marker on the NYSE will be OMC and largest market for the combined entity will be the USA.

Once the incredulity subsides, you can see the attraction to Maurice and John. And as the above simple summary shows, you can see the game that is being played by both to get the other to agree to the deal. The former gets to show the French establishment what world class really means, a brilliant retirement gig as non executive Chairman of the world’s number one advertising group and without having to go through with the charade of making good his oft delivered promise to Jean-Yves Naouri to be his successor. The latter, within 30 months, gets to run something nearly double the size of OMC today, in seriously good shape in Digital and Emerging Markets, the number one ad agency of the number one spending client in the world – P&G who had only just taken most of their business from OMC – and all without the pain and risk of taking the long road there.

For Elisabeth Badinter it’s a fabulous end to her tenure as Chair of Publicis – seeing the company her father founded in 1926 become number one globally, as well as securing the very strong valuation on her holding that today’s Publicis stock price provides. For a number of senior managers there will likely be the triggering of various unvested options, stock grants and other goodies, not to mention the special dividends, that will mean good will all round. So, off on the August vacances with a spring in their step? Well not everyone…

For a start there is precious little in the announcement about WHY this is better for clients. We can see it’s better for doing deals with the big media partners, old and new. Scale counts there. But when the bulk of the enterprise’s activity is still about finding, creating and executing inspirational ideas to motivate the world’s population to choose one brand over another brand, there is a point beyond which scale can actually be a disadvantage – talent feels lost, ideas get killed by people who have no idea what the clients’ needs are and everything takes too long and costs too much. Well that’s what a large number of large clients have been telling me this past two years since I left Paris as COO of Publicis Worldwide.

There is also the small matter of the $500m savings mooted in the announcement. Publicis Groupe runs lean. Margins are already industry best. So the chances of finding much of the savings there seem slim. It will be interesting to see how the board of BBDO reacts to the likely loss of their top tier international travel rights, or the agencies of DDB cope with tough bonus rules that tie every unit in the company to the performance of those around them, as happens at Leo Burnett or Publicis today.

As a footnote on the winners and losers, spare a thought for those who fought, lost and thought they had won in the long-running soap opera called Maurice Levy’s succession. Just as the game looked like it would soon be over, the sport got changed and everything was different.

It will also be fascinating to see what WPP do about this. They have got used to being the world’s largest and Sir Martin is rarely quiet for long on any topic, let alone one so close to home. Bookies will surely be giving poor odds on a shotgun WPP/IPG or WPP/Havas union.

And me? Well as client choice reduces, the need for new global alternatives will continue to increase. It’s why we started The House Worldwide and it’s why we think it will  be increasingly relevant to clients who want to get back to a world where the client and the brand are more important than the agent promoting it, and where the money is better off going to the talent than to the accountants counting it.

Bigger and smaller, that’s the future of the ad network game.

Richard Pinder is co-founder and CEO of The House International. He was formerly the head of Publicis Worldwide.

 

Advertisements

Richard Pinder launches global network with Maserati as a client

March 26, 2013

Richard PinderAfter years of being a jet-setting senior suit in someone else’s service, Richard Pinder has decided to go global on his own account with the ambitious launch of international network The House Worldwide.

Pinder, it will be recalled, was head of Publicis Worldwide for five years until group succession politics (the imposition of Jean-Yves Naouri as executive chairman) made further tenure of his position unrealistic.

That was two years ago. Since then, Pinder has been pondering how to cash in on his experience with global clients (he’s worked for over 25 years in Asia, Europe and the USA; for Leo Burnett, Ogilvy & Mather and Grey, as well as Publicis) by building a new-model worldwide agency network.

No mean cliché, the cynic will object. We’ve heard the rhetoric before. What’s the reality?

It’s true that the agency world has long been struggling with a “post-analogue” structural solution to the increasingly financially unviable traditional creative agency network, with its army of regional bureaucracies. Some have proffered a solution in the form of the fleeter-footed international micro-network (step forward BBH, Wieden & Kennedy and – in its heyday – StrawberryFrog.

Pinder, however, has gone a step further in presenting a top-down managerial solution – or perhaps that should be management consultancy solution – in place of the piecemeal creative one. His starting point is that the traditional global advertising business – unlike professional counterparts such as lawyers and accountants – loses most of its senior talent to the management of regional geographic fiefdoms, which are there primarily because of historical legacy. What this talent should be doing is servicing the client’s agenda rather than their own corporate one. The exception, where the client really can insist on top-level personal service, is a vanishingly small number of mega-clients, such as Ford and Procter & Gamble, which have specially structured teams to pander to their requirements.

Pinder’s idea is to provide this level of service for global, or at least international, clients further down the budgetary league table. Each client should be serviced by no less than three senior people at any one time. To do this, he has joined forces with a core team of like-minded senior executives: initially, Peter Rawlings, former chief operating officer DDB Asia, Chris Chard, former chief strategy officer of Lowe Worldwide in New York and Ben Stobart, former senior vice-president (chief suit) of Burnett Chicago. These will deal directly with top clients on a day-to-day basis; the specialist skills base, on the other hand, is to be provided by a network of over a dozen associated network companies, of which the best known is Naked Communications (see AdWeek for a full list).

Note the absence of an overall chief creative officer. This is deliberate: Pinder does not believe a single individual can adequately address the creative needs of all client types.

Why is Pinder convinced this model can operate from a single fixed geographical location (well, actually two in THW’s case – London and Singapore)?  Because of consolidation on the brand management side. More and more marketing power is being concentrated into the hands of Chief marketing officers and indeed chief executives; less and less being delegated to regional and country power bases.

But, the acid test is: has Pinder got any clients? Yes he has. He has been collaborating with two over the past year in honing the organisational structure of THW, during what he calls “beta mode” (how digitally au courant).

And they are? Maserati and an upmarket specialist haircare brand, GHD (stands for “Good Hair Day”). Both, he tells me, are poised at an interesting fulcrum of development, from the brand and new product point of view.

Maserati, an ultra luxury sports car marque lodged in the Chrysler/Fiat stable, has been given a €1.6bn injection to broaden its model range and take on Porsche.

GHD – which produces premium-priced hair stylers – is also cash-rich after being bought for £300m by Lion Capital. Lion is investing in npd, with a view to bringing GHD out of the salon and onto the international stage. Inevitably, that is going to involve careful brand positioning as GHD moves into a broader market segment.

However, Pinder is coy on the subject of who, apart from Maserati and GHD, is bankrolling all of this. It seems likely that both principal founders (Pinder and Rawlings) have skin in the game. But a project of this scope is financially beyond most individual investors, even if they are relatively wealthy admen. Private equity seems to the answer. Among the list of network associates is, rather intriguingly, a UK-based hedge fund called Toscafund, whose chairman is former RBS bigwig Sir George Mathewson. Pinder claims Toscafund is very handy on the “analytics” side. No doubt. But my guess is it’s providing a lot more resource than that.


WPP hurls BRICbats at Publicis Groupe’s performance figures

February 11, 2012

An arcane row has broken out between agency behemoths WPP and Publicis Groupe over the latter’s claimed financial performance.

First, some necessary background to the dispute.

These days, only two things really matter for global agency holding companies presenting themselves in the annual financial beauty parade. Two things, that is, beyond a clean set of figures showing decent organic growth, enhanced operating margins and a handsome improvement in earnings per share (EPS).

They are: how much revenue is digital (as opposed to derived from ‘traditional’ advertising). And: how much comes from emerging economies.

The annual figures merely tell us how well the company has been stewarded in the recent past. But the other two criteria are much more exciting because they are predictive. Get them right and you tantalise shareholders with the thought of future gain, garner positive headlines in the financial media, boost the share price and – if you are one of the company’s most senior executives – make yourself still richer in the process.

By these standards, Publicis Groupe has just produced a corker. Never mind revenue growth of 5.7% to €5.8bn in near economic-blizzard conditions, or operating margins of 16%, or EPS up 14%. What really mattered to The Financial Times was a sound-bite: Publicis’ US digital revenues are set to overtake those of traditional media.

And to be fair, it is a pretty singular statistic considering that, as recently as 2006, digital was only 7% of PG’s revenue globally; now by comparison that global figure is nearly 31%.

“Digital” is of course shorthand for: our share of the pie in the only bit of the advertising economy still growing in developed economies, such as the USA and Europe.

Of no less importance as a corporate virility symbol is “emerging markets”, the geographical counterpart of “digital’s” sectoral dominance. Maximum bragging rights are accorded to those who can establish leadership in the most significant of these markets, the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India and China).

PG chief Maurice Lévy’s claim that 75% of group revenues will in the “pretty near future” be derived from a combination of digital and emerging markets such as “Brazil and China” is therefore music to the investment community’s ears.

Better still for investor returns, Lévy claims he will reach this milestone ahead of his rivals Omnicom and WPP.

Not surprisingly, these rivals are livid at the suggestion. So incensed in fact that WPP, for one, is challenging the factual evidence on which Lévy has built his ambitious projections.

It has dissected PG’s webcast financial presentation and done a slide-by-slide demolition of PG’s BRIC performance. I won’t bore you with all the details. But here’s the gist:

Slide 32, Brazil. Lévy mentioned last year that Brazil was PG’s 4th largest market. Now he’s saying it’s the 6th. What happened?

Slide 33, China. WPP takes issue with PG’s assertion that it will double its size in this all-important market by 2013, from a $200m 2010 revenue baseline. It says the ‘3 creative network leaders’ claim is a myth. R3 sourced figures actually put WPP and Omnicom agencies ahead of PG’s. Cannes performance also suggests WPP outguns Publicis. PG claims to be top in media buying: this is flatly disputed by WPP, which says RECMA figures prove it is overall leader in Greater China. The key argument, avers WPP, is over organic growth. Here, PG is achieving about 8.5% while WPP appears to be nearing 16% a year.

Slide 36, Russia. PG claims leadership in this market both in media (Vivaki) and creative (Leo Burnett and Publicis Worldwide). WPP asserts that there are no reliable creative rankings in Russia and where media is concerned it is emphatically on top with 28% share versus PG’s 23.2%, according to RECMA figures.

Slide 37, India. PG claims to be number one in new media business (Vivaki) and no 2 in creative (Leo Burnett), quoting R3 as the source. But R3 does not do a new business table for India, says WPP. PG claims strong positions in digital, healthcare and PR, but with no source attached. PG’s digital presence is “tiny” (says WPP), and it has made no recent acquisitions. As for media, according to RECMA, WPP’s GroupM has 42.7% share while Vivaki is 3rd with 9.4% share. Creatively, the latest Economic Times 2011 Brand Equity rankings for agencies (the only authoritative source on this subject) puts two WPP agencies Ogilvy and JWT first and second, while Burnett is 6th and Saatchi & Saatchi 17th.

It’s no surprise, of course, to find these two deadly rivals engaged in another slanging match, albeit disguised in high-falutin’ finance speak. What will be interesting is if Publicis has a riposte.

POSTSCRIPT. I note that, despite a strong set of figures and robust balance sheet, PG has maintained rather than increased its dividend. As Lévy explained, that’s because PG needs to hold on to all the cash it can in case it has to buy back up to €900m of Dentsu shares later this year. In view of recent developments, this seems highly likely.


Naouri’s path to the top at Publicis leaves Pinder stranded

March 31, 2011

This week, a famous media-oriented company, family-built yet globally traded, publicly acknowledged its succession strategy. No, it’s not NewsCorp I’m talking of here (though it certainly fits the description), but Publicis Groupe.

It seems that my tentative question of over a year ago – Will Jean-Yves Naouri be the next ceo of Publicis Groupe? – has been strongly answered in the affirmative.

Little alternative interpretation can be placed on Groupe CEO Maurice Lévy’s statement to the Financial Times that Naouri “is clearly in a leading position for winning the race” to taking over as chief executive when he himself departs in “a few more years.”

As it happens, Publicis insiders have long since been placing their bets on Naouri, albeit with a few reservations about his candidature. Like any leader-in-waiting, Naouri has gradually been acquiring the instruments of power. He’s on the Groupe senior management board, he’s its chief operating officer and, thanks to his reputation as an experienced trouble-shooter, he’s been given “special powers” to shore up Publicis’ strategic weakness (relatively speaking) in China.

However, what marks out his transition from heir presumptive to heir apparent is the decision to install him as executive chairman of Publicis Worldwide. This really is entrusting the heir with the crown jewels. It means putting Naouri very much in the public eye, by letting him run a high-profile creative network.

Not any high-profile creative network, either. It is the Groupe’s flagship – quintessentially Gallic yet global – and very much Lévy’s personal fiefdom.

That is certainly one explanation for why, under first Rick Bendel and then Richard Pinder, it has effectively been run by chief operating officers rather than a formal CEO. In effect, it didn’t need one, since Lévy kept a watchful but fatherly eye on its activities.

Publicis has, of course, been here before. In 2006, Lévy poached Olivier Fleurot, a former FT Group chief executive, as executive chairman of the creative network, at the same time that Pinder was brought in as COO. Then, as now, the honorific appointment gave rise to speculation that Lévy was grooming his successor. However, by Spring 2009 Fleurot had moved off the boil (or at least off the board): to head the holding company’s PR operations, leaving Pinder soldiering on alone at Publicis Worldwide – with effective responsibility for the network, but not full empowerment.

This being so, it is understandable why Pinder should choose to quit now. Being British in a top French company is not quite the barrier to top-flight promotion it might appear at first sight – as David Jones’ recent elevation at Havas Groupe demonstrates. Even so, the odds on Pinder being further promoted – despite his successful 5-year tenure at Publicis Worldwide – seemed remote. In effect, the appointment of Naouri was the coup de grâce to his career advancement. It’s a loss for Publicis, too, because the relentlessly itinerant Pinder gave the network a genuinely cosmopolitan aura.

As far as I can make out, the parting has been amicable enough: Lévy appears to have been keen for Pinder to stay on; and was financially generous when it became apparent he would not. Pinder seems to have a clear idea of what he wants to do next, though what that is I do not know.

Anyway, back to Naouri. Is there any reason to suppose that he may suffer the same fate as Fleurot? Not really. For one thing, time is pressing in a way it was not back in 2006. Lévy is now in “extra time” as group CEO, and shareholders will want a definitive solution sooner rather than later. True, Naouri still has to be anointed by the most important shareholder of them all, Elisabeth Badinter (daughter of Publicis’ founder and the single-biggest stakeholder). But that’s beginning to seem more and more a formality as the alternatives ebb away. The job is now Naouri’s to lose, not someone else’s to win.

The more interesting question is: what will happen to Lévy himself when Naouri is formally given the top job. Will he really retire?

As a candidate, Naouri certainly ticks many boxes. He comes from the right French social and educational background. His relationship with Dominique Strauss-Kahn could be invaluable, should the current managing director of the IMF ever run for president (polls indicate he would beat Nicolas Sarkozy). But charismatic he is not.

The possibility therefore exists that Lévy might be asked to stay on in some capacity. Perhaps as lifetime president.


Buckle your safety belts: GM has put Joel Ewanick in the global driving seat

December 21, 2010

You’ll have to forgive me. Unlike former Porsche marketer Joel Ewanick, I don’t live in the fast-lane – meaning, I’ve just caught up with the news that he has been appointed to the new position of global chief marketing officer, General Motors.

Even by his standards, that was quick work. He only joined the organisation eight months ago as US vice president marketing, after a brief and apparently stormy sojourn at Nissan. But what an eight months that’s been. The relentless cutting-edge of the whirling dervish has left no department intact, no slogan unchallenged, no strategy unexamined, no agency relationship unmarked. Most notoriously, it will be recalled, he summarily despatched Publicis Worldwide only weeks after it had won the $700m Chevrolet account, and replaced it with (off-roster but on-message, so far as Ewanick is concerned) Goodby Silverstein & Partners. Then, judging perhaps that he had gratuitously made an enemy of one of the most powerful admen in the world, he placated Maurice Lévy by firing BBH from $270m Cadillac and giving the business to Fallon instead. I’m sure there were other reasons for this move: but it cannot be entirely coincidental that Fallon is wholly owned by Publicis Groupe, of which Lévy is the ceo, whereas BBH is only 49% owned by the same company. More money, then, into the main exchequer.

Any way, back to Ewanick. There are at least two, not entirely contradictory, ways of looking at his brand of marketing management; the success of his current appointment will depend on which is uppermost.

The first we have already seen: the change agent on steroids who will stop at nothing to become the world’s most famous car-marketer, in a vainglorious attempt to salvage the apparently unsalvageable: GM’s reputation.

The second is a man with an indisputable reputation for turning around troubled car marques. He did it at Porsche Cars North America during the nineties (no fly-by-nighter there – he stayed nearly nine years as general manager marketing); and he did it again during his 3-year stint as head of marketing at Hyundai North America. Hyundai is now – arguably – America’s most successful car brand.

In this new role we’re going to discover whether success has gone to Ewanick’s head or not. According to the man who appointed him, GM CEO Dan Akerson (himself a new kid on the managerial block), he “will ensure consistent global messaging fro all brands including Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC, Holden, Opel and Vauxhall. Ewanick will provide oversight for global brand enhancements in the markets in which they are sold and work in association with the regional presidents in countries where GM has partnerships and joint ventures.”

The key regional bosses we are talking about here are the ones with dominion in Britain (Vauxhall), Australia (Holden) and Germany (Opel) – Ewanick already controls the rest. And the key issue is how much these brands desire, or even require, “consistent global messaging” – still less an American-centric version of it. Let’s not forget that these were the successful bits, devolved from GM’s incompetent Detroit management – the bits that didn’t have to go into Chapter 11 a while back. I wonder whether Ewanick has the forbearance to acknowledge that. Somehow, I can’t imagine tact is his number one quality.

Whatever happens, it’s going to be an interesting ride for GM’s European roster agencies. DLKW Lowe, McCann Erickson, Scholz & Friends and Amsterdam Worldwide, fasten your seat belts.


Francis Maude’s Sword of Damocles leaves the COI’s future hanging by a thread

October 15, 2010

Clearly the future of the Central Office of Information, which has been around since 1946, is even more precarious than I – or I suspect its chief executive Mark Lund (left) – had imagined.

Not content with imposing an emasculating 40% cut on the COI’s 737-strong workforce, the Government is now openly toying with the idea of casting its eviscerated carcass onto the bonfire of the quangos.

The decision, which will not be finalised until the end of November, is in the hands of cabinet office minister Francis Maude. Maude’s views on the subject may readily be gauged by his recent actions. He has floated the idea of the BBC airing COI campaigns free of charge – presumably in place of the many self-indulgent programme trailers and cross-channel promotions which now clog our viewing. Indeed, he has gone further. Since media buying would, to the extent that campaigns are aired by the BBC and not commercial channels, become redundant, he has taken the logical step of opening negotiations with WPP over M4C’s £200m centralised media buying contract.

Strip out centralised media buying, and it is very difficult to see what else is propping up the rationale of the COI. Specialised consultancy advice? Increasingly unlikely. Such industry knowledge will be a rare commodity once the organisation has been cut to the bone. And if that is so, the road to dissolution begins to look like a four-lane motorway. As with other quangos facing the axe, any essential functions will be transferred to alternative organisations – here, the bigger-spending departments of state such as the DoH.

All this would be a terrible blow for commercial television (especially ITV, which carries the bulk of COI campaigns). But it is doubtful whether agencies (beyond M4C and the media buying community) would shed anything other than a few crocodile tears. Someone still has to make the ads; and Richard Pinder, chief operating officer of Publicis Worldwide, has made it abundantly clear that his agency for one would be right behind the Maude proposal. Others may be more muted, but it’s unlikely they will disagree with him.

If Maude gets his way, it will be the realisation of a terrible irony. Previous COI ceos – namely Carol Fisher and Alan Bishop – have fought tooth and nail over the past decade, ultimately successfully – to suppress a secession by departments of state.

But will Maude actually go through with it? Don’t underestimate the BBC’s ability to kick up a stink over this: it doesn’t like the Maude Plan any more than ITV, although for a quite different reason. The whole issue threatens to become mired in a heated “public interest” debate, pivoting on the BBC’s impaired political impartiality. What with the brouhaha over BSkyB (to refer, or not refer, Rupert Murdoch’s bid), I doubt that the coalition government will have the stomach to take on an alienated ITV and truculent BBC as well. No doubt about it, though, it’s a thin thread the COI’s future hangs by.


Bye Bye American Pie as Chevy leaves Lévy – for Omnicom

May 21, 2010

Blimey, that was quick. Publicis Worldwide barely had time to savour its triumph in landing the massive Chevrolet account  – Chevrolet amounts to 70% of General Motors’ sales – before discovering it had spectacularly lost the business to Omnicom-owned Goodby Silverstein & Partners.

The loss of the account, reckoned by one well-placed insider to be worth roughly what the whole of Publicis’ UK office earns in a year, is a huge set-back for group chief Maurice Lévy.

Volt: Battery version vital to GM's survival

Not only is it a hole in the revenue sheet when he, like everyone else, can least afford it, but also a stinging blow to corporate prestige. And yet there was little he could have done about it.

So far as I can make out, this account loss owes little to agency incompetence and almost everything to new brooms sweeping clean. The announcement comes only two weeks after GM hired former Hyundai marketing chief Joel Ewanick as overall  brand supremo, pushing CMO Susan Docherty to the sidelines only two months into the job. Goodby has worked closely with Hyundai which, as is well known, is experiencing a sales surge in the USA. There’s another connection, too. San Francisco-based Goodby was once the agency for GM’s now discontinued Saturn brand.

For Omnicom, the win is a welcome comeback to the car sector. It lost out heavily when Chrysler went into Chapter 11 last year.

GM is now 61% owned by the American taxpayer and is on course for an initial public offering next year, whose object is to pay back some of the $43bn (£30bn) it owes. It has two imminent launches considered vital to its survival: a battery-powered version of the Volt; and a new Cruze small car.

Publicis originally won the business from GM’s oldest roster agency, Campbell-Ewald. Now an Interpublic subsidiary, Campbell-Ewald had held GM business since 1919.


%d bloggers like this: