Comments on: Why isn’t WPP scary in Australia?

By: Harry M

Harry M — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 04:44:20 +0000

Not sure what a “cultural roar” sounds like but like the idea. Just musing that any “cultural roar” that might exist now is being downed out by the clatter of calculator and every loss is an amplifier.

By: signeda noblogpolicy

signeda noblogpolicy — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:14:44 +0000

Sorry, what’s the vision? Best practice over cash generation – surely the two are intrinsically linked. Ah maybe that’s the point, instead of thinking about how to make money, we’re too concerned with how to save it. Constantly looking in the rearview mirror so can’t really move forward.

I know what you mean about WPP ‘frenetic’ in London, it WAS better! Leadership is a big part of this. One thing I was always very clear on is what the company vision was, what our goals were from Clark to Allen, to Glanvill. There was a consensus on what we stood for, common ground even.

No idea what we stand for here. Definitely not the roar in culture you get when walking into any of the GroupM agencies in London.

By: Steve T

Steve T — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:50:21 +0000

Surely the question is ‘why do these people have to re-rwire these agencies in the first place?’ James is absolutely correct in that it takes time and investment to repair the neglect and ‘old world’ thinking that has existed for some time, however the other points are also correct in that the other question is ‘how serious are the regional managers in creating best practice rather than cash generation?”

By: James Vosper

James Vosper — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 07:39:37 +0000

Having also worked in London and Sydney I agree that “scary” is not a viable position here.

One obvious difference is the greater power of the media here compared to the UK. Intellectual power and creativity are needed to win and grow business.

I agree with James Greet that, anyone who wants to have a dig at someone, should be willing to put their name to it.

By: Darren Paterson

Darren Paterson — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 04:20:36 +0000

Tim, getting back to your initial point about WPP London agencies being more agressive than those locally, I wonder if your observation is actually one that should not be pinpointed to any one particular agency or group, but is a reflection on the agency/busines culture of the two countries. Having now worked more than a decade in both countries and across several of the agency groups, I believe the difference that you view is not specific to WPP. Locally, business relationships are incredibly important and carry more weight in an agency pitch here than they do in London. Clients want to feel a strong affinity for one of their most important supplier/partner relationships and of course these take time to develop. In a people business, it’s is more often the people that are chosen in a pitch, not the agency. I don’t think being “Scary” works here and it doesn’t impress clients. Trust, good ideas, open minds.. and in some cases, true innovation – these are values that are more likely to resonate.

By: The real anon

The real anon — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 05:42:13 +0000

Well I made the first comment but not the rest. So where is the line drawn for the success of the agency. Coad and co certainly should take full credit for Telstra onwards, the awards, success, staff loyalty and so on. Prevous inroads were helpful but that’s all.

By: WPPed

WPPed — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 20:39:04 +0000

Great point Mandate… the valid issue raised by anon, which seems to have been over shadowed by ego exchanges, is that WPP in Australia are not in investment mode. As an ex WPPer (as many of us are) I can tell you that any “pool” created in any WPP business right now will be sucked back into the mother ship. At the end of the day this is one of the key reason why WPP are not scary in this country.

By: mumbrella

mumbrella — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 01:30:20 +0000

Hi James,

It’s a fair question you ask. My position so far has been that we remove personal attacks, but do allow anonymous comment on industry issues. It’s for readers to form their own views on the value of those comments.

As it happens, it has been useful to see your response. Anon was repeating what had seemed like a widespread industry perception – that you were given a mandate to spend what it took to turn things around.

It’s interesting to see you point out that you had to create that pool of money by controlling costs. So from that point at least, I’m glad anon raised the issue, because I’ve learned something as a result.

Cheers,

Tim – Mumbrella

By: clive Burcham

clive Burcham — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 00:28:24 +0000

‘Loss is nothing else but change, and change is nature’s delight.’
— Marcus Aurelius

As businesses we generally contract first before we rebuild and when we rebuild, you’re generally much, much better than ever before. The awesome thing about the GFC is most folks have had to rethink their businesses, including clients. Lets face it, in abundance often comes complacency.

It’s easy to pass comment on business success or failure. But try run one, start one or rebuild one. Then you’re qualified mouth off!

I agree with James Greet.

By: Mandate

Mandate — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 21:21:31 +0000

anon – you need to remember that James Greet is a very, very important man.

By: James Greet

James Greet — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:56:48 +0000

@ anon. No i don’t. I remember many things including creating the funds to invest in young talent through cost management, and improving the unprofitable client arrangements passed down by the creative agencies 18 months prior, and all from the loss making position we inherited.
However I’m getting uncomfortable with dignifying your ignorance when you’re not even bold enough to put your name to your comments.
Tim, when are you going to insist that anyone who wants to rant or have a pop only do so on the basis that they’ve got the balls to do it in their name?

By: Mandate

Mandate — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 08:29:35 +0000

anon – that seems a fair point – to be able to effect change you need to have a license to make change. If you don’t have that you can’t get very far, and on many occasions it seems to be the way in agency land that the license doesn’t come unless the place is well and truly buggered in the first place.

That is fine if you are in a sh*t position, as OMD were, but the challenge for most agencies is that they are never felt to be broken enough (in the eyes of regional/global management) to make the necessary change. Hence endless tinkering that addresses short term needs rather than long term objectives.

By: Liam

Liam — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 08:09:46 +0000

I would add that thematically I agree. The current OMD management is rock solid however James did a lot of work to assist with this. He knew what he wanted and he patiently went about getting it.

By: Noel Itall

Noel Itall — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 07:19:34 +0000

from my years being an agency hack one thing i’ve learnt is they don’t transform overnight … change takes time and there’s lots of external factors a media agency (or a creative agency) that influence operational and directional change.

so all the armchair experts who are canning mediacom/jenner/matt etc should probably question whether they’re really qualified to comment on the validity of what they’re trying to do long term with the agency.

re omd – 6-7 years ago the place was a mess. now it’s the leading agency in the country. it’s naive to attribute their success in the last 3 years specifically to the leadership of only the last 3 years … just like it’s naive to attribute mediacom losing DJs to toby jenner and his team and what he’s trying to do.

By: anon

anon — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 07:04:18 +0000

Dont you recall the conversations James?