HSBC’s £400m global review that never was

March 9, 2013

Chris Clark HSBCSo, what was all that about? HSBC’s group marketing director Chris Clark calls a review of the “£400m” (actually rather less these days) global account late last year. Well, not exactly a review. More a series of private meetings that happen to take in the incumbent agency’s rivals at Omnicom, IPG and Publicis – just in case they have any bright ideas. No fundamental discussions take place on either strategy or creativity, because none are called for, even from the incumbent JWT.

Sniffing a rat, McCann (IPG) and BBDO (Omnicom) pull out. Late yesterday (a good time to bury news) it trickles out that WPP has, er, retained the account. But there have been a few twists of the kaleidoscope. Most salient is that outsider Saatchi & Saatchi (Publicis) will now handle the small-spending (relatively speaking) retail banking and wealth business across Europe and in Latin America. JWT is still at the epicentre, with the global brand business, but will now share the rest of the account with its WPP sister agency, Grey London.

Is this a classic piece of agency punishment meted out by the client? We still like you, WPP: but you’ve gone a bit flabby. So, just to make sure you’re on your toes, we’ll keep you on tenterhooks for a few months and then award a chunk of business to one of your rivals – to see how hungry they are.

Was it simply an exercise in cheese-paring the fees, as JWT officially likes to see it, on the part of one of the world’s wealthiest institutions?

Or is this Chris Clark desperately trying to justify his job as CMO (in all but name)? A marking time exercise, while he and his boss, HSBC chief executive Stuart Gulliver, dream up a successor to the faded strap line, The World’s Local Bank?

Because, of course, it isn’t anymore. If you rolled the market capitalisation of Barclays, Lloyds Bank and RBS together, they wouldn’t add up to that of HSBC – which remains by far Britain’s largest bank. But internationally, Gulliver has been busy rolling back the borders, with the divestment of businesses from as far afield as Argentina, Russia and Singapore. The proceeds of which were one contributory reason for the humungous profits the bank was able to declare only last week.

In the recent past, Clark has talked up the need to spend more marketing pounds on the product side (i.e., the separate bank businesses) and less on the corporate brand. One reasonable interpretation of this stance is that banks, in these bonus-bashing times, would do well to get their heads down to providing some basic customer service, as opposed to extravagantly boasting about their global expanse.

Another (they are not mutually exclusive) is that Clark and his colleagues haven’t got a clue what they should do. “In the future” doesn’t quite do it, does it? And in any case, as Clark himself once quipped, it’s more of a start than an end line.

About these ads

Churchill bereft after speeding offences put Martin Clunes on his bike

November 20, 2012

It says something for Martin Clunes that we will miss him co-fronting those Churchill insurance commercials. The actor, goofier and more touchy-feely in real life than his dour Doc Martin persona suggests, nevertheless has a strong competitive streak which has proved his undoing. After a belting performance in a BMW 6 Series during a Top Gear episode long ago, the adrenaline rush has gone to his head – and he has now maxed out on speeding penalty points. Loss of his driving licence is clearly incompatible with a role as brand ambassador for a “safety-first” financial services company.

WCRS, the ad agency that has handled the Churchill account since almost time immemorial, tells us it has no more Clunes ads in the can. Whether, after a year, Clunes really had run his course as an ad property or the agency is simply trying to make a virtue of necessity with a face-saving statement, I have no idea. The fact remains that Clunes’ partnership with the near-monosyllabic animatronic bulldog mascot will prove a hard act to follow.

Branding devices that create instant recognition like the Churchill bulldog are marketing gold-dust. But they are also a cross to bear for the agency handling the account. Many years ago I well remember Tony Toller – creative director of Davidson Pearce, the agency then in charge of the notorious “Chimps” Brooke Bond PG Tips account – lamenting that he hadn’t gone into the ad business to become an animal trainer. The very simplicity of this type of branding device constrains creativity and makes evolution in new market conditions extremely difficult. The Andrex labrador puppy is another case in point.

Clunes indisputably opened a new chapter in the nodding dog saga. Not since John Prescott departed from the political stage had “Churchill” found such a natural human doppelgänger. The result of the pairing was a series of Wallace & Gromit-style antics that far transcended other, recent, comedic endorsements of the brand.

The question for WCRS – and indeed, for the bulldog himself – is: where to now?



£1.7bn global ad review is creative solution to Johnson & Johnson’s money problem

July 25, 2012

It would be nice to think that Johnson & Johnson’s newly announced review of its £1.7bn annual advertising spend was driven by a need for greater creative consistency. But it isn’t.

Money’s the thing – saving it that is. J&J may be one of the world’s biggest brands, but it’s also a company in trouble. Since 2009 J&J has suffered numerous recalls in the US, mainly of its over-the-counter drugs like Tylenol and Benadryl; but the prescription and medical devices businesses have also been hard hit. All in all, it’s said to have lost $1bn in sales, partly through bad luck and mostly through sheer incompetence.

At first it was the staff – including the marketing department – who paid, by being made surplus to requirements. Now it is the spend that’s being trimmed. Judge for yourself from the officialspeak: “Johnson & Johnson is conducting a global agency review and consolidation to build greater value and deliver innovative and fully integrated solutions for our consumer brands.” Well, they wouldn’t want less innovative solutions would they? And they could hardly be less fully integrated than they are at the moment.

In truth, there’s an easy win here for the new kid on the block, Michael Sneed – who became J&J’s top marketing (and PR) officer at the beginning of this year. There could hardly be a less efficient way of running your global marketing services than the one that exists at the moment. Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and All are at the advertising trough. It would be simpler to name a global marcoms group that isn’t on the roster.

WPP has business through JWT and AKQA; Publicis Groupe through Razorfish; Interpublic through Deutsch, Lowe, The Martin Agency and R/GA; Omnicom through DDB and BBDO; and Havas through Euro RSCG. That leaves, er, Dentsu and MDC off the list.

Sneed is a company lifer who, at various stages of his J&J career, has shown considerable sensitivity towards advertising creativity. It will be interesting to see whether this natural instinct gets overridden by the all-powerful imperative of saving the company money. Don’t expect a self-aggrandising Ewanick moment – Sneed seems too modest for that. Do expect a financial deal, of the “Team WPP” or more likely “Commonwealth” variety, that dresses up financial expediency as a coherent creative solution.

The most interesting thing about this review may be the losers. If Interpublic is among them, perhaps group CEO Michael Roth will at last seek to do a deal with Publicis Groupe. The air is certainly thick with rumours to that effect at the moment.


Last top 10 Brazilian indie Neogama sells out to Publicis Groupe, not BBH

July 4, 2012

It seems that months-long negotiations over who will own the controlling stake in fashionable Brazilian agency Neogama BBH (see my earlier post here) are now completed. So says the Brazilian trade press.

And the answer, shortly to be announced on the French Bourse, is: Publicis Groupe. Not BBH.

Do such technicalities matter, given that all these agencies are part of the same, happy, family? Well, yes they do. There’s more for micro-network BBH in this award-winning agency than a 35% stake.

Neogama’s biggest single client is burgeoning Brazilian bank Bradesco, but the agency also plays an important role in servicing BBH global clients such as Unilever and Diageo.

As is well known, Publicis Groupe is essentially Procter & Gamble-aligned. The only reason BBH, and therefore Neogama BBH, is permitted to handle Unilever business is a ring-fencing 51% stake in BBH held by its senior staff, chiefly group chairman Nigel Bogle.

If Publicis Groupe has directly bought out Neogama BBH, which it appears to have done, what will happen to that sizeable chunk of Unilever business? That is the question – as posed by rival Unilever agencies WPP, Interpublic and Omnicom.

Neogama’s principal shareholder is its flamboyant founder, Alexandre Gama. His is the only top-ten agency Brazilian agency that, up to now, has managed to remain independent. His motives for selling out? He has been running his agency a long time – over 12 years. Bradesco is overweight as the main client. And money, yes money. Gama’s services are highly in demand, and he knows it. He has been hawking his stake about for some time – in the not unreasonable expectation that he will get a bigger wedge from PG if he does so.

Ideally, BBH should have been the one to buy him out. But it doesn’t have the money. So Publicis Groupe, which probably had first refusal anyway, stepped in and snapped up the agency. Gama will now have to report directly to PG group chief executive Maurice Lévy, which he will not enjoy very much. By all accounts, the two men loathe each other.

Even when the Neogama acquisition is completed, WPP – owner of Y&R, JWT and Ogilvy – will continue to be the biggest biller in Brazil.

Neogama’s $667m turnover in 2011 was up 5% on the previous year, according to Inter-Media Project. Its revenue was $53m. It has 270 staff, according to Publicis Groupe.

UPDATE 9/7/12: Some further facts and figures about Neogama’s performance have come my way. Almost certainly included in the deal were two Neogama subsidiaries, Triacom – a promotion company – and MIM – a digital specialist. BBH’s precise share in Neogama was 34.4%. It had no share in Triacom or MIM. The latest financial performance figures were:

Gross revenue, for Neogama, Triacom and MIM respectively:  $66.7m, $8.7m and $1.1m. Net revenue: $57.3m, $7.9m and $0.9m. Operating profit: $28.4m, $1.5m and $0.4m. Operating profit after tax: $18.1m, $06m  and $0.3m.

A rumour has surfaced that Neogama’s biggest client, Bradesco, is reviewing.


Rita Clifton to step down as UK chairman of Interbrand

June 16, 2012

Rita Clifton, one of the UK’s best-known brand experts, is stepping down as UK chairman of Interbrand, the Omnicom-owned brand consultancy which she has headed for 10 years.

Clifton will officially leave on July 31st, although she is thought to have submitted her resignation earlier this year. She has long served on a three-day-a-week basis, and has a well developed career portfolio that includes several non-executive directorships. Besides being non-executive chairman of opinion pollster to The Times Populus, she is also a NED of Dixons, the electrical retailer, and BUPA, the global healthcare company. Since 2007, she has been a trustee of WWF-UK. In 2009 she was appointed president of the Market Research Society.

“Ten years in the chair (and 5 years as CEO before that) is quite long enough when it’s not your own company, and I have wanted to set up a private office to run/extend my non-exec and pro bono portfolio and do independent speaking and writing about brands for some time,” she says.

Clifton is a prolific writer on brands. Among her publications are the Future of Brands, published by Interbrand, and Brands and Branding, published by The Economist.

She began her career as an account planner at DMB&B and J Walter Thompson (JWT). In 1986 she moved to Saatchi & Saatchi London where she rose to deputy chairman and executive planning director in 1995.

Started in 1974 by John Murphy in the UK, Interbrand has morphed into a global organisation with nearly 40 offices and claims to be the world’s largest brand consultancy. It was acquired by Omnicom in 1993.

 


Who will win Tesco’s £110m advertising account?

April 13, 2012

Stand by for the most hotly contested UK advertising pitch of the year – the £110m (Nielsen) Tesco account is up for grabs.

But don’t hold your breath for a result. This is going to be a long-drawn-out contest, meticulously referee’d at every stage by agency intermediary Oystercatchers. Not a cosy inside job, pushed through on a nod and a wink from Tesco’s C Suite, as has tended to be the case in the past.

The first stage, happening quite soon, will be the selection of 13 agencies for a credentials presentation. From these, 6 will be invited to pitch, 3 will be eliminated and the winner will emerge in, oh, July some time. If all goes according to plan. So, expect the air to be thick with speculation over the next 4 months.

Let’s be clear before going any further. What’s particularly interesting about this pitch is not the fact that it is taking place now. Few readers will have failed to notice a changing of the guard at Britain’s top retailer, starting with the departure of group chief executive Sir Terry Leahy about a year ago and his replacement by Phil Clarke. Clarke is clearly a man who knows what he wants, and has wasted little time letting his senior colleagues know it too. Out went one-time rival for the top job Richard Brasher, until very recently UK CEO, after some lacklustre performance in the core operation and in came (a little earlier, as it happened) David Wood, late of Tesco Hungary, as head of UK marketing to replace Carolyn Bradley; meantime micro-managing Clarke has seized the UK helm himself.

Equally evidently, Clarke has been under heavy pressure from shareholders to shake things up, pronto. Tesco is still the UK’s biggest grocer by a wide margin, but it is a declining one. Others – practically all its leading rivals in fact – are bettering it in today’s tough market. Earlier this year, Tesco had to do the unthinkable: issue its first profit warning in 20 years, which knocked about £4.5bn off its stock market valuation in one day.

Personal animosity certainly came into Brasher’s dismissal, but there is little doubt that he was a convenient scapegoat too. And maybe with good reason. Brasher’s Big Price Drop campaign was a prelude to a disastrous Tesco Christmas. Brasher also held some rather fixed views on long-term investment. Whereas, what shareholders actually want is profits now, not in some misty future. Clarke knows that a second profit warning will effectively be his corporate suicide note.

So no pressure, Phil, to review your strategy. Ordinarily, UK advertising might seem to bat fairly low in a retail group CEO’s priorities – way beneath, for example, such operational issues as how many and what sort of new stores to open. Not so here, however. In giving Brasher the heave-ho and replacing the muddled duarchy at the top of UK management with a more focused leadership – himself – Clarke is also implicitly challenging Tesco’s long-established marketing tradition. Note that Brasher – like Leahy – came up the marketing route; before being promoted to UK CEO in March 2011, he had been UK marketing supremo since 2006. Clarke, on the other hand, is grounded in operations and IT, not marketing.

That’s why the key word associated with this advertising review is “clarity”. Having brought more focus to UK leadership, Clarke also intends to bring more focus to Tesco’s UK marketing effort. And he’s going to do it by asking some fundamental questions about Tesco’s current positioning. Are the assumptions underlying ‘Every Little Helps’ still relevant in today’s market? How does Tesco’s current marketing strategy benchmark against that of its apparently more successful UK rivals? Has the Tesco brand become too arrogant and impersonal – through servicing the requirements of the City rather than its customers? Clarke wants ideas from his agency pitch list, not just a new colour chart.

Superficially, this looks like bad news for the incumbent agency of 6 years, The Red Brick Road (or Ruby, or whatever the new digitally-enhanced business is going to be called). Although asked to repitch, it is indissolubly linked to the very marketing tradition that Clarke seems hell-bent on changing. Lineally, TRBR is descended from Lowe Howard-Spink; and the strong historic relationship forged between Lowe founder Sir Frank Lowe and Tesco top brass Leahy and his chief marketer Tim Mason. When Sir Frank split from Lowe & Partners (as it was by then called), Tesco backed his breakaway TRBR, but only on condition that Lowe creative chief Paul Weinberger was an integral part of the deal. To this day Weinberger, now chairman of TRBR, is the key mediating figure on the Tesco account (Lowe himself having retired).

That said, there are plenty of good reasons why Tesco might choose to retain TRBR’s services.

First, alone among competing agencies, TRBR will be the one tailored specifically to Tesco’s requirements. (Indeed, many would say this is its primary problem as a diversified advertising agency: despite doing good work for the likes of Magners cider and Thinkbox, it has failed to shake off the image of being Tesco’s house agency.)

Second, notice that Tesco has been careful not to pull the rug entirely from under TRBR. Up for grabs is all the consumer-facing digital and traditional (ie television, press, radio and outdoor) advertising. But not, you’ll observe, trade advertising, which is a substantial part of the overall TRBR fee package. One explanation for this, no doubt, is the sheer complexity of trade marketing; but Tesco also seems to be sending a mildly positive signal to its agency of longstanding.

Third, since this review is really about positioning rather than a creative makeover or a new catchline, don’t underestimate the skills of David Hackworthy and his TRBR planning department.

Fourth, don’t forget that Tim Mason is part of the review team. It’s surely only a matter of time before shareholders get their way and have Clarke cauterise the eye-watering losses at US venture Fresh & Easy, on which Mason currently spends two-thirds of his executive time. That will free more time for Mason’s other two roles as group deputy chief executive and, more pertinently here, group CMO. (It’s also possible that he might choose at that point to bow out; but no one should bank on it.)

Who else will compete for the account? Many prime candidates with suitable retail experience – BBH, DLKW/Lowe, Fallon, AMV BBDO, Rainey Kelly Campbell Rolfe/Y&R – are excluded precisely because they have conflicting supermarket accounts. However, Tesco has made it clear it will look tolerantly upon other kinds of agency conflict: for instance, a clash in financial services or telecoms.

That leaves plenty of possible contenders. As my associate Stephen Foster at MAA has pointed out, Publicis London is surely one of them. Historically, it was keeper of the Asda account and is now captained by former TRBR managing director and Tesco account director Karen Buchanan.

But the hot money will be on WPP. There’s some unsettled business here. Those with keen memories for this sort of thing will recall that, 7 years ago, WPP agency JWT came close to winning a big supermarket account after hiring two key Tesco agency players, Mark Cadman and Russell Lidstone, from a clearly flagging Lowe.

From what I hear, WPP is putting every resource possible behind winning the Tesco trophy. Not only is JWT throwing its hat into the ring; so are Grey, Ogilvy, 24/7 Media and CHI. Though whether individually or as part of a WPP “Team” effort I don’t yet know.

However, WPP agencies should tread with care.

Tesco will surely be aware, or have been made aware, that there is a certain amount of bad blood between Britain’s best-known agency intermediary Oystercatchers (founded by Suki Thompson and ex-JWT new biz director Peter Cowie) and Britain’s best-known and biggest marketing services company, WPP. Namely, the Everystone breakaway affair and its litigious sequel, which came to an unhappy conclusion about a year ago.

The formality of Tesco’s pitch procedure and its choice of intermediary suggests that there is no easy inside-track here for WPP chief Sir Martin Sorrell. I suspect his best course will be to keep an uncharacteristically low profile for the duration of this pitch.


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.


Hasn’t the Andrex puppy turned into a bit of a dog?

December 3, 2010

What should we make of JWT’s new £15m television push for Andrex – featuring the first makeover of the puppy icon since its introduction in 1972?

It’s cute for sure, but I sense mounting desperation at Kimberly-Clark, which owns the brand. The trouble with icons is they become a creative cross to bear once they have outlived their initial usefulness. And the Andrex puppy is now getting very long in the tooth indeed.

Digitalising him, and her, gives the dog a contemporary Pixar feel, but fails to move the brand on. Andrex is already UK brand leader in toilet paper – about the eighth biggest packaged goods brand in the UK and worth over £350m, if memory serves me. But the market is all but flat and lacks significant innovation. The only way forward is premium-product variants such as Shea Butter, introduced last year.

The trouble is, axing the puppy would bring out the crazies. Much better to euthanise him gently in the saccharine world of CGI animation. Rumours of his death, however, may turn out to be exaggerated – and not for the first time as this historic Marketing Week article shows.


J&J, Hollywood and Toni & Guy – JWT hides its hat-trick win under a bushel

December 1, 2010

JWT has racked up a hat-trick of significant ad account wins on the sly recently – perhaps it’s time for that achievement to be more widely known.

One of them is the global Toni & Guy business. ‘Global’ might sound a tad hyperbolic, in view of T&G’s origins as a trendy London hair salon in the Swinging Sixties. But, hey, it’s a worldwide franchise now, big enough to sell its hair product business to Unilever for a cool $411m two years ago. Which is what we’re talking about here.

Then there’s the Kraft Euro haul. Kraft-owned Hollywood is France’s biggest chewing-gum brand. It’s a little-known fact that the French are the biggest consumers, per capita, of gum in the world – Americans excepted. Like the Coca-Cola habit, the French acquired it fairly recently, after rubbing shoulders with ‘visiting’ GIs during the Second World War.

Besides leading the chewing gum market in France, Hollywood is exported throughout Europe, to Africa, China, Madagascar, South America and Canada. Its factories are located in France and Denmark. Ironically, Kraft first acquired the Hollywood brand in 1961, but later sold it to Cadbury in 2000. It’s fair to say  the high-margin Trident gum business, to which Hollywood is aligned, was one of Cadbury’s principal attractions as a bid target. Interestingly, Kraft has just opened a new SwF14m research and development centre at Eysins near Geneva, dedicated to gum and ‘candy’. And maybe just in the nick of time, because trouble is brewing for the $23bn industry, in Europe at least. The anti-social gumminess of the discarded product is causing serious concern – serious enough for the Spanish government to decree that manufacturers change the formula. Unfortunately, the new unsticky stuff is no less controversial: it contains all sorts of chemical nasties such as co-polymer acetate – more commonly associated with glues and emulsion paints.

Last, and most enigmatically, JWT seems to have scooped a very large chunk of Johnson & Johnson’s Western Europe consumer business – worth up to £300m my sources tell me. Enigmatically, because earlier this year Omnicom roster agencies BBDO and DDB were making all the running with J&J business wins. If rumour is to be believed, the JWT windfall will be dire news for J&J’s other roster agency, Lowe – it now retains little more than the femcare creative business in London. Scarcely a consoling thought for Lowe London’s new management buy-in team from DLKW, which itself has just lost the core £25m Halifax account.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 417 other followers

%d bloggers like this: