Sorrell warns Lévy against buying Chinese agency Oriental & Rende

February 28, 2012

In an extraordinary new twist to the Oriental & Rende story I posted the other day, WPP chief executive Sir Martin Sorrell has written to his counterpart at Publicis Groupe, Maurice Lévy, warning him of the dangers of acquiring the Chinese specialist car agency.

Last year, I’m told, WPP subsidiary Ogilvy broke off acquisition talks with O&R after it emerged that the agency – whose main client is VW, Mercedes and Hyundai joint-venture partner FAW – was operating both outside Chinese law and accepted ethical practices. The problem seems to involve under-the-table payments, totalling several million dollars a year, which are being paid to the client management in order to retain business.

It is believed that, in his letter, Sorrell appealed to Lévy’s sense of fair play and emphasised the need for a corruption-free level-playing field in the international advertising business.

Corruption, knowingly or unknowingly, committed in foreign markets is now a major corporate headache. Under section 7 of the UK Bribery Act 2010, it is an offence for commercial organisations registered in the UK, or carrying out business there, to fail to prevent bribery taking place. The burden of proof is on the indicted company to demonstrate that it had adequate anti-corruption controls in place at the time of the offence’s commission. Punishment on conviction ranges up to a 10-year prison sentence and unlimited fines. France has similarly tough anti-corruption legislation governing overseas subsidiaries, involving heavy fines and potential imprisonment.

Whether Sorrell’s letter – to which Lévy is believed to have replied – will have any impact on PG’s decision to buy O&R remains to be seen.

About these ads

Publicis Groupe moots deal with Chinese auto specialist agency Oriental & Rende

February 25, 2012

You’ve got to admire the mettle of the man. Publicis Groupe chief executive Maurice Lévy may have his hands full with a corruption scandal at Betterway, one of PG’s principal Chinese subsidiaries, but his appetite for acquisitions in that part of the world is undiminished.

It has come to my attention that PG is close to striking a deal with a Beijing agency called Oriental & Rende. Never heard of it? I’m not altogether surprised. It’s a smallish specialised agency with revenue estimated at $10m in 2011. But don’t underestimate its strategic significance. This is a way into the booming “Made in China” car business. O&R does what used to be called through-the-line work (advertising, PR, events etc) for many of the Chinese automobile joint-venture companies. Its biggest client by far is FAW, which is allied to VW, Mercedes and Hyundai.

It is believed that WPP earlier showed interest in acquiring O&R but, for reasons which are not yet apparent, decided to pull out of discussions.


Dentsu delivers the coup de grâce to its strategic alliance with Publicis Groupe

February 17, 2012

The only surprise about the dissolution of the Publicis Groupe/Dentsu strategic alliance is the speed with which it has happened. Less than two weeks ago, PG chief executive Maurice Lévy was telling shareholders he couldn’t pay them a better dividend because he had to hoard every last euro in case the Japanese wanted their money back.

In point of fact, the decision to terminate must already have been made, even though the strategic alliance of 10 years still had some months to run. This morning, Dentsu announced it had sold almost all its remaining 11% shareholding (and 15% voting rights) back to Publicis for €644m (£535m). Dentsu retains a 2% stake for the time being, but it’s of little consequence.

Dentsu made a profit of £17m on its investment. Small recompense – it must be said – for a strategic alliance which, from the Japanese point of view, has been largely a sham.

Right from the beginning, Dentsu found itself wrong-footed. It originally founded the alliance with BCom3, a combination of Leo Burnett and MacManus Group, only to find that Publicis had crashed the party by acquiring BCom3. Where previously it might have expected to play a more preponderant role, the addition of Publicis fundamentally changed the balance of power. And reduced Dentsu to an (even more) passive role as a minority shareholder in PG, albeit with some powerful voting rights.

Stripped to essentials, the alliance was supposed to bolster PG’s then-weak position in the Far East, and supercharge Dentsu’s underperformance in North America and Europe.

In practice, it was very much more favourable to Publicis, which had in any case benefited from a massive injection of cash to bankroll acquisitions.

Most mortifying of all, Dentsu eventually found itself not only in direct competition with its ally for scarce North American digital assets – but coming off worse. Notably in the case of the Razorfish acquisition, where Dentsu put a heady $700m on the table, but was swiftly outplayed by Publicis – which enjoyed an inside track with the then-owner of the digital agency, Microsoft, and irritatingly managed to buy the agency for a lower price.

Dentsu soon signalled its growing disenchantment by forcing a sale of 4% of Publicis stock for €218m. Not long thereafter, it showed new and uncharacteristically aggressive intent in Western markets with the unveiling of Dentsu Network West – captained by US Dentsu chief Tim Andree. Where, for years previously, Dentsu had got things spectacularly wrong in the USA, Andree has got at least one big thing spectacularly right. Had he done no more than acquire McGarryBowen – feted by both AdAge and AdWeek as their current agency of the year after a string of high-profile business wins – Tokyo would have good reason to be hugely grateful to him.

In short, Dentsu has outgrown its foreign markets inferiority complex, which gave birth to the alliance in the first place. While Publicis now has an urgent reason to dispose of the corpse as soon as possible. Whoever eventually takes over the hot-seat from Maurice Lévy would have little thanked him for bequeathing them an embittered major shareholder.


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.


Neogama founder and creative chief upsets the BBH applecart by trying to sell his stake

December 19, 2011

There’s an interesting ownership conundrum facing BBH and its 49% sponsor Publicis Groupe. Here is what I have learned.

It concerns Neogama BBH, the global micro-network’s Sao Paulo agency. Its founder, president and chief creative officer Alexandre Gama wants to cash up the majority stake he owns.

Neogama, set up in 1999, is one of Brazil’s top ten agencies and quite a feather in BBH’s cap. It is creatively highly regarded and was the first Brazilian agency to win at Cannes. In fact, if my recollection is correct, it now has at least 18 Lions to its name.

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

Here’s an example of Neogama’s latest work for Diageo’s Johnnie Walker, which may well be a Cannes prizewinner next year. It was devised by Gama himself:

As you can see, a slick, confident peaen to Brazil, the awakening economic colossus.

BBH, seeking to increase its profile in up-and-coming Latin America, came about its minority Neogama stake in a convoluted way. Back in 2002, Neogama was 40%-owned by Chicago-based holding company BCom3 – the 3 referring to an alliance between Leo Burnett, DMB&B (now deceased) and Dentsu. BCom3 passed on a part of that stake to BBH, in which it by then held a 49%  share through Burnett. Still there? Because it gets even more complicated. Earlier that year along comes Publicis Groupe, which swallows the lot, including Dentsu’s 20% strategic stake, in a $3bn takeover deal, making it the then fourth-largest marketing services group in the world. The important point to note is that PG ended up holding a direct 49% stake in BBH, but only an indirect one through BBH in Neogama. Publicis Groupe CEO Maurice Lévy and Gama are not thought to be best buddies.

Although the subsequent BBH relationship has been mutually beneficial, Gama is known to have been hawking his stake at other agency group doors. Why now? Nine years is a long time to wait for your investment to mature, but some go further in speculating that he is worried about his agency’s dependence on Bradesco as a client.

The sense is that Gama is engaged in an act of brinksmanship with Lévy, which involves using rival groups as a stalking horse. He well knows his own worth: Neogama is far and away PG’s best agency in Brazil (and one of its best in Latin America).

However, buying him out may not prove that easy. If BBH could stump up the cash on its own, that would be the simplest and most elegant solution; but  the likelihood is it cannot. So why doesn’t the parent group just step in and sort it out? Well, PG is not a bank – it will want something in return. Such as buying a majority stake in BBH. The trouble is – PG is also Procter & Gamble’s biggest agency group. BBH is of course a Unilever agency, but the 51% majority stake held by the partners keeps the relationship at arm’s length. Even in this enlightened era of agency conflict management, full ownership of BBH might not go down at all well with the good folk in Cincinnati.

As I say, it’s an interesting dilemma. Let’s see how Gama, Lévy and BBH group chairman Nigel Bogle sort it out.


Maurice Lévy’s “salary sacrifice” is not quite as self-sacrificing as it appears

December 16, 2011

For Maurice Lévy and Sir Martin Sorrell – a pair who love to loathe  each other – politics is clearly a continuation of war by other means.

By now we’re all familiar with the WPP chief executive’s increasingly assured role as a political and economic soothsayer. He’s forever popping up on the Today programme as a commentator; he recently made his debut on Any Questions (which proved a surprisingly bruising experience for its quizmaster, Jonathan (or is that “David”?) Dimbleby); and he’s even opened up to us on Desert Island Discs. If you want an authoritative opinion on David Cameron’s Euro veto, ask Sir Martin. The national newspapers certainly did – his scathing denunciation of our isolationism has been plastered all over their front pages.

Less familiar by far, at least on these shores, is the accomplished political role played by the head of Publicis Groupe in his native France. Perhaps because he is nearing 70 – and therefore inevitable retirement despite the recent extension of his term of office as PG pdg – Lévy has become an increasingly outspoken, if measured, critic of French president Nicolas Sarkozy’s handling of the economy.

It’s important to note that Lévy and his company are regarded by the French business and political class with a reverence out of all proportion to that enjoyed by WPP in the UK. WPP is no slouch, but Sir Martin can only dream of headlines such as the following: “Maurice Lévy est le patron le plus “performant” du CAC 40” – substituting, of course, the FTSE 100 for France’s principal financial index.

Lévy has used this enviable reputational platform to morph himself into the key spokesman of French private enterprise – as chairman of Afep (Association Françaises des Entreprises Privées), a sort of French CBI.

Last August, in transparent imitation of the Sage of Omaha (aka Warren Buffett), he and a number of leading French businessmen signed an open letter in Le Nouvel Observateur pledging to plug the gaping holes in their country’s budget by means of a Robin Hood tax levied on France’s richest – such as themselves.

Entirely consistent with this initiative, Lévy proudly announced at the beginning of this month that he would waive his annual PG salary (€900,000) in favour of a performance-based bonus.

In these straitened times what could be fairer, more laudable, or altruistic than that?

Well, let’s put it this way: Lévy will not exactly be losing out as a result of this apparently noble gesture. In the first place, as he himself admitted, he will be receiving a generous “deferred compensation package” (ie pension) when he retires next year (as he assures us he will, though I still have my doubts if Arthur Sadoun fails to cut the mustard). The calculus for this severance package is somewhat delphic, but it is increasingly certain to be worth around €35m when he cashes it in (for more on this issue, see my earlier post). And that’s not to mention a personal fortune estimated at €164m by the French media.

Nothing wrong with that you may say, while inwardly noting the laxity of French corporate governance. After all, Lévy is a man who has deserved well of his company: he has, during his long career there, propelled Publicis from French hot shop to the world’s third largest marketing services group, making a lot of other people rich along the way.

But let’s move on. Have I mentioned the 2009 so-called Lion Lead long-term staff incentive scheme? I have not. It’s so complicated that virtually no one fully understands it. But the bottom line is that it vests in March 2012 and Lévy liked it so much he invested in it himself. I’m told the pay-off, providing all the complicated provisos are satisfied, is about 20 times the original investment.

Then there is the annual bonus itself to consider. Most of Lévy’s conventional package is, as it happens, already performance-related, allowing him to earn about €3m a year gross. The “double digit” (ie several million euros) bonus conditionally granted him by PG’s supervisory board this year will not, I speculate, actually leave him out of pocket. Given PG’s stonking organic growth recently, he may even end up ahead of his normal game. Yes, I know Lévy was studiedly downbeat about the global economy in his message to staff yesterday. And that his subsidiary Zenith Optimedia has pared back its 2012 global ad forecast of 5.3% growth. But the downgraded figure of 4.7% is not exactly zero growth territory.

One last thought before leaving this dusty financial subject. There’s a Sorrell angle here as well. Lévy may feel that by making a “salary sacrifice” he is getting one over on his long time foe into the bargain (never underestimate the driving force of enmity). Chief executives (and Sorrell is no exception here), are forever justifying their increasingly handsome remuneration packages by pointing to the competition abroad. But what if the competition abroad is actually taking a high profile pay-cut? What will WPP shareholders have to say then?

We’ll find out when the next pay round arrives, and Sir Martin asks for a raise on his existing £4.5m (€5.4m) annual package.


Carat in line to scoop $3bn General Motors global media account

December 7, 2011

A strong rumour suggests Carat has scooped the $3bn General Motors global media buying and planning account, which has been under review since August.

If true, this outcome amounts to a huge blow for Publicis Groupe, which services the majority of the account through its media specialist Starcom MediaVest, and – by the same token – a big fillip for Aegis, owner of Carat, the publicly listed company steered by Jerry Buhlmann.

The review, one of the biggest of its kind in the world, was instigated by GM marketing supremo Joel Ewanick as part of a slew of measures designed to tighten up the automobile giant’s worldwide marketing performance.

Before the review, GM used up to 20 media specialists. However, the bulk of the spend – two-thirds in fact – is committed to North America (the Chevrolet, Buick and Cadillac marques), and much of that has passed through Starcom since 2005. Carat, which has been on the GM roster for a slightly shorter period but consolidated its hold during a 2010 review, handles the $500m European business (Opel and Vauxhall). Interpublic’s Universal McCann was responsible for much of the Latin American business.

Although the review was slated as “global”, it did not in fact include GM’s operations in nascent markets India and China. What it did include, according to the briefing notes, was “digital…, SEO and social media.”

If Ewanick has stuck to his word and included these in the consolidated Carat package, his decision will represent a double-whammy for Publicis. Back in the summer, PG boss Maurice Lévy sought to shore up his position in the increasingly important GM digital account by taking a 51% stake in Big Fuel, which holds the North American social media account. The acquisition was aligned under the Vivaki digital unit.

What we don’t know, of course, is how profitable the account will be for Aegis. In their desperation to win an account, media men often allow their competitive negotiating instinct to overcome more rational arithmetical considerations, and pare the margins down to the bone in an all-out attempt to win. That said, a win will do Aegis’ share price no harm at all. And, being on a roll, Buhlmann can expect more clients to put him and his team at the top of their shortlists.

 


Will Nick Brien succeed in steering McCann off the rocks?

October 13, 2011

McCann WorldGroup is critical to the performance of Interpublic, the world’s fourth largest marketing services group; it provides about one third of its revenues.

Just recently it hasn’t been doing very well, a worrying state of affairs both for IPG shareholders and McCann’s chief executive of about 18 months, Nick Brien.

The fact is, it has not won any major new business under Brien’s stewardship. Worse, it is in deep trouble with two of its core clients, Nestlé and L’Oréal.

Last month, Nestlé expressed the depth of its displeasure by assigning all of McCann’s signature Nescafé business (nearly everything, globally) to rival Publicis Groupe. Reportedly, that’s $25m revenue down the Swanee.

Now comes news that McCann has screwed up its already troubled relationship with beauty house L’Oréal (which, by the way, is about 30% owned by Nestlé).

The Nescafé affair might – might – be written down to bad luck. Clients do move on eventually, even ones like Nestlé that have been with McCann for several decades.

The L’Oréal fiasco (for such it is) can, on the other hand, only be ascribed to McCann’s managerial incompetence. Stay with me, the story’s a bit complicated but bears retailing.

L’Oréal and its Maybelline brand are even bigger business for McCann than Nescafé: together they account for $100m a year IPG revenue, of which 80% comes out of McCann (according to AdWeek).

Historically, the relationship has been somewhat complicated by the fact US creative for Maybelline is handled by another IPG agency, Gotham, although McCann is responsible for adapting and distributing that work throughout the rest of the world.

Thinking, no doubt, that the account could be more efficiently run as a spin-off unit with its own profit and loss account, Brien and his lieutenants have spent the last year, and an enormous amount of money, creating something called Beauty Village.

Beauty Village was set up at the instigation, and with the full collaboration, of Cyril Chapuy – now global brand president of L’Oréal Paris, but formerly in charge of the Maybelline brand.

Client endorsement enough, you would have thought. But apparently not. No one had checked upstairs with the ‘C Suite’ at L’Oréal, with the result that Beauty Village has now had to be razed to the ground, despite all the hullabaloo a couple of months ago attending its launch.

Fairly or not, the buck for this disaster is going to stop with Brien. Already there is innuendo that the former media man has not got the client-handling skills it takes to run an organisation like McCann.

Whether that is actually true I’m not so sure. Media men may be direct rather than placatory by nature, but that has not stopped the likes of Tim Bell and Rick Bendel (formerly COO of Publicis Worldwide, now marketing supremo at Asda) succeeding in more senior roles.

Besides, there may be a silver lining to the cloud now settling over Brien’s head. At first sight the Nestlé and L’Oréal affairs look like unforced errors playing into the hand of Maurice Lévy, head of Publicis Groupe (core clients, both, at Publicis Worldwide). But Lévy has troubles of his own, with the Nestlé relationship at any rate.

For one thing, he has just lost Carter Murray, his key Nestlé point man, to WPP – which poached him as president-CEO of Y&R Advertising North America. Murray managed to raise Nestlé to Publicis’ premier and most profitable client.

For another, Lévy appears to have overplayed his hand by winning the £250m Ferrero European media business last month. Yes, it’s only media and, yes, a small part was already handled by PG media arm Zenith Optimedia. But now that Ferrero has upped the ante, Nestlé is feeling distinctly uncomfortable about sharing a media agency with its most deadly European rival.


Vincent Bolloré to pick up £53m windfall in wake of Ipsos Synovate deal

July 28, 2011

The small print in Aegis’ decision to sell its market research arm Synovate to Ipsos for £525m is easily overlooked. Vincent Bolloré, principal Aegis shareholder, will take a windfall commission of £53m.

‘Commission’? Whatever the business logic on both sides of selling Synovate to Ipsos, no deal was possible without Bolloré’s say-so, as 26.5% Aegis shareholder. We now know his price, to be extracted in the guise of a 15.5p special dividend payable to all shareholders once the deal has gone through in September.

Bolloré’s opportunistic windfall fits well with his recent self-styled image as merely a “financial” stakeholder in the media buying giant, who is theoretically ready to sell out if the price is right. But don’t be deceived. Aegis, as a pure-play media planner/buyer, is now a lot more vulnerable to a break-up bid. And Bolloré, as chairman of and 33% stakeholder in Havas, has greater strategic reason to promote one than any other potential player.

Bid speculation about Publicis Groupe and WPP, which has fueled Aegis’ share-price recently, looks wide of the mark. A senior source at WPP has dismissed a break-up bid as “pure BS”, while Maurice Lévy implicitly ruled out the idea of Publicis being a prime mover in his H1 earnings call last week (although, note his cryptic point about a “game-changing opportunity in one of our operations” in the ‘M&A’ section of this interview).

A break-up bid initiated by either party would lead to severe regulatory problems. Havas, on the other hand, has every reason to snap up a global media buying operation if the price is right. The perceived problem is that Bolloré does not have the financial resources to act on his own.

That’s not to say he could not, or would not, collaborate in a carve-up. After he has picked up his windfall, of course.


Maurice Lévy bats Naouri’s leadership credentials into the long grass

July 22, 2011

Jean-Yves Naouri has a great future behind him as the next leader of Publicis Groupe. Don’t just take my word for it. Check out Publicis’ H1 earnings call, which group chief Maurice Lévy used as a platform to “deep-six” Naouri’s much-touted candidature into the long grass.

Naouri, it will be recalled, had acquired much of the symbolism of a leader-in-waiting: explicit blessing by Lévy but, more materially, a special executive role to sort out the group’s muddled affairs in China. And, most recently, he has added to this list with his appointment as executive chairman of Publicis Worldwide, the group’s most prestigious network; an event that triggered the resignation of long-serving chief operating officer Richard Pinder.

Lévy is now regretting his earlier enthusiasm. Either that or the all-powerful supervisory board, headed by principal shareholder and daughter-of-the-founder Elisabeth Badinter, has rejected the graft.

At all events, Lévy has made it abundantly clear he is looking at alternatives. According to AdAge, Lévy is spending time with “a few people” without letting them know he is monitoring them (that bit I rather doubt): “I’m training more than one person because I don’t want only one horse in the race. It is my responsibility to give the board many options,” he tells us.

Who might these dark “horses” be? Two candidates come to mind.

The first is Arthur Sadoun. Sadoun, about 40, has been president and chief executive of Publicis France for some time but, in a highly significant move this spring, his role was expanded when he was elevated to managing director of the network – with direct responsibility for operations in Western Europe (meaning Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Spain, Italy, Belgium and Holland as well as France).

Sadoun ticks many of the boxes for Publicis leadership. He is a quintessential part of the moneyed, French elite. A graduate of the European Business School and an INSEAD MBA, he is also admirably well connected – not least through his glamorous wife Anne-Sophie Lapix, a leading French television presenter.

That may make him sound like a Naouri clone. Not so. Sadoun is also an accredited entrepreneur and an adman of some flair. After graduating from EBS in his early twenties, he moved to Chile where he set up his own agency – later sold to BBDO. Returning to France in 1997, he joined TBWA\Paris and in 2003 became CEO. Under his management, TBWA\Paris received the Cannes Lions International Advertising Festival ‘Agency of the Year’ Award 4 years in a row. Spookily, he replicated this success with Publicis Conseil – to which he made a sideways move in 2006 – for 3 years running. Say what you like, M. Sadoun is a man who gets things done.

That’s my 7/1 on bet. A darker horse still – say 19/1 – is Simon Badinter. Badinter, 43, comes enormously well pre-packaged as the aforesaid Elisabeth Badinter’s elder son. Badinter mère is married to eminent lawyer and former justice minister now senator Robert. Besides being the company’s heavy-hitting shareholder, she is an intellectual celebrity in her own right. (A point she would no doubt heavily underscore, being one of France’s leading feminists to boot.) Nepotism in a French public company is not the barrier to advancement it might be in Anglo-Saxon economies (the Murdochs being the trying exception to prove that rule). A fact perhaps reflected in Simon Badinter’s long-term presence on Publicis Groupe’s supervisory board, despite his relative youth.

Against him, his hands-on experience is hardly the match of Sadoun’s, or even Naouri’s. He was installed as chairman and chief executive of Medias & Regies Europe – Publicis’ airtime and space sales house – in 2003. But a good deal of his time since has been spent in the USA, to the extent that he was recently made a US citizen. Earlier this year, he handed over his M&R Euro responsibilities to kid brother Benjamin, 40, and took on US duties in their place. To cap this Yankophilia, Simon is an enthusiastic amateur radio star. He recently quit as host of “Simon Rendezvous”, a Sunday night slot broadcast by Chicago-based WGN-AM, to take up a similar role at Boston’s WTKK-FM.

So, Lévy does indeed have “options” other than the colourless Naouri. What he will do with them remains to be seen. He himself seems keen not to outstay his extended welcome: “My board would like me to stay for a full term (ie 4 more years), which is not something I am prepared to do. I prefer for it (the settlement of the succession issue) to happen now.” Well, not now perhaps, but very soon. Lévy, as he has hinted, would like to sort out the vexed issue of the 10% or so of the company still owned by increasingly disconsolate Dentsu. A share buy-back early next year seems on the cards.

Then he can go. If he really wants to.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 415 other followers

%d bloggers like this: