DISQUS

Joseph · 8 months ago

If they took more of a salary cut, they could have saved a few more jobs. Look, I am all for compensating people if they do a good job, but when the ship is sinking, the rats run away to save their lives, and these guys are rats. To save their compensation, they cut people. Rats actually are better.

Trapped · 8 months ago

Wow--thanks so much for cutting an Adweek article and pasting it here for us to read--cause we is all too dumb to go there our own selves.

Keep the info coming please, because all of our computers are locked onto this site only--we only get info from you and we are starving for your precious info!!

UTBRT · 8 months ago

ha...yeah well, actually adweek seems to have copied it (almost a week later!) from bnet: http://industry.bnet.com/advertising/10001565/o...

Tim · 8 months ago

I hate the holding company system as much as everyone else, but it's a function of our economic system and human nature (read: greed). So let's all understand that when reading this.

It's surprising that you even have to ask this question when you show the numbers. Omnicom (and Wren) seem to get it more than any other holding company. They acquire the more creative agencies in their segments, for the most part leave them alone and try to hold onto the talent within the agency as much as possible. OMC understands that success in this business comes from good work. This allows them to out perform other holding cos and also hold onto big accounts within the holding company (see: Pepsi, Jeep, etc).

To a lesser extent, Maurice Levy understands this, but isn't able to hold onto talent nearly as well, and tends to get a little too hands on the build the Publicis name. But as a businessman recognizes that organic growth is exponentially more profitable than pitches (duh).

The other holding companies are a disaster. Whether it's Sir Martin leveraging WPP beyond belief (which might lead to one of the oldest agencies being dismantled for spare parts, by the way) or Michael Roth exhibiting the worst management since Benito Mussolini. Honestly, neither of these guys should draw a salary. Sorrell for lack of foresight, Roth for not only financially mismanaging IPG five years ago, but also for keeping inept management teams in place at Draft, Deutsch and McCann.

Personally, I don't think anyone who isn't involved in the actual creation of an piece of consumer communication or the running of an agency should get a salary (much less more than $500K), but they exist and Wren is the best of the lot.

fred · 8 months ago

Sickening.

UTBRT · 8 months ago

i'm not bothered by the past numbers. omc is a public company, these guys run it, and when they hit their numbers and make money for shareholders, then they are compensated accordingly. business up, make more. business down, make less.

Jimmy B. · 8 months ago

Damned if you do.
Damned if you don't.

The yin and yang of agency hierarchy is well
represented in the North & South photos of
these two posts.

On one hand, you have John Wren who looks
like he gave the shooter all of about 2 minutes?
Then below, you have Jeff Weiss, who looks
like he's probably been thinking about how
to stage his pose for oh... over 2 weeks?