WPP succession; ISBA’s tangle; and BARB ball in YouTube’s court

Some month, so far eh? This week Dominic Mills looks at the Shakespearean-style drama of WPP, ISBA’s tangle with Ebiquity and and the ‘will-they-won’t-they-join-Barb’ saga involving YouTube

Let’s start with the astonishing WPP story, the outcome of which is impossible to predict, except insofar as to say, the survival of Sir Martin or not, things will never be the same again. You cannot but help conclude the atmosphere in WPP Towers between the board and the CEO is now as toxic as the novichok nerve agent.

As both sides lawyer-up – and I see from the Times Sir Martin now has three Rottweilers working for him (who pays for them, I wonder?) – it is clear that this has become a succession fight by proxy. It is also clear he won’t go without a massive fight.

And when Sir Martin’s arch-nemesis, Maurice Levy, starts handing out advice on succession, you know this is going to have all the drama of a Shakespearean tragedy.

Focusing on the succession issue, WPP says it has a list of internal and external candidates. The internals constitute the usual list of suspects who are routinely name-checked by the press.

[advert position=”left”]

My guess is the successor will be an outsider who, crucially, has public company experience. You cannot put in a neophyte with no public company experience, especially one with a market capitalisation of £14bn and which is on the ropes. The shareholders won’t stand for it, and the board would be castigated.

The second reason is that any internal candidates are for the most part compromised by their history with the company.

They are, for want of a better phrase, creatures of their master. The expectation is that the incomer will have to perform radical surgery both on an unwieldy structure and bite the bullet on parts of the business model, far easier for an outsider than an insider.

Just think of the mess 40-year insider Phil Clarke made at Tesco when he took over from Sir Terry Leahy.

Watch out for a crucial date in just three weeks time, 30th April. That is the day WPP is due to announce its first quarter figure, an event Sir Martin says he intends to lead. Whether he does or not depends on the results of the investigation. But either way, WPP (or Sir Martin) will have to say something concrete on the succession.

ISBA gets itself into a tangle

It’s somewhat ironic that two organisations doing their utmost to improve media transparency – ISBA and Ebiquity – find themselves mired in the murk.

Let’s try and untangle this. ISBA’s updated version of its media services framework, published last month in conjunction with PwC and Field Fisher, has been roundly dissed by PwC rival Ebiquity, which claims that it represents a step backwards.

You can read the full story here but it ostensibly centres on three areas: one, the exclusion of so-called value pots, which the new version says do not have to be disclosed; two, possible restrictions on pooling of advertiser media data, which could disable auditors’ ability to benchmark prices; and three, a clause which advertisers might interpret as meaning that they should only hire certified accountants (i.e. the likes of PwC and other members of the Big Four) for their media business – thus excluding traditional media auditors, of whom Ebiquity’s Firm Decisions is a major player.

For its part, ISBA says points two and three are misunderstandings, and it intends to redraft the guidance. “If there is a simpler and better form of words, we’re happy to make the changes,” says ISBA boss Phil Smith, and ISBA is currently consulting on that.

As for point one, value pots, ISBA’s view is that they are not the same as rebates (agencies go ‘hurrah’) but it is happy to debate the issue and see whether the rebates and value pots can be balanced out in such a way as to prevent clients getting a double helping of goodies back from agencies.

But Ebiquity’s decision to launch a public attack on the framework – even though it had plenty of chances to lobby privately for changes – suggests another dynamic, which is that it sees the whole business as an attempt by PwC to move its tanks onto Ebiquity’s lawn.

There is undoubtedly some truth in this. As I understand it, agencies have been calling for the Big Four accountancy firms to get more involved. This may be a reaction to what they see as the aggressive line taken by the likes of Firm Decisions (one senior media agency person once said to me, in the wake of the ANA/Firm Decisions report in 2016, that if they could they would only deal with auditors with accountancy qualifications).

Or it may be that they believe it is much easier to pull the wool over the eyes of the likes of PwC than Firm Decisions (and given various accounting scandals like Carillion and Conviviality, this argument has some weight).

And then there’s another factor, which is that, having paid ISBA for the right to lead the framework revision – a fact ISBA is open about – PwC has a conflict of interest.

At first glance I also thought that might be an issue. But it turns out that these arrangements between professional services firms and trade bodies are common – as Ebiquity well knows.

So the question is: did Ebiquity have the same chance as PwC to work with ISBA and either turn it down or balls up the negotiation? In any case, are these arrangements any different from those between a supermarket and FMCG manufacturers?

It’s a mess, all the more so because in its drive for transparency, ISBA also recognises that agency/client financial relationships need to be put on a more sustainable basis – and the updated framework is one route towards that state of affairs.

I hope it’ll blow over soon, because it’s the bigger picture – transparency balanced with sustainable business models – that really matters.

Barb to YouTube: ‘the ball is in your court’

In his recent state-of-the-nation piece for Mediatel, Barb chief executive Justin Sampson lays out the plans for Project Dovetail and the results of a recent industry consultation – with agencies, advertisers, media owners and platforms – on what new TV content Barb should measure and how.

I’m getting a clear message from this, which is that Barb (and its stakeholders) are effectively putting the ball into YouTube’s court. In a nutshell, it is saying: ‘these are the rules our stakeholders want us to play by. You’re either in or you’re out.’

Will YouTube play ball? A year or so ago, I would have said this was unlikely. But for various reasons – an onslaught from the media on brand safety issues, as well as, I detect, a more collegiate, industry-sensitive attitude at Google – I detect a shifting of its approach.

What were once platitudinous responses seem to have more substance and it even put its own measurement guru, Gill Whitehead, up in front of advertisers at the ISBA conference in March. And I’m told its senior US management, once hostile to Barb and its peers, have come round.

At the same time, Google claims its efforts to improve brand safety – a key issue in the Barb consultation – have improved with arrangements with third-party vendors like Double Verify and Integral Ad Science.

Certainly its YouTube advertiser model – more big-brand focused than Facebook’s – has become sensitive to the measurement issue, especially as advertisers focus on its importance.

There’s a sense too in which both sides – Barb, as representing the wider industry, and YouTube – need each other for mutual credibility. But whether that is enough to swing the day remains to be seen.

One issue may be the speed with which Barb can move to integrate YouTube on to Dovetail. The other, and we don’t yet know how they will really jump when push comes to shove, is the attitude of the mainstream broadcasters.

Up to now it has suited rival broadcasters and YouTube to make nicey nicey about the latter’s entry to the club. But we are now getting close to the moment of real decision. It’s going to be riveting.

Disclosure: I have in the past done work for Ebiquity and ISBA.