Burson Is Not the Problem headlines a LinkedIn article commenting on the proposed pruning of PR from the global flaming dumpster known as WPP.
The commentator opined abandoning Burson makes sense. “Following their clients’ lead,” wrote the author, “WPP is doubling down on a model built around media, data and integration at global scale.”
The strategic maneuvers highlighted in the LinkedIn article seem to indicate WPP is embracing a media-first identity.
Okay, except WPP Media is hardly viewed as category leader.
Holding companies—as well as corporations purporting not to be holding companies—have fueled the commoditization of Adland, whereby all people, practices, processes, products, and platforms are repetitive, redundant, and replaceable.
WPP Media is a fish in a small sea of sameness.
What’s more, WPP Media is attached to mediocre network units:
• WPP Creative erased almost all the iconic creative mastheads—and it’s now run by the leader of VML. Nuff said.
• WPP Enterprise Solutions features everything historically labeled “below-the-line”—allegedly available at costs below the industry standards.
• WPP Production is the in-house studio on a global scale, providing cheap labor via offshore resources—exactly like the offerings of every holding company.
• WPP Open is the AI equivalent of Omni, Publicis Sapient, dentsu.Connect, AVA, and whatever Stagwell cobbles together.
In summation, Burson is not the problem. WPP is.
Burson Is Not the Problem.
By Arthur Fleischmann
It’s The Preview.
There’s a slightly unfashionable take on the proposed sale of #Burson. It probably makes sense.
Not because Burson is weak. Quite the opposite. It’s a near-billion-dollar global business, built by combining BCW and Hill & Knowlton, and still winning clients like Heineken, Levi’s and Google. It continues to invest in new capabilities — from AI-driven reputation tools to expanded influence and corporate strategy.
By any normal definition, it’s a strong, well-run business.
But #CindyRose has been very clear about #WPP’s direction. And if you look at where WPP is winning, the logic starts to reveal itself.
Over the past six months, the pattern is hard to ignore. The biggest wins are not coming from traditional creative. They are not coming from PR. They are overwhelmingly media-led, often global, and increasingly tied to data, commerce and AI-enabled operating models.
#JaguarLandRover is the obvious headline — a roughly $500M global mandate spanning media and creative. But it’s the exception that proves the rule. Most of the other meaningful wins are media at scale: #EstéeLauder’s global media consolidation, #Reckitt across Europe and India, #SCJohnson in North America, #IKEA in Malaysia. Even where creative is involved, it tends to sit inside a broader, integrated system.
And just as interesting is where these decisions are being made.
They’re not particularly U.S.-centric anymore.
That doesn’t mean the U.S. is necessarily declining. It does suggest something subtler: global brands are no longer organizing themselves around it. Coordination is moving. Singapore. London. Regional hubs. Multi-market systems. Growth coming from outside North America, and increasingly managed that way too.
Following their clients’ lead, WPP is doubling down on a model built around media, data and integration at global scale.
The issue is not whether Burson is good. It is. The issue is where value now sits.
Even the strongest PR firms do not control media budgets. They do not own the first-party data infrastructure that increasingly drives modern marketing. They do not sit at the centre of AI-enabled operating systems. And too often their revenues are still project-based rather than embedded in the day-to-day machinery of growth.
This calls into question other businesses in a similar predicament such as @Landor, @Ogilvy, @David, @Grey, @AKQA and other smaller networks within WPP.
Burson, and these other business units look less like a problem and more like a mismatch. They are largely narrative-led, market-by-market-relevant, and harder to plug into a global operating system in the same way as media and data. Sure, their services matter. They’re valuable. But it’s not at the centre of this particular strategy or clients’ focus at the moment.
I take an uncynical view of this sale. Rather than seeing it as a weakness or failure, I believe it is an act of focus. The bigger question is, who will buy Burson, and what does that say about the buyer’s strategy?
For WPP, this is an acknowledgement that the shape of the industry has changed — and not every strong business still sits at the centre of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment