17509: Reducing Redundancies At Omnicom Media US Operations.

MediaPost reported Omnicom Media has apparently worked through the C-suite restructurings, redundancies, and RIFs in US operations resulting from the Omnicom acquisition of IPG.

 

And the survivors-winners are—drumroll, please—White people!

 

Omnicom Media Reboots U.S. Management, Blends Former IPG Leadership

 

By Joe Mandese

 

Seven months after its acquisition of Interpublic, Omnicom this morning unveiled a reorganization of Omnicom Media’s U.S. operations, blending the senior talent of both organizations.

 

Former IPG Mediabrands exec Stacy DeRiso becomes general manager-U.S. of Omnicom Media, a new position created after she held the dual role of global brand president and U.S. CEO of Initiative.

 

Long-time Omnicom exec Susanne Grundmann becomes global brand president of Initiative, while former IPG Mediabrands’ Rob DiGiovanni becomes U.S. CEO of Initiative.

 

Grundmann previously served as CEO of the EMEA operations of Omnicom’s PHD unit and prior to that served as CEO of OMD Germany.

 

DiGiovanni steps into the U.S CEO role following four years as president-global business lead at Initiative, overseeing several of the agency’s biggest accounts.

17508: Sir Martin Sorrell Surveys His Failures.

Adweek interviewed Sir Martin Sorrell, who vomited vitriol in standard Sorrellian style.

 

The trade journal stated, “Sir Martin Sorrell has been an expert on M&A for almost half a century.”

 

Has he? It could be argued Sorrell’s expertise seriously eroded over the past decade at least.

 

His S4 Capital venture seems closer to breakdown than breakthrough.

 

Meanwhile, Sorrell’s notorious achievement—WPP—is a flaming dumpster. Indeed, the White holding company was death-spiraling toward a catastrophic crash landing long before Sir Peanut pulled the ripcord of his golden parachute.

 

Sir Martin Sorrell has been an expert…? At this point, he’s an expert has-been.

Sir Martin Sorrell Sees No Easy Exit for Holding Companies

 

Accenture should buy WPP and more insights from the S4 Capital executive chairman.

 

By Ryan Joe and Alison Weissbrot

 

Sir Martin Sorrell has been an expert on M&A for almost half a century. He founded WPP through reverse acquisition in 1985, and built it up into a towering ad giant that snapped up major agency brands like J. Walter Thompson, Ogilvy & Mather, and Young & Rubicam. 

 

Following an ignominious departure in 2018—WPP accused him of misusing company assets—Sorrell plotted a comeback, founding S4 Capital just weeks later. 

 

S4 built itself up through acquisition, notably production agency MediaMonks and performance agency MightyHive, positioning itself as a digital-first holdco. Lately, that thesis has been severely tested as many tech clients, where S4 has heavy exposure, pulled back on marketing spend to invest in AI. 

 

Revenue contracted, and shares fell about 38% over the course of last year, though its early 2026 results have indicated improvement. S4 currently views itself as being in a period of stabilizing its business before revisiting growth-by-acquisition. 

 

ADWEEK sat down with Sorrell to get his read on the market, who should buy whom, his competitors (whom he’s never been shy to criticize), and S4’s next steps.

 

This interview has been edited for length and clarity. It was conducted before Publicis said it would buy LiveRamp, and Accenture said it would buy Whalar.

 

ADWEEK: The ad agency holdcos have gone from the biggest industry acquirers to acquisition targets. What’s the outlook?

 

SIR MARTIN SORRELL: There are very few, if any, exits. No activists have stepped in.

 

There are no takers. Most of the big deals would involve syndicates. One PE firm couldn’t write the check for WPP or Dentsu. Maybe Bain Capital could have done it on their own.

 

Besides Publicis, is any big holdco a buyer at this point?

 

Omnicom probably isn’t. Dentsu is not going to be in buying mode. Stagwell will try. The irony may be, this is the time to take the risk because valuations are so battered. But I don’t think people would take a risk.

 

If anyone was going to take a risk, who do you think it would be? 

 

Well, Havas. Maybe not of scale. But [Havas CEO Yannick] Bolloré always sends you in the wrong direction. Always. Keeps you guessing.

 

And I think Accenture. If I was [Accenture CEO] Julia [Sweet], I would go for WPP. With them, they could get significantly better. I think the media piece in their hands would be very valuable. But whether they’ve got the balls though… It would be messy. But you’ve got David Droga there.

 

Publicis has been on a successful run. Is it sustainable?

 

What Publicis does—everybody says it’s all proprietary trading, which is why I think The Trade Desk thing is dangerous territory for them, they’re going to turn the microscope on themselves—is they look at the client as a whole.

 

Omnicom and WPP are falling into the trap of the matrix being driven by capability. The reorganization of WPP and the reorganization of Omnicom is capability-first, client second, geography third. Publicis and, indeed, ourselves is geography first, client second, capability third.

 

What’s wrong with organizing around capability?

 

You have warring factions. If you do it by country, you have inter-country rivalry, inter-region rivalry, that’s true, but you get people to integrate what they do. Publicis got it right. Can they maintain it? Well, the industry wisdom is these things go in cycles. 

 

Actually, John Wren, if you look at Omnicom Advertising Group before they acquired IPG, had a better strategy. He was trying to push them together. Publicis didn’t nudge. They were quite forceful. And it was painful for them. They were more violent than probably I would have been. But directionally, it was the same thing.

 

What do the holdcos look like in three years?

 

I don’t know what [WPP CEO] Cindy [Rose] is going to do. She has huge balance sheet problems. But I would guess Omnicom will still be here. Publicis will still be here. Dentsu will be in a different form. Havas will be in a different form. WPP will be in a different form.

 

Let’s talk about S4. You guys had a tech winter. Where are you in all of this?

 

It’s tough. We rely on wholesale AI adoption. We really depend on more car verticals, more financial services verticals, more packaged goods. If we can get a little bit more traction, it will be fine. But we need more traction. And we’re not organized enough. Our integration has not been perfect by any means. Liquidity is much better.

 

What does that traction look like and how do you get it?

 

Traction looks like building relationships. If you look at our biggest relationships—Google, Amazon, T-Mobile, Disney, GM, Meta—there’s good stuff there, but the problem is that 45% of it is tech. And they’re all spending money on capex.

17507: On Elephants In The Room At BP.

This BP employee training video empowers people to speak up against disrespectful and/or abusive behavior in the workplace.

 

Okay, but based on historical accusations, maybe the visual metaphor should’ve been a White elephant in the room.

17506: On Hiring At White Healthcare Agencies In The AI Era.

PharmaLive published a perspective on how AI impacts hiring at White healthcare agencies.

 

The opinion piece is questionable on a few levels.

 

First, the authors are HR executives. Sorry, but HR does not make hiring decisions at White healthcare agencies—or any White advertising agencies or firms in Adland. The viewpoints on the topic, therefore, lack credibility, authority, and professional expertise.

 

Next, the article feels like it was crafted via AI, which sorta makes sense given HR executives are not writers, typically only capable of drafting descriptions of basic benefits and simple policies. Using AI to write about AI, however, is lazy, shameful, and hackneyed.

 

Of course, the nearly 1000-word exposition on hiring makes no references to DEIBA+ considerations.

 

Finally, the content is illustrated with an AI-generated image (depicted above) featuring a hand with six fingers. That PharmaLive editors and designers approved the graphic underscores a simple reality: pharmaceutical advertising sucks.

 

The AI-era interview: What healthcare agencies are really hiring for

 

By Beth Bogacz and Lexi Abbagnaro, AbelsonTaylor Group

 

AI has quickly become part of the hiring process on both sides of the table. Candidates are using it to write resumes, polish portfolios, rehearse and answer interview questions, and generate writing samples. Agencies are simultaneously exploring how AI can improve recruiting efficiency, support onboarding, and accelerate workflows across departments.

 

But as AI becomes more embedded in the hiring experience, it is also exposing something important about healthcare marketing talent: The abilities agencies value most are increasingly the skills AI and automation struggle to replicate.

 

That tension is especially visible in medical advertising, where the work depends on a combination of strategic thinking, scientific understanding, collaboration, and communication. Candidates may arrive with increasingly refined materials, but polished documents alone do not tell recruiters whether someone can navigate a difficult client conversation, synthesize conflicting feedback, or contribute meaningfully to a brand team operating under pressure.

 

When every resume looks impressive

 

The interview itself has become more revealing than ever. Over the last year, we have seen a noticeable shift in how candidates present themselves during the application process. AI tools now make it easy to create resumes and writing samples that appear highly sophisticated, regardless of experience level. In many ways, that is the new baseline. Candidates are encouraged to submit professional, well-organized materials, and most people will use available technology to help accomplish that.

 

The challenge is determining where AI assistance ends and authentic capability begins. That distinction usually becomes clearer in conversation. In interviews, candidates have to think in real time. They have to explain how they approached a problem, describe why a campaign worked or failed, and demonstrate how they collaborate with others. Those moments reveal far more than a perfectly formatted resume ever could.

 

The interview as the new litmus test

 

We have also encountered situations where candidates appeared to be actively relying on AI during interviews themselves. Sometimes the signs are subtle: delayed responses, eyes moving to another screen before answering the question, polished answers that contrast with hesitant or less articulate opening remarks. These inconsistencies in the interview rhythm can disrupt the flow of conversation and make it difficult to assess how the candidate actually thinks.

 

That does not mean candidates should avoid AI altogether. In fact, many are using it productively, preparing for interviews through mock questions, role-playing scenarios, or refining how they communicate their experience. The issue is not whether candidates use AI. The issue is whether they can function independently without the technology.

 

Why human judgment still matters

 

Within healthcare communication agencies specifically, that distinction matters because so much of the work depends on judgment. Teams are constantly balancing scientific accuracy, client expectations, regulatory considerations, and audience needs. There is rarely one perfect answer. People have to navigate ambiguity, make decisions with available information, and communicate clearly across disciplines. Those are deeply human skills.

 

Emotional intelligence remains one of the clearest differentiators in hiring conversations today. So does curiosity. Candidates who ask thoughtful questions, actively listen, and engage in genuine discussion tend to stand out quickly. Creativity also continues to matter, particularly the ability to challenge assumptions or generate unexpected ideas within highly regulated environments.

 

AI can accelerate execution. It can summarize information, organize thoughts, and improve efficiency. But it still cannot replicate the instinct behind a strong strategic insight or the interpersonal awareness required to build trust with clients and colleagues.

 

New expectations for emerging talent

 

There are changing expectations for junior talent as well. Increasingly, entry-level candidates are expected to arrive with at least baseline familiarity with AI tools and an openness to experimenting with new technologies. In many cases, early career professionals are introducing workflows or tools that more established teams may not yet be using. What matters most is adaptability.

 

Healthcare marketing has always evolved alongside changes in media, technology, and consumer behavior, but the pace of change is different now. Candidates who thrive tend to be the ones comfortable learning continuously, working across functions, and wearing multiple hats when needed. That is especially true at small and midsize agencies, where collaboration across departments is often essential to how work gets done.

 

The rise of ‘power skills’

 

The industry is also placing greater value on what many organizations now call “power skills”: cross-functional thinking, communication, adaptability, and strategic leadership. Those qualities consistently surface in recruiting conversations across levels and disciplines. While leadership expectations naturally increase with seniority, even junior employees are expected to collaborate across teams and contribute beyond defined responsibilities.

 

At the same time, hiring teams have become more intentional about how they assess authenticity during interviews. Behavioral and situational questions have become more and more important because they help reveal how candidates think, process challenges, approach decisions, and communicate under pressure. It is not the specific answer that matters most but it is how someone arrives there.

 

AI fluency vs. AI dependence

 

So far, AI has not fundamentally changed the structure of many hiring exercises within healthcare agencies. Case studies, writing assignments and role-specific exercises were already common practice long before AI became prevalent. What has changed is the conversation surrounding them. In some cases, candidates may even be encouraged to use AI tools as part of the exercise, depending on the role. Familiarity with AI is becoming part of professional fluency. But fluency is not the same as dependence.

 

The candidates who stand out today are usually the ones who understand how to use AI as an enhancement rather than a substitute. They know how to leverage technology to improve efficiency while still bringing original thinking, strong communication, and independent judgment to the table. That balance is becoming one of the defining hiring questions for healthcare agencies.

 

The future workforce will almost certainly be more AI-capable than the one before it. The agencies that succeed will not be the ones trying to avoid that reality. They will be the ones that learn how to identify talent capable of combining AI technology with the human skills healthcare marketing still depends on most.

17505: More On WPP And Publicis Groupe Battling Over Coca-Cola.

 

More About Advertising opined on The Coca-Cola Company launching a media, data, and technology review that will pit WPP against Publicis Groupe.

 

MAA rightly points out the review is focused on media, data, and technology business currently with WPP.

 

The North America media business with Publicis Groupe is not in review.

 

Plus, WPP is apparently not at risk of losing global creative and PR business—even though the White holding company sought to prune PR from its portfolio.

 

Is Publicis Groupe sneakily seeking to incrementally acquire the entire Coke business?

 

Is WPP desperately seeking to retain business with delusional hopes of someday regaining the North America media business from Publicis Groupe?

 

And what’s the real thing’s real objective?

 

MAA argued back in the day, White advertising agencies wouldn’t tolerate such shenanigans from clients.

 

Okay, but back in the day, the Cola Wars were waged with breakthrough creative executions that struck emotional chords to seize market share.

 

Now the worldwide battles aim to control media, data, and technology—although the collateral damages and casualties are civilians.

 

Pitch-prone Coca-Cola reviews business still at WPP

 

By Stephen Foster

 

Winning all of Coca-Cola’s agency marketing business was one of the few good things to happen to WPP during the end of CEO Mark Read’s reign — but what a business it is to mind.

 

WPP started off winning everything but [then] lost North America media to Publicis, probably the most profitable part. Now Coke, which seems painfully addicted to reviews, is holding a shoot-out twixt WPP and Publicis for its media, data and technology everywhere except North America (don’t they want to upset Publicis’ Arthur Sadoun?), Japan and Korea where it works with Dentsu. Creative doesn’t seem to included officially although it’s hard to see how it can [be] left out with all this going on.

 

The ostensible reason for the review, to be handled by Mediasense, is to create a “digital-first marketing operating system for future growth. This includes a shift in mindset from traditional media planning to the emerging ways we need to reach consumers through technology, including agentic tools.” Which might mean anything, or nothing.

 

One has to feel for newish WPP CEO Cindy Rose and her team who can probably envisage a future in which all they do is repitch for chunks of Coca-Cola.

 

Back in the day a big, confident agency would have shown a client, even one as big as Coca-Cola, the door over these shenanigans. The same thought may have occurred to Publicis CEO Sadoun unless he’s pretty sure it’s all coming his way. Coke’s use of “agentic” may be a clue.

17504: Omnicom Renders Restructurings, Redundancies, And RIFs With Precision.

Mediapsssst reported Omnicom continues its radical restructuring since acquiring IPG.

 

The latest scheme involves the launch of Omnicom Precision Marketing, which includes folding White precision marketing agency RAPP into White digital experience agency Critical Mass.

 

It’s obvious, but Critical Mass + RAPP = CRAPP.

 

Omnicom Precision Marketing Folds Agency Rapp Into Critical Mass

 

By Richard Whitman

 

The new Omnicom continues to finetune its operations.  

 

The latest restructuring occurred within the company’s precision marketing division, led by Luke Taylor, where Rapp has been folded into Critical Mass.

 

Rapp is a precision marketing and consumer experience agency. And Critical Mass is a marketing agency with a focus on digital experience design. 

 

Combined the agencies have about 3,000 staff and over a dozen offices globally. 

 

Jeannine Falcone who has led Rapp as Global CEO since 2024 will be departing the company. Chris Gokiert remains Global CEO at Critical Mass. 

 

Omnicom issued statement:  

 

“The new Omnicom Precision Marketing is focused on strengthening Omnicom’s transformation consultancy and activation offerings. Credera will lead the transformation consultancy practice, with Critical Mass leading activation. 

 

Critical Mass, Omnicom’s premier digital experience and AI innovation agency, now leads the activation practice, retaining and maintaining the RAPP, MRM, and Targetbase brands as distinct operating brands under its leadership.”  

17503: How Consumer Trust Affects Brand Loyalty.

 

Adweek reported a McCann study showed 69% of consumers claimed they’d abandon brands they no longer trust, while 80% claimed they’d intentionally choose brands they do.

 

Can’t help but wonder how consumers’ trust and preferences might be impacted if they learned brands partnered with White advertising agencies mired in exclusivity and systemic racism. Don’t forget advertising practitioners regularly rank among the least-trusted professions too.

 

Those White advertising agencies, incidentally, include McCann.

 

Over Two-Thirds of Consumers Will Ditch Brands They Don’t Trust

 

New study from McCann unpacks a growing consumer trust crisis

 

By Robert Klara

 

Consumers are mired in a trust crisis—and that’s a problem for brands, according to a new study from McCann.

 

The Truth About Global Brands study, released Wednesday, surveyed more than 20,000 people across 20 global markets. It found that though 72% of respondents believe it’s “more important than ever to prioritize truth,” 55% say that brands were more truthful 20 years ago than they are today. 

 

AI has only made things worse: 76% of respondents feared that, before long, they’ll be unable to tell actual humans from computer-generated ones.

 

“There’s this yearning amongst consumers worldwide to find the truth,” McCann global CEO Tyler Turnbull told ADWEEK. “But it’s harder than ever to do so in terms of the content that we’re consuming, the AI generation that’s happening, and frankly, the decline that we’re seeing in trust amongst large institutions, governments, and brands.”

 

In this new dynamic, the risks and rewards are both high. Over two-thirds of consumers (69%) said they’d abandoned the brands they no longer trust, while 80% said they’d “actively choose” brands they do.

 

While that makes it a difficult environment for brands to communicate with audiences, that communication is key to rebuilding trust, Turnbull said.

 

AI transparency 

 

That starts with being truthful about AI use.

 

More than half (53%) of respondents said that the most effective way to secure their trust is for brands to be up front about whether they’re using AI in their ads.

 

Take influencers, for example. The FTC’s required disclosure of any “material connection” with the brand applies to all endorsers—human or not.

 

The marketing department may leave it at that, but McCann’s data makes clear that consumers want to be advised when an avatar is talking to them.

 

“There’s a need to be authentic and open and transparent,” Turnbull said.

 

From the west to the rest

 

Another important factor in building trust is a brand’s understanding of global culture.

While a flood of information online has left many consumers confused and dubious, it’s also opened them up to a wealth of new ideas, trends, and outlooks, often from the earth’s far corners.

 

The age when brands assumed that trends began on the American coasts and then spread to the rest of the world has given way to a more diversified and equalized exchange of ideas. Customers, the study found, are more likely to trust brands willing to embrace that expanse of influences.

 

“What we’re seeing is successful global brands looking everywhere for where culture is being created and moving, and then exporting that to other markets,” Turnbull said. “Every brand and consumer is craving the same thing: authenticity.”