17569: Overreaction Of The Weekend.

 

Mediapsssst reported a Louisiana-based White advertising agency created a $50k scholarship, supplemented by additional financial assistance, for students at the LSU Manship School of Mass Communications.

It’s another sign that DEIBA+ is DOA in Adland when White ad agencies deliver performative PR hyping scholarships for White students.

Baton Rouge Agency Creates $50,000 Scholarship For LSU’s Manship School

By Richard Whitman

Baton Rouge, LA-based full-service marketing agency DAA Media + Marketing is marking its 50th anniversary in 2026 and as part of a year-long celebration has announced it is underwriting a $50,000 advertising scholarship to the Louisiana State University Manship School of Mass Communication.  

Scholarships will be distributed by LSU in $10,000 yearly increments over five years. 

The first selected students will be awarded this fall. Criteria for selected students will be determined by the university.  

“DAA has been a valued partner of the Manship School for many years, and this generous investment reflects our shared commitment to preparing the next generation of communication leaders,” said Manship School Dean Kim Bissell.  

The scholarship commitment to LSU builds on DAA’s yearlong 50th Anniversary initiative to give back to the organizations and communities that have helped shape the agency’s success over the past five decades. 

The agency has pledged an additional $50,000 throughout 2026 through a combination of financial and in-kind contributions. It is also continuing to invest in the next generation of industry leaders through mentorship, career opportunities, and initiatives like the DAA Emerging Leaders Laptop Giveaway, which will award Apple MacBooks to five students pursuing degrees in advertising, marketing, graphic design, or communications.  

“Reaching this 50-year milestone as a company has given us the opportunity to reflect on our five decades in business and on the relationships that we have had the privilege to build throughout the years,” said DAA CEO Nancy Steiner. “That, along with our passion for mentorship, and creating the unique opportunities that our young professionals in our field need to get ahead is something that collectively fuels us as a team and as a company.”

17568: WTF KFC.

Does Colonel Sanders really translate in Myanmar? Really? Or is it Colonel colonialism?

17567: On The Exclusivity Of Outcomes-Based Remuneration.

 

Advertising Age published lengthy, laborious content on outcomes-based remuneration. Hopefully, the reporter is paid by the word—because if compensation is based on views and website engagement (i.e., outcomes), he probably owes money to Ad Age.

Ruminating on remuneration reflects White holding companies’ impact on the industry. Fueling the commoditization of Adland—whereby people, places, and practices are repetitive, redundant, and replaceable—has made most offerings generic. And that’s just one point in a long list of reasons why outcomes-based remuneration won’t work across the advertising and media landscape.

Of course, the discussions have not included non-White advertising agencies. As such shops are relegated to lesser positions in the hierarchy—often forced to deliver translated versions or adaptations of mass market campaign platforms—how might they be identified and rewarded for positive outcomes?

In short, non-White advertising agencies can expect outcomes-based crumbs—or nothing at all.

Agencies want to get paid for outcomes—here’s what’s standing in the way

By Ewan Larkin

As agency leaders scamper to move away from hourly billing, outcomes-based pricing has seemingly become all the rage. In reality, rewriting the industry’s long-standing compensation model is a tricky proposition, complicated by everything from attribution disputes to the real financial risk agencies and marketers face.

A June study from Mediasense found that 85% of agency leaders expect to increase their usage of outcomes-based pricing over the next two years, and WPP has touted a deal with Jaguar Land Rover that ties fees to measurable sales and outcomes rather than hours worked. Dentsu media agency iProspect, meanwhile, is pushing to make outcomes the center of its reworked operating model.

The shift is being driven in part by AI and automation, which are reducing the time needed to plan and execute campaigns, undercutting the logic of a model built around billing by the hour. But as much as agencies long to do away with the time-and-materials model, adoption isn’t moving that quickly. For more than half of agencies, outcome-based arrangements still make up less than 30% of their client relationships, per the Mediasense report.

The reality is, most clients—and their procurement teams—are still defaulting to models they know and understand, dipping their toes in only modestly when they do experiment. For example, while iProspect is “very open” to putting its “entire fee at risk,” the agency has no clients on a fully outcomes-based model, executives said in a June interview.

Below, the core challenges around outcomes-based pricing and how agencies are attempting to navigate them.

A definition problem

There appears to be some confusion around what exactly outcomes-based pricing is, with different agencies defining it their own way.

What WPP and iProspect are referring to is a model in which a portion of agency compensation is tied to pre-agreed media or business outcomes, with clients essentially paying for performance. In general, if agencies exceed their targets, they can earn more than their baseline fee; if they fall short, that portion of the fee is reduced. This isn’t new; agencies have long tied portions of their fees to outcomes, but many are now trying to increase the percentage.

For other agencies, what gets labeled an “outcome” is really an output, a fixed fee tied to a defined scope of deliverables.

“There is absolutely a definition problem,” said Tracey Shirtcliff, CEO of Scope Better, which helps professional services businesses manage pricing. When agencies say “outcomes-based pricing,” what they’re usually landing on, she said, is a hybrid arrangement, meaning an output-based fee with a performance measure layered on top.

“I’ve almost never seen anything that is purely outcomes-based,” Shirtcliff added, describing a pattern the Mediasense report backs up. Pure outcomes-based remuneration, the consultancy found, is “exceedingly rare.”

The sphere of influence

WPP’s contract with JLR, focused on tying fees to measurable sales, appears to be a rarity. Tying compensation to business outcomes is difficult for any agency, given factors outside its control, and it’s especially challenging for agencies that only manage one piece of a client’s marketing, whether that’s creative, media, commerce or social. (WPP’s remit with JLR is comprehensive, spanning creative, media, production, customer experience and strategic counsel.)

As a media-only performance shop, iProspect is focused on outcomes including lead-quality metrics in pilots with e-commerce and business-to-business clients, executives said. Minneapolis independent agency Broadhead has one contract tied to performance, for a direct-to-consumer client, with 15% of fees at risk based on how many people the shop can drive to the client’s website, said CEO Dean Broadhead.

The agency—which is handling the client’s creative and media duties—avoided tying compensation to sales because it didn’t design the site, Broadhead added.

Working with a DTC client helps with measurement, Broadhead said, since “you can track the breadcrumbs a lot easier.” The Mediasense report supports that notion, finding that retail and e-commerce brands are best positioned for outcomes-based models, thanks to a high volume of digital transactions, clear conversion points and few intermediaries between an ad and a sale. Sectors such as healthcare and automotive, meanwhile, are seen as less suited to the model, hampered by regulation and longer purchase cycles.

It’s much easier for media agencies to dabble in outcomes-based pricing, Shirtcliff said, as media performance is seen as more measurable and less subjective than creative work.

One creative agency executive, speaking on condition of anonymity, said their shop sometimes forgoes 10% to 20% of its fee for the first few months of a new client relationship, money it doesn’t get back if it misses agreed-upon KPIs, such as lifting brand performance, but which comes back with a bonus if it hits them. The client tracks the metrics and shares them with the agency, this person said.

This executive described taking the risk as more a way to show “skin in the game” against competing agencies in a close pitch, rather than a genuine embrace of outcomes-based pricing.

Data and attribution standoffs

Coming to a mutual agreement on the outcomes is “probably the hardest piece to do,” Shirtcliff said, “because there’s so many things that can be measured.” Sales and revenue are the metrics most tied to business outcomes but hardest for agencies to control, while media metrics are easier to influence but don’t always reflect the results clients want.

It’s especially difficult to isolate an agency’s exact role in achieving a business outcome like sales, which is influenced by factors including pricing. Sixty-nine percent of agencies surveyed for the Mediasense report said difficulty agreeing on an attribution methodology was a critical or strong barrier to adoption, and 68% cited insufficient access to client data.

 

Before signing up for a percentage-of-revenue deal, Jared Belsky, CEO of independent media agency Acadia, asks new clients to share a year’s worth of data to model against—whatever metric the deal is priced on, whether that’s revenue, margin or something else. Some marketers are hesitant to share those insights until a contract is signed, creating a “chicken-or-egg problem,” Belsky said.

“The hard question isn’t what data do you need to model,” he said. “Sometimes it’s just availability; you don’t always get it.”

IProspect leans on its own tools for measurement, including incrementality testing, experimentation and what executives call a “more modern” approach to marketing mix modeling. The agency has also built force majeure clauses into its contracts that extend beyond typical service-delivery provisions to cover compensation, protecting against unforeseen shocks like tariffs, war or a pandemic.

There’s a case for third-party oversight, with a neutral party responsible for measurement, rather than agencies grading their own homework. But an independent process has its own drawbacks, too. Measurement approaches like marketing mix modeling and multi-touch attribution “are too slow,” said Ryan Kangisser, chief strategy officer at Mediasense, which is why agencies often fall back on proxy metrics instead.

Managing risk

In its contract with JLR, the majority of WPP’s fees are at risk based on performance, Ad Age has learned. That’s seemingly a suitable arrangement for JLR, which is looking to rebuild profitability and cut costs, but how can WPP—working through a turnaround—afford such risk?

In a June interview with Campaign, WPP CEO Cindy Rose said the company would not lose money by focusing on outcomes, explaining there are “ceilings and floors” in the JLR deal. WPP is also allowed to buy a share of JLR’s media on a principal basis—a practice in which an agency purchases and resells inventory, often at a markup—according to a person familiar with the matter.

WPP declined to comment and JLR did not return requests for comment, but their contract illustrates a broader reality of outcomes-based pricing models: agencies need predictable compensation to fund their operating costs. By leaning further into principal inventory with JLR, WPP is effectively hedging against the risk it is taking on.

Ultimately, it “has to be a two-way thing,” said Kangisser. “If the agency is taking risk, then the client needs to be comfortable that they are going to do whatever they need to do to deliver against those business outcomes. And so, if it does mean participating in some of those areas to supplement the fee, then I think that’s perfectly reasonable.”

Pushback from marketers and procurement

There are risks for marketers with outcomes-based pricing, too. A company may, for example, have budgeted $1 million, only to find it owes $1.5 million once an agency clears its performance targets.

“It’s a variable cost,” said Broadhead, and clients “don’t love that.”

Procurement teams apparently don’t either, with 69% of agencies surveyed for the Mediasense report calling them a critical or strong barrier to adoption. Procurement’s current approach relies on comparing proposals against legacy full-time equivalent models, making it hard to prove a cost saving when the two aren’t directly comparable.

Even when outcomes-based pricing does make it into the conversation, the report noted, it often gets “diluted until they fundamentally resemble more traditional fee structures.”

Success with outcomes can be a slippery slope, said Wesley ter Haar, chief AI and revenue officer at S4 Capital’s Monks. If an agency performs really well and gets paid more, “a procurement team or new leader will come in and go, ‘Hey, this agency is really expensive. We can get cheaper agencies,’” said ter Haar.

“I had [a client] who was honest with me. They said, ‘You’re just making too much money, and you didn’t spot it in advance and tell me,’” Belsky added, recalling a deal from his time as CEO of Dentsu’s 360i in which 100% of the agency’s fee was tied to a percentage of a car rental client’s revenue.

Acadia’s founders have built in caps on how much the agency can earn on performance-based deals, along with a “reverse tiering” structure, where the shop’s percentage rate declines as performance climbs higher.

What’s next?

Broadhead is candid about his limits with outcomes-based pricing and tying compensation to performance. “For any agency to go much over 20 to 30% would be crazy,” he said. Of course, agencies’ appetite for risk will depend on various factors, including how much control they are given over an account, but Broadhead seems to be onto something.

A hybrid approach, with inch-by-inch gains rather than a full shift, appears to be the most likely path forward. WPP’s Rose acknowledged as much while speaking to press last week following the company’s latest earnings report, saying that widespread adoption of outcomes-based pricing will “take a few years.”

Mediasense’s forecast is even less rosy. A full transformation, the report concluded, “still seems to be in the distant future, if it is to happen at all.”

17566: Only You Can Prevent… NVM.

 

Should Smokey Bear take responsibility for the extreme rise in wildfires—or will the iconic critter blame California Governor Gavin Newsom?

17565: On Outcome-Based Remuneration Regurgitation Rhetoric.

 

Digiday reported WPP CEO Cindy Rose said, “I suspect it will take a few years” for outcome-based remuneration to take hold in Adland.

Um, it’s not the first time White advertising agencies pressed to have compensation tied to results and revenue enjoyed by brands via marketing initiatives.

Based on historical data, it will take much more than a few years. Outcome-based payment is an outdated proposition, with failed attempts dating back to the 1990s.

White holding companies—including a single White operating company—fueled the commoditization of Adland. Adding an intent to leverage AI for offering faster and cheaper services makes pursuing outcome-based remuneration outrageous.

Hell, it’s a safer bet Rose will be out long before outcome-based remuneration becomes reality—especially if her employment is based on outcomes achieved at WPP.

‘It will take a few years’: WPP CEO Cindy Rose says outcome-based pay is still years away

By Sam Bradley

 

Loud as the chatter about outcome-based remuneration is across the holdco space, the reality of it is still some way off, according to one of its most vocal proponents, WPP CEO Cindy Rose.

 

It’s a notable admission given Rose has made outcome-based pay a core pillar of WPP’s turnaround plan, overhauling how global client leaders — the senior execs running the biggest accounts — get paid, tying it directly to client growth. Getting clients to pay the same way is another matter. So far, only one has: Jaguar Land Rover.

“If you look at the history of this industry, the commercial model has been evolving for the past 40 years, and I think we’re going to have to continue to adapt because the time and materials model is probably not sustainable in the long term because AI ultimately will enable us to do our work faster with fewer people,” Rose told Digiday today (August 6) as the agency giant published its first-half earnings report.

She added, however, that Jaguar was so far “unique” in embracing the approach. “It’s going to take time for this evolution to take place… I suspect it will take a few years,” she said.

WPP’s recovery, too, remains a work in progress. Eleven months into Rose’s tenure and six months after she unveiled her turnaround plan, there are early signs from its latest earnings update that the group’s core media and creative businesses are stabilizing. To keep the momentum going, Rose said WPP would embrace a “mixed economy of business models.”

WPP’s first half

H1 revenues less pass-through costs were £5 billion ($6.7 billion), down 4.7% from the same period last year. Its creative businesses, including VML and Ogilvy, saw a 3.5% decline in revenue less pass-through costs, though its production unit saw revenue increase 1.9%. WPP Media saw revenues fall 5.4% compared with the same period last year, but Rose said higher spending from new and existing clients had contributed to an “improving quarterly trend” within the network.

Rose, who was appointed CEO last September, said the business was on track to recovery according to key indicators: new business, client retention, tech partnerships and cost cutting. Evidence for the former, she said, was in the wins for Heineken and Honda’s accounts, and retentions such as Huawei and Reckitt.

“My priority, my north star, is to get WPP back to positive organic growth,” she told analysts during the company’s earnings call. “The priority in 2026 has been to stabilize the business, make the structural changes needed, and strengthen our execution. The next phase is to build on these foundations, returning the company to growth sometime during 2027.”

The market appears to agree with Rose’s diagnosis. WPP’s share price had risen 25% following the earnings release at the time of writing.

AI plans

The company’s turnaround plan is closely tied to its AI investment and development plans. CFO Joanne Wilson declined to provide details on WPP’s token costs (the firm committed in 2024 to invest £300 million annually), but said its Open platform was a key tool for “optimizing” AI-related costs.

“We are using AI and applying it across our business. So, as you would expect, with that comes token costs… we’re actively optimizing that cost. We’ve also been very thoughtful about how we use agents across the business,” she said.

“Open is widely deployed across our business now, and our clients. We use [Open Intelligence, WPP’s AI media targeting solution] in all of our pitches. It’s absolutely front and center of our proposition,” added Wilson. 

Wilson suggested that outcome-based commercial models might provide a means for WPP to operate without absorbing all AI-related costs. “In the past, our business and values really come almost entirely from people, now it’s people and tech costs. We’re evolving our commercial model so that we’re reflecting those inputs between people and tech,” she said.

What role WPP Open Pro, the self-service SME creative tool launched last autumn, will play in the holding company’s commercial model is less clear. Rose said 24 clients were now using the tool. “We’ve got a very healthy pipeline of active client opportunities, and we’re encouraged by the progress there too,” she said.

Token costs, outcome-based models and organic growth expectations weren’t the only subplots updated this morning:

WPP’s open to offers

By the end of this year, WPP will have clawed back £200 million ($269 million) through sales of “non-core” business units, to use Rose’s terminology, and what CFO Wilson referred to as the “long tail” of agencies, during the company’s investor call. It’s quite a turnaround for a company once defined by its aggressive approach to agency acquisition.

“We identified assets in the group which are great assets, but we felt that they were of more value to the outside of the group than inside. We have initiated processes on those assets earlier in the year, and those processes are ongoing,” said Wilson, who didn’t name the agencies in question. “I would expect some more in 2027.”

Staff cuts will continue

WPP isn’t the only major agency group shedding staff at the moment, but it’s shrunk its headcount by around 8.1% in the past year. The company now employs 97,400 staffers, versus 105,900 during the first half of 2025. Though most of those job cuts fell in the second half of 2025 Rose indicated this was an ongoing project, telling reporters that “some jobs will be impacted” as the company pursues £500 million ($673 million) in cost cuts over three years. “This isn’t just about cost savings per se. These actions will make us more agile and simpler to navigate, and that’s an important part of our new simplified operating model,” she said.

Those cuts mean that WPP, once the industry’s largest employer, is now smaller by headcount than either Omnicom or Publicis Groupe, which both have over 100,000 employees. Rose argued that embracing alternative commercial models like outcome-based pricing would enable it to compete.

“Moving away from a time-and-materials model,” she said, “frees me up from staffing plans so that I can serve clients with a hybrid workforce of humans and agents, and that reduces my cost to serve, and ultimately becomes a source of expansion.”

17564: WPP Metaphorically On Track.

Adweek spotlighted the WPP H1 2026 report, indicating the single White operating company experienced a 5.6% decline in revenue, yet saw its stock rise over 26% after beating analysts’ estimates.

During an earnings call, WPP CEO Cindy Rose declared, “We’re on track with where we said we would be,” referring to the fuzzy Eviscerate28. Meanwhile, regarding outcome-based remuneration—a key notion in the turnaround scheme—Digiday reported Rose said, “I suspect it will take a few years.”

Not officially stated about WPP: The runaway train is being built in breakneck flight—ditto the rickety track it’s careening along. And upon reaching the dismal destination, there will be far fewer passengers on board versus when the dizzying trip started.

WPP Is ‘On Track’ With Turnaround Plan, as Revenue Drops 5.6% in First Half of 2026

Six months into its 3-year turnaround plan, WPP’s revenue beat analysts’ estimates

By Brittaney Kiefer

WPP’s stock rose more than 26% in the early hours of trading, after the company’s first-half earnings beat analysts’ estimates. 

The numbers

• –5.6%: Year-over-year decline in revenue less pass-through costs for the first half of 2026 to $6.39 billion (£4.75 billion), down 4.7% on a like-for-like basis 

• –2.3%: YOY decline in revenue less pass-through costs for the second quarter to $3.34 billion (£2.48 billion), down 2.8% on a like-for-like basis 

• –8.4%: YOY decline in average headcount, from 106,000 in the first half of 2025 to 97,000 in the first half of this year

• –3.5%: Decline in WPP Creative’s net sales for Q2, versus a 6.3% decline in Q1

• –2.8%: Decline in WPP Media’s Q2 net sales, versus an 8.3% decline in Q1

Watercooler talk 

WPP is six months into its three-year turnaround plan, Elevate28, which is designed to stabilize the business and return it to growth, while delivering annual cost savings of $676 million (£500 million) by 2028. Chief executive Cindy Rose is nearly one year into her tenure.

“We’re on track with where we said we would be,” Rose said on an earnings call with journalists on Thursday (Aug. 6). 

Rose said WPP made progress on its four strategic objectives, which are to deliver growth for clients, become a simpler and more integrated company, unlock the advantages of its agentic marketing platform WPP Open, and to “create firm financial foundations for the future.”

Earlier this year, WPP restructured into four business units—WPP Media, WPP Creative, WPP Production, and WPP Enterprise Solutions—across four key regions—North America, Latin America, EMEA, and APAC. For the first time, its earnings report split its results into those units.

On the new business front, Rose cited “landmark wins” including Estée Lauder, Jaguar Land Rover, Avon, Airbnb, Wendy’s, SC Johnson, and Heineken. WPP topped J.P. Morgan’s net new business rankings as number one for the first half of 2026 and for the nine months to Q2 2026.

WPP also “completed more than 15 non-core asset disposals that will generate over £200 million [$269 million] of sales proceeds in 2026,” according to Rose. The company said it is on track to make $134.5 million (£100 million) in savings this year.

While WPP is reportedly planning to cut hundreds of jobs globally by the end of this year, Rose declined to share specific numbers, other than confirming that “some jobs will be impacted.”

“This isn’t just about cost savings per se. These actions will make us more agile and simpler to navigate, and that’s an important part of our new simplified operating model,” Rose said.

Rose touted the company’s technological advancements through WPP Open, which she said allows clients to “connect their data with signals from across WPP and our 350 data partners, giving them access to 5 billion consumers in over 100 markets, drawing on trillions of real-time signals.”

Key quote

“What excites me the most is to see how AI is fundamentally changing how we deliver growth for our clients,” Rose said. “In an environment where AI is rapidly transforming our industry and trust is in scarce supply, I believe that our commitment to client data ownership and control will become increasingly compelling.” 

17563: On S4 Capital H1 P&L OMG WTF BS.

 

MediaPost spotlighted the S4 Capital H1 2026 report, indicating the White holding company continued to experience net revenue declines. Dramatic cost cutting, however, helped to ignite a profit boost.

Gee, Sir Martin Sorrell might earn the distinction of being unable to orchestrate a financial turnaround for the biggest White holding company (WPP) and his current peanut factory.

That’s quite a range of abject failure.

S4 Shares Soar 26% On First-Half Profit Boost

By Steve McClellan

Martin Sorrell-led S4 Capital continued to shrink in the first half of the year with declines in reported and organic net revenue while sharp cost cutting led to a profit boost. The firm also declared a dividend and reduced debt during the period. Shareholders applauded, giving S4 shares a 26% bump up in Wednesday trading after the release of the firm’s first-half results.  

Reported net revenue for the first half was 308 million GBP (approximately $415 million), down 6.2% with a 4.7% organic net revenue shortfall.  

S4 sited continuing macroeconomic uncertainty exacerbated by the Middle East conflict as part of the reason for the revenue falloff. Also, some clients spent less with the firm while boosting capital expenditures in artificial intelligence infrastructure. “Clients continue to be cautious leading to longer sales cycles,” S4 stated. 

But pre-tax profits were up 82.7% to a record 38 million GPB ($51 million). Cost reductions included back-office efficiencies and staff cuts. Total staff at the company was down 10.5% as of June 2026 versus a year ago to 6,150.  

The firm downgraded its organic revenue outlook for the full year, forecasting a decline in the mid-single digits versus the previous “slight dip” the company guided to at the end of the first quarter. But pre-tax profits should reach the analyst consensus of 85 million GBP ($115 million) with a profit margin increase of 1.4%.  

“We anticipate that clients will remain cautious in the near term reflecting heightened macroeconomic uncertainty, including the continuing conflict in the Middle East,” stated Sorrell. “While the macroeconomic environment remains uncertain, we see growing opportunities as clients become more selective about growth geographically and increasingly focused on implementing technologies such as AI, Blockchain and Quantum to drive efficiency.”  

The Americas, the firm’s largest region by revenue, was down slightly (0.8%), while Europe and Asia Pacific were both down double-digits.   

The company’s marketing services unit posted net revenues of 281.9 GBP ($380 million), down 4.4% organically while technology services totaled 26.1 million GBP ($35 million), down 7.4%.