17484: Subway Fixing Its Brandwich…?

 

Advertising Age reported Subway is taking its Eat Fresh tagline to different levels.

 

The fast feeder wants fresh thinking, which could lead to changes, including a new White advertising agency.

 

For starters, Subway removed its Global CMO from the menu and appointed a new US CMO.

 

After a review, Subway’s US media duties went from Dentsu to Omnicom.

 

And now, Subway is launching a US creative review.

 

What’s next—reintroducing Jared?

Subway shakes up its CMO roster and agencies to solve the brand’s ‘emotional resonance’ problem

 

By Brian Bonilla and Ewan Larkin

 

Subway is overhauling its U.S. marketing and agency roster, parting ways with its global chief marketing officer, appointing a new U.S. CMO, and shaking up both its media and creative accounts, Ad Age has learned.

 

The changes come as Subway aims to fix what an agency-focused request for information document obtained by Ad Age describes as a deeper brand problem.

 

“Subway falls short on emotional resonance and brand distinctiveness; the brand is more known than felt,” the brief stated.

 

CMO shuffle at Subway

 

The sandwich giant has amicably parted ways with its global CMO, Greg Lyons, just over a year after he was appointed to the role, according to two people familiar with the matter. Subway CEO Jonathan Fitzpatrick, named to the role in July 2025, eliminated the global CMO position after changing the organization’s structure to a more regional one, according to sources. Lyons could not be reached for comment. Subway did not return multiple requests for comment.

 

Subway hired Jeff Klein, the former marketing leader-turned-president of Popeyes, earlier this year as a senior VP of marketing. Klein will now serve as U.S. CMO. David Skena, who was appointed North America CMO eight months ago, will now serve in a chief strategy and commercialization role, according to three people close to the situation.

 

Before his time with Popeyes, Klein served as the CMO of Little Caesars Pizza and was a long-time PepsiCo marketing executive. He will now report to Damien Harmon, Subway’s North America president, sources said.

 

Subway’s ongoing agency changes

 

Along with the CMO shuffle, Subway has awarded Omnicom its U.S. media and CRM accounts following a review, Ad Age has learned. Dentsu’s Carat most recently held the media account.

 

Subway is now launching a U.S. creative review, with an RFI going out this week, according to four people familiar with the matter. The creative account, which includes creative and social duties, is said to be worth around $10 million in fees, according to a source close to the situation.

 

Subway brought in Publicis Groupe’s Leo New York to handle U.S. creative in April 2025, replacing Dentsu Creative. It wasn’t immediately clear if Leo is participating in the creative review, which is being conducted by SRI, according to multiple people.

 

Earlier this year, Leo launched a campaign showcasing a promotion for Subway’s Sub Club loyalty program in which customers can earn a free footlong sandwich after three purchases of a sandwich of the same size.

 

However, free sandwich promotions were removed from the program following complaints from Subway franchisees about the deal being too generous and not cost-effective.

 

Dentsu also most recently handled social for Subway and played a significant role in facilitating the advertising effort around Subway’s collaboration with the 2025 movie “Happy Gilmore 2.”

 

Dentsu referred to the client for comment. Leo declined to comment. Omnicom referred comment to Subway, and SRI wasn’t immediately available for comment.

 

Subway’s U.S. measured media spending declined from $242 million in 2024 to $208 million in 2025, according to MediaRadar. Subway is the 10th largest U.S. restaurant chain, according to Technomic, with 2025 sales of $8.97 billion, down 5.7%.

 

Subway’s brief focuses on brand reinvigoration

 

The company’s largest challenge appears to be rebuilding its cultural and emotional relevance, especially with younger consumers, according to the RFI document. Subway “needs to re-establish brand meaning for a new generation of QSR consumers” by creating “a clear, ownable story about why Subway specifically is the better-for-you, fair-price sandwich choice for a busy life,” according to the brief.

 

This includes capitalizing on its first-ever value menu, launched in late April.

 

Subway’s recent value offerings are positioned as evidence that the company is “finally showing up with options that deliver value and everyday access,” the brief stated. But it also notes that the company needs to convince both existing and new customers that “Subway is delicious, convenient and affordable.”

 

“The current advertising has been working campaign-by-campaign rather than building a long-term, ownable brand platform,” the RFI stated.

 

Subway sees its biggest competitive pressure not just from rival sandwich chains, but from the broader quick-service restaurant landscape, where giants like McDonald’s, Burger King, Taco Bell and Wendy’s continue to dominate consumer traffic and volume. At the same time, emerging sandwich-focused competitors are beginning to gain momentum. The RFI identifies Jersey Mike’s as Subway’s No. 1 threat on “brand momentum and premium perception,” while Jimmy John’s was cited as a growing competitor built around “speed and convenience.”

 

Subway has faced declining U.S. store counts, intensifying competition and franchisee pressure during the last decade.

 

The company, which in 2024 completed its sale to affiliates of private equity firm Roark, has now closed U.S. locations for 10 consecutive years, shrinking from more than 27,000 domestic restaurants in 2015 to fewer than 19,000 today, according to QSR Magazine. In 2025, Subway shuttered 729 restaurants.

 

What Subway seeks in an agency

 

Subway is seeking a large-scale agency with the “bench strength to handle [its] calendar volume,” which includes “six marketing windows + test markets,” according to the RFI.

 

Subway also wants an agency partner with deep experience in fast-paced retail and QSR marketing, particularly around brand reinvention, social-first creative and managing large-scale integrated campaigns.

 

The chain is also prioritizing Hispanic-market expertise “not as a translation function but as a cultural capability,” alongside in-house or partner-led production capabilities for social, creator and limited-time offer content.

 

The company also signaled in the document that it wants senior-level involvement throughout the relationship, including “CCO/senior creative engagement,” that won’t just “pitch-and-disappear.”

 

Contributing: E.J. Schultz and Jon Springer

17483: Adweek Reruns Wren Renumeration.

 

Adweek published “exclusive” content that was originally scooped by MediaPost in March, re-revealing Omnicom Chairman and CEO—and Pioneer of Divestiture—John Wren pocketed nearly $70 million in 2025.

 

Adweek compared Wren’s 2025 compensation to CEO paychecks at competitive White holding companies and a single White operating company, pointing out Wren reeled in more than double all other CEOs combined.

 

Salary-shaming multimillionaires actively cutting hundreds of millions from their respective corporate coffers by firing thousands will not likely get sympathy from the average Adweek reader—many of whom lost incomes because of the CEOs’ cost-cutting maneuvers.

17482: FYI WPP JLR WTF BS.

 

MediaPost reported WPP and JLR (Jaguar Land Rover) completed negotiations initiated last December when the UK-based automaker handed its global “end-to-end” marketing communications account to the single White operating company following a review.

 

The scheme involves an outcomes-based payment plan and WPP-JLR relationship structure that reflect a “building-the-car-while-driving-it” approach. After all, the new partners spent nearly six months hammering out the ambiguous contractual details.

 

The JLR Chief Growth Officer and WPP CEO Cindy Rose delivered corporate statements that sound like breakthrough but smell like bullshit.

 

In short, the scenario makes less sense than the last Jaguar campaign.

 

WPP, JLR Finalize Global Marketing Partnership

 

By Steve McClellan

 

In December, UK-based automaker JLR (FKA Jaguar Land Rover) confirmed that it had selected WPP to handle its consolidated global “end-to-end” marketing communications account, subject to final contract negotiations. 

 

Now, WPP has confirmed that those negotiations have been successfully completed. The remit includes media, creative, production, customer experience and marketing strategy. It covers the client's portfolio brands: Range Rover, Defender, Discovery and Jaguar. 

 

The carmaker spent an estimated $475 million on measured media last year, according to agency research firm COMvergence.  

 

WPP said the partnership moves beyond traditional models by forming a bespoke, integrated and co-located team from across WPP and JLR marketing talent. The business model, WPP stated, is “built on a unique outcome-based remuneration structure that aligns WPP’s success directly with JLR’s growth.”  

 

Lennard Hoornik, chief growth officer at JLR, said, “To supercharge the growth of our modern luxury brands, we needed to think differently. Together with WPP we want to resolve the traditional contradiction between scale and intimacy. Our joint vision for a single, AI-powered modern luxury marketing organization is the solution.”  

 

WPP’s CEO Cindy Rose, said, “This partnership is a testament to our shared ambition for the future of marketing. Our new mission at WPP is to be the trusted growth partner for the world’s leading brands in the era of AI. By combining the brilliance of human creativity with the transformative power of AI on WPP Open, we will help JLR create customer experiences of unparalleled intimacy and luxury, at scale, while writing a new playbook for growth.”

17481: On Honda Motor Europe Media Pileup.

MediaPost reported Honda Motor Europe completed a formal review, handing its lead media duties to EssenceMediacom in the WPP Media unit. The scheme will also utilize the WPP Open platform.

 

WPP CEO Cindy Rose probably applauds the win as proof that Eviscerate28 is working.

 

Okay, except the creation of EssenceMediacom, WPP Media, and WPP Open all happened under predecessor WPP CEO Mark Read’s watch.

 

To compound the confusing complexity, the incumbent White media agency for Honda Motor Europe was UM, which shifted when Omnicom acquired IPG. The loss could be fallout spotlighted and foreseen in a previous post.

 

It’s difficult to tell who’s in the driver’s seat for this pileup—but drones across WPP and Omnicom will likely serve as crash test dummies.

 

WPP’s EssenceMediacom To Lead Media For Honda Motor Europe

 

By Steve McClellan

 

Honda Motor Europe has appointed WPP Media’s EssenceMediacom as its lead media agency for the region, following a formal review.  

 

Spending in the region last year by the client is estimated at close to $90 million by agency research firm COMvergence.  

 

The auto giant previously worked with UM in the region. It wasn’t immediately clear what other agencies participated in the review.

 

The new partnership, effective in August, spans Honda Motor Europe’s automobile, motorcycle, marine, power products, and corporate communications divisions across 16 European markets as well as pan-European activity.  

 

As part of its remit, a dedicated agency team will lead Honda’s media strategy, planning, and activation across Europe. It will leverage marketing platform WPP Open, to integrate Honda’s brand-building, product communications, conversion activity, audience intelligence, channel planning, activation, and reporting into a unified system. 

 

Honda’s decision comes as the company strives to evolve its marketing approach and strengthen alignment across brand, product and customer engagement activities, according to the company.  

 

Consultant MediaSense was retained by the client to assist with the review.

17480: Examining WPP (Woman’s Payment Plan & Worldwide Persistent Problems).

 

More About Advertising published a perspective examining issues associated with the WPP CEO Cindy Rose pay scheme recently approved by 75% of shareholders—despite rejection recommendations from two advisory groups.

 

For starters, the approval is technically not approved, as WPP is legally obligated to connect with dissenting shareholders and report collected feedback within six months.

 

Six months from now essentially marks Year One of the Roserrection, so her success or failure in meeting the arguably impossible incentives will be reality.

 

It all underscores the messiness of transitioning from a White holding company to a single White operating company—a restructuring never publicly defined with clarity or transparency.

 

If Eviscerate28 has been officially documented, it’s in pencil—or invisible ink—as the vote on Rose’s payment indicates even shareholders aren’t overwhelmingly convinced the flaming dumpster can be transformed.

 

There continues to be sloppiness as the proceedings unfold, displaying a “Ready, Fire, Aim” approach. This is unconscionable, given over 98,000 livelihoods are at risk, and leadership is readily firing aimlessly.

 

For drones and C-suite executives, RIFs must feel like covert military operations, devastating sneak attacks executed with minimal regard for collateral damages.

 

In Rose’s defense, she’s facing a basic challenge: change always changes. At the same time, to change and to change for the better are two different things.

 

Omar Oakes: Why one in four WPP shareholders aren’t convinced

 

The case for giving Cindy Rose a pay raise — rejected by a quarter of WPP shareholders — matters because of the divisions we now see within and between ad agency holding groups.

 

By Omar Oakes

 

What happened to the once mighty ad agencies of Madison Avenue and Soho, whose great creative and strategic minds used to make or break businesses?

 

Are agencies becoming increasingly minor characters because advertising is no longer a game of big ideas and spectacle, but a small, shabby game of following people around the internet with surveillance tactics and popups? Or do they deserve more blame for failing to make the case that the power of creativity has never been more necessary in a world of rising misinformation and automated mediocrity?

 

Whatever your view of agencies in 2026, there is likely a common reflex when reading stories from the past week about WPP and Publicis Groupe CEOs receiving substantial increases in their pay. My eyebrows twitched, but each to their own.

 

But in the case of WPP, not all shareholders did agree. In fact, one in four said no to WPP CEO Cindy Rose’s proposed pay increase, from a maximum package of £8.6m to £11.1m per year. Everything else sailed through the company’s AGM last Friday, including Rose herself being “re-elected” at 99.63%, which is a number that even Vladimir Putin might blanche at.

 

But seriously folks, this story matters a lot more than ‘rich company boss gets richer’. Let me explain.

 

WPP’s CEO pay: what’s really a fair comparison?

 

To understand why one in four matters, you need to know about the 80% rule. Under the UK Corporate Governance Code, if a pay resolution at a public company AGM fails to reach 80% approval, the board is legally required to engage with dissenting shareholders and report back within six months. Both WPP pay resolutions fell below that threshold (Resolution 3, the compensation committee report, at 75.84%; Resolution 4, the forward pay policy, at 74.92%).

 

So let’s see what WPP report back with in six months. But why go through this headache in the first place for company whose share price is so historically low that last year it fell out of the FTSE 100?

 

The first reason is peer comparison. In its latest annual report, WPP felt it necessary to publish the historic pay packages of its rivals to show how frugal it had been. John Wren at Omnicom earned $21.7m (£15.9m) in 2024 and Sadoun was, even before his own pay rise was revealed last week, earning a “theoretical” maximum of £10m. You don’t close the gap, the thinking goes, by having a CEO who only makes a piffling £8.6m!

 

The second reason is even more awkward: WPP’s boss was apparently being paid so pitifully that she was outearned by about a third of WPP’s executive committee! The traditional pyramid of pay, where the CEO is top dog and tranches below get paid progressively less, had broken down.

 

The third reason is perhaps the most difficult to swallow: CEOs like Cindy Rose are not just paid for past performance, their pay is intended to send a signal and an incentive for future improved performance. The ‘shareholder big bet’ was shown in its most extreme form last year by Tesla, which gave Elon Musk a near-$1tn pay package. Musk’s pay was structured entirely around milestones not yet hit, designed to keep the most important person in the building focused and retained.

 

The WPP board is making a smaller version of the same argument: Rose can earn £11.1m if she hits her targets, we believe she will, and here is the structure to make that happen.

 

You can’t imagine there being a similar rebellion over at Publicis Groupe, if it had the same shareholder voting rules. Chairman and CEO Arthur received a 20% salary increase, taking his potential package to €10.5m. But it’s a non-story because Publicis has posted 20 consecutive quarters of growth and, before Omnicom fattened itself by gobbling up IPG, had outmuscled WPP to become the world’s biggest advertising services group. In 2025, Publicis Media won more than $10bn in new business, according to Comvergence data, while WPP Media lost more than $2bn net. Yes, it has since won $1.9bn in Q1 of this year, but these are not comparable businesses at this moment in time.

 

In other words, Sadoun is being retained for performance already delivered, but Rose is being incentivised for performance not yet achieved.

 

Money is fiction. Value is reality

 

In recent years, Publicis built its data, technology and e-commerce capabilities over years of deliberate acquisition. Meanwhile, WPP, under Read, was painstakingly trying to simplify its hodgepodge of agencies, bespoke client teams, and integrated verticals, following years of aggressive acquisitions under Sir Martin Sorrell.

 

As for how WPP turns around under Rose now, last week’s profile interview by the excellent Suzanne Vranjica of the Wall Street Journal had some revealing lines. Such as:

 

“Rose said that once WPP returns to organic revenue growth, which she expects in 2027, it will allocate more funds to dealmaking and bolster such areas as commerce and social-influencer marketing.”

 

2027? Another seven months (at best!) feels like a long time to wait to start catching up. Especially since most new money in this industry is flowing directly to Meta, Google and Amazon via small and medium sized businesses who buy direct without agencies (including on verticals such as ecommerce and social media/influencer!)

 

As for internal “pay compression”, the timing of this argument isn’t great. WPP’s revenue fell 6.7% like-for-like in Q1. As Mark Ritson’s uncharacteristically dry, sober and unsweary Adweek article pointed out, WPP’s headline operating margin compressed 200 basis points in a single year, from 15% to 13%. And the company’s share price is down by about 30% since Rose took over in September.

 

While she received zero financial performance bonus (because she didn’t earn it), she did, however, receive her maximum bonus for non-financial metrics. The board gave her full marks for the softer stuff in a year the numbers went the wrong way. That is, as far as I can tell, the thing that 25% of shareholders were voting against.

 

The forward signal argument is the most interesting to unpick, because it isn’t wrong in principle. But a bet like this requires a credible forward path.

 

The risk of putting more ‘skin in the game’

 

If, as Rose hopes, WPP returns to organic growth next year, the market will be even more consolidated, more expensive to enter, and more densely populated by competitors who moved earlier. That makes it more likely that the board is pricing in a recovery that is, optimistically, a 2028 or 2029 story.

 

Will shareholders continue to have the same level of patience for that long?

 

There is one aspect to this supposed turnaround story that doesn’t give me confidence. For all the talk of transformation and innovation, this is still a business which, you know, needs to bring in more money than it spends. Business experts call this “profit”.

 

The danger is that WPP becomes so desperate to portray a winning turnaround story (to prop up the share price) that it continues to play the same, self-defeating game which has plagued all large agency groups for decades now: race-to-the bottom pricing.

 

Because WPP is winning accounts: the UK government media account, Reckitt, Estée Lauder, Jaguar… but if revenue keeps falling, it’s the signature of a company defending market share by cutting prices. Then every account that is won on those worse terms resets the floor for the next pitch.

 

This was bizarrely framed in the same WSJ interview: during a recent pitch for a healthcare company, Rose cut the agency’s fee, tying compensation to performance targets. Greg Paull of R3 (now part of MediaSense) was quoted describing this as WPP “putting skin in the game,” adding that this had not been a hallmark of the holding group. He meant it as a compliment.

 

Strange. Firstly, because fee-cutting to win business is not a new strategy at WPP, from everything that I’ve heard in over a decade of my covering this industry, no matter the CEO.

 

Secondly, the decline of fees relative to scope of work by big agencies has been a defining characteristic of this industry for decades. You can read Michael Farmer’s books and Substack to understand, with ample evidence and explanation, how the holding company model was always propped up by a cross-subsidy: undercharge on creative, recover the margin on media buying and production markup.

 

But now the same pressure is hitting media, as platforms commoditise buying and clients demand transparency on every pound spent. So the cross-subsidy is collapsing from both ends. Where left is there to claw the margin back from?

 

To quote Ritson: “The only question that matters is whether clients will pay more.”

 

That is the problem the WPP turnaround has to solve, and Rose’s brainchild scheme Elevate28, to make £676m in cost savings, is a margin defence operation that buys time. Meanwhile, ever weaker pricing erodes the top line.

 

Again, how much patience are these shareholders really expected to have?

 

See you in six months

 

If only politics were the same: a winning politician is forced to consult with the people who voted against them. Because they represent all the people, not just their supporters, right?

 

So it’s a very good thing that UK corporate law requires WPP to engage with dissenting shareholders when votes fall below 80% approval and report back in six months. Corporate behaviour might be even better if the actual workers were entitled to representation on boards, as they are in Germany, but that’s for a different column.

 

For now, this story matters because it really will signal whether there is much hope for the holding company model to survive. Is this a board that updates its view of WPP’s position in light of new meaningful evidence or another round of investor relations management that concludes with minor adjustments and a press release about constructive dialogue?

 

I suspect the data will answer that question before the board does.

17479: Heard The Buzz? Byron Allen Buys BuzzFeed.

 

Adweek reported the latest buzz on Byron Allen adding BuzzFeed to his media empire.

 

Under Byron Allen, BuzzFeed Sets Its Sights on the Living Room

 

The pivot mirrors a broader shift afoot in digital media, as audiences and ad budgets gravitate toward streaming

 

By Mark Stenberg

 

When it first launched in 2006, BuzzFeed was a trailblazer, creating from scratch a playbook for sparking virality in the early days of the social internet.

 

Now, following its Monday acquisition by media executive Byron Allen, the brand and its sister property, HuffPost, have trained their focus on the newest battleground in the attention wars: the living room.

 

“As of this moment, BuzzFeed is officially chasing YouTube and the other big tech platforms,” Allen told The New York Times.

 

BuzzFeed is hardly alone in this pivot. Structural forces are threatening the durability of the open internet, with answer engines siphoning traffic away from websites and users increasingly gravitating toward mobile apps and walled gardens.

 

In response, media brands have adopted an increasingly distributed approach, cultivating audiences across channels including newsletters, podcasts, and live events. But one channel in particular appears poised for explosive growth: streaming television.

 

After years of deliberate expansion, streaming surpassed cable in total viewership in 2024, according to Nielsen. Its share of total television ad spend has gone from 15% in 2020 to 38% in 2025, with the crossover projected for 2027-2028, according to Adwave.

 

And while the streaming wars of the early pandemic centered largely on subscription-based products from the likes of Netflix, Disney, and Prime Video, the single largest player in the space for the last three years running is YouTube. The free, ad-supported platform captured 12.7% of all viewing in February—up from 7.9% in February 2023.

 

The platform, which has long been attractive to creators, is now increasingly drawing the attention of major media brands, as its accessibility, powerful algorithm, and simple monetization model make it nearly a video business in a box.

 

For a publisher like BuzzFeed, which has already built a dedicated following on the platform, doubling down on YouTube is a forward-thinking strategy. It can treat the website as the top of its content funnel, attracting viewers there before shepherding them into more direct relationships, such as through newsletters, podcasts, and commerce.

 

In this effort, Allen’s decades of expertise in television and the production infrastructure he has at hand could prove to be valuable tailwinds. The medium might be entirely different, but the content itself is not. 

 

BuzzFeed is not the first media brand of its vintage to adopt this approach. Vice Media, which also encapsulated the froth of digital media in the last decade, has pivoted from a web and text-based business to a producer of video content. The upside of such a strategy might be diminished, but so too are the risks.

 

Of course, embracing such a streaming-centric playbook will naturally entail a substantial restructuring. Allen has already warned that layoffs are on the horizon. 

 

And while BuzzFeed has a long history of launching popular franchises, HuffPost has a less established record on that front. News is a more saturated ecosystem than original programming, and HuffPost might struggle to compete with its blue-chip peers in the space.

 

For Allen, the acquisition is a relatively low-stakes gambit. The deal stipulates that he, through his holding company Allen Family Digital, only has to pay $20 million for his 52% ownership stake today. The rest of the $100 million will be paid over a five-year time horizon. 

 

This means Allen gets the BuzzFeed, Tasty, and HuffPost brands—and, more importantly, their YouTube footprints—for about as much money as Valnet paid for Polygon or Ziff Davis paid for Dwell, Domino, Business of Home, and PopSci. 

 

The bottom lines of these companies have sagged in recent years, but they have name-brand recognition and YouTube followings in the tens of millions. If Allen can successfully reorient these companies into video businesses, expect to see more such acquisitions in the near future.

17478: WPP Open X + Coca-Cola + Premier League = Losing Campaign.

The credits for this Coca-Cola/Premier League campaign state the work was developed by WPP Open X, led by Ogilvy UK, supported by WPP Media and VML.

 

Gee, a lot of White advertising agencies handled a project that looks like it could’ve been executed by a junior creative duo—or AI.

 

WPP should be penalized for having too many players on the field.

 

The scenario seemingly blocks the single White operating company’s goal of simplicity.