Boss of London ad champion quits after losing crown to French rival
The boss of WPP is to step down months after the British advertising behemoth lost its crown to a French rival.
Mark Read will leave after more than three decades at WPP, including seven years as chief executive. He will continue in the role until the end of the year while the board searches for his successor.
Mr Read's departure, though long-expected in the industry, comes at a turbulent time for WPP. The London-based group, which employs around 110,000 people worldwide, last year lost its title as the world's largest ad company by revenues to French rival Publicis.
Meanwhile, its two other largest rivals – Omnicom and Interpublic – have agreed to merge in a $30bn (£22bn) deal that will further erode WPP's dominance.
The British company is also grappling with industry-wide turmoil sparked by the rise of artificial intelligence (AI), which threatens to upend the work of ad agencies.
This has compounded the challenge posed by tech giant such as Google and Meta, which have grown their share of the advertising market in a direct threat to traditional holding groups.
Mr Read's tenure has been dominated by efforts to simplify WPP, which had ballooned into a sprawling network of companies under his predecessor Sir Martin Sorrell, who left the company he founded following allegations of misconduct, which he has always denied.
As chief executive, Mr Read oversaw the merging of a number of agencies while selling off some non-core businesses, including the £2.5bn sale of a 60pc stake in market research group Kantar.
More recently, the ad boss has also vowed to invest heavily in AI, pumping £300m into the technology this year and investing in generative AI startup Stability AI.
However, WPP's growth has ground to a halt in recent years and the company's share price has more than halved during Mr Read's tenure, pushing its market value below £6bn. Shares fell a further 2pc after his departure was announced.
Alex DeGroote, a media analyst, said: 'The company is much simpler today than it was when he came on board as chief executive.'
But he added: 'There's just a feeling of the company having lost a lot of ground to the likes of Publicis, so I can't honestly say that he will be remembered as having delivered immense shareholder value.'
Mr Read's future has been in doubt since Philip Jansen, the former BT boss, was appointed as WPP chairman at the beginning of the year.
Mr Jansen said Mr Read had 'played a central role in transforming the company into a world leader in modern marketing services'.
Mr Read said: 'After seven years in the role, and with the foundations in place for WPP's continued success, I feel it is the right time to hand over the leadership of this amazing company.
'I am excited to explore the next chapter in my life and can only thank all the brilliant people I have been lucky enough to work with over the last 30 years, and who have made possible the enormous progress we have achieved together.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Long-awaited project nears start next to The River District in west Charlotte
McCraney Property Co. is moving closer to starting its long-awaited industrial park on Garrison Road in west Charlotte. The Florida-based developer plans to start construction later this summer on a new road at and around the project site, McCraney's Massie Flippin said. The road will connect West Boulevard to Dixie River Road, he said. READ: 'A great place': Concord unveils new downtown after years of construction The road project is expected to take 12 months to complete. It will pave the way for the Logistics 485 at The River District industrial park. McCraney has long planned a five-building, 1.2 million-square-foot industrial park at the approximately 150-acre site on Garrison Road. It is now working on a site plan that calls for seven industrial buildings totaling 1.3 million square feet of industrial space. Read more here. WATCH: 'A great place': Concord unveils new downtown after years of construction
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Private sector wages should not be the business of Government
For far too long, British politicians have created laws and systems that outsource decisions to the courts. All of this has been done with the best intentions, but too little consideration has been given to the unintended consequences, and the outcomes have been perverse. Thanks to a spate of absurd rulings, including the Albanian criminal allowed to stay in the UK partly because his son will not eat foreign chicken nuggets, many are aware of the impact on efforts to control our borders. But the problem is much broader, impacting everything from planning to energy. Increasingly, tribunal judgments are even telling businesses what they should pay their workers. If that sounds crazy, it's because it is. All jobs are different; all people are different too. In theory, setting pay is hard, because the pros and cons of different roles depend on individual preferences. In practice it's easy. You don't have to sit down and work out a weighted aggregate of a job's different pros and cons to different people; the market does that for you. You can start hiring, and you'll find out pretty quickly how much you need to pay to fill a role. This is so obvious that it almost isn't worth saying. But it's not what our laws say. The Equality Act, passed in 2010, mandates 'equal pay for equal work', doubling down on the Equal Pay Act of 1970. But what is 'equal work'? According to the Equality Act, it isn't where two people do the same job. It's not even where two people do similar jobs. In fact, the Equality Act says, the only way to tell if two jobs are 'equal' is to conduct a 'job evaluation study'. Rather than letting the job market determine fair pay, bureaucrats and judges use a host of arbitrary criteria to decide what a role is worth. What does that look like in practice? Last August, a six-year case concluded against the retailer Next. The company was sued by three women, current and former workers, who insisted that store staff (mostly women) should be paid as much as warehouse workers (slight majority male). Any of the store staff could have moved to the warehouse if they wanted more money. In fact, Next were desperate for them to – the company had a recruitment drive for the warehouse among store employees. But very few people wanted those roles because working on the shop floor was pleasant and working in the warehouse was not. One of the women who brought the case admitted that she would only have considered moving to the warehouse for 'a lot more money.' Incredibly, Next lost. The court decided the two roles should be paid the same. The same thing is happening to Asda. And Birmingham council was effectively bankrupted by an equal pay claim brought by (mostly female) cleaners complaining they weren't paid as much as the (mostly male) binmen. We should be grateful anyone is willing to do work that's backbreaking, dirty or dangerous. They deserve to be paid fairly; often more than people who don't want to do that. But now bureaucrats have come in to fix what isn't broken and insist that what is fair is actually unfair. This undermines our economy and it needs to stop. Katie Lam is the Conservative MP for Weald of Kent Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The benefits system is out of control
The decision to axe the winter fuel payment for most pensioners must rank among the most ill-judged policies introduced by a Chancellor in recent times, and there is strong competition for that accolade. Rachel Reeves made the decision shortly after taking office because she said it was necessary to help plug a £22 billion 'black hole' she had discovered in the nation's finances. Her argument might have had some merit had she not then blown much of the savings on pay rises for train drivers and public sector workers. The juxtaposition of help for Labour's union allies while pensioners shivered rapidly became toxic for the Government, generating one of the fastest reversals of support for any new administration. In the end, with Reform advancing in the polls – and pledging to restore the payment – Sir Keir Starmer ordered a screeching U-turn which the Government maintains is possible because the economy is doing so well, as if anyone believes that. Now, instead of around 1.5 million older people on pensioner credit receiving the payment, it will be paid to about nine million OAPs with an income below £35,000. Why this figure has been chosen is as much a mystery as other 'cliff edge' sums that abound in our overly complex tax and benefit system. Indeed, this U-turn just makes it even more convoluted. Everyone will receive the payment but it will then be clawed back from an estimated two million people earning more than the £35,000 threshold via PAYE or a tax return. In other words, yet more red tape will be imposed to make a quarter of pensioners return an allowance that began life in 1997 as a universal benefit. Although many better-off pensioners often said they did not need the money, and many gave it to charity every Christmas, at least it was straightforward. To some extent so was limiting it to people on pensioner credit, since that is already linked to income. But what is now proposed is a dog's breakfast, with opt-outs and other implications still to be resolved. Tomorrow, Ms Reeves will unveil her spending plans for the next four years. She is being urged to get a grip on the rapidly expanding benefits budget; but if this experience is to be our guide, there is little chance that it will ever be reined in. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
