The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc. (IPG) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Good morning, everybody. Thank you very much for being with us. We have Philippe Krakowsky, the CEO of IPG, which, as you all know, is in the middle of a deal with Omnicom. So we appreciate that his taking out time out of his busy schedule.

I'll start with maybe the usual current trading question. So you gave a minus 2% to minus 1% full year '25 organic guidance, including 4% to 5% drag from account losses, partly offset by underlying growth. Can you talk a bit more about the puts and takes in the outlook for the year. Anything to be said about the pacing of revenue between the quarters, maybe the different services industries. So more color on the current organic evolution, please?

Sure. I mean it's interesting because current trading, obviously, to your point, at the moment is very much on kind of 2 tracks or maybe for us really on 3 tracks. So there's a very significant focus on seeing the merger through to successful completion. I'm sure we'll talk about that over the course of the next half hour, and everything is on track there, then there is what we announced on our call a couple of weeks ago, which is the business transformation effort that we're focusing on the stand-alone IPG over the course of the year. And then to your point, there's a challenging year from the top line perspective, which, as we said, so you've got a drag of about 4.5% to 5% from essentially 3 very sizable account losses that took place last year. And they do correlate very heavily to either what we've been talking about is happening in the media space, specifically around principal trading and/or in the case of 1 pharma client, I think a competitor who's coming at the market with an approach that will be much easier to address or to counter when we're part of a more significant company and when we're sort of part of the platform that we can build with Omnicom. So against that 4.5% to 5% guide would imply kind of an underlying business that's growing in the range of 2.5% to 3%. I don't know that there's anything that I'd call out for you on a client sector basis there. I mean, you've seen where there's been strength for the last couple of years. You've seen the drag that tech and telco had on us meaningfully attenuate and begin to actually look like it will show some growth this year. And then we've said all along that we didn't think that the rebound in what was a very important category for us. I think at its height, it would have been like 14% or 15% of revenue. We didn't think that, that would be -- we thought that, that would sort of come in step changes. And then in terms of the areas that are strong in the business, you know kind of that health care has been a strong performer. It's kind of odd because I'm having to look over this ledge and just [ time off ] of Julien's head, which is odd. But there is -- in terms of puts and takes, it's fairly straightforward, right? I mean it's fairly -- we've talked about, again, as IPG stand-alone, principal, which we built out in the U.S. and got about half the clients opted into was going to be helpful to us more so in the out years, '26 and beyond, that it will have -- and there will be a benefit in '25. And then some of the marketing services businesses that have performed, again, everything is relative, but better, whether it's coming off of the challenges that we saw 3, 4 years ago, but experiential and some of the kind of more -- the businesses that have more of a social influencer component. So I don't see anything in all of those that as industry followers, any of you would find kind of unusual, it's pretty straightforward.

Okay. Very good. As you mentioned a couple of times already, I'll move to that subject. So John Wren and yourselves have pointed out to principal media buying and leveraging Omni, Acxiom, and Interact as the 2 key sources of revenue synergies among others. So what have been the main bottlenecks in building up your own principal media buying practice to date, and by merging with Omnicom, how much of a gain versus the stand-alone plan would that represent?

Look, I think the degree to which the terms of trade in media have shifted in the last 18 months, it's been very, very dramatic, right? So again, as an industry watcher, you know that 7, 8 years ago, clients were very clear that, that was not something that they were particularly supportive of. Our model was built and very, very successful with an approach that was very consultative and much more focused on providing advice and decisioning around those investment decisions that was supported by the expertise inside of Mediabrands and then what Acxiom brought to the table. So the credit to and the benefit that Omnicom and Publicis have had around either the pivot or the fact that, that was a practice that stayed in effect. So I think that for us, I don't know that there have been impediments per se because as we said, in building it out in the back half of last year, that went faster than we thought it would, but the focus was in the U.S. So I think there'll be meaningful benefit in the combination because they've got a sizable and high-end practice that is global. So we can clearly move much faster in the rest of world. I think that the Acxiom asset will be beneficial because as we've discussed, what you can bring to market now is essentially proprietary way to trade that incorporates a technology component or layer, a data layer as well as the media inventory trading. And in that regard, I think Acxiom will be a dimension that is beneficial to -- in the same way that we'll benefit from the breadth and the power that Omnicom has in the marketplace. So both the globality of it and the fact that it is already taking place at a level and it's meaningfully bigger than what we currently do. And then the Acxiom side for both of us is a net plus. But I mean, there's a lot of other -- when I think about the revenue synergies, I think John has talked a lot about the benefits that we think that we can generate by combining the flywheel data set and the flywheel capabilities in commerce and what they're able to see across the retail digital ecosystem, and then the Acxiom data set, which is very, very robust around people and very, very deep against actual people's tens of thousands of attributes there. So the combination of those is going to give us an unparalleled line of sight into exactly what's happening with a consumer at any given point in time, how to reach them, the results that are being driven by the work that we do, and then there's a lot of complementarity in other areas. Our health care businesses are both very powerful, and there's a lot in each of them that works very well with the other. And then in terms of our fit geographically, there's a lot of opportunity to sort of dial up and sell across where we are particularly strong in geographies and conversely where they are. So we see a lot of opportunity for revenue synergy, but to your point, there's -- which is the most evident one and which one can you move on relatively speaking, more quickly and then all of those others.

Okay. good. As we've just focused on the revenue side of the deal, maybe now moving on the cost side. So you've announced $750 million of synergies, and Omnicom in their full year results call gave a lot of detail on the split of those, including salary savings of $200 million. So that could create uncertainty. So how do you ensure that you retain key talent as you go through the deal?

Well, I mean, what's interesting is if you look at what John put out in those various buckets and you look at that $200 million, and obviously, we have the benefit of having engaged with them as we were finalizing the transaction, and gotten a high degree of comfort with that number. So that's -- you put 2 global public companies and 2 companies that have traditionally, like the industry at large, been somewhat federated. So a lot of those are either duplicative costs or costs that got built up over time, because you were essentially putting businesses together and it is a holding company. So it's not the case that you're talking about in those buckets, whether it's that $200 million or the G&A associated with it or some of the work that we're clearly talking about in this year. That's not front of house. That's not client-facing or revenue-generating, which is not to say that the question about talent flight is not a fair one, but we get asked a lot. We just finished a couple of meetings ahead of this one, how is client response. And so to the extent that you've got so much more in the way of tools and that the capability set is enhanced and that there's this complementarity around what Omnicom brings, what we bring and where we each bring it, I think that there's a high level of enthusiasm on the part of the people who are actually engaging with clients, right? Now in terms of what we do for talent in the interim, that is likely to be involved in the place where there are synergies or where there are redundancies, we're thoughtful and we're focused on making sure that we secure them through the transaction. And then we're also spending time pointing out to them that we really are very focused on whoever is strong or strongest in certain sort of -- even if we're talking about functional areas that support the revenue-generating side of the business, making sure that there will be thoughtful decision-making around those and opportunity to the extent that you can, knowing that you're still going to be looking for some sizable savings. So I don't know that there's no magic bullet, but it's definitely more in the support structures to the folks who actually deal with clients and generate revenue. So hopefully, that helps dimensionalize where the concern lies or should lie.

Yes. No, it's very helpful, and maybe the last one on the deal. So the shareholder vote is scheduled for March 18. Looking at your shareholders today, I would expect their proxy advisers' recommendation to have some impact on how people are voting. And so when do you expect the Glass Lewis and the ISS to give their recommendations ahead of the shareholder meeting.

That's not something that they would necessarily make us privy to. But I think a good -- broadly speaking, the benchmark is that a couple of weeks before the meeting, range and bearing, is that 2 weeks? Is that 2.5 weeks, they will issue their recommendation. So I think you probably are on the lookout for something from them in the next -- I don't know what is that I've lost sight of...

Next week, I suppose.

Yes, if we're at the end of February, it's got to be in the next 7 to 10 days. Not that they have, as I said, told us, but that's a good guesstimate.

All right. Moving away from the transaction, you unveiled yourself a $250 million cost-cutting exercise, which is the equivalent of 270 basis points of margin using my estimates of full year '25 net sales, which is a big number. So can you explain how we get there? What are the main actions you're taking to generate those $250 million of cost savings? And the second question is, can you have that much margin uplift and put the $750 million of transaction synergies on top?

So on the second part of your question, yes, we're very confident that the 2 are not -- I think we said so on the call that there's minimal overlap. And so to your first question, just a little earlier, having spent the time with John and his team, sizing the benefits and the synergies of the deal, we're looking at quite different levers here. So if in the case of -- you mentioned the $200 million, there's the associated G&A there. There's the benefits of the combined kind of purchasing power and/or kind of how you think about procured spend on that side. And then there's certain areas like they talk about IT and how you're essentially putting those same investments, which are still back-of-house investments against a much bigger company, a much bigger business. In our case, the $250 million that we identified are kind of an extension of the work that you saw us begin last year where we started to say, okay, you've got to standardize much more. You've got to think about more of the business that can be run from, I guess, you could kind of call a platform approach to some of the underlying support services. So we are taking certain areas that have functional corporate areas like finance and HR, and those are being centralized. So there's -- that's a meaningful lever of the $250 million that we'll generate independent of the deal synergies this year. Then there are certain capabilities areas where we're already down the tracks and you think about kind of the analytics work that gets done against all of the data that -- whether it's Acxiom data or Acxiom data married to client data or even the third-party data. So centralization -- further centralization or centers of excellence there in the production area, where I think that most of the competitors, I think we're all on that same journey in terms of production and at more or less the same place other than perhaps WPP with Hogarth, although even there, it seems like they've got a whole other set of activity that happens in production that isn't fully baked into that, but that's on the side. So all of those are, as a stand-alone company, things that make sense and that we clearly have an obligation, particularly given the top line challenge to move forward on, and the focus is definitely on the in-year savings of all that activity. And some of it will lead to a modicum of more, again, of what we've been talking about when it comes to nearshoring and offshoring. And it's interesting because I think Omnicom specifically called out the nearshoring and offshoring or incremental nearshoring and offshoring was outside of the scope of the $750 million. So I think that there'll be the opportunity for us to collectively look at that once the deal closes. So that's kind of how our $250 million is focused and then the fact that it fits into or sits outside of the $750 million.

Okay. Great. Changing tack altogether, net new business, anything large you're currently defending or anything large you are trying to win without being the incumbent that is somewhat public and you can talk about?

Not really that's somewhat public or we can talk about. So look, I think last year was unfortunate in that we had a couple of long-standing incumbent relationships. And whether it's just a function of they've been -- they were due for review or perhaps, as I've said, the underlying trading terms in media have shifted, but we don't have something that looks like that. And then in terms of opportunities, I mean, we're seeing a reasonable amount of activity kind of in terms of new business, nothing necessarily at that scale as yet. It's early in the year. So I'd say that solid new business environment/pipeline, and relative to your first question, thankfully, no.

Okay. Great. So you don't have to look at the top of my head across the ledge...

As a matter of that...

I'll let Kannan ask a few questions.

Yes. Maybe zooming out a little bit, Philippe. I mean, when I look at the U.S. media space, which we cover here, the broad focus is some of the structural trends, right? Things like AI, for instance, have been a big theme, and your business, obviously, it has multiple aspects to it. So maybe if you could just provide some framework on what parts of your business this complements, where is it a supplement? And maybe we could start with that framework.

Sure. That's a good question. I think unsurprisingly, the parts of our business that have over the last 5-ish, 5-plus years, had more data where we've applied technology and there's been more analytics work. So be that the media business or be that the kind of parts of marketing that are more precision and performance-based. They have already incorporated AI to a meaningful degree, again, over the last 3, 4 years, right? And so if you've got these massive data sets and you're looking for patterns in them, if you're doing predictive modeling against them, if you're looking for ways to align with clients and have more pay it for performance, then when you're engaged in CRM work or in media activation, there's already quite a bit of that in those parts of the business. Where I think gen AI in the last 12 months has had I don't know if I'd say it's more impact yet. It's clearly -- it's raised a lot of the kinds of questions that you point to is as you then think about everything that happens in some of those businesses, generating a unit of content becomes something you can do more efficiently. The need for a lot more content is a fact. And so in terms of those individuals, it's kind of, all right, are they using the tools? How are they using the tools? Are they moving their skill set upstream such that or the client's perspective, there's still meaningful value in having them as part of this sort of bigger integrated solution. What used to not get done that can get done as you're automating certain parts of that stack. And so all of that is very, very kind of nascent and work in progress. And I think that it will have a number of implications. So you'll -- and we saw this in the media business 6, 7 years ago, where we definitely moved upstream and became a higher value, more consultative partner to clients. I mean I think it needs to be part of a system, right? So we clearly will use the technology to generate more content. Some of that content will be generated in ways that are the traditional ways we currently do. Some of that content will be generated in a human being with a machine way. Some of that content will be automated. And then how do you make sure all of that is connected to kind of a more systemic approach. So the question that Julien hinted at when you talked about the benefits of Omni and Interact, we've had a lot, a lot of adoption across the not the media, not the precision. In the last 6 months, as you turn out a lot of consoles that put those capabilities into the hands of strategists and creative people and business leadership in some of the areas of the business that haven't been touched by this. That can be an experiential business agency, that can be a co-traditional ad agency. So I think it's still very early days. And I think that it will have -- there'll be more performance-based work. There'll be the shift of where the labor goes. And then there'll be the -- how do you incorporate it into a more integrated model that has kind of more addressability and accountability the way that like the media business has had.

Got it. We have one more minute. Maybe I can just squeeze in one more on retail media. It's a new phenomenon, I guess. So could you talk about maybe your assets, capabilities in that space and how you see that evolving over time as an opportunity?

Sure. I mean, look, I think it's -- to your point, it's a very -- I think it will continue to be a high-growth channel or channels. For us, it's been something we've built up inside of the media business, informed, and fueled by Acxiom. We made an acquisition or we announced an acquisition that hasn't fully closed of an asset that is technology that pulls massive amounts of retail data and does analytics against it, but it's also an area where the combination is going to be really powerful because of what Omnicom have with flywheel. So whether it's our existing capability inside of the media business, kind of how we are or would evolve it independently with the acquisition we made. But then clearly, as I said earlier, when you think about the nature of what flywheel has line of sight to and then the kind of data that sits inside of Acxiom, and then coming at retail media, not just from a media perspective, but from a holistic helping clients solve for how they go to market. And that can be in marketing channels or in sales channels, because retail media is so front and center for clients and trying to figure out how to go to market.

Yes. And we are out of time, looks like. Thank you, Philippe. Thanks for being here, Julien.

Thank you.