‘CEO handshake’ or due diligence? Publicis hits back at WPP's Cindy Rose over pitchless account wins

The rivalry between advertising giants WPP and Publicis Groupe has spilled into the open, with Publicis issuing a sharply worded open letter to WPP CEO Cindy Rose over her comments questioning the due diligence behind major advertising accounts awarded without competitive pitches.

The public exchange, which follows WPP’s third-quarter earnings call on October 29, comes against the backdrop of major global media account movements involving PepsiCo, Coca-Cola and LVMH, and growing debate over whether conventional agency pitches remain necessary when advertisers are increasingly evaluating integrated technology, data and media capabilities.

In an open letter addressed to Rose and shared on its official Instagram account, Publicis Groupe rejected the suggestion that new business was being secured through informal relationships between company chiefs.

“Although it might make for a good headline, claiming we win on a ‘CEO handshake’ is an insult to clients’ intelligence,” Publicis said.

The French advertising group also took a swipe at WPP’s decision not to participate in Coca-Cola’s North American media review, turning what began as a discussion about procurement practices into a wider confrontation over competitive capability.

The controversy originated during WPP’s Q3 earnings call, when Bank of America analyst Adrien de Saint Hilaire questioned Rose on why WPP had not participated in Coca-Cola’s US pitch and whether the company was witnessing a trend of competitors securing assignments without pitching.

Rose defended WPP’s decision to stay out of the North American review, explaining that the company had already secured Coca-Cola’s business across the other markets in which it competed and faced the challenge of delivering on those assignments within a limited period.

She said the decision involved weighing another six weeks of pitching against the immediate operational requirements of the business WPP had already retained.

Addressing pitch-less appointments, Rose acknowledged the increasing costs and burden of traditional reviews but maintained that large-scale agency decisions carried significant business consequences.

“I don’t think we do ourselves any favour as an industry of professionals by encouraging clients to bypass proper due diligence,” Rose said.

Although Rose did not explicitly name Publicis, PepsiCo or LVMH during that exchange, her comments came at a time when Publicis had secured several high-profile assignments without conventional competitive pitches.

Among the most prominent was PepsiCo’s reported $1.9 billion global media account, which went to Publicis in September. The group also secured LVMH’s Asia-Pacific media business without a traditional review, reflecting a broader shift in how some multinational advertisers are choosing agency partners.

Publicis subsequently withdrew from Coca-Cola’s global media review after securing PepsiCo’s business. WPP retained Coca-Cola’s media business across most international markets, while Omnicom secured North America.

Publicis, however, maintained that the absence of a traditional pitch should not be confused with the absence of rigorous evaluation.

“We all know global companies don’t hand over their data, media, and tech keys over a friendly espresso.”

“It takes months of hard testing by marketers, engineers, data architects, and procurement teams. So let’s be really clear here: skipping an old-school pitch circus isn’t skipping due diligence. It’s clients knowing what they need and testing us to the limit.”

The group also made a pointed reference to Rose’s previous association with one of the companies that had selected Publicis this year.

“Having worked at one of the companies that chose us this year, you know its leaders really well, and your comments sell them remarkably short.”

“They would never have entrusted us with a task of this magnitude on a wink and a handshake.”

The letter then turned directly to WPP’s explanation for not contesting Coca-Cola’s North American business.

“You can’t be a passionate defender of pitch culture and plead exhaustion in the same breath. If an extra six-week run was enough to sideline your teams, it’s not an endurance problem; it’s a capability one.”

Publicis argued that technology and talent investments had become central to winning complex multinational business.

“Because in the real world, enterprise partners aren’t chosen after a cosy tête-à-tête or legacy slide decks.”

“They are chosen on connected identity and media solutions, intelligent creativity, and AI engines that drive business.”

The dispute also comes at a significant point in WPP’s own restructuring. The British holding company is executing its Elevate28 transformation programme, aimed at simplifying its operating structure, integrating capabilities and returning to sustainable growth.

In the third quarter, WPP reported revenue of £3.27 billion, up 0.5% year-on-year, while revenue less pass-through costs declined 2.1% on a like-for-like basis. WPP Media returned to marginal growth of 0.3%, even as WPP Creative reported a 5.1% decline.

Publicis, meanwhile, has continued to position its integrated media, data, technology and AI capabilities as central to its competitive proposition.

The exchange illustrates a wider tension emerging across the advertising industry as holding companies compete for increasingly complex global mandates. While traditional pitches remain a mechanism for comparing agencies, some advertisers are increasingly choosing partners through direct assessments of their operational, technological and data capabilities.

The distinction raises questions about whether the traditional pitch process is losing relevance or whether the industry is moving towards a different form of evaluation, one that may be equally rigorous but less visible to competing agencies.

Publicis ended its letter with a final dig at WPP’s celebration of its Coca-Cola win.

“We understand the pressure of building a narrative for the financial markets and the urge to celebrate a win - a victory lap is fun even when you’re the only one who ran.”

“But it shouldn’t require denigrating our clients, our people, and all of our efforts.”

The letter was signed off, “Very best, Your friends at Publicis.”

The Instagram caption accompanying the post added: “Hey @wpp, we’re not angry, we’re just disappointed.”

Beyond the unusually public disagreement, the episode has brought a fundamental question to the forefront of the agency business: as advertisers look for partners capable of combining media, technology, identity and AI, will conventional competitive pitches remain the industry’s preferred route to awarding major mandates, or will direct capability-led evaluations increasingly become the norm?