PRWEEK AGENCY REPORT 1998: Recipe for success - Client/agency relationships are better than ever, judging by this year’s PR Week Agency Report. (1 of 2)

No less than 16 agencies delivered stellar performances in PR Week’s 1998 Agency Report - picking up five stars apiece. The result was an improvement on last year’s report, in which 15 agencies gained five-star status.

No less than 16 agencies delivered stellar performances in PR

Week’s 1998 Agency Report - picking up five stars apiece. The result was

an improvement on last year’s report, in which 15 agencies gained

five-star status.



The news at the other end of the scale was just as encouraging. The

lowest rating this year was a highly respectable two stars, compared to

a small cluster of one or no-star agencies last year.



In total, 34 agencies entered PR Week’s quality survey, now in its third

year. It attracted agencies from both the upper echelons of PR Week’s

Top 150 League Table, such as Countrywide Porter Novelli and Grayling,

as well as medium-sized agencies, such as Sinclair Mason and

Companycare.



This year, there were several newcomers - three of which received the

report’s highest accolade. Edelman, Profile PR and Text 100 all scored

five stars, while BMA and Harrison Cowley achieved four stars.



There were improvements for some agencies, such as Sinclair Mason, which

moved up from two to five stars this year. Other agencies with reason to

celebrate include Fishburn Hedges, which moved from four to five-star

status, and Brahm, Communique PR and Keene Communications, which all

moved up two stars to become four-star agencies.



The improvement in star-ratings for many agencies, together with the

increase in five-star agencies, is a clear indication that the UK’s main

consultancies are operating under the very highest standards of

quality.



Evaluation was one area which saw a year-on-year improvementwith an

increasing number of clients investing in both internal and external

evaluation and analysis and a majority of agencies now boasting a

planning function.



Client evaluation of media relations also saw an increase in average

score from seven to eight out of ten.



On the contentious subject of fees, most agencies emerged as fair

chargers, with consultancies including Countrywide Porter Novelli, noted

for providing very good value for money.



Within the nuts and bolts category, the vast majority of agencies scored

highly on their ability to meet deadlines. However, when it came to

writing skills, the scores were noticeably lower. Exceptions to the

trend included Nexus Choat and Consolidated Communications.



Another area in which agencies exhibited some weakness was in giving

clients tough or unpalatable advice - a necessary, if not always welcome

task. Very few scored highly in this section. However, five-star

agencies Fishburn Hedges and Beattie Media increased their rating by

their plain-speaking.



There seems to be no conformity in the amount spent on training. The

total value of investment in training per head varied from pounds 450 to

more than pounds 5,000.



Perfect scores in any one category were a rarity. Those agencies which

pulled off this feat include Lexis PR, which managed a round 10 in the

relationships category, and Biss Lancaster and Grant Butler Coomber

which both scored a perfect seven in infrastructure. Overall section

leaders were Sinclair Mason and Companycare, which both scored 52 points

out of 60 in client assessment, and Firefly which scored 34 out of 40 in

agency credentials.



It is clear from the 1998 Agency Report that the client/agency

relationship has never been so strong. This year’s average score was 17

out of 20 for client satisfaction. Band and Brown and Sinclair Mason

scored 19, while no agency scored less than 14 - two more points than

the lowest score last year. An impressive result.



END RESULTS: HOW THE SCORING SYSTEM WORKS



To ensure continuity and to track real changes in performance, the

marking system for this year’s entries corresponds precisely to that

used in both the first Agency Report published in 1996 and the second

published in 1997.



Once again, the marks have been carefully designed to reflect the

relative importance of the factors which determine an agency’s all round

ability.



It is for this reason that PR Week publishes not only a final score but

also the elements that make up that final marking. The Report should be

treated as a guide and as a commentary on the agencies’ relevant areas

of strength, rather than an absolute and finite indicator of their

ability.



The system rates each agency based on two pieces of research: factual

information provided by the agencies themselves in response to a

detailed questionnaire; and a survey of their own clients conducted by

independent research company Westcombe Business Research. These two

elements are combined to produce a final figure and a star rating.



Criteria for inclusion



Consultancies listed in the Top 150 with a 1997 fee income of pounds 1

million or more were invited to participate in the 1998 Agency

Report.



Agency Credentials



In this part of the survey, consultancies were able to score up to 40

points on the basis of their own responses to a questionnaire about

their operations. In order to grade their responses to financial

questions fairly against averages, the consultancies were divided into

three bands according to their size: pounds 1 million to pounds 2

million fee income, pounds 2 million to pounds 4 million; and pounds 4

million-plus.



The questions were divided into five categories which were weighted in

marks according to importance.



- Business performance: which covered percentage income growth; pre-tax

profit margins; and average earnings per head. 15 points



- Staff: including investment in training and benefits as well as staff

qualifications. 9 points



- Infrastructure: which looked at the agency’s investment in technology

and systems. 7 points



- Quality controls: which covered systems like BSEN ISO 90002, BS7750

environmental standard and Investors in People; and planning and

evaluation systems used. It also rewards agencies which use an in-house

evaluation system.



7 points.



- Industry recognition: as indicated by membership of professional

bodies, such as the PRCA and the Association of Professional Political

Consultants, and industry awards won over the last three years. 2

points.



Client assessment



Each agency was asked to supply a list of between five and 20 individual

clients. Westcombe Business Research then interviewed five clients per

agency using a detailed questionnaire designed to elicit the client’s

view of the consultancy’s performance.



There was a total of 60 points available for this section, again broken

down into five areas which were weighted according to importance:



- Pitch promises: which looked at how well the agency has met its brief

and lived up to claims made at pitch stage; and how proactive it has

been in its ideas and service since then.



10 points



- Client/agency relationship: including chemistry with staff; the level

of contact and responsiveness; and perceived quality, time spent on the

account by senior management and consistency of handlers on the

account.



10 points



- Nuts and bolts: which covered keeping deadlines and promises; agency

contacts; written and oral skills; attention to detail; quality of

research; and how willing the agency is to offer tough advice. 10

points



- Evaluation: which looked at how well the agency met set business

objectives; the quantity and quality of media coverage; its ability to

influence opinion formers; planning; and the agency’s own evaluation of

its work. 10 points



- Client satisfaction: which included an overall performance rating, and

whether the agency has improved, declined or remained the same during

the last year; whether costs were perceived as fair and whether the

service was viewed as being good value for money; and how likely clients

would be to reappoint them. While clients remained anonymous in this

survey, each was also invited to offer candid comments on what they

liked best and least about the agency. 20 points



Star rating



Those agencies which scored 55 or more marks out of 100 were awarded a

one-star rating, those who notched up 60 plus marks received two stars,

agencies with 65 to 69 marks got three stars, those with 70-plus, four

stars and consultancies with 75 or more points achieved the maximum five

stars.



THE ARGYLL CONSULTANCIES



Argyll notched up a three-star rating compared to its four-star status

last year. For the most part a below average business performance and a

drop in its client assessment marks were to blame for the slight dip in

its score. This seems a pity, as client ratings were still good and

opinions were favourable. One praised its ’down to earth approach’ and

’practical attitude to the tasks we give them’. Indeed, Argyll was one

of the few agencies to score well on proactivity following the

pitch.



In terms of credentials, the agency maintained its overall score from

last year, with full marks for total investment per head on

training.



In addition, it did well on infrastructure, quality and recognition.



Argyll’s main problem on the client assessment side was that 1997’s

impressive figures were hard to live up to. For instance, this year’s

scores for pitch performance and relationships were down one point each

But at eight out of 10 these marks can hardly be criticised. Most

importantly however, client satisfaction remained strong. All felt they

were fairly charged and 40 per cent said they got very good value for

money. With comments such as: ’they understand our objectives’ and ’easy

to work with, but they are not ’yes-men’,’ Argyll should take heart.



AGENCY CREDENTIALS

                            MARK   OUT OF

Business performance           4       15

Staff                          8        9

Infrastructure                 5        7

Quality controls               6        7

Industry recognition           1        2

Total                         24       40

Client assessment

                            MARK   OUT OF

Pitch promises                 8       10

Relationship with agency       8       10

Nuts and bolts                 6       10

Evaluation                     7       10

Client satisfaction           15       20

Total                         44       60



BAND AND BROWN



Band and Brown just managed to stay in the five star category but even a

score of 75 could not match last year’s chart-topping 80. The agency

manages to translate client satisfaction into a financial gain. It beat

last year’s business performance by one point, continuing to show top of

the sector growth, though earnings per head were more modest.



There was below average expenditure on training but judging by the

growth in fee income, they could be too busy to take sufficient time

out. The most negative thing one client could say was ’they’ve

grown’.



Band and Brown seems to have bottled that PR je ne sais quoi with

clients lauding its ’flair’ and ’creativity’. Its client assessment

score of 51 reflects this feeling but the agency turned in an even

stronger 54 last year and perhaps increase in size is making it just a

little more difficult to provide that personal touch.



Similarly this year’s seven out of 10 for pitch performance trailed last

year’s bumper 10 even though clients awarded top scores for ideas,

results and service.



Client satisfaction beat even last year by one mark with a near perfect

19 out of 20 and all clients surveyed are aiming to reappoint.



AGENCY CREDENTIALS

                            MARK   OUT OF

Business performance          11       15

Staff                          5        9

Infrastructure                 4        7

Quality controls               4        7

Industry recognition           0        2

Total                         24       40

Client assessment

                            MARK   OUT OF

Pitch promises                 7       10

Relationship with agency       9       10

Nuts and bolts                 8       10

Evaluation                     8       10

Client satisfaction           19       20

Total                         51       60



Barkers



Barkers improved on its score last year to achieve an overall rating of

three stars. The agency can be very pleased with its assessment by

clients. They were enthusiastic about relationships with Barkers. One

commented: ’They are responsive and our relationship is very good.’



Media performance was also praised - quality and quantity of media

coverage and influence with opinion formers all rated nine out of 10.

Pitch performance was not quite so highly commended. Some clients felt

the agency was not proactive enough after pitching. ’They do not push

and promote themselves as much as other agencies do,’ suggested one.

Overall client satisfaction was high, and clients felt the agency

offered adequate or very good value for money.



Although better than last year, Barkers agency credentials score was

responsible for the agency failing to achieve a higher star rating.

Growth, profit and earnings per head were all below average, and there

was a comparatively low investment in training.



Infrastructure though is good, including multi-media capability and a

web site. Quality systems too are adequate, with client satisfaction

procedures and a comprehensive in-house evaluation system.



AGENCY CREDENTIALS

                            MARK   OUT OF

Business performance           5       15

Staff                          4        9

Infrastructure                 5        7

Quality controls               4        7

Industry recognition           1        2

Total                         19       40

Client assessment

                            MARK   OUT OF

Pitch promises                 7       10

Relationship with agency       9       10

Nuts and bolts                 7       10

Evaluation                     8       10

Client satisfaction           16       20

Total                         47       60



BEATTIE MEDIA



Scotland-based Beattie Media enhanced its five-star rating with very

good all-round marks. Compared to last year, the agency maintained or

improved its performance in most categories and came in as one of this

year’s top scorers. On the agency credentials side, it was particularly

strong on investment in staff training and technology. Similarly,

effective quality controls and accreditation to Investors in People

boosted its marks.



Clients rated all aspects of the agency’s services highly, from in-house

evaluation systems to the nuts and bolts of everyday dealings. However,

while Beattie scored well on handing out tough advice, there was a small

mark down on pitch performance, for the complaint of not being proactive

enough after the pitch. The only other slight disappointment was a low

average earnings per head for size of agency, which prevented full marks

for business performance.



However, client satisfaction was high, with favourable comments ranging

from praise for the ’quality and ability of the partner who looks after

our account’, to ’good knowledge of our market and very

enthusiastic.’



The only negative comment was an isolated complaint about ’poor skills

to convert ideas into the written word.’



AGENCY CREDENTIALS

                            MARK   OUT OF

Business performance          13       15

Staff                          7        9

Infrastructure                 4        7

Quality controls               5        7

Industry recognition           0        2

Total                         29       40

Client assessment

                            MARK   OUT OF

Pitch promises                 7       10

Relationship with agency       9       10

Nuts and bolts                 8       10

Evaluation                     9       10

Client satisfaction           18       20

Total                         51       60



BISS LANCASTER



Biss Lancaster matched its three-star rating of last year, scoring

marginally better on agency credentials but not as highly for client

assessment. Scores across the agency credentials section, in fact,

remain exactly the same as last year except for business performance

which improved by two points.



Nevertheless its business performance marks remained below par, with

average growth tempered by modest profit and below average earnings per

head. Below average investment in training also gives Biss Lancaster one

of the lower staff scores. But infrastructure, including marketing, is

excellent and having Investors in People and comprehensive external and

internal evaluation systems mean a good quality score too.



Clients evidently enjoy working with this agency. ’There is great team

spirit and they are great fun to work with,’ said one. Relationships

with clients scored highly, with full marks for consistency and

dialogue. An otherwise good nuts and bolts appraisal was let down by a

perceived reluctance to offer tough advice. Areas such as attention to

detail were marked well.



The agency’s client satisfaction mark would have been higher except for

the fact that all clients felt its performance had remained the same

rather than improved.



AGENCY CREDENTIALS

                            MARK   OUT OF

Business performance           5       15

Staff                          4        9

Infrastructure                 7        7

Quality controls               5        7

Industry recognition           1        2

Total                         22       40

CLIENT ASSESSMENT

                            MARK   OUT OF

Pitch promises                 7       10

Relationship with agency       8       10

Nuts and bolts                 7       10

Evaluation                     7       10

Client satisfaction           15       20

Total                         44       60



BMA COMMUNICATIONS



BMA clearly manages to get close to clients, providing that something

extra. ’Good co-operation with us and we are good friends too’, said

one.



Another commented: ’They have no pretensions. We make a team.’



The only ’negative’ comment that one client could come up with was the

distance between it and the agency - ’the stretch of road between Derby

and London’. A client assessment score of 48 out of 60 bears this out

and BMA enters the Agency Report with a four-star rating.



Pitch promises received a high score with services and meeting the brief

commended. On the nuts and bolts, there was client appreciation for

meeting deadlines though the agency could be tougher in its advice and

improve evaluation of its own work. Clients feel that charges are spot

on and all those surveyed were prepared to reappoint.



Client satisfaction is paying dividends on the agency credentials front

with 12 marks for business performance, reflecting strong annual growth,

profitability and top marks for earnings per head. On the quality side,

the agency clearly makes a good all round effort to market itself and if

it could beef up the industry recognition factor, next year could see it

win those few extra marks to take it into the five-star category.



AGENCY CREDENTIALS

                            MARK   OUT OF

Business performance          12       15

Staff                          4        9

Infrastructure                 4        7

Quality controls               4        7

Industry recognition           0        2

Total                         24       40

Client assessment

                            MARK   OUT OF

Pitch promises                 8       10

Relationship with agency       8       10

Nuts and bolts                 7       10

Evaluation                     7       10

Client satisfaction           18       20

Total                         48       60



BRAHM PR



Brahm PR has leapt up from a two-star to a four-star rating , one of the

biggest improvements this year. Even more pleasing is this was entirely

due to a vastly increased client assessment.



Both pitch performance and nuts and bolts increased by three points each

and client satisfaction moved up four points to a very healthy 17 marks

out of a possible 20. All clients felt they received adequate or very

good value for money and 40 per cent said the agency’s performance had

improved on last year.



There is praise for the agency’s professional and friendly attitude and

knowledge of client markets. The only negative was that perhaps the

agency should be more ready to hand out tough advice.



In terms of agency credentials, Brahm did well on staff - over 20 per

cent of whom have a PR degree - and scored maximum points for percentage

of income spent on in-house training. A good infrastructure and quality

systems, such as accreditation to Investors in People, similarly boosted

the score.



The only disappointment was a lacklustre business performance. While the

agency achieved good earnings per head, it was heavily penalised for its

below average annual growth rate.



AGENCY CREDENTIALS

                            MARK   OUT OF

Business performance           6       15

Staff                          8        9

Infrastructure                 5        7

Quality controls               5        7

Industry recognition           1        2

Total                         25       40

Client assessment

                            MARK   OUT OF

Pitch promises                 9       10

Relationship with agency       9       10

Nuts and bolts                 8       10

Evaluation                     6       10

Client satisfaction           17       20

Total                         49       60



BRODEUR A PLUS



This agency, which became part of Brodeur Worldwide in October 1997,

scored marginally less well than last year, shaving a star off its

score.



The overall agency credentials score was very similar to last year’s

with infrastructure and quality scores remaining healthy. On the quality

side the agency has achieved Investors in People accreditation and has

comprehensive evaluation systems in place. Marks were picked up in the

staff category where investment in training is particularly commendable,

and staff are well qualified.



Turning to client assessment, the agency scored well across the

board.



Relationships were deemed to be very good. ’Reliable, constant,

proactive, they need very little management from us,’ enthused one

client. All clients felt the agency was very responsive. Pitch

performance was strong and there was a good nuts and bolts score. The

evaluation score was slightly weaker, with one client suggesting the

agency’s evaluation of its own work was sketchy. There was also some

criticism by one client of the agency’s culture. ’They can be too rigid

and too regimental,’ it said.



Client satisfaction though was high. All felt the agency charged fairly,

and four of the five clients surveyed said that it offered very good

value for money.



AGENCY CREDENTIALS

                            MARK   OUT OF

Business performance           4       15

Staff                          8        9

Infrastructure                 5        7

Quality controls               6        7

Industry recognition           0        2

Total                         23       40

CLIENT ASSESSMENT

                            MARK   OUT OF

Pitch promises                 8       10

Relationship with agency       8       10

Nuts and bolts                 7       10

Evaluation                     6       10

Client satisfaction           17       20

Total                         46       60



CHARLES BARKER BSMG



A five-star agency last year, Charles Barker’s score slipped to four

stars this year. The most marked drop was its staff score, falling from

six last year to only three out of a possible nine. For an agency of

this size marks for investment in training were below average.



Infrastructure and quality control scores were excellent. The agency

uses a full range of research and evaluation methodologies. Growth of

eight per cent was below average, but profit and fee income per head was

at the upper end of the spectrum.



Charles Barker received very good client assessment marks. The nuts and

bolts score revealed an excellent ability to meet deadlines and a

willingness to give tough advice when prompted. Media performance and

the agency’s evaluation of its own work was also very high.



Charles Barker also scored well in the relationships category. Clients

like the people at the agency. ’They get on well with us and understand

our business,’ commented one. Another said: ’There is a good

understanding of the financial world. They are usually able to respond

quickly to our requests.’



Three out of five clients questioned, however, did feel that not enough

time was spent on their account by senior managers.



AGENCY CREDENTIALS

                            MARK   OUT OF

Business performance           9       15

Staff                          3        9

Infrastructure                 6        7

Quality controls               6        7

Industry recognition           0        2

Total                         24       40

CLIENT ASSESSMENT

                            MARK   OUT OF

Pitch promises                 7       10

Relationship with agency       9       10

Nuts and bolts                 7       10

Evaluation                     8       10

Client satisfaction           16       20

Total                         47       60



COHN AND WOLFE



Tough marking by clients means that Cohn and Wolfe only achieves

two-star status, despite getting the same agency credentials score as

last year when it merited four stars.



The low nuts and bolts score reveals some criticism that the agency is

reluctant to offer tough advice, and disappointing scores on writing

skills and attention to detail. The evaluation score is also on the low

side, with some dissatisfaction about the agency’s evaluation of its own

work.



Three of the clients surveyed felt the agency overcharges.



On the positive side, Cohn and Wolfe was praised for being very

proactive after pitching. All clients felt they had a good relationship

with the agency, and staff were commended as being very knowledgeable.

One client said: ’They are very tuned into our brand and its needs. They

have good media contacts and achieve good results.’



Cohn and Wolfe’s agency credentials scoring is very similar to last

year’s.



Business performance rates one point higher, with above-average growth

and healthy profits, although earnings per head are below average. The

staff score is again on the low side due to below average investment in

training. Cohn and Wolfe makes extensive use of in-house and external

evaluation systems and so scores well in the quality category.



AGENCY CREDENTIALS

                            MARK   OUT OF

Business performance           8       15

Staff                          4        9

Infrastructure                 5        7

Quality controls               6        7

Industry recognition           0        2

Total                         23       40

CLIENT ASSESSMENT

                            MARK   OUT OF

Pitch promises                 9       10

Relationship with agency       7       10

Nuts and bolts                 5       10

Evaluation                     6       10

Client satisfaction           14       20

Total                         41       60



COMMUNIQUE PR



Communique PR should be pleased with its two-star leap to a four-star

consultancy, particularly as this is the result of an enormous

improvement in its client assessment, which moved from 39 points last

year to an impressive 48 out of 60.



One client said that there is ’not as much input from senior management

as I expected.’ However, other clients describe a close-fitting

relationship saying ’they work hand-in-glove with us’.



Pitch promises improved two marks to seven out of 10. There was also

appreciation of the agency’s ’good media contacts’. Nuts and bolts marks

improved with the agency scoring high for meeting deadlines, keeping

promises and contacts. Evaluation also improved this year while client

satisfaction surged ahead by three marks to 17 and all surveyed were

prepared to reappoint.



Business performance shed one mark due to just above average annual

growth and slightly below par earnings per head leaving agency

credentials down two points to 22 out of 40.



Communique has a good spread of technological infrastructure but could

do more to market itself. Quality controls include Investors in People

accreditation. A good staff score was bolstered by the wide range of

benefits offered to employees.



AGENCY CREDENTIALS

                            MARK   OUT OF

Business performance           7       15

Staff                          5        9

Infrastructure                 5        7

Quality controls               5        7

Industry recognition           0        2

Total                         22       40

CLIENT ASSESSMENT

                            MARK   OUT OF

Pitch promises                 7       10

Relationship with agency       8       10

Nuts and bolts                 8       10

Evaluation                     8       10

Client satisfaction           17       20

Total                         48       60



Companycare Communications



Reading-based, four-star rated, Companycare scored an equal

top-of-the-table 52 with Sinclair Masonfor its client assessment with

leading marks of nine out of ten for pitch promises and client

relationships.



Evaluation and client satisfaction improved on last year’s scores with

all clients surveyed happy with charges and aiming to reappoint the

agency.



Clients regard it as ’very pragmatic and strategic thinking, which is a

rare thing’ and see it as following ’a flexible and objective line of

work’, although one commented that response to deadlines needs

improving.



Success with clients could translate more strongly into business

performance marks which dropped back to four out of 15 this year

compared with six last year. Annual growth was well below average for

its fee income group as was profitablility and earnings per head.



The staff score improved thanks to investment in training and good

benefits and the agency shows a high level of technology infrastructure.

Quality control marks suffered a little this year due to the number of

evaluation methodolgies employed. However, it has some good systems in

place, including accreditation to Investors in People and an in-house

evaluation system.



AGENCY CREDENTIALS

                            MARK   OUT OF

Business performance           4       15

Staff                          5        9

Infrastructure                 5        7

Quality controls               4        7

Industry recognition           0        2

Total                         18       40

CLIENT ASSESSMENT

                            MARK   OUT OF

Pitch promises                 9       10

Relationship with agency       9       10

Nuts and bolts                 8       10

Evaluation                     8       10

Client satisfaction           18       20

Total                         52       60



CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS



Another very good performance by Consolidated means it keeps its

top-notch, five-star rating. The most notable improvement on 1997 was in

its agency credentials. Last year’s poor business performance marks

bounced up to eight out of 15 and, with very respectable pre-tax profit

and annual percentage growth, only a modest average earnings per head

for this size of agency prevented an even greater score.



Other gains included a very good mark for in-house training expenditure

and staff benefits.



Infrastructure and quality systems remained impressive, due to an

in-house evaluation system and external support from the likes of

CARMA.



Clients rated their relationships with the agency highly. All gave full

marks for levels of contact, time spent on their account by senior

management and consistency of account handlers. In addition, the agency

received good marks for nuts and bolts, and evaluation of its work. On

pitch performance, clients expected a slightly more proactive follow-up,

but overall client satisfaction was very good. Positive comments ranged

from ’proactive, down-to-earth, realistic’ to ’innovative, eager and

very professional’.



The only criticism was ’they do not always seem to have time for

us’.



AGENCY CREDENTIALS

                            MARK   OUT OF

Business performance           8       15

Staff                          7        9

Infrastructure                 6        7

Quality controls               6        7

Industry recognition           1        2

Total                         28       40

CLIENT ASSESSMENT

                            MARK   OUT OF

Pitch promises                 7       10

Relationship with agency       9       10

Nuts and bolts                 8       10

Evaluation                     8       10

Client satisfaction           18       20

Total                         50       60



COUNTRYWIDE PORTER NOVELLI



Countrywide Porter Novelli maintains its five-star rating from last year

with good scores in the agency credentials and client assessment

categories. High investment in training gives CWPN one of the top staff

marks.



On the quality side, CWPN is one of the few agencies to have the BS EN

IS 90002 quality system. Membership of the Chartered Institute of

Marketing as well as the PRCA helped the agency score a point in the

industry recognition category. Business performance, however, again only

rates seven points.



This is largely because growth was some way below average, although

profit margins were good. Earnings per head were also slightly below

average.



CWPN is highly marked by clients, particularly in being proactive after

the pitch. Scores for evaluation were very good as was overall client

satisfaction. It was marked down in the nuts and bolts section though,

only offering tough advice ’when prompted’. However clients clearly like

the people at CWPN. A ’personal approach and friendly personalities’ was

singled out by one and another complimented its ’creativity and ability

to get media coverage’. But there was a feeling the agency could be more

responsive and that relationships with other suppliers could be

improved.



AGENCY CREDENTIALS

                            MARK   OUT OF

Business performance           7       15

Staff                          8        9

Infrastructure                 6        7

Quality controls               6        7

Industry recognition           1        2

Total                         28       40

CLIENT ASSESSMENT

                            MARK   OUT OF

Pitch promises                 9       10

Relationship with agency       8       10

Nuts and bolts                 6       10

Evaluation                     8       10

Client satisfaction           17       20

Total                         48       60



EDELMAN PR WORLDWIDE



Edelman’s first Agency Report entry takes it straight into the five-star

category. There was a very strong showing in terms of business

performance, reflected in a score of 13 marks from a possible 15, with

top marks for both annual growth and average earnings per head.



Profit margins were not quite in the same league and agency spend on

training was below average. As a technology specialist Edelman employs

the full array of hi-tech tools, including intranet and video

conferencing facilities. On the marketing side the agency invest heavily

in promoting itself.



Ed

Before commenting please read our rules for commenting on articles.

If you see a comment you find offensive, you can flag it as inappropriate. In the top right-hand corner of an individual comment, you will see 'flag as inappropriate'. Clicking this prompts us to review the comment. For further information see our rules for commenting on articles.

comments powered by Disqus

Latest Articles

Max Clifford trial jury to continue deliberations tomorrow

Max Clifford trial jury to continue deliberations tomorrow

The jury in the trial of celebrity publicist Max Clifford has been sent home after a second day of deliberations about its verdicts on 11 charges of indecent assault.

Champagne producer Charles Heidsieck appoints Story PR