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
