FIREFLY
Firefly has not only maintained its five-star rating, but with 83 out of
100 it also has the distinction of totalling the highest overall score
in this year’s report. The main reason was an outstanding agency
credentials mark. But, to keep egos in check, it should be added that
the company put in a slightly weaker client assessment than last
year.
That aside, an excellent annual growth rate and pre-tax profit margin
meant the agency scored well on business performance. Investment in
training was similarly impressive and a handful of CAM diplomas and PR
degrees boosted marks for staff. As expected from a hi-tech specialist,
the agency kept its high infrastructure score and improved its quality
marks with Investors in People accreditation. In addition a host of
awards from the PRCA and IPR brought full marks for industry
recognition.
Clients rated the agency highly, commenting on its knowledge of the
market, enthusiasm and creativity. One said: ’They understand our
company and goals and execute the agreed plans.’
Overall, the feeling is that this agency has strong relationships with
its clients, scoring perfect marks for level of contact, time spent by
senior management on accounts and for the consistency of handlers.
AGENCY CREDENTIALS
MARK OUT OF
Business performance 12 15
Staff 8 9
Infrastructure 6 7
Quality controls 6 7
Industry recognition 2 2
Total 34 40
CLIENT ASSESSMENT
MARK OUT OF
Pitch promises 8 10
Relationship with agency 9 10
Nuts and bolts 6 10
Evaluation 8 10
Client satisfaction 18 20
Total 49 60
FISHBURN HEDGES
The highest mark achieved by any agency for business performance helped
Fishburn Hedges better its four-star rating from last year to gain five
stars this time around. Very healthy profits and high earnings per head
give the agency its excellent business performance mark despite slightly
below average growth.
Other agency credentials marks, although healthy, are lower than those
gained by the agency last year, except for infrastructure. Investment in
training is below average, resulting in a modest staff score despite
staff being well qualified.
Fishburn Hedges gains very good client assessment marks. What most
impresses clients is the enthusiasm and genuineness of staff. ’They are
engaging individuals who work hard on our behalf,’ commented one.
Like last year, Fishburn Hedges was one of the agencies most willing to
offer tough advice. Other nuts and bolts skills such as research and
oral abilities were also highly rated.
The agency was marked down slightly by clients for evaluation of its own
work, but a near-perfect score for being pro-active after the pitch, as
well as high standard of service brought the pitch promises mark to an
excellent nine out of ten.
AGENCY CREDENTIALS
MARK OUT OF
Business performance 14 15
Staff 5 9
Infrastructure 5 7
Quality controls 5 7
Industry recognition 0 2
Total 29 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 16 20
Total 48 60
GRANT BUTLER COOMBER
The second highest mark achieved by any agency comfortably gives Grant
Butler Coomber (GBC) a five-star rating. Overall the agency’s mark is
the same as last year, the difference is that it scores one point higher
on agency credentials but one point lower on client assessment.
The business performance mark is marginally lower than last year, with
well above average growth being tempered by below average earnings per
head. GBC picks up maximum marks for infrastructure, with marketing
being particularly impressive.
The most significant difference in GBC’s client assessment is its mark
for pitch performance, where the score of six was pulled down thanks to
clients marking the agency down on proactivity after pitching.
However, GBC significantly raised its nuts and bolts score. Here the
agency was rated as particularly impressive in meeting deadlines, agency
contacts and research, and appears to be more willing than most agencies
to give tough advice. Evaluation also improved, with clients praising
GBC’s media performance. Relationships scored slightly lower than last
year, but dialogue, time spent on the account by senior management and
consistency of account handlers all merited maximum marks.
AGENCY CREDENTIALS
MARK OUT OF
Business performance 10 15
Staff 8 9
Infrastructure 7 7
Quality controls 6 7
Industry recognition 0 2
Total 31 40
CLIENT ASSESSMENT
MARK OUT OF
Pitch promises 6 10
Relationship with agency 9 10
Nuts and bolts 9 10
Evaluation 9 10
Client satisfaction 18 20
Total 51 60
GRAYLING
Grayling managed to stay in the five-star category though its overall
score dropped from last year’s 79 to 76. Business performance moved up a
notch though, with pre-tax profit margins at the top of the scale,
although average earnings per head were slightly below par for its fee
income group. On the staff side the score was boosted by an above
average commitment to training.
Clients’ comments were laudatory: ’they are fun to work with, I don’t
know what we would have done without them’ and ’they are very
professional and have excellent contacts with the media’, although some
clients felt they could build on their technological infrastructure.
A high score for relationships with clients was awarded due to top
scores for dialogue and service levels, and a very high score for that
elusive ’chemistry’ factor.
Client assessment gave the agency a total score of 47 out of 60 and
showed senior management apparently spending just the right amount of
time on accounts.
Consistency and relationships with other suppliers both received top
scores and it was generally felt that the agency provides good value for
money.
AGENCY CREDENTIALS
MARK OUT OF
Business performance 11 15
Staff 7 9
Infrastructure 5 7
Quality controls 5 7
Industry recognition 1 2
Total 29 40
CLIENT ASSESSMENT
MARK OUT OF
Pitch promises 7 10
Relationship with agency 9 10
Nuts and bolts 8 10
Evaluation 7 10
Client satisfaction 16 20
Total 47 60
HARRISON COWLEY
This first-time entrant in the Agency Report turned in a solid
performance.
Clients praised the agency’s pitch performance, particularly its
proactive qualities. ’They consistently deliver what they promise,’ said
one client.
The pitch promises score was high, with clients scoring well for service
and results , as well as meeting the brief. Harrison Cowley’s evaluation
of its own work was also singled out as being impressive. Working
relationships too were deemed to be very good.
The least satisfactory score for client assessment was for nuts and
bolts performance. Here some clients felt the agency should be more
ready to offer tough advice. But overall endorsement was strong, and
clients appeared willing to reappoint the agency.
On the agency credentials front, growth, profit margins and earnings per
head were all below average for an agency of this size. Investment in
training was also some way below average, but staff are well qualified,
with a smattering of higher and PR degrees and CAM diplomas. The agency
scored well on evaluation systems and infrastructure, having good
investment in technology. Harrison Cowley’s network of UK offices has
resulted in clients saying that ’they have good press contacts, and
offer local attention’.
AGENCY CREDENTIALS
MARK OUT OF
Business performance 5 15
Staff 5 9
Infrastructure 6 7
Quality controls 6 7
Industry recognition 1 2
Total 23 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
HERALD COMMUNICATIONS
A total client assessment of 48 out of 60 for Herald matches last year’s
score and shows that the agency consistently gets it right for clients,
who believe they are getting very good value for money and are likely to
reappoint.
Business performance, the weak link last year, showed marginal
improvement, though three out of 15 clearly leaves room for further
progress. Both annual growth and earnings per head are below average for
Herald’s fee income group. Infrastructure remained the same, while
quality controls improved markedly with both in-house and outside
evaluation in place.
Clients feel the agency communicates well and, most importantly,
delivers on promises. One client said: ’They are always contactable and
are extremely reliable and never let us down, even at short notice.’ The
agency’s versatility also comes in for praise, but perhaps it should
also take on board comments such as ’reporting could be more specific’
and ’feedback could be more regular’. Herald continues to score a strong
17 out of 20 on client satisfaction.
Staff resources continue to be strong and sound investment in training,
a well qualified workforce and good benefits helped Herald edge upwards
from the two to the three-star category.
AGENCY CREDENTIALS
MARK OUT OF
Business performance 3 15
Staff 6 9
Infrastructure 4 7
Quality controls 5 7
Industry recognition 0 2
Total 18 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 17 20
Total 48 60
ICAS PR
Another impressive performance by Icas PR boosted its rating this year
to four stars from three last year.
A solid annual growth rate and a good pre-tax profit margin gave Icas a
credible business performance mark. In addition, increased investment in
technology, an array of self-marketing initiatives and BS EN IS 90002
accreditation meant very good scores for infrastructure and quality
But, while staff are highly qualified and over 20 per cent have a CAM
diploma, the agency was penalised for lower investment in training.
However, clients had many favourable things to say. ’They listen to our
brief, absorb it and give good advice,’ said one. Others praise its
professionalism, responsiveness and friendliness. These comments are
reflected in the agency’s improved client assessment marks. On pitch
performance Icas scored well on proactivity, quality of ideas and how
well it met the brief. All clients felt they have a good dialogue with
the agency and gave full marks for the consistency of account handlers.
Client satisfaction also improved on last year. All said they were
fairly charged and received very good or adequate value for money.
Comments such as ’easy to get on with and part of our team’, amply
reflect the agency’s all-round improvement.
AGENCY CREDENTIALS
MARK OUT OF
Business performance 8 15
Staff 5 9
Infrastructure 6 7
Quality controls 6 7
Industry recognition 0 2
Total 25 40
CLIENT ASSESSMENT
MARK OUT OF
Pitch promises 9 10
Relationship with agency 8 10
Nuts and bolts 6 10
Evaluation 7 10
Client satisfaction 16 20
Total 46 60
INFOPRESS
Infopress joins the Agency Report this year with a two-star rating.
While its business performance marks were poor, clients rate the agency
highly, giving it a total of 49 out of 60. Client comments reflect very
close relationships. One reported ’an excellent chemistry between
Infopress and us’. Another said: ’They seem to be part of our own
organisation.’
Pitch feedback also reflects client goodwill with a good score on
meeting its brief and being proactive. Clients awarded top marks for a
sound dialogue with the agency, time spent by senior management on
accounts and consistency of account handling.
Infopress scored just 15 out of 40 on agency credentials due to below
average profitability, growth and earnings per head, but a strong staff
score presents a firm base for the future with expenditure on training
high although perhaps a little more could be done on infrastructure to
market the company.
The quality controls score was lower than would be expected, despite the
fact that Infopress markets its own Impact evaluation system. This was
due to the lack of quality assurance systems in place and the fact that
Infopress doesn’t have an in-house planning system. A good staff mark
was achieved through high investment in training.
AGENCY CREDENTIALS
MARK OUT OF
Business performance 1 15
Staff 5 9
Infrastructure 5 7
Quality controls 4 7
Industry recognition 0 2
Total 15 40
CLIENT ASSESSMENT
MARK OUT OF
Pitch promises 8 10
Relationship with agency 9 10
Nuts and bolts 8 10
Evaluation 7 10
Client satisfaction 17 20
Total 49 60
KEENE COMMUNICATIONS
Only three agencies got a better agency credentials score than Keene
Communications, which moves up to a four-star rating from two stars last
year. Only its client assessment score held it back from a achieving a
five-star rating. Stronger business performance would have seen Keene
get an even higher agency credentials rating, but modest growth dragged
down healthy profits and slightly above average earnings per head.
High investment in training gave Keene a very good staff score. An
active marketing policy contributed towards a high score for
infrastructure.
Investors in People status and comprehensive in-house evaluation systems
also meant a good score for quality.
It was disappointing scores in the performance evaluation section of the
client assessment category that pulled its client assessment scores
down. However, it scored well in the relationships sector and the
general feeling is that Keene offers good value for money.
Overall, the tone was positive with many appreciative comments. Two
clients singled out the enthusiasm of the staff, and two others
mentioned the working relationship as most satisfactory.
AGENCY CREDENTIALS
MARK OUT OF
Business performance 9 15
Staff 8 9
Infrastructure 6 7
Quality controls 5 7
Industry recognition 1 2
Total 29 40
CLIENT ASSESSMENT
MARK OUT OF
Pitch promises 8 10
Relationship with agency 7 10
Nuts and bolts 7 10
Evaluation 5 10
Client satisfaction 15 20
Total 42 60
KETCHUM
The equal second highest agency credentials score, backed up by good
marks from clients, means Ketchum matches the five-star rating achieved
last year.
The agency credentials mark is five points higher than last year,
suggesting the agency has worked hard on its in-house systems. Healthy
profit margins are responsible for the very good business performance
score.
The staff score has leapt three points on the back of very high
investment in training. Infrastructure also rates one point higher,
thanks to impressive in-house capabilities such as video conferencing
and multimedia.
Ketchum’s client assessment mark shows very few weaknesses. The lowest
score is for nuts and bolts, where all clients said the agency only
offers tough advice when prompted. The pitch promises mark would have
been higher had Ketchum scored better on the quality of its ideas.
On the positive side, the quality and professionalism of the agency was
appreciated. Dialogue was deemed to be very good.
Two of the five clients surveyed thought Ketchum’s overall performance
had improved, and one client even thought that the agency
undercharged.
AGENCY CREDENTIALS
MARK OUT OF
Business performance 11 15
Staff 8 9
Infrastructure 6 7
Quality controls 6 7
Industry recognition 0 2
Total 31 40
CLIENT ASSESSMENT
MARK OUT OF
Pitch promises 8 10
Relationship with agency 9 10
Nuts and bolts 7 10
Evaluation 8 10
Client satisfaction 17 20
Total 49 60
LANSONS COMMUNICATIONS
Lansons turned in an impressive all round score to retain its five-star
rating this year. An excellent pre-tax profit margin and good average
earnings per head resulted in a solid business performance. Total
investment per head on training was well above average and a good
infrastructure score was gained from an impressive array of technology
applications.
The agency excelled on industry recognition, citing a host of awards
from both the PRCA, IPR and PR Week. In addition, an in-house planning
function, evaluation system and outside agency support helped secure a
good quality score.
Most encouragingly, Lansons improved its client evaluation marks this
year in the nuts and bolts category. It was rated highly on its ability
to keep promises and meet deadlines and faired well on oral skills and
attention to detail. Clients also valued the agency’s pitch performance,
evaluation, and their relationship - although unusually, there were
criticisms of being overly pestered.
However client satisfaction was very good, with 60 per cent seeing an
improvement in performance on last year and all saying they were likely
to reappoint the agency. ’They understand our business and give us
advice and support of a consistent quality,’ said one.
AGENCY CREDENTIALS
MARK OUT OF
Business performance 10 15
Staff 5 9
Infrastructure 5 7
Quality controls 6 7
Industry recognition 2 2
Total 28 40
CLIENT ASSESSMENT
MARK OUT OF
Pitch promises 8 10
Relationship with agency 8 10
Nuts and bolts 7 10
Evaluation 8 10
Client satisfaction 18 20
Total 49 60
LEXIS PR
Lexis PR turned in another good performance to keep its five-star
rating. In terms of client assessment, Lexis achieved top marks for its
client relationships once again, gaining maximum points for levels of
contact, time spent on accounts by senior management and responsiveness
to client needs. Similarly, Lexis was judged well on evaluation, meeting
deadlines, keeping promises and attention to detail.
But while last year’s impressive scores were improved upon in many
categories,this was counter-balanced by a dip in others. For instance,
business performance was strong on pre-tax profit margin, but suffered
slightly for a below average annual growth rate and income per head for
size of agency.
Infrastructure and quality marks remained high and reflected the
company’s commitment to new technology and in-house and media evaluation
systems.
In addition, there were top marks for investment per head on
training.
Overall client satisfaction was impressive. All felt they received
adequate or very good value for money and said they were likely to
reappoint the agency. ’They are very flexible and understand our company
and our need to change goals regularly,’ said one. Another praised their
’honesty, vision and understanding of our business’.
AGENCY CREDENTIALS
MARK OUT OF
Business performance 9 15
Staff 7 9
Infrastructure 6 7
Quality controls 6 7
Industry recognition 0 2
Total 28 40
CLIENT ASSESSMENT
MARK OUT OF
Pitch promises 6 10
Relationship with agency 10 10
Nuts and bolts 8 10
Evaluation 8 10
Client satisfaction 18 20
Total 50 60
MACLAURIN COMMUNICATIONS
MacLaurin Communications shaved one star from its rating this year, due
to more modest business performance marks than in 1997.
However, satisfaction was still high, with 40 per cent of clients seeing
an improvement in performance on last year and all feeling they received
very good or adequate value for money. Positive comments ranged from
’responsive, bubbly and energetic’, to ’they know what they are doing
and don’t promise if they know they can’t deliver’.
The agency also scored well on pitch promises and, in particular, on its
quality of ideas, results, service and meeting the brief. Similarly,
clients viewed their relationship with MacLaurin very favourably. All
said they have a good dialogue with the agency and felt the time spent
on their account by senior management was about right. Good marks for
nuts and bolts and evaluation also helped maintain the client assessment
score at 49 out of 60.
In terms of agency credentials, MacLaurin’s score was still healthy,
maintaining the same scores as last year in three out of five
categories.
An excellent staff score reflects the fact that the agency looks after
its staff well, providing many benefits and a hefty investment in
training.
AGENCY CREDENTIALS
MARK OUT OF
Business performance 6 15
Staff 8 9
Infrastructure 4 7
Quality controls 4 7
Industry recognition 0 2
Total 22 40
CLIENT ASSESSMENT
MARK OUT OF
Pitch promises 8 10
Relationship with agency 9 10
Nuts and bolts 7 10
Evaluation 8 10
Client satisfaction 17 20
Total 49 60
NEXUS CHOAT
There is a very marked contrast between this agency’s client assessment
and its agency credentials score. An equal second highest score for
client assessment is counterbalanced by one of the lower agency
credentials scores.
Relationships, nuts and bolts and evaluation all scored very highly.
It was marked very well for delivering good service, and was the only
agency to score full marks for delivering tough advice to clients.
Pitch performance was the only area marked down, with low marks for
proactivity after the pitch. But client satisfaction was very high, with
all clients feeling that Nexus Choat gives very good value for money and
saying that they were likely to reappoint the agency. ’They do their job
exceedingly well,’ enthused one happy client.
Despite an exceptional growth rate, Nexus failed to score highly for
business performance due to below average earnings per head. Investment
in training was also below average.
The agency is one of the few to have the BS EN IS 90002 quality system
in place, but the absence of a planning function cost it marks for
quality.
With in-house mass distribution capability and on-line database access,
Nexus Choat achieved a good infrastructure score.
AGENCY CREDENTIALS
MARK OUT OF
Business performance 6 15
Staff 5 9
Infrastructure 5 7
Quality controls 4 7
Industry recognition 1 2
Total 21 40
CLIENT ASSESSMENT
MARK OUT OF
Pitch promises 6 10
Relationship with agency 9 10
Nuts and bolts 9 10
Evaluation 9 10
Client satisfaction 18 20
Total 51 60
PROFILE PR
Profile PR gets a five-star rating in its first appearance in the Agency
Report for a very strong all-round performance. Clients are clearly
happy with the service they are getting from this agency. The only area
for improvement revealed in the client assessment was a reluctance to
offer tough advice.
Relationships were regarded as very good and the agency was marked as
very responsive. Technical expertise, business acumen and the ability to
generate ideas were mentioned as strong points, with one client saying
’they are always ahead of the game’.
The majority of clients surveyed regarded the agency’s evaluation of its
own work as impressive and felt the agency’s performance had improved
since the year before.
A higher agency credentials score would have made Profile one of the top
scoring agencies. Profit margins were healthy, but earnings per head
were below average.
Substantial investment in training and well-qualified people meant
Profile scored well in the staff section. Infrastructure is good, but it
appears that the agency could do more to promote itself. Investors in
People accreditation, client satisfaction procedures and evaluation
systems give the agency a very good score for quality.
AGENCY CREDENTIALS
MARK OUT OF
Business performance 8 15
Staff 7 9
Infrastructure 5 7
Quality controls 6 7
Industry recognition 0 2
Total 26 40
CLIENT ASSESSMENT
MARK OUT OF
Pitch promises 8 10
Relationship with agency 9 10
Nuts and bolts 7 10
Evaluation 8 10
Client satisfaction 18 20
Total 50 60
THE RED CONSULTANCY
The Red Consultancy moved from a four to a five-star rating, continuing
to register a strong client assessment, though this slipped one mark to
51 out of 60 this year. Clients highlight a ’can-do attitude’ and a
’vibrancy of ideas’.
Meeting briefs, service and quality of ideas won the agency close to
maximum points but there is room to be more proactive which contributed
to pitch promises slipping back a couple of marks. Relationships scored
close to maximum points with client comments like :’They appreciate the
value of our relationship more than the fact we buy from them’. Red
scored a good mark for a high level of consistency in account handling.
It also scored highly in value for money, although clients feel that the
agency needs to toughen up in offering unpalatable advice.
The evaluation score stays high, and the overall rating of agency
performance shows clients are happy with this agency. The most marked
improvement was seen in agency credentials, up from 20 last year to 26.
Red was top of its fee income group in terms of annual growth and
profitability although its earnings per head were below average for its
size. There was a marked improvement on the staff side with good
training in place and good scores for qualifications.
AGENCY CREDENTIALS
MARK OUT OF
Business performance 11 15
Staff 7 9
Infrastructure 4 7
Quality controls 3 7
Industry recognition 1 2
Total 26 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
SINCLAIR MASON
With the fourth highest score overall, Sinclair Mason made a dramatic
improvement on last year when it only rated two stars. The improvement
was particularly marked in the agency credentials section, where the
agency’s score leapt from 16 to 27. Scores in this section were higher
across the board, suggesting Sinclair Mason has worked hard to get its
own house in order.
Business performance was healthy, and earnings per head above
average.
Investment in training is at the upper end of the spectrum and staff are
well qualified. With Investors in People accreditation and a
comprehensive in-house evaluation system, Sinclair Mason’s quality mark
improved by two points. Last year’s client assessment mark of 46 was
very good, but this year Sinclair Mason recorded the equal highest
client assessment score of any agency. Relationships could not be
faulted by clients. ’They shoot straight from the hip,’ said one.
Clients also praised the agency for being proactive, but did mark it
down in the nuts and bolts category for its research capabilities. Not
surprisingly, a majority of clients felt the agency’s performance had
improved since last year and there appear to be no doubts among clients
about reappointing Sinclair Mason.
AGENCY CREDENTIALS
MARK OUT OF
Business performance 9 15
Staff 7 9
Infrastructure
