Rationale for Omnicom-Publicis Wasn't Clear: Bank

REPLAY VIDEO
Your next video will start in
Pause

Recommended Videos

  • Info

  • Comments

  • VIDEO TEXT

May 9 (Bloomberg) -- RBC Capital's David Bank and Bloomberg Industries' Paul Sweeney discuss Omnicom and Publicis abandoning their $35 billion merger. They speak with Trish Regan on Bloomberg Television's "Street Smart." (Source: Bloomberg)

You will deal with the culture clash.

Sometimes it works must sometimes it does not.

This one stopped in its tracks before it had the chance to prove whether it would work or not.

Did it come down to personality flaws?

I think it did.

When they announced the deal, this is a merger of equals, there will be co-ceos for a month of it would not even be decided who would be the cfo.

Cohead quarters in new york and paris, just from the get-go it seemed on store narrowly unwieldy.

Are these not things you're supposed to be thinking about before you sign the deal?

The perception was that this seemed like it felt like a shotgun wedding if you will.

Was this about taxes?

I do not think it was about taxes.

I think honestly, part of it may have been about a neat succession plan on the part of publicis, an opportunistic way for omnicom to come in do they transformative deal for them.

It was never clear for me what the strategic rationale was.

It did not make a ton of sense.

There is one person who is happy, wpp will now remain the largest advertising company in the world.

The deal was based more on emotions than strategic reasons.

Take a listen.

At the end of the day, they put the deal to get other -- together to unseat us as number one in the industry.

This was driven more for those of the -- sort of reasons.

That is never a good thing.

You did not see a real friend you that whatever marched -- strategy that would have emerged.

We'd actually downgraded on the calm the -- on the mnicom the week before the deal was announced.

A year down the road, with europe turning a little faster, we are beginning to turn, i think both of these companies prospects independently or probably a little bit better than they were.

One of the problems putting any of these service companies together is that it creates a great amount of uncertainty among your people, your biggest asset.

You're going to see clients leave these two companies, some of the best panel leave these companies, and wpp would be right there.

F1 represents coke, and one represents pepsi, then an ad agency would be able to benefit from that.

What we did proprietary industry tracks on this topic with client gary echo -- on this topic.

When clients care?

The response we got them is if you keep the agencies intact, even coke and pepsi, it is ok as long as you do not merge the agencies.

But you do not get the synergies if you do not merge the agencies.

Either they are going to lose clients or not get the synergy.

What boggles my mind is how you get this far in the process, and this far along.

You announce a $35 billion deal, and then you have to back out.

I think they tried -- they probably told themselves, and played up the risk that the internet posed to their core business, they said this deal

This text has been automatically generated. It may not be 100% accurate.

Advertisement

BTV Channel Finder

Channel_finder_loader

ZIP is required for U.S. locations

Bloomberg Television in   change