How IPG and Omnicom Should Navigate Active Pitches

At any given time, agency holding companies have multiple pitches of different scale in play—and more often than not, they’re pitching against each other.

As Omnicom moves to acquire Interpublic Group (IPG), the two are undoubtedly facing off in various ongoing media and creative reviews—in which case, do they precede as enemies or friends?

It will likely depend on the client, the agencies involved, and what happens after the deal officially closes, industry experts say.

It’s not unheard of for two agencies under the same holding company to pitch against each other. In fact, according to an executive at a marketing consultancy, Omnicom’s creative shops have a history of facing off in reviews.

While it’s unclear exactly where Omnicom and IPG are currently vying for the same pieces of business, pitch consultants say reviews are ongoing as usual. However, some warn that clients that haven’t yet launched reviews may be hesitant to invite IPG due to the distraction of being acquired.

Full disclosure is fully necessary

According to pitch consultants, IPG and Omnicom agencies currently pitching against each other should allow the client to decide how the review moves forward.

Since the acquisition may not close until mid-to-late 2025, brands currently in play may choose to do proceed as usual, Paul Williamson, managing director, North America at Ebiquity told ADWEEK.

“In other cases, the clients themselves may dictate a different approach,” he said.

In the interim, Williamson said the new Omnicom will likely form a joint a business development committee to review what’s in play, what’s in their respective pipelines, share updates on live pitches, and form courses of action in each case that benefit both parties.

Any client conflicts—either in live pitches or on each company’s current roster—are likely to be worked out before the closing date, said Lori Murphree, founder and managing partner at Evalla Advisors, which consults on mergers and acquisitions.

“They would go to each client and try to convince that client that there will be a barrier on information that is given to the respective teams,” she said. “In some client contracts, the client has to give consent for the change of control.”

The ball is in the client’s court

Andrea Kerr Redniss, managing director, MediaLink and partner at UTA, said that some brands she talked with were excited about the combined company, since it will open up the capabilities and talent available to them.

Pitches where they are currently in opposition present “a really wonderful opportunity for them to actually select which teams they love the most and move forward,” Redniss told ADWEEK.

Though the acquisition might create some distraction and instability for clients, Redniss added that brands currently dissatisfied with one holding company may stay on and avoid the costs and turmoil of a review and see what the combined entity brings to the table.