The Creative Directors Forum wanted a debate about headhunters’
fees, and that’s what it got. Last week, three leading creative
headhunters were invited to present their case at a CDF meeting. But
after waiting more than an hour outside, they cleared off (±±¾©Èü³µpk10, 16
May).
Since then, the debate has become an exchange of spiteful words. One
side mutters about sharp practice in the headhunting industry; the other
wonders if creative directors can be trusted to determine industry
policy.
To confuse matters, a number of senior creative directors support the
headhunters. These include the Ogilvy and Mather executive creative
director, Patrick Collister, and the Rainey Kelly Campbell Roalfe
creative partner, Robert Campbell. More significantly, the Lowe
Howard-Spink managing director, Tim Lindsay, angered by what he sees as
an unelected, unrepresentative body attempting to speak for the
industry, moved quickly last Friday to dissociate Lowes from the CDF’s
stand.
So how did it all start? Tim Delaney, the CDF’s chairman, stated in a
draft press release (still to be ratified by the 21 members) that
creative directors were no longer prepared to pay more than 10 per cent
in headhunting fees, compared with the current 15-20 per cent: ’In the
past two decades, the advertising business has seen its remuneration cut
and commission on production has virtually disappeared. At the same
time, the number of people working in the business has dwindled, while
the tasks agencies are asked to undertake are expanding. Thus there is
enormous pressure on costs.’
Delaney added: ’Creative department salaries have risen, the services
offered by headhunters are more or less the same, and yet their fee
structure is completely unchanged.’ In an earlier draft, he was more
vociferous, arguing that headhunters simply move ’people’s books from
one place to the next’.
It’s true headhunters make a healthy living (say pounds 20,000 for
placing a junior team, pounds 65,000 for a senior team); and nobody
disputes the CDF’s right to raise the subject. But has it behaved
fairly? Lindsay thinks not: ’We feel that this is an unfair way of
treating business partners.
Imagine the outcry in our industry if the top 30 advertisers declared
that they were going to halve the fee they paid to advertising
agencies.’
But a CDF member, Andrew Cracknell, the chairman of Ammirati Puris
Lintas, believes that’s what has happened. He insists the CDF is not
ganging up on headhunters but that the debate be viewed in a wider
context. ’There is a feeling that advertising is a soft touch for
suppliers,’ he says.
’Our loyalty is to full-time staff. It would be irresponsible not to
check that the (money) is well spent.’
For Cracknell, the debate is no different to the scrutiny of production
companies, and grumbles about the cost of Cannes. ’We are being squeezed
by clients, who in turn have pressure put on them by shareholders and
banks. Why are we not in turn squeezing?’
Headhunters insist they already feel squeezed. The creative headhunter,
Canna Kendall, says: ’If agencies are squeezed by clients that hits us
because salaries get squeezed.’ But Delaney believes the headhunters did
themselves no favours when one said that their terms of business had not
changed in 15 years. ’Exactly,’ he says.
Another member of the CDF questions the very nature of headhunters.
’Have they ever had marketing jobs or ever worked in an agency?’ he
asks. ’All they do is gossip. Would they ever unearth a great talent?
Never.’
The three main creative headhunters - Canna Kendall and Co, Kendall
Tarrant and Harold MacGregor - insist their job involves far more than
gossip and moving books from one agency to another. They claim to offer
flexible rates to agencies that use them regularly or exclusively, and
one insists she would not dream of charging at all in connection with
some recent start-ups. As for the charge that headhunters can’t make
creative judgments - that they just send ’hacks’ - Kendall observes that
no-one needs to use them if they don’t trust their judgment.
Another common criticism is that headhunters destabilise the market
artificially to keep themselves busy. But Kendall rejects that.
’Headhunters may go for long periods without fulfilling a brief. A lot
of time is spent in being the industry psychotherapist, or surrogate
teachers and educators, work which goes unpaid.’
Jan MacGregor of Harold MacGregor blames the agencies: ’We are having to
work twice as hard to find the right people because agencies didn’t take
on graduates during the recession.’
Not all creative directors agree with Delaney. Collister sees nothing
wrong with headhunters’ charges. ’Agencies aim at 15 per cent
commission,’ he says. ’It doesn’t seem unreasonable that headhunters
should do the same.’ Campbell says: ’It’s depressing that the CDF
presents itself as a bully-boy cartel. Canna (Kendall) and Liz (Harold)
have helped me develop my career and my business over 15 years; I know
how much money they’ve made out of me. It doesn’t amount to much.’
Graham Hinton, the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising’s
president, is considering formalising the CDF under the auspices of the
IPA. That should make policy clearer. But he remains cheerful: ’We are
not an industry body that instructs agencies how to behave. Market
forces will prevail.’
.jpg)
.jpg)