WPP will now review Sir Martin's terms of employment following the meeting, where a third of investors voted against the package and another 11.8% abstained.
The controversy surrounds the length of the package -- it is a three-year contract, which goes against WPP's own remuneration committee's target of moving all directors to one-year contracts.
In addition, Sir Martin could potentially receive shares worth 拢65m next year. He was paid in the region of 拢1.6m in 2002, including a 拢731,000 bonus in the form of restricted shares.
The rebellion is the latest in chapter in the dispute over "fat cat" salaries. The National Association of Pension Funds had advised its members to abstain from the vote. It was also behind the shareholder rebellion at the recent annual general meeting of GlaxoSmithKline.
Commentators, however, have suggested that Sir Martin considers himself to be a special case, as he founded the WPP Group and has invested a large slice of his personal fortune in the company.
Despite the rebellion, there are no signs that Sir Martin's terms of employment will be changed. The Association of British Insurers said yesterday that despite Sir Martin being admired, a three-year deal was a precedent that people found hard to buy.
At yesterday's AGM, WPP said that revenues were up 3% globally in real terms, but that the advertising market was stabilising, especially in the US.
If you have an opinion on this or any other issue raised on Brand Republic, join the debate in the .