<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Show me numbers &#187; Pareto principle</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.showmenumbers.com/tag/pareto-principle/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.showmenumbers.com</link>
	<description>This is the Blog of Adam Parker on numbers and relevance</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Mar 2018 17:01:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=4.1.42</generator>
	<item>
		<title>150 equals 125? The Alternative PR Week 150</title>
		<link>http://www.showmenumbers.com/pr-industry/150-equals-125-the-alternative-pr-week-150</link>
		<comments>http://www.showmenumbers.com/pr-industry/150-equals-125-the-alternative-pr-week-150#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2008 16:45:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[AdamParker]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[PR Industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pareto principle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PR Week Top 150]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.showmenumbers.com/?p=89</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Following on from my post on Monday about the PR Week Top 150 I thought it might also be interesting to analyse the rankings from an ownership rather than a brand perspective. As I previously stated the largest player in the Top 150, if ownership is taken account of, is WPP with £81m combined fee [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Following on from <a title="PR Industry v Accountancy Industry" href="http://www.showmenumbers.com/pr-industry/when-is-one-greater-than-150" target="_self">my post</a> on Monday about the<a title="PRWeek rankings" href="http://www.prweek.com/uk/reports/rankings" target="_self"> PR Week Top 150</a> I thought it might also be interesting to analyse the rankings from an ownership rather than a brand perspective. As I previously stated the largest player in the Top 150, if ownership is taken account of, is WPP with £81m combined fee income across its brands. Based on a little bit of analysis I think the Top 15 allowing for ownership and partial ownership would look something like this. (Hope I have these right anyone who wants to point out an error please do so).</p>
<p>1. <a title="WPP 2007 Annual report list of group companies" href="http://www.wpp.com/annualreports/2007/who_we_are/companies_associates.html" target="_self">WPP</a> &#8211; £81m (Hill and Knowlton, Finsbury, Burston Marsteller, Cohn and Wolfe, Buchanan, Ogilvy, GCI, Clarion)<br />
2. <a title="Omnicom Group companies" href="http://www.omnicomgroup.com/OurCompanies" target="_self">Omnicom</a> &#8211; £62m (Ketchum, Fleishman Hillard, Porter Novelli, Gavin Anderson, Pleon, Fishburn Hedges*)<br />
3. <a title="Huntsworth Group PR companies" href="http://www.huntsworth.co.uk/group/publicrelations.aspx" target="_self">Huntsworth</a> &#8211; £57m (Citigate, Trimedia, The Red Consultancy, Grayling, Huntsworth Health, Haslimann Taylor)<br />
4. Bell Potinger &#8211; £53m (part of Chime Communications**)<br />
5. Brunswick &#8211; £44m<br />
6. Financial Dynamics &#8211; £42m (part of <a title="FTI Consulting" href="http://www.fticonsulting.com/web/services/Strategic_Financial_Communications_and_Investor_Relations.html" target="_self">FTI Consulting</a>)<br />
7. <a title="Interpublic Group companies" href="http://www.interpublic.com/companyfinder/companyresults" target="_self">Interpublic</a> &#8211; £36m (Weber Shandwick, Golin Harris)<br />
8. <a title="Publicis Groupe website" href="http://www.publicisgroupe.com/site/index.jsp?language=EN" target="_self">Publicis Groupe</a> &#8211; £28m (Freud Communications, MS&amp;L)<br />
9. Edelman &#8211; £21m<br />
10. <a title="Havas Agencies" href="http://www.havas.fr/havas-dyn/en/agencies-agencylist.html" target="_self">Havas</a> &#8211; £21m (Maitland, Euro RSCG, Cake)<br />
11. <a title="Next Fifteen" href="http://www.nextfifteen.com/home.aspx" target="_self">Next Fifteen</a> &#8211; £19m (Lexis, Bite, Text 100, Inferno)<br />
12. College Hill &#8211; £13m<br />
13. M Communications &#8211; £10m<br />
14. <a title="Photon Group Specialised Communications Companies" href="http://www.photongroup.com/companies/companylisting.asp?division=5" target="_self">The Photon Group </a>- £10m (Hotwire, Frank PR)<br />
15. Lansons Communications &#8211; £9m</p>
<p>* Fishburn Hedges is <a title="Fishburn Hedges ownership" href="http://www.fishburn-hedges.com/aboutus/grouplinks/" target="_self">owned</a> via BBDO Worldwide<br />
** WPP <a title="WPP associate companies per 2007 Annual Report" href="http://www.wpp.com/annualreports/2007/financial_statements/notes_to_cons_fin_statements/note14.html" target="_self">holds a 21.8%</a> stake in Chime Communications<br />
Analysis based on company websites and/or publicly available annual reports.</p>
<p>Between them these 15 account for £505m or approximately 65% of the total fee income of the Top 150 of £781m. As you can see of the Top 10 only Brunswick and Edelman are not part of a wider group.</p>
<p>So why the title of the post? I suspect you have already worked this out, but if you haven&#8217;t it is because if each parent above were treated as an individual entry then the number of entries on the rankings would fall by 25. This revised listing would then fit the <a title="Wikipedia - Pareto Principle" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_Principle" target="_self">Pareto principle</a> a lot more closely.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.showmenumbers.com/pr-industry/150-equals-125-the-alternative-pr-week-150/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
