WPP AND THE TRIPLE BID: But has the Game Changed?

There’s been plenty of noise this week about WPP Production reportedly encouraging clients to keep production within WPP, including, where a triple bid is required, potentially providing three different production options from within the group. The independent production community is understandably unhappy.

But I’m not sure the most interesting question is whether WPP should be doing this.

It’s why wouldn’t they?

WPP is a publicly listed business under enormous pressure to return to growth, improve margins and simplify its operating model. It has consolidated its production capability into WPP Production and is trying to capture more value from the work already flowing through its agencies. This is not news to the anyone within the advertising production industry across the past 10 years.

We might not like the implications of this for the independent production market, but it shouldn’t surprise anyone. Does it feel questionable, and should WPP be more transparent? Yes, but you cannot blame WPP for asking the question. It is how that choice is presented to clients that matters.

I think the more uncomfortable question is whether the traditional production model still commands the premium it once did, against these in-house models.

I’ve spent more than 20 years headhunting across advertising, production, content and creative businesses, and the change in where talent sits is impossible to ignore.

For years, production was a less important revenue stream for creative agencies and holding companies. As the economics of traditional creative agencies came under pressure, it was perhaps inevitable that groups would look harder at the production revenue leaving their own ecosystem.

At the same time, independent production companies have been squeezed too, and whilst the HoldCo's protectionism has undoubtably played a part over the years, the recent revelations should be unsurprising to this market.

Put simply, there isn’t enough traditional advertising work to support the infrastructure, rosters and talent models that existed during the golden age of TV advertising. Some production companies have become leaner. Some of the best talent has gone freelance. Some has moved client-side, into platforms, content businesses and technology companies.

And the uncomfortable truth is; technology has democratised capability.

Very early in my career I worked in print buying. I was regularly told to triple bid everything and, more often than not, chose the middle quote for quality and safety.

Then print digitised.

Gradually, the difference between what the cheapest supplier and the most expensive supplier offered, narrowed dramatically. Technology became an equaliser and clients no longer cared. The price dipped, so volume increased and to clients it became simply 'just print'.

Film is obviously more nuanced and emotive. Directors aren’t printing presses. Ideas, judgement, storytelling, craft and taste matter enormously.

But technology is an equaliser here too.

Virtual production, remote workflows, increasingly accessible cameras and post-production tools, and now generative AI mean capabilities that once required significant infrastructure are available to far more people.

The price has dropped, volume has increased, and it has become simply 'just content'.

Which raises a difficult question:

Is there still enough difference between the output available from WPP Production, an independent production company, a carefully assembled freelance team or an emerging AI-enabled studio to justify both the ease of access and the traditional cost differential every time? Sometimes, absolutely, but every time? I’m not convinced. Especially as a vast majority has become "Just Content" to clients.

This leads me to another change happening which may be even more significant. The definition of craft itself is changing. In the golden age of TV advertising, the hero asset was often a beautifully crafted 60 or 30 second film. You could justify putting specialists around almost every stage of its creation because that single piece of communication had to work incredibly hard.iant content creator who instinctively understands TikTok, Instagram or YouTube.

Today a huge amount of advertising is consumed vertically, socially and fleetingly on a phone. In that environment, a £500,000 beautifully lit film isn’t automatically more effective than something shot by a brilliant content creator who instinctively understands TikTok, Instagram or YouTube.

In fact, sometimes the opposite is true. The highly polished piece can feel like advertising. The supposedly “less crafted” piece can feel like culture. That doesn’t mean craft is dead. Far from it.

It means craft has changed.

Understanding a platform is craft. Knowing how to hook someone in the first two seconds is craft. Creating 15 relevant iterations rather than one perfect master is craft. Using AI intelligently is increasingly craft. Authenticity is craft. So craft's new goal is to become culture, as social audiences are more responsive to this.

And clients ultimately care about effectiveness which is a result of the audiences responding.

Which is why I think simply arguing that WPP’s approach threatens the traditional production ecosystem misses the bigger issue.

WPP doesn’t exist to protect that ecosystem.

It’s accountable to its clients and ultimately its shareholders. Its current strategy explicitly talks about integration, efficiency, technology and improving returns. Keeping more production revenue inside WPP is entirely consistent with that.

The challenge for independent production companies isn’t therefore persuading WPP to behave differently. It's giving clients a compelling reason to leave WPP Production in the first place. That means demonstrating something an integrated holding-company production operation genuinely cannot provide as well.

Authenticity and culture for audiences, and ultimately effectiveness.

That does not mean WPP’s clients should be left unaware that they are not receiving a genuinely external triple bid. The wool should not be pulled over their eyes. That is ultimately a matter for WPP and its clients. The independent production industry needs to stop looking back, move forward and start fighting for its future.

For decades, production companies were effectively gatekeepers to much of the world’s best production talent and capability.

They aren’t anymore.

The talent can increasingly be accessed elsewhere. The technology can be accessed elsewhere. And the work can increasingly be made elsewhere.

So perhaps the answer isn’t protecting the old rules of the game.

It’s accepting that the game has changed and move on.

The new game is culture, and authenticity to create effectiveness.

The production companies that thrive from here won’t necessarily be the ones that fight hardest to preserve the old model.

They’ll be the ones that give clients a reason to choose them in the new one.