What is The Marketing Group? And is it a better bet than the big holding companies for small agencies looking to scale?
There has been a bit of noise in the market about a Singapore-based “agglomerate” called The Marketing Group. The firm has been hoovering up small agencies and promising an alternative to the holding company model co-founder Callum Laing says usually means ruin for the dreams of entrepreneurs.
TMG, which now has 19 companies in the group, floated in June. But there are murmurs in the market. Who are these companies it is acquiring? How come the valuation is so high? Why did the company float in Sweden? Who are the group’s founders? And does TMG offer business owners a genuinely better deal than the likes of WPP, Publicis Groupe or Omnicom? Mumbrella Asia’s editor Robin Hicks interviewed Laing at his office in Singapore.
Callum, there has been some skepticism in the market about The Marketing Group. What do you make of this?
I would be nervous of any company who came to us who wasn’t skeptical. We’re talking about entrepreneurs who’ve poured blood, sweat and years into their business.
The other reason for skepticism is that the history of M&A for small business is entrepreneurs getting shafted. You’d be hard pressed to find a single entrepreneur who doesn’t have someone in their network who’s sold a business and not been disappointed with the outcome, to the point that it’s almost accepted as normal.
You build a business. You sell it to a big company. They offer you X but you don’t get Y, because they’ve got no intention of paying you.
We’re battling against decades of abuse of entrepreneurs. Which is why we set this model up. Right at the DNA of what we do is for entrepreneurs to keep control.
A lot of the companies we talk to are run by ex-agency staff. Often they find the environments of the big networks to be pretty toxic. The big networks tend not to be about creativity, or helping the client. They tend to be all about the numbers.
If you’re a 20-person agency and no one will give you the funds to expand, how do you do that? If the only outcome is to get swallowed up by another faceless organisation, that’s a pretty unappealing outcome.
We offer a viable alternative [by bringing together lots of small agencies, who swap equity for a share in the company. As a whole, The Marketing Group offers clients a “360-degree solution” in a number of markets including New Zealand, Australia, Singapore, the UK and US].
You’ve said that the company offers a better alternative to holding companies for small agencies looking to get bigger, and can offer 360-degree solutions. How?
I’m nervous of using the term 360 as it’s a much abused term. What you find with small businesses already is that most of them have a network of trusted partners that they refer business to anyway.
In small businesses more than big businesses, relationships are really important with clients. So having those trusted partners who you can refer business to happens organically anyway. What we’re trying to do with The Marketing Group is to have those resources in different geographies so we can offer reliable services across the board.
Tell us about the process companies go through to join The Marketing Group. How does it work?
Increasingly, the process is that companies we’re introduced to are introduced by existing companies within the group. That’s because the criteria for joining TMG are that companies have to be debt free and profitable, doing at least S$500,000 (US$360,200) in profit.
Typically these companies are run by industry leaders who have been in the business for 15-20 years. One of the reasons we do that is a) they would have been through good and bad times, so have plenty of experience, and b) they know other people in the industry – who to trust, and who not to trust. So when they refer companies to us, it’s normally people they’ve known for a while, and have shared business contacts with. It’s like half of our due diligence is done. They’re not going to recommend a company into the group – their group – unless they trust them.
In terms of the process, we have preliminary discussions to find out more about them, to make sure they match the criteria and get a good sense of what their ambition is. We’re not positioning this as an exit for people who want to retire. This is a growth strategy. We’re looking for companies that are ambitious, and want to grow.
If they’re keen to get involved and see the opportunity, we have a due diligence team who meet with them. We try to make it as painless as possible, as we’d much rather they were running their company than ticking boxes. But we’re a Nasdaq listed company so we have to ensure they’re compliant. They also need approval from other members of the group – the founders can yay or nay a new entrant company.
Yourself and your partner Jeremy Harbour have been in this game of building businesses for some time. You’re both published authors and public speakers too. Why did you go into the marketing world?
Part of the reason that we created TMG is because we’ve both been through starting and building a business. We know very, very well the challenges that come with that. I think this model was designed first and foremost with entrepreneurs in mind; how do we help them level the playing field with the big companies and scale to the next level.
Image: Jeremyharbour.com
Then we had to design it from the top down to protect the value of shares, and make sure the shares grew as a group.
Image: CallumLaing.com
The Marketing Group floated in June. How has the stock been performing?
We’re up 300% since we listed on 8 June 2016 [TMG actually began trading a day later, on 9 June, due to a technical glitch; the company’s shares were mistakenly registered in Swedish kronor rather than Euros in the Nasdaq trading system]. We started trading at one Euro per share, and now we’re trading at just over three Euros. And in that time, we’re grown from four to 19 companies.
The Marketing Group’s stock price from June to November 2016
When myself and Jeremy [Harbour] met with the original founding four back in May we were just pre-listing. Some wondered whether we’d deliver what we were promising. Others loved the idea but wanted to wait until we’d listed before they joined.
Now, as word spreads, we’re getting more and more companies that like the fact that they can keep control and get to be part of this bigger group.
At The Marketing Group IPO, the founders rang the bell so enthusiastically the rope broke.
Is the idea to get as many firms to join as possible?
It’s not necessarily quantity for the sake of quantity. We want quality companies. We want to work with good founding entrepreneurs that are doing interesting work. But yes, certainly every time we add a new company to the group it opens up an exponential new channel of opportunities for all the other companies.
With respect to those companies, they are hardly household names (see a list of them here). Why would joining them be an attractive proposition for other independents?
Singapore-based Black Marketing is part of TMG
By definition, small independent agencies are not likely to be household names. All of the companies in the group are debt free, profitable and run by industry leaders in their field. Clients across the group include the biggest companies and brands in the world.
However, because the model is completely decentralised it doesn’t matter whether the companies in TMG are well known to the wider public or not (I would argue they are all well known in the niches they occupy). The model offers independents the chance to swap their private stock for public stock giving them immediate liquidity. It allows them to pitch for much bigger contracts because they are part of a $100m+ PLC not a small independent.
If they want to use that liquid stock to attract more senior staff or go on their own acquisition path to grow, they can. If they want to work with other companies in the group to joint pitch they can. But at the heart of the model is that each founder keeps full control and independence of their own business.
Why did The Marketing Group choose Sweden to float?
Liquidity. One of the biggest challenges business owners have is there is just no liquidity in a small business. One of the advantages that big businesses have is they have full liquidity of their stock; they can use stock to incentive senior staff to work for them, or to acquire new companies or talent. Liquidity was a primary driver for us, and the European Nasdaq, which is based in Stockholm, is one of the most liquid small markets in the world. We’ve seen huge trading volumes around our stock.
How do you assess the value of the companies you’ve acquired? A few businesses that have been contacted by your group have raised questions about the valuations placed on TMG companies.
We do it on a case by case basis. We work with a company called BizEquity [an online valuation firm], which has the largest data pool of company sales worldwide. We try and look for comparators within that data. When we go through the due diligence, we look at balance sheet, staffing levels, receivables, and make sure they are in fact debt free.
All of the founders need to be on market rate salaries. Once a company is in the group they continually need to earn shares every year based on the profit that they contribute. One way you could skew that is to do a Steve Jobs, pay yourself a dollar and show much bigger profit. Our founders can’t do that. They have to prove that they’re on market comparable salaries.
We’re never going to get into a battle with a company like WPP around valuations for a company, because they aren’t selling their businesses to us. They’re doing a share swap, and they keep full control over their company. We think that we offer a good valuation on day one. But more importantly we offer the opportunity to keep earning shares over and again in perpetuity, so they keep the asset that keeps generating profit for them.
One observer of The Marketing Group noted that at one point the company’s stock had shot up by 900%, trading at 92 times net profit. They said to Mumbrella, “why would anyone invest in something so obviously overvalued?” What’s your response to this?
Part of that comment comes from not understanding the financials. The biggest we ever traded was 32 times net profit, certainly not over 90 times. The one thing we can’t control, and would never claim to, is the share price. What we can control is the fundamentals. We will continue to keep adding in good, debt-free profitable companies. The stock price will go up, as long as the fundamentals keep going up.
All the founders are in this for the longer term. The stock price is just one of the advantages of joining us. Even if the stock price had stayed exactly the same as it was on day one it would still offer each of the partner companies a lot of the advantages; they would still get the liquidity, partner companies, etc.
One of the rules of joining The Marketing Group is that companies cannot sell their shares for 12 months. How come?
They swap 100% of their private shares for public shares. The founder is locked up in those shares for 12 months, so they can’t sell their shares for that period. We are trying to attract founders and companies that buy in to the long term vision. We’re not looking for people who just want to exit.
Isn’t it difficult for The Marketing Group to operate like a true 360-degree marketing network like Interpublic, Havas or WPP when there’s no central team to pull it all together?
There is no central team very deliberately. Invariably what you find with the centralised model is that companies are acquired and try and force through the synergies, and you consolidate finance and sales, etc. And you end up with an accountant trying to tell entrepreneurs how to run their business.
To be fair, Martin Sorrell is an accountant who’s done very well with that model. But what happens with small businesses is that the entrepreneurs leave pretty quickly. Entrepreneurs make terrible employees. They’ve built this baby up, they care about their staff, they care about their clients, and they suddenly go into an environment where they’ve got an accountant in a different country telling them what their staffing contracts should look like. And they end up taking a fraction of the value of the deal.
We have a very different approach. Our view is that in small businesses most of the value lies with the founder and their senior team. We give them full control over their business. It’s still their salaries, their brand, their hiring and firing decisions.
While we don’t have that centralised function, we have a group of smart entrepreneurs. We’re not betting on startups. They’re people who’ve built debt-free multi-million dollar businesses.
And they work together. Try and stop entrepreneurs from working together when they’ve got a vested interest to do so.
Any other central services that you plan to introduce for the member companies, such as training?
We would never do it as a centralised function. One of the nice things about the model is because we don’t have that head office, entrepreneurs manage their offices very leanly, most have bootstrapped their companies, so they don’t spend money unnecessarily. Consequently as a group, our profit margins are 23%, which is very high, compared to the industry average of 5-8%. With a centralised model, you hire an expensive CFO. The expensive CFO wants an expensive PA. The expensive PA wants someone in HR to talk to. And suddenly you’ve got all of this cost.
Entrepreneurs would never spend a six-figure salary on someone who can’t return the value. This means something like training would never be a centralised function, but it would probably exist within each individual company. Decentralisation is probably better overall at delivering value to everyone.
What are your projections for the business in the near term?
There’s a limit to what I can say as a public limited company. But the public knowledge is that we’re aiming for 30 companies in the group by Christmas. And there’s no shortage of really, really good small companies that are best in breed at what they do.
Excellent overview of the new way of remaining an entrepreneur and selling your business at the same time, the opposite to the WPP model. Great to be the one of the original founders.
ReplyChris, is that you in the inset pics with your staff?
you have taken gender equality to the another level altogether….congrats
ReplyDoes this mean that Chris Reed isn’t actually a NASDAQ CEO? Is he guilty of padding his resume a little?
ReplyThis is a complete joke. The four companies that started this had combined revenues of ~3m Euro’s. They certainly didn’t have $500k profit each.
It’s a novel model but what happens when one of the businesses goes bust leaving unpaid staff and suppliers? It’s not like small agencies are known for their stability and longevity.
Wait until one year after the listing when the founders of the first companies get liquidity and then see if the price keeps rising. This is a glorified pyramid scheme where the first guys get their money out first.
The volumes of shares traded are tiny and there is hardly any liquidity which is why the price went up.
Remember that this is a publicly traded company, so you can get all the info here; http://marketinggroupplc.com/investor-relations/
I’d have hoped a publication like Mumbrella would have done a little more research then publicising these wannabies in what can best be described as a puff piece.
As for comments like; “To be fair, Martin Sorrell is an accountant who’s done very well with that model.” who does he think he is? What businesses have actually been built before? They’re full of hot air. It’s a ponzi scheme.
ReplyAlmost everyone pads on Linkedin.
ReplyThat’s why smart people read it with BS filters set on FULL.
Thanks for noticing Jelly, yes that is me and yes that is my team, all Singaporean too
ReplyHi Michael, well I’m the Global CEO of Black Marketing and Black Marketing are listed on NASDAQ as part of TMG (the first founder in fact) so I guess that makes me a NASDAQ listed CEO!
ReplyJust to be clear, it’s the NASDAQ in Sweden not the NASDAQ in the US that the big boys are on
ReplyThere are many NASDAQ’s across the world, all different levels and all connected to the largest main NASDAQ, where given our size of over EURO$115m, we shall be soon…all part of the plan Mr Levy
Replythe SASDAQ?
doesn’t have the same ring to it.
Replywhat a load of bull. if it sounds too good to be true, it probably isn’t.
btw there are way too many cutaway shots of new york when there isn’t even an office there. they aren’t even on NASDAQ on wall street and they’re peddling like they are.
Replyactually not only do we have an office in New York but we also have several companies in America too and the main NASDAQ do own the Swedish one we’re on and which we will be on in the future….from 0 to $120m in 6 months, not bad eh?
Reply@Chris J Reed
Defensive much?
Being one of the (many) companies they’ve approached and having turned them down, I’d have to agree with @SIr Martin that this is hardly any better than a Ponzi scheme. I sat through their “presentation” and nearly died laughing and several peers who have said No have said the same thing “WHO in the world falls for this shit?!” Anyone who does background checks on TMG and its founder and this “listing” business plan – all I can say is, good luck. (and I’m sure he makes good money off the likes of naïve people such as yourself) It’s a pity that in this day and age people still get duped.
ReplyHi @Tick Tock, I have seen (through Facebook) much bragging about the business model of TMG and thought it must be too good to be true.
Can I ask what the details of the ‘presentation’ your company received and what they are actually doing? What made you decide to say no?
From an outsiders view; I see a lot of small, questionably profitable companies basically getting shares for their company that they can’t sell for 12 months. The 12 month hold avoids a company listing and immediately selling crashing share price further? This doesn’t add anything to these small businesses as they are swaps so no cash to pump into the business to grow. I don’t see any benefit of shared networks etc as most profitable businesses will have this already and being located all over the place no benefit from shared geographical resources.
This leaves the original companies waiting for the stock to rise so they can sell, make loads of money and walk away. Whilst the newer companies suffer from the falling share price (now 1.50, almost what listing price was) and limited benefits. TMG has now hit a place where investors are realising profitability is limited and share price has fallen and they are now cancelling taking new companies on board.
All the ‘original’ shareholders would have sold at the peak of 9 and all the new companies are now holding shares at 1.5. If a company was bought at 9 vs 1.5 are they now undervalued or overvalued?
I worry when @Chris Reed’s answers are that the numbers are wrong. Numbers on accounts can’t be wrong unless they are fraudulent. You can say there will be doubters etc but if you provide numbers we will be much less in doubt. I also see you claiming you sold for millions and share price is 3x list etc. It is now almost back to listing price, how do you feel about that now? Have you been taken for a ride or do you see an upside?
ReplyThanks for the article Robin, it has triggered some interesting conversation. I’ve had a look at the initial listings doc and here is an interesting insight that popped out at me.
Our friends at Black Marketing declared 22 full-time staff members yet in their final quarter before IPO their salary bill was $127k. That’s for the whole quarter and 22 people.
It means their average salary is $1931.
Assuming for the 22 staff BM has:
1 “senior” manager on around $6k pm
2 “mid” level AM types on around $4.5
4 junior account executives on around $3k
That comes to $81k for the quarter just to cover those salaries.
For the remaining 15 staff (out of 22) the remaining budget comes to around $1022 each.
You can play around with those numbers a little bit but I struggle to see a successful Global Agency staff structure.
Their listing financials are here: http://marketinggroupplc.com/docs/Company_Description_The_Marketing_Group_plc_06_2016.pdf
Black Marketing doesn’t even seem the worst. Check out One9Ninty’s financials – their financials look to be holding the whole thing up when they listed.
They declared 18 staff. Their final quarter pre-listing they listed staffing cost at €70k (SGD106k). So, similar to BM in that their average salary is $1962.
Where it’s more suspect is that unlike BM they’ve declared a massive profit margin. Their quarterly gross profit was €299k and from that they made net profit of €208k. So somehow they’ve cracked the secret to a highly profitably agency and run a profit margin of 69% profit.
So it might be somewhat plausible except when you look at the balance sheet and see they only had €20k in the bank and list their current assets at €680k which is all debt owed to them. That’s more than six months worth of sales sitting in account receivables. How are they not bust? They also owed €142k to creditors.
The overall group then claims they made a €229k profit for the quarter which is on the up. When you remove One9Ninty that leaves €21k in profit across the rest of the group. One company with a suspiciously high net profit and margin that carries the groups average up.
Not trying to fuel the fire, would appreciate a genuine response.
Reply^It would be interesting to hear a detailed response to that.
Not sure what the advantage of this set-up will be for clients really, and not even trying to be negative.
I have tremendous respect for entrepreneurs, but after speaking with ex- and current employees and prospects from some of these companies I am not overly confident it’s anything more than the ‘hot air’ described above in the comments section. Staying away!
ReplyThere was a time when one’s reputation was via the hard earned gratitude of clients, good word of mouth by existing and past employees, respect by industry peers and fear by competitors .
ReplyToday, one’s reputation is projection and spin doctoring via social channels.
Thankfully numbers reveal what words distort, distract and dodge.
Despite all the posturing, a high debt ratio, negative EBIT anchored with no long term retainer cash flows and valuations based on share swaps doesn’t really inspire trust.
Sometimes it’s best to keep one’s nose to the grindstone and enjoy the rewards quietly.
Tick Tock, have no idea what you’re talking about, on the contrary, I sold my company to TMG to list on NAADAQ for a great price and now my shares are worth 3x that and been higher and compared to other similar companies with less EBITDA will rise again. I think you are the one that has missed out.
Are you going to sell your company for tens of millions of dollars? No. Who’s going to give you that? WPP?! Publicis?! Not in a million years. Best deal of my life. What’s the downside?
I’m still an entrepreneur, nothing has actually changed, we’re not the WPP model, it’s created for entrepreneurs who want to realise the value of their company and brand without diluting being an entrepreneur. I still run the company the same before we listed but am now financially much better off. That’s what the aglomeration model is. Where’s the downside? It’s lifechanging.
Replygood points? the contrary, speaking with current/ex employees? not sure that has to do with anything. the point you’re making is what? my employees are all now shareholders of a publicly listed company and their shares have trebled in value, where’s the downside?
ReplySmartest Guys, interesting analysis but completely wrong on BM, I am sure 1-9-90 can give you a response to their part but your analysis of mine is completely wrong, all your facts and figures are not correct.
You will see the groups quarter 3 figures soon and can analyse those all you like but don’t forget we’re a collective now of 19 companies and are our model is buying companies who are debt free and profitable with a great story to tell around the world and our pipeline is extensive and it’s not just Asia it’s global.
There will always be doubters and people who miss out who then complain they didn’t become millionaires and no one wants to buy their company and give them the same multiples in a publicly listed company. We give excellent shareholder value as a group and that’s the model. Where’s the downside?
ReplyKitKat completely disagree, that’s the way to never having financial independence, feel free to do that, but life is too short to always be selling yourself short and never getting the rewards your hard work deserves and you never will working for your own company all your life, only by selling to a more enlightened model and working with them to enhance shareholder value which also benefits you of course.
I sold at EURO$1 we’re now EURO$3.2 and will go higher because we’re undervalued compared to other similar groups, so why would I not do that? Why would anyone who has a great business and great story to tell not do this? Where’s the downside for anyone?
ReplyNo one is denying that you got well rewarded for your efforts.
ReplyIn fact, i clap for you.
What most comments are centred around is just how sustainable the business model of The Marketing Group really is based on the financials.
If a stockbroker showed me such numbers (of the underlying companies) not your what you got, I’d pass on this stock.
Guess that’s why Trump refused to declare his tax returns.
It’s just too naked.
Chris – can you explain the financials then? I’ve had a look too and the numbers quoted by smartest guys seem accurate.
Endless hyperbole isn’t an argument.
ReplyHis only response is “What’s the downside”. And sorry, but yes, I will be selling my company for tens of millions @Chris J Reed. At least I’ll get actual money sitting in the bank, not paper value on a stock exchange which has no liquidity. The numbers don’t lie. Even lying morons get to become the President, so on hindsight, one supposes that this is smokescreen is quite possible.
ReplyCongrats Tick Tock, I genuinely applaud you if you can get someone to pay you tens of millions for your company in cash, very unusual especially amongst marketing companies…i look forward to hearing about this in the news and then everyone can see who you are and what your angle is…..
There’s also plenty of liquidity for our plc, lots of trades going on, lots of buying and selling. Shares are still cash, they’re just cash that rises in value over time. If I sold only for my initial shares in cash I would be 3 times worse off financially than I am now. When that’s life changing sums of money that’s significant.
Shares in a NASDAQ listed company trumps cash for long term business owners committed to building a great marketing aglomeration business.
each to their own though. best of luck with your sale
ReplyChris, there is hardly any liquidity or demand for the stock, the volume of trades is tiny. Secondly, whilst you might be at 3x now, you are at roughly one third of where the stock was trading.
Honestly, the issue is more that when you and the other founding CEO’s get any chance to sell, I imagine you will, and when someone does, this stock is falling faster than dead cat from a 20th floor window and as with the cat there will be a minimal bounce.
That’s why I used the term Ponzi scheme. it’s not the first guys in the pyramid scheme that get screwed…
PS – pretty sure it is spelt agglomeration
ReplyCan you answer the finance questions from Smartest Guys?
ReplyDear Sir Martin, we do not comment on the share price. However, our strategy is to build a successful and sustainable digital marketing and advertising group by bringing together entrepreneurs that are committed to growing their businesses over the long-term. By executing this strategy and concentrating on building our fundamentals we will create shareholder value over time. As a publicly-listed company we publish our financial performance every quarter and we will be issuing our Q3 results later this month. I hope the information in that announcement will answer any questions you have with regards to TMG’s financials. While we can’t discuss anything that isn’t already in the public domain we can be reached directly at investorrelations@marketinggroupplc.com where we will do our best to answer any further questions within that constraint.
ReplyThanks Sir Martin but the share price is not dropping and pretty steady, no dead cat bounce needed
ReplyThanks Rhymes, I have answered mine, up to the group to respond to the rest should they wish to, if would help if you weren’t anonymous as they’re less likely to engage with anonymous people…..just a financial pr thing
ReplyYes Sir Martin thanks for being my spell check it is indeed agglomeration, cheers
Replyand Sir Martin, 400,000 shares traded yesterday and share price going up nicely http://www.nasdaqomxnordic.com/aktier/microsite?Instrument=SSE122959&name=The%20Marketing%20Group
that’s more liquidity than many much larger companies get
ReplyChris, what I said was the share price was roughly one third of the high. As per the link you shared, the 52 week high was 9.45, current price is 3.42. So not quite a third but not far off. Again as the table you sent shows, 57.25% off the price three months ago. Without todays gains it would have been under a third.
ReplyThe core revenue driver of any agency network or group is its ability to generate sustainable income by servicing key clients either across international markets or in one national market with a breath of services.
From what I got from The Marketing Group’s prospectus, this is a loose federation of enterprising specialist services, located in diverse geographies to service ad hoc clients There is no overt mention of recurring income by key clients cemented by AOR contracts across borders or silos.
I fail to see the scale or sustainable income story that retail investors demand.
Each company within the group needs to survive on its own strengths without a ‘good alone, better together’ strategy.
Maybe this is what ‘still being entrepreneur’ actually means.
Any comparison to a high functioning holding company like Publicis, Omnicom and WPP hints of delusions of adequacy.
And that’s coming from one who isn’t a fan of them either.
It’s tough business and everyone is free to make money with what they have.
ReplyGood luck guys.
You have stated that TMG is for seasoned entrepreneurs & industry leaders yet the numbers tell a very different story. They reflect badly structured businesses with little net profit.
It’s a revolving door of staff at BM which has been highlighted by you employing a woefully under qualified COO who has already moved on.
The amount that TMG’s stocks are trading at is enough to raise queries from a junior let alone seasoned professionals. Add this to the above and you will see why the industry is sceptical about you and TMG. Your defensive responses based on little fact simply supports the scepticism.
I truly hope for the small businesses that have put their faith in you that this works out but sadly given your tendency to over state the truth and especially the facts this is unlikely to be the case. Buyer beware.
ReplySir Martin,
I’m a Swedish investor and would like to comment on your thoughts around liquidity.
The Marketing Group is currently one of the hottest and most discussed companies in social media when it comes to recent introductions to the Swedish stock exchange’s growth market. The number of shareholders is increasing every day as the highly anticipated Q3 report is due next week; any uncertainty around profitability and success for each of the individual 19 acquired companies should hopefully be resolved by then. We also expect an influx in trading once the company moves from the smaller Nasdaq First North to the main market,
So far we’re impressed with the acquisitions, we’re impressed with the potential for their business model and what it brings to the table, and of course looking forward to the near-future dividends. The Marketing Group is not a suitable vehicle for business owners looking to make a short-term exit; it’s a solution to both staying entrepreneurial, creative and maintaining the cozy agency culture while reaping the benefits of being a part of a larger organisation.
I believe they are running a truly ambitious project and it seems they are doing very well so far. Thankfully we’re entitled to different opinions, so let’s simply agree to share an ounce of curiousity around what the future holds for The Marketing Group.
Sincerely
Reply@Niklas – self plug much? At least sound like a “Swedish investor” -and not someone from the group. You’d think your team would be able to afford a PR agency? Wait – isn’t that one of your member agency’s core offerings too?
ReplyNow that’s just slander.
I know the drill – “don’t feed the trolls”.
Feel free to contact me if you’re genuinely curious about TMG related trading in Sweden. I’d be happy to discuss! I am certain Mumbrella can provide you with my email address (and confirmation of country through IP address) if you ask them kindly.
Cheers
ReplyChris, when can we expect your Q numbers?
it’s an interesting conversation here, I’m just wondering why you compare yourself or TMG with the likes of Publicis, WPP, Omnicom etc?
ReplyHere you go Mike http://marketinggroupplc.com/marketing-group-plc-interim-report-nine-months-ended-30-september-2016/
Replygood
ReplyThis thread confirms what small pricks live just below or at the top. Someone set up an alternative solution with some added spin, in the industry of spin. Get over it. And already grubby network hands are trying to rip down their offering.
90% of Networks tarnish this business on a daily basis, with their greed.
If anyone is doubting all Networks bullying and acquisition techniques, check out the terms BBH negotiated as an example. For many independents, they don’t have the weight of the BBH name to remain autonomous and they get duped.
ReplySo when are we seeing TMG pitching for big name accounts – Singtel ? Silkair ? Since you’ve said that your network does so well as a consolidated group with so many synergistic skill sets – when will we see TMG beating the big networks since you are supposedly the Better alternative?
ReplyHi Mumbrella,
Any chance of a follow up now the share price has crashed to 1.04?
Notice there’s been some big changes at the board level too.
How exactly have these small agencies benefited now they’re worth a fraction of what they were?
Cheers.
ReplyChris/Niklas,
Would be good to do another update on the progress of TMG.
a little google search is telling me that you guys had some challenges with submitting your financials on time.
good to read that it’s nothing serious, just a bit busy with all the “acquisitions” you guys do.
not sure if as a shareholder (lord behold me it that was true), i would accept such an argument, do you feel like to elaborate a little more?
brings me to the second topic, with the share price back to IPO, how are you convincing companies to join? i know we should look at it from a long term perspective, after all… all the founders are locked in for at least 12 months right?:
“One of the rules of joining The Marketing Group is that companies cannot sell their shares for 12 months. How come?
They swap 100% of their private shares for public shares. The founder is locked up in those shares for 12 months, so they can’t sell their shares for that period. We are trying to attract founders and companies that buy in to the long term vision. We’re not looking for people who just want to exit.”
ReplyWhy was TMG cross listed on the Frankfurt stock exchange? The small agency owners who are locked in for 12 months are watching the business they built lose value day by day.
As it is coming up to a year since you listed, one would assume the initial company shareholders are soon going to be able to sell their shares? Will you not expect to see another big fall in share price when this happens?
ReplyThe Marketing Group is now a penny stock… since this article came out the share price has continued to plummet and is now hovering precariously at a mere 60 cents. (And the NASDAQ broader market has been booming over the last year)
This is despite moves to improve governance (new chairman, board), a strategy summit in NY and an Orderly Market Agreement to extend lock-up’s.
Many people predicted fundamental problems with the commercial model, and concerns over the initial launch team.
Reputations are damaged by this guaging from the twitter feeds.
I’m not sure what the truth to these allegations is, but I am sure that many people have lost a lot of money from investing in this “agglomeration” pitch..
I hope things improve for the company and especially for the private investors. What do you think the future holds for TMG?
ReplyI haven’t seen a day finish in the green for 2 months now. Not looking good. How would you turn this around? The basic model is flawed unless it becomes a proper holding company, which is almost impossible this stock will fail.
Reply@manytoldyouso How do you find Twitter feeds about TMG? How are they ruining reputations?
ReplyI think comments here are edited to remove names as a generic precaution against unreasonable behaviour.
As a matter of public recird: TMG has its own twitter account, as does it’s ceo, and the original author of this article together with the business partner named prominently throughout the article as the mastermind in setting it all up.
The best way to search, is within twitter, use @name, then click on “latest” to see the feeds directed at these public twitter accounts (many seemingly from investors).
Let me know if this works and what you think!
ReplyHave your say