WPP Stops Pretending

WPP’s $400M « Groundbreaking » news this week really means telling the truth. Cindy Rose’s first major decision shows more courage than the headline suggests, and why honesty might be WPP’s actual competitive advantage.

WPP announced what they’re calling a « groundbreaking partnership » with Google this week. A five-year, $400 million commitment to transform their AI capabilities and « revolutionise how brands approach integrated creative, production, media, experience and commerce. » The language is ambitious. The dollar figure impressive. But the real story isn’t in the press release, it’s in what this decision reveals about WPP’s new leadership. Cindy Rose just did something rare in corporate life: she stopped pretending.

Rose comes from Microsoft, where she spent nine years, most recently as COO of Global Enterprise, helping the world’s largest companies actually implement AI and digital transformation. Not announce it. Not position around it. Actually do it. Which means she knows what real platform capabilities look like versus beautifully painted skins on third-party tools. And after just six weeks as CEO, having sat on WPP’s board for six years watching the « WPP Open » narrative unfold, Rose made her first major strategic call: stop pretending we’re platform builders and start being world-class implementation partners.

Let’s acknowledge what many inside WPP already knew: WPP Open was following the « Wizard of Oz » strategy. Impressive demos. Bold positioning. Genuine innovation in stitching together capabilities. But underneath? Third-party tools with WPP orchestration. Rose spent her final years at Microsoft as Chief Operating Officer for Global Enterprise, responsible for helping multinational companies deploy AI and cloud-based solutions to transform operations. She knows the difference between owning the platform and operating on one. She looked behind WPP Open’s curtain and saw what any experienced technology executive would see: beautifully integrated third-party capabilities lacking the two critical moats required for true platform differentiation in this industry: proprietary technical infrastructure and first-party data at scale.

The Google partnership is Rose admitting this reality. And there’s genuine strategic value in that admission.

Consider Rose’s position. First CEO from outside the advertising industry. Taking over during WPP’s most challenging period: revenues down, share price at 16-year lows, losing market leadership to Publicis. Just six weeks into the role. Her first major announcement could have been another aspirational platform story, another « WPP Open 2.0 » positioning, another claim to capabilities the company doesn’t quite have. Instead, she chose truth.

Effectively her announcement is this: We need Google’s help to build what our clients require. We can’t do this alone. And that’s okay, because our value is in implementation excellence, not infrastructure ownership.

Rose has seen enough corporate theatre to know the difference between strategic positioning and strategic reality.

Strip away the $400 million headline (remember, most of which is training costs and fully-valued time) and Rose made three specific strategic bets:

First, fast following beats failed building. Rather than continuing to invest in proprietary platform development that lacks the scale to compete, WPP will be Google’s premium implementation partner. Not platform-agnostic. Not multi-platform. Google’s partner. This abandons optionality for depth. It’s a bet that knowing one system perfectly beats knowing five systems adequately.

Second, operational excellence is the moat. Under Rose’s leadership at Microsoft UK, revenues surged. She knows that operational excellence (actually making technology work for clients) can be more valuable than owning the technology itself. If WPP can implement Google’s tools better and faster than any competitor, that becomes genuine competitive advantage. Not infrastructure advantage. Capability advantage.

Third, honesty rebuilds trust. After years of agencies over-promising on AI capabilities, Rose is betting that truth resonates. With clients exhausted by vendor promises. With employees tired of positioning theatre. With the market skeptical of holding company transformation stories. In an industry drowning in hype, radical honesty might be WPP’s actual differentiator.

This strategy isn’t without significant risk. Platform lock-in represents the first major vulnerability. By going deep with Google, WPP gains expertise but loses flexibility. What happens when a client needs different platforms? What happens if Google’s tools fall behind? Then there’s pricing vulnerability, since Google’s essentially subsidised tools today will inevitably rise in price. By the time WPP realises this, they’ll have built their entire infrastructure around Google’s ecosystem. Pricing leverage: minimal.

Competitive advantage erosion poses another challenge. If Google gives the same tools to everyone (and they will) WPP’s advantage narrows to implementation quality. That’s defensible, but it’s not proprietary. There’s also a branding risk here, the « just another reseller » perception. Positioning as Google’s partner is honest, but it could reduce WPP to implementation arm rather than strategic partner in client minds.

Rose knows these risks. Her career began as a corporate lawyer, training as a UK solicitor at Allen & Overy, gaining early exposure to global regulatory and legal frameworks. She’s comfortable with contracts and risk assessment. She’s betting these risks are manageable compared to the alternative: continuing to pretend WPP can build competitive platform capabilities independently.

Even with Google’s partnership, WPP faces structural disadvantages. The data desert remains: unlike Publicis with Epsilon’s first-party data or Accenture with enterprise client data, WPP never built meaningful proprietary data capabilities. The Google partnership doesn’t solve this, it highlights it. Some Brandflow subscribers have suggested this wasn’t accidental. Google is a critical WPP client. A first-party data play would have competed directly with their largest revenue source. Rose inherited this choice; she didn’t make it.

The talent challenge persists as well. Morale is low following client losses and redundancy rounds; job losses amounted to 4,000 positions this year alone. The Google partnership promises to train « 1,000 early-career creative technologists by 2030, » but these roles will be Google tool operators, not platform builders. The question: is operating Google’s tools a compelling career path for top creative technologists?

Then there’s the integration complexity. WPP remains operationally sprawling despite years of consolidation. Google’s tools don’t simplify organisational complexity, they layer on top of it. Rose’s operational background from Microsoft will be tested here.

If you’re a CMO working with WPP, or considering it, Rose’s decision creates specific implications. You now have clarity on capabilities: WPP is Google’s premium implementation partner. Not platform-agnostic. Not multi-platform. Ask them how this affects your non-Google needs. Plan for pricing evolution as today’s AI-powered services look attractively priced, but as Google’s platform costs rise, those costs flow through to you. Build escalation assumptions into your planning.

Assess implementation quality rigorously. WPP’s competitive advantage is now execution excellence. Pressure-test this: Are they actually better at implementing Google’s tools than competitors? What’s the evidence? Watch the strategic partnership positioning carefully. The risk is WPP becomes viewed as implementation arm rather than strategic partner. Ensure your relationship structure preserves strategic input, not just tactical execution.

Manage platform lock-in proactively. Understand which of your marketing capabilities now depend on Google’s ecosystem. What’s your pivot strategy if you need different platforms?

Rose’s announcement confirms what several Brandflow subscribers flagged months ago: the industry is bifurcating into builders and operators. Builders—Publicis, Accenture, Deloitte and perhaps the new Omnicom (post IPG), are making multi-billion dollar investments in proprietary platforms, first-party data, and technical infrastructure. Operators (WPP, and likely Dentsu and Havas) are licensing capabilities from technology providers, differentiating on implementation quality and creative excellence.

Neither path is inherently wrong. But they’re fundamentally different strategies requiring different capabilities, different talent, and different client value propositions. Rose has the courage to choose. That’s leadership.

Operational excellence is defensible in ways that don’t immediately appear obvious. Being genuinely better at implementation is harder to copy than it seems. It requires process discipline, talent development, client relationship depth, and institutional knowledge. WPP has these capabilities. And in an industry of over-promising, under-delivering agencies, radical honesty about capabilities could become WPP’s brand. « We’re not the cheapest. We’re not the flashiest. But we’re honest about what we can deliver, and we deliver it consistently. » That positioning could resonate.

Rose scheduled a company-wide town hall-style meeting during her first week, signaling her understanding that this is as much about internal confidence as external positioning. The real test isn’t the Google partnership announcement, it’s the next six months of execution. Can she restore employee confidence after 4,000 job cuts that created fear? The Google partnership needs to translate into growth opportunities, not just cost efficiency.

Can she win back clients? Major account losses like Coca-Cola, Mars and others preceded Rose’s tenure, but stopping the bleeding is her responsibility. Does this strategy rebuild client confidence? Can she deliver results? The market is waiting for the « kitchen sink » quarter where new leadership writes down assets and resets expectations. Rose’s board tenure complicates this. How does she claim she needs dramatic action while having been part of governance?

Can she maintain the narrative when Google inevitably raises prices or WPP loses to a competitor using different tools? How does Rose maintain that this was the right strategic choice? These are the measures that matter. Not the press release. The execution.

If you work at WPP, Rose’s decision creates both clarity and questions. The relief is real: you can stop performing innovation theater and focus on what you actually do well. That’s professionally liberating. But the career path has changed. Becoming a world-class Google tools operator is a valuable skill, but it’s different from being a platform builder. Are you comfortable with this career trajectory?

The value proposition is clearer now. You’re not selling proprietary platform access. You’re selling implementation excellence and creative judgment. Own that. But understand that Rose’s honesty doesn’t reduce performance expectations—it increases them. Now you have to prove that operational excellence creates competitive advantage. The opportunity is genuine: if WPP actually becomes the best at implementing Google’s tools for marketing transformation, that’s valuable expertise in a growing market. But « if » is doing heavy lifting in that sentence.

Is stopping the pretense of being something you’re not the same as giving up? Or is it the prerequisite for becoming genuinely excellent at what you actually are? Rose is betting on the latter. She’s betting that WPP’s people are tired of platform theater and hungry for honest direction. She’s betting that clients value transparency over aspiration. She’s betting that operational excellence can be more defensible than proprietary technology.

She might be right. After years of watching WPP chase Publicis’s platform strategy while lacking the conviction and capital to execute it, Rose’s choice to play a different game entirely shows strategic clarity. The question is whether she can execute it. And whether WPP’s people, clients, and shareholders will give her the time to prove it works.

I get a lot of requests for recommendations of partners and products to use. So I’m going to start highlighting the most common request responses here in the « Brandflow Toolkit ». If you are an agency team of one, or a marketing leader of many, these are what I use with clients:

First of all, time is all you have and I protect mine with Sunsama. I’ve tried many, and this is the optimal partner to keep the important stuff, important.

CRM can be a massive distraction, but it can also be expensive to solve. I find that Pipedrive is a great solution that is lower cost, and does the Salesforce-like stuff that matters without all the extras.

For all things audio, ElevenLabs is the best, not just for text-to-speech but whole soundtrack and now even song creation. Stay out of the studio.

Bright Data have solved the data deluge problem by helping to target what you need. They are the #1 web data platform and can help you source what matters, or they have existing datasets.

Speaking of data, you need to make sense of it all, and for this I recommend Adriel. I find it’s the best middle-market solution for dashboarding, custom analytics and AdOps.

And for anything outside the above, yes literally anything, it’s on Fiverr. I’ve been using Fiverr for 12 years now, from app coding to homebrew beer labels. Hire the right person for the right task, and pay for deliverables not time.

Subscribe to Brandflow to receive strategic analysis that examines what’s actually happening beneath industry announcements. Join over 2,000 senior marketing professionals receiving twice-weekly insights.