WPP PLC (WPP) 2015 Q2 法說會逐字稿

Good afternoon everybody from London. I'm here in London with Paul Richardson and Adam Smith.

Adam is going to representing GroupM, and GroupM futures are going to talk a little bit about how we see the media markets in 2015 and how we see them in 2016. I will come back later and talk a little bit about strategic priorities and our key objectives and a little bit about outlook and conclusions. And Paul will kickoff with analysis of our interim results. We have Owen Gottlieb on the phone from New York. Owen joined us for the earlier call with UK analysts and institutions, and Owen is available for Q&A when we finish the presentation.

I must apologize for the length of the presentation, which is already up on our website. It is a long one, and it'll probably take a fair time to go through it, but we think it's worth doing, both to go through the stats in detail and also to explain some of the things that are going on in the industry at the moment.

We focused, in this presentation, on media and the media markets given the scale of media reviews that are taking place in the United States. That's principally why we have Adam here and Owen here, and so we'll get into that. Maybe, Paul, you can lead off on the interim results.

Thank you, Martin. I will reference page numbers. Hopefully it is the same page numbers as on the web. I'm going to start with the 2015 interim results. It's on page 4. Billings were up at GBP23 billion, up 5% in reportable and constant-currency basis. Reportable revenue growth was 6.8% and 6.4% on a constant-currency basis, with like-for-like growth of 4.9%. On a reported net sales basis, growth was 5.2% and 4.7% on constant-currency basis, with like-for-like growth of 2.3% and acquisitions adding 2.4%.

Reported PBIT, or profits before interest and tax, was GBP805 million with the benefit of an exceptional net to gain of GBP 203 million. Therefore, profits on a reported basis are up 44% versus last year, and headline profits before interest and tax, by excluding the exceptional gain, were up 7.6% at GBP669 million.

Reported net sales margins of 13.3% were up 0.3 margin points versus last year, on reported basis. And on a constant-currency basis were up 0.4 margin points, well ahead of target.

Reported profits before tax of GBP710 million, were up 45% including exceptional gain. And the headline profits before tax of GBP596 million were up 12% versus last year and up 13% on a constant-currency basis.

Headline diluted earnings per share were up 14.7% to 33.5p, up 15.2% in constant currencies, and reported diluted earnings per share were up 59% to 43p. The interim ordinary dividend of 15.91p was up 36.9%, moving to a payout ratio of 47.5% versus a payout ratio of 40% last year. We are trying to more evenly balance the interim dividend with the first-half results, and that has meant a one-off improvement in the interim payout to this payout ratio of 47.5%.

Return on equity for the trailing 12 months ending June 30, 2015 was 15.9%, up from 15.2% for the equivalent period a year ago.

In terms of how we did versus our targets, the like-for-like net sales growth was 2.3% versus a target for the full year of over 3%, which we have reconfirmed in the press release and the outlook section of the trading statement. The constant-currency net sales margin improvement was 0.4% against a target for full year of 0.3%. The reportable diluted earnings per share targets of 10% to 15% were met both on a reported basis, growing at 14.7%, and a constant-currency basis, growing it 15.2%.

The dividend payout ratio, as I mentioned, we have moved from -- we have achieved a 45% dividend payout ratio last year, and our goal is to move towards a 50% payout ratio in two to three years time. And at this half year, we have moved up to a 47.5% payout ratio at the interim. Our hope is to be able to achieve a 50% payout ratio by the end of 2016. All in all, good performances versus our targets.

On slide 6, we have revenues, as you've shown here, of GBP5.8 billion, on a reported basis up 6.8%. Net sales just over GBP5 billion, on a reported basis up 5%. And so on and so forth through the P&L leading to diluted earnings per share of 33.5p, up 14.7%, and dividends per share, as I mentioned, up 37% for the interim.

The average net debt has increased to just over GBP3 billion compared to GBP2.8 billion a year ago, but our net debt to EBITDA ratio hasn't changed significantly, has moved up from 1.5 times to currently 1.6 times, well within our 1.5 to 2 times range that we want to keep the average net debt to EBITDA.

Average headcount has reduced both on a point-to-point and average basis. Our enterprise value to EBITDA multiple is currently standing at 10.7 times compared to a year ago where was 10.3. But as recently as February, we were close to 12 times on this ratio.

Moving now to the net exceptional gain of GBP203 million. It's really a combination of cash proceeds on disposals and remeasurement of gain. The main item was the IBOPE remeasurement gain, where we increased our stake from 40% to close to 100% during the year. Hence, a reevaluation or remeasurement gain on the existing 40% we had purchased of GBP127 million.

On comScore, where we sold our Internet audience measurement business in Scandinavia, where we were paid in shares, that realized an effective cash gain of GBP44 million. And on e-Rewards, which we sold off stake for cash, realized further GBP30 million cash as and extraordinary gain.

Overall, our gains on disposal and remeasurement of GBP232 million and restructuring costs, which we have taken in relation to the IT translation program, a net of GBP21 million and a share of its associate exceptionals a net GBP8 million, leading to a gain overall of GBP203 million.

On slide 8 we look at the revenue waterfall chart. Starting with GBP5.5 billion of revenues in 2014 growing to GBP5.8 billion, organically the growth is 4.9% in revenues, acquisitions adding 1.5%, and foreign exchange earning 0.4% positive, overall growth is 6.8 %.

And doing the sale on slide 9, on net sales, we saw the GBP4.8 billion of net sales first half of last year growing organically by 2.3%, acquisitions adding 2.4%, and FX adding 0.5%. So overall, growth on net sales reported of 5.2% to GBP5 billion.

Turning now to the summary headline income statement on slide 10. You can see here, as we mentioned before, strong operating performance. So profits, before associates, of GBP645 million was up 9% reported. Income from associates was slightly less due to taking two associates, both last year in Memac in the Middle East and IBOPE this year, up to subsidiary status therefore coming out of this line. But the PBIT level reported growth was 7.6% and reported profit before interest and tax was GBP669 million.

Finance costs, or bond and bank interest, have reduced from the GBP90 million last year to GBP73 million, as we've had lower funding costs on our bonds. Just to give you a history of where we stand today, so currently, we have a weighted average maturity bond portfolio with average life of 10 years and weighted average coupon of 4%, whereas two years ago our average life of our bonds was 5 years and the coupon was 5.6%, only two years ago. So, a good improvement both in duration of the maturity and the coupon coming down to 4% currently.

Profits before tax were up 12% to GBP596 million. And tax at 20% was consistent with last year, but as we mentioned in the press release, will rise slightly over time. Net-net the diluted earnings per share on a headline basis was up 14.7% at 33.5p. As we mentioned, the margin improved at 0.3 on a reported basis and 0.4 on the constant-currency basis.

If we turn now to the reported P&L for the year, the other items that affect the profits are both those we have covered before, the net exceptional gain of GBP211 million and the share of associate exceptionals shown, as shown in the P&L, and the finance costs are higher due to options and warrants coming through on a reported basis. But overall, we end up with profits before tax of GBP710 million, which is up 44.5% compared to a year ago and earnings per share of 43p, which was up 59% to 27p a year ago.

If we now turn to looking at our interim results on a constant-currency basis, I'm going to focus on the net sales line. We had like-for-like sales of 2.3%, acquisitions adding 2.4%, so on a constant-currency basis our net sales grew at 4.7%. Likewise, as we mentioned in the P&L, our headline earnings per share, on constant-currency basis, were 15.2%.

Foreign exchange was a modest positive on net sales, so we reported Sterling net sales growth of 5.2 and headline EPS of 14.7% growth. If we were a dollar reporting company, those same results would've ended up being reported sales decline of 4% and headline EPS of 4.5% growth. If we were a euro reporting company, we would have reported sales growth of 18% and headline profit growth of 30%. And if you were a yen reporting company, we would've reported sales growth of 13% and headline EPS growth of 24%. All due to the fact of the change the exchange rate versus the various currency that transpired today.

Moving forward to slide 13. We've got the interim results both revenues and net sales by sector. Again for clarification, we are reporting on both the revenue line and the net sales line. And you can see here the difference in the advertising and media investment management, where on a like-for-like basis, the revenues in the first half were up 9.2% and on a net sales basis the same discipline had revenue net sales growth of 3.2%, so a 6 point difference in the like-for-like growth rates of revenues and net sales in the same discipline.

Focusing now more on the net sales trends in the first half of the year, we have advertising and media investment management, which is 44% of the business, just over GBP2.2 billion in revenues. On a like-for-like net sales basis, in the half year, growing at 3.2%, the first-quarter growth of 3.8% and the second-quarter growth was 2.1%.

The data investment management business, which is 17% of the Group today, had net sales of GBP856 million, was flat in the first half, having grown at first quarter of 1.2%. There was some pressure in the custom and [panel parts] of business in the UK and USA and Asia Pacific in quarter two.

In the public relations/public affairs business, which is 9% of the Group today or net sales of GBP451 million, had like-for-like growth of 1.6% at the half year, having grown at 1.2% in the first quarter. And in the branding identity, healthcare and specialist communication businesses, which is 30% of the Group today with net sales of GBP1.5 billion, growing at 2.4% for the first half, having grown at 1.6% for the first quarter. And within that are additional revenues. In the footnote 2, you can see is now growing on a revenue basis 5.5% and net sales basis 4.2% for the half year, and represents approximately 37% of the Group.

Overall, then, the Group on the first-half basis grew like-for-like net sales of 2.3%, having grown 2.5% in quarter one and 2.1% in quarter two. This compares to quite strong first half in 2014. And just remind you how 2014 went, through the first half of last year, we had a quarter one net sales of 3.8% and quarter two net sales of 4.4%, leading to a strong first half last year of 4.2%. Quarter three and quarter four softened in the second half of last year, so quarter three was 3% and quarter for was 2.1%. So the second half grew at 2.6%, giving an overall growth of for the year of 3.3%.

In terms of moving forward to the same analysis, principally on the net-sales basis across the regions, you can see here the difference in revenue net sales is actually spread across all four regions we talk about. But focusing on the net sales lines: North America, representing 37% of the business or GBP1.8 billion of net sales in half year, grew at 2.8% for the first half having grown at 2.1% in the first quarter. United Kingdom, which is 14% of the business or GBP723 million of net sales, grew at 2.8% in the first half slowing down a little bit from the first-quarter growth of 3.6%. Western Continental Europe, which is 19% of the Group, just under GBP1 billion of net sales, growing at 1.2% in the first half, accelerating from the 0.3% growth in quarter one to 2% growth in quarter two in Western Continental Europe.

Finally in Asia-Pacific, Latin America, Africa, Middle East, Central and Eastern Europe, representing 29% of the Group or just under GBP1.5 billion of net sales, in the first half growing 2.2% having grown 4% in quarter one and 0.7% in quarter two. Overall then, the Group growing 2.3% in the first half and the quarterly splits 2.5% and 2.1% as I mentioned before.

I think more useful, at times, is to look at the two-year run rate in both revenues and net sales and it takes out or removes the distortion of the quarter-on-quarter comparatives. For example, the Q2 2015 number of 6.5% here is a combination of the quarter two 2014 growth of 4.4% and this most recent quarter's growth at 2.1%, i.e. 6.5%. When you compare that to the previous six quarters, you can see our two-year net sales run rate has really averaged between 6% and 7% on a two-year basis, very consistently. Likewise, a same analysis on the revenue basis, is fairly even existent.

At the back of the presentation we've done exactly the same analysis, comparing our revenues to the revenues of our competition on a two-year basis, again, and the trends you can see at your leisure.

In terms of profit performance by discipline, overall advertising, media investment management generated profits of GBP330 million, up 6% compared to a year ago. And the margin improved from 14.7% to 14.9%. The data investment management business had profits of GBP101 million, up 15% compared to a year ago and a strong margin improvement of 1.2 margin points from 10.5% to 11.7%.

The public relations and public affairs business grew profits at 2% generating profits of GBP66 million and the margin was slightly down compared to the 15% last year at 14.7% this half year. And in the branding identity healthcare specialist communication businesses, where profits are up 10%, at GBP172 million, margin improved modestly from 11.2% to 11.4% in the half year. Overall, profits were up 7.5% at GBP669 million on a reported basis, and margin was up 0.3 margin points.

Turning to the same by geography, where obviously, as you can see here, results are a bit more mixed and affected by the change in their revenue profiles. So North America, which has been strong, had profits up 23% to GBP307 million and a margin improvement from 14.9% to 16.4%, up 1.5 margin points. United Kingdom had profits up only 1% at GBP92 million, a margin down slightly in the first half from 13.7% last year, which was strong, to 12.7% this year.

In Western Continental Europe, we had profits improvement of 5% to GBP103 million, a strong margin improvement, going up from 9.3% last year, by 1.4 margin points to 10.7% margin. In Asia-Pacific, Latin America, Africa, Middle East and Central and Eastern Europe profits were down compared to last year at GBP167 million, and margin declined in the first half from 13.1% to 11.3%. When we look at the subregions of Asia-Pacific, Latin America, Africa, Middle East and Central and Eastern Europe to understand what has happened, we've seen some weakness in revenue trend in Australia and New Zealand in the first half in Central and Eastern Europe and in the Middle Eastern markets. And in those three regions, those margins have suffered in the first half compared to last year, whereas in the southeast Asia, Latin America and Africa, margins have been solid if not growing year on year.

I think to give a bit more color, I won't dwell on this in terms of revenues, because we are focused on net sales, but this gives you a picture of how the nine subregions are broken out in terms of the revenues in the second quarter, which were growing at 4.5%, and in the first half, which are growing at 4.9%. But I want to turn the analysis and the focus on the net sales by region, if I can on slide 19, which really shows a bit more detail of what we've seen in the second quarter in the first half.

The top number, just for information, is the Q2 percentage change in like-for-like net sales, and the bold number underneath each subregion is the first-half number. To note, you can see there in Central and Eastern Europe, whereas the half year we were down 7.6%, in the second quarter we were down 15% driven really through declines in Poland, Russia and Czechoslovakia.

In Asia-Pacific, having grown at 3.3% in half year, we were only growing at 1.1% in quarter two through some softness in China and Korea, principally. And in A and Z, Australia and New Zealand, we were down in the quarter two and basically flat at the half year. Likewise in the Middle East, that was soft in the second quarter, only growing at 1.8%. Whereas in Africa, growing at 10% in the quarter, having a strong half year. Latin America picking up its rate of growth in the second quarter; we had some good performances.

Then in the mature markets, as you will see, overall in the second quarter we were growing at 2.8%. Overall, in the first half mature markets are growing at 2.3% and the fast growing markets at 2.2%.

We have looked forward through our forecast, which have just been rebased on the June actuals and the next six months of the year. We are expecting a return to growth in the faster growing markets in the second half, principally through the correction of the rates of decline/growth coming back into Central and Eastern Europe, Middle East, and A and Z. In addition, faster rates of growth in Latin America and Asia-Pacific coming through in the second half, again, against softer comparisons last year.

I should also note in Western Continental Europe we saw bright spots, particularly coming through in Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Holland and Switzerland and still quite difficult markets of Greece, France, Turkey coming through in the first half for us.

Again, turning now in a bit more detail to the top-six markets of the Group, representing 67% of the sales. You can see here on the net-sales basis how strong the USA has been over last two years and the first half growing at 2.9% having accelerated from the 2.5% growth in the first quarter. United Kingdom has had a very solid three years of 6%, 5% and in the most recent half year growing at 2.8%, slid a little from the good growth in quarter one of 3.6%, but nonetheless still a very solid performance.

In greater China, we've had two years of 3.5% to 4%. And despite a strong first quarter, a little softer in quarter two and only growing at 1.7% for the first half in greater China. Germany, you can see the complete reversal from minus 0.3% declines in 2013 to 4.8% growth in the first half this year, accelerating through from the first quarter this year of 4.2%.

A and Z a little disappointing, it was flat last year and it's flat the first half of this year, with a week quarter two that came through with a strong second half expected in our forecast. France, whilst it has been negative, it is slightly less negative than it has been. In quarter one it was minus 2%. In first half it's only minus 1%, so it's slightly better.

When turning to the BRIC markets, which represent a 12% of our revenues and net sales, like-for-like growth overall was modest in the first half at under 2%, as you can see. We've gone through China.

As we mentioned, it was first half growth of 1.7%. And we have given out what our best view of the full year in greater China, if they meet their forecast, which is close to 3.2%, 3.5% for the full year. And it is some comfort that July was very strong in China, or in line with forecasts at around 5% growth. So it has been volatile for us the last two years, and so the volatility continues. But overall our forecast, we're indicating a better second half coming through China.

Likewise in Brazil, it was minus 4% in quarter one. It is now down 0.9% in the half year, is expecting a stronger second half and the full-year growth of 2% to 3%. India remains very solid, 9.9% growth in the first quarter, 10% for the half year, forecasting even stronger on a full-year basis. In Russia, where we did warn that the 4.4% growth in quarter one was an aberration and it would decline, it has declined sharply in the second quarter and will decline less so on a full-year basis in Russia.

I think we've covered a lot of the country information on slide 22, but to really understand that county really is India, as you see. In terms of categories, this is very much affected by wins and losses by client. They are relatively smaller categories in the entertainment and travel alliance, so they have been disproportionally affected by wins coming through in those categories.

I think the one, I suppose disappointment, in the numbers, if I'm honest, is in terms of where currency has got to in the pound, although it hasn't weakened today as it happens against the euro quite significantly, versus what we thought at the end of the first quarter. So when we spoke to you at the end of the first quarter, we predicted, on a full-year basis, that currency would be a tailwind, i.e. benefit, in sort of between 1% and 2%. If we extrapolate forward the currencies as they were a couple of days ago, we now look as though, because of strength of the pound against all the Asian markets and the European markets even strengthened since the beginning of the year, we are looking at a headwind of around 1% to 2% on a full-year basis on currency.

That is one disappointment. Again we will keep you updated quarter by quarter in how the performance is going on currencies.

In terms of the net new business wins year to date, you can see here the shaded charts, some very strong numbers coming through for Y&R and Wunderman at a four-year contract for the US Navy, which we are very proud of. That's $400 million over the four years, a strong win for them. A very large UK media win by MediaCom here in the UK for Tesco, and so on and so forth. I won't go through them all. A number of good wins coming through in the second quarter, as has there been in the first half. And likewise a few losses coming through in quarter two as well.

When we look at our own analysis of the net new business wins, not through the trade, but through our own numbers, the number of $2 billion is lower than last year where we had a very strong media business. But our creative wins of $1.4 billion are actually slightly ahead of the $1.3 billion that we achieved the first half 2014 on creative, so encouraging. As you know, there's a lot of media pitches going on in the second half of the year. Results to be determined.

In terms of since July 1, a nice new horizontal team win in Team Air for the Emirates business. A very strong creative trio of our agency at Ogilvy's Sra Rushmore and Santo picked by Coco-Cola for a big branding campaign. And so on and so forth, a big win for JWT in the USA and Latin America from Kellogg's. Very solid, hopefully long-term wins coming through in the first month and second half of this year.

In terms of, we try to analyze or to explain why there are so many media accounts under review, which is currently around $20 billion. Why is this potentially -- why is this year in particular so key? First of all, media is a very big P&L item in many of the fast-moving consumer companies' P&L. So, the cost of media is very significant to them. There have been concerns of decline in viewership on traditional media, and the impact of changing screen-based media consumption and the weakness of measurement of media content and the low hurdle rates for your video viewability have all been concerns. And this particular area group have actually taken a leadership position on video viewability. The client needs to optimize to use of digital and data in this environment, obviously a key concern for them. And last but not least, the drive for overall efficiency and effectiveness.

In our own particular case, we have more upside than potential downside because we're in incumbent in less than 25% of reviews. We're the largest media planner and buyer worldwide with ever increasing market share in the USA. We are the only player with data investment management operations. And with our scale, with our application technology, the integration of media measurement data and content assets as well, we believe this makes us a unique proposition on media planning and buying for our clients.

Turning now to cash flow for the half year, a consistent pattern to previous years. Having removed the exceptional item from the profits at the top line, we generate around GBP539 million, GBP51 million better than the first half of last year. But in terms of spend, we have spent more than we've generated, so principally through the acquisition payments of GBP467 million. As we mentioned in the first quarter, the GBP456 million spent in the first half, two items in particular, account for GBP341 million, that is the payment to top up to take full initiative for IBOPE and the payment we made to comScore, which combined were GBP341 million. So, hence, the net new acquisitions or small to medium-size of scale were only GBP115 million, well within our target range for the year of [GBP300 million] to GBP400 million. Net/net, with the share buybacks roughly at the same percentage, costing a little bit more than last year, we have an outflow for the year of GBP380 million in the first half.

Over to the page on [page 18], you can see our net debt has increased from the GBP2.8 billion reported a year ago to GBP3.1 billion, so up GBP366 million. And the point-to-point basis ended June was also up to GBP3.3 billion compared to GBP2.9 billion a year ago. However, due to the low funding costs, as I mentioned of the bonds and the bank financing, the interest coverage strengthened to 9.1 times, compared to 7 times a year ago. And our rolling average net debt to headline EBITDA is, again, well within our safety range of 1.6 times compared to 1.5 times a year ago. Just for those of you with long memories, we go back to 2008 with our average net debt to EBITDA ratios explained. You can see for the last five or so years, we've been safely within 1.5 times to 2 times band that we are targeting this year as well. So, in terms of our targets, in terms of uses of free cash, the goal for the year in normal acquisition spend is GBP300 million to GBP400 million. We've allocated really [GBP115 million] of that so far this year, if when [it skews] the comScore in the IBOPE payments of GBP341 million, as mentioned before. The share buybacks, we were 2% to the half-year, we've been quite active in the closed period due to the softer markets. And we are close, not quite, but we are close to 3% as we come out of the closed period today. I think there is some opportunity for going a little bit above 3%, depending on the market and depending on the scale of acquisitions we do in the second half.

As we mentioned, then we the strong interim payout recommended of 36.9%. That is to bring the interim in line with what we'd hoped to be the full-year payout of around 47.5%, which is progressing towards our the medium-term target of 50% payout ratio, which we hope we can achieve by the end of 2016, having achieved a 45% payout ratio in 2014. Finally, just a summary of terms of earnings per share having grown from GBP0.44 in 2009 to GBP0.85 last year, and first half is made good progress, as we saw from the numbers on a headline basis. And with that, I'd like to hand over to Adam Smith, our Futures Director of GroupM.

Hello. We've got to page 36 now and what's following is seven or so slides summarizing our latest global ad forecast, which is total market volume of ad dollars as a proxy for demand. Our new global headline forecast for 2015 is 4% growth, which is a little down from the 4.8% which we published in December. So, what has changed? The principles component of the downgrade are US TV, which is now flat, has come down from 1% forecast growth, followed by Brazil. The run rate has come down to about 7% from double digits. Russia where our provisional minus 3% forecast at the last year has become minus 15% now, and a fractional downgrade in China. Finally, Greece, we now forecast the unprecedented collapse of 25%, which is enough to affect headline figure. The market shrunk from a $3 billion ad market to $1 million today. The -- taken as a whole, the number has come down about the same, to about the same extent as the nominal GDP figure has come down with the [unmet] forecast, which is the ones we use. We've not allowed before for any stimulus for chief or oil or other commodities, which turns out to be just as well because there is little evidence of that having had any effect. And in fact, none of the respondents in my sweep of the GroupM network even cited it.

Our first bottom-up forecast for 2016 is coming out at 4.8%. So, why the increase? The principal component is once again United States television. We have a maxi-quadrennial next year and we have 2% growth for linear TV there. The Eurozone we hope will improve marginally from 1% growth this year to 2% next, and we're hoping to see some stabilization in Russia, and Japan is looking for 3% growth over the 2% it is expecting this year. It is noting the possibility of a bit of cotangent of the wealth effect from China stock market falls.

Moving to the relationship between the volume of advertising and investment and GDP in current -- this is in nominal prices. We see a picture of six years of slow recovery and advertising still shadowing GDP. It's currently stable at about in all 0.7%]of global GDP. We dropped the numbers into our model to see what scenarios exist for the further years out to 2020. We see a little degradation in advertising ratio line here, which is -- that's a little slower than it was last year. The main reason for the -- for this is the blend of faster growth markets where the advertising intensity is a little lower versus the developed world where advertising is slightly higher as a percentage of GDP. What I think we're seeing here is a result of this lower for longer recovery in the West finally beginning to tail in a model, which takes a very long view of history. And within this, other changes are that we're slightly more aggressive on the loss of TV share; in fact, we have it coming off from a sustained period of 43% of mobile advertising in recent years and dropping 1.5 share points this year for one. And the growth world is overweight on TV advertising. The other thing is digital growth is has been stronger for longer, and that's also telling the forecast. And the growth world is converging its share of digital in its total advertising mix, it is growing very rapidly and converging quickly on the Western developed market average. It will be the same in a couple of years time.

I think the reason why the digital element might affect this GDP ratio is because digital advertising is often a way of controlling costs and therefore, spending less, if you wish, on achieving the same results. And it also takes investment away from the measured domain into areas where the -- which are not measured.

This slide, number 40 shows where we are in real terms compared to pre-Lehman and now. And the -- it tells us that last year we had expected the world's advertising to have regained its pre-Lehman peak in real terms by now. But the results are small downgrade to 2015 and the very strong dollar has postponed that moment until next year. That is taking the world as a whole. The Eurozone is very far from achieving that peak, currently 22% smaller in real terms than it was before Lehman and the European Union as a whole 16% smaller. The UK is by far the best performing ad economy in Europe, but even the UK will only see its real peak restored next year. The faster growth world by contrast has never gone backwards in real terms and only actually paused in 2009 at the trough. That's even allowing for new revisions to Russia and Brazil. One statistical milestone we expect to see next year is that China and India together will account 18% of global advertising, which is the same as Western Europe. That's the first time we've seen that.

Looking at 2015 in terms of, where is the new money coming from? Here is the group of the main contributors. The first impression is that we have 90% of net growth coming from these markets, which is a rather high percentage, higher than normal, you'd expect this to be between 70% or 80%. The reasons for this are Russia's disappearance from this league and a rather contribution from the next 10 group of countries, which is the next 11 less Iran. The root of which is Nigeria, which is rather volatile. Brazil, as you can see here, we isolated US and China as G-2 being a league of its own and main contributors. In third place, Brazil still a large contributor, and a slight caveat here, that these are nominal figures, they are dollarized and so it is somewhat vulnerable to currency depreciations should that happen in Brazil. China remaining the largest contributor here and responsible for one in every four net new dollars. The latest word from GroupM 's trading people there is that they are happy to stick with their running forecast, which are 8% to 9% annual growth in advertising. Our own business is -- shows no -- it's stable for quarter three and quarter four apparently. And they point to the principal supports for China growth being as healthy as ever. These are the demand from local and national -- multinational advertisers for prime TV in tier 1 cities and for digital video in general.

Looking at the growth in terms of composition of the new and old media. This tells that over 100% of net new growth in 2015 is arising from digital, which is the first time this is occurred in the current cycle. This change is because we have TV, as I said, stepping back a little more than we had previously projected. The TV downgrades are centered on three countries in particular. USA, China, and Japan obviously the world's top three size of ad markets, they exert a lot of leverage on our headline. I'm reluctant to jump to conclusions about structural decline in TV because for one thing, elsewhere in the world there are many reports of its continuing strength, not least because of its proven symbiosis with digital marketing and secondly, because it remains in demand and often undersupplied, which helps to support the price. Also, something which is emerging is that what we call digital, the measured figure is now capturing a lot of revenue which one might more accurately attribute to, for instance, TV broadcasters and newspaper publishers who happen to be picking up more revenue online now. And this question of attribution of revenue is beginning to rise to the surface.

And one small anecdote from this forecast sweep was from New Zealand, which is a country often pioneers things. Its official statistics are going to reconcile the digital TV figure back into the main TV line, and it is reported at numbers from next year. The broader issue around this is how we define TV, because I think we're moving to a world where we'll be defining TV more by the content rather than the device. And in turn, what we think of as TV content is liable to change, particularly as on secondary screens, the appetite is for shorter films and possibly shorter ads. Digital media, taken as its parent currently measured is set for 19% growth in 2015, which is the fastest rate since 2008. That will take it to 28% of measured ad investment in 2015, and we see it rising to 31% in 2016. Continuous improvements in digital ad formats and attribution and automation will, I think, support double-digit display or double-digit digital and growth for some years to come. And also, brand advertising in digital display has plenty of headroom for growth still and will offset what appears to be a slowing, but still vigorous growth in paid search. That brings me to the end of my summary. We'll be publishing our new forecasts this week, and everyone is welcome to a copy. If you've not already receiving one, just get in touch with me or to WPP.

Thank you. Pass me the clicker. Okay, I want to spend a bit of time on our strategic priorities. We always review what the GDP forecasts are. And you can see on slide 45, we've compared our like-for-like revenue growth and net sales growth, that's in the purplely bar is our like-for-like revenue growth and are sales growth is the brown part of that. And you see that as compared to nominal GDP growth as forecast by Goldman and indeed, b y the business council, come on to that in a second. The blue line is the WPP's GDP and nominal growth, because our GDP is different worldwide.

What's interesting is that both Goldman and business council are working now on a similar basis for nominal GDP growth for this year, around 3.3%, 3.5%. A few months ago, they were all looking, particularly the analysts were look GDP nominal growth of about 5%, maybe even as high as 5.5%. And the inflation expectations have shrunk dramatically, particularly with the fall of the oil price. Many of these forecasters are saying that for 2016, which we don't have on the graph, that nominal GDP growth will increase significantly because of increased inflation. A view I think we don't share, although as Adam has said and we said in our press release, we think because of the maxi-quadrennial effects of the Olympics, the Euro football championships and US presidential elections, next year we will see growth of another percentage point, or 80 basis points, as Adam said, on advertising growth. But basically, the point is that our revenue growth tracks quite closely, and net sales growth tracked quite closely what's happening to GDP. And that reflects Adams analysis that we see that there's now an agreement about where we're going to end up this year, although next year people are expecting inflation to expand quite significantly.

On the next slide on 46 we tried to give an idea of what we see in the macro and micro trends are. 2015 nominal GDP growth, as I said, is slipping even below where we were in 2014 with 2016 indicating our higher level. The stock market correction driven by concerns on China and its devaluation and a hard landing obviously is concerning people and will add to the degree of uncertainty. There is a continued recovery in the US, some of our clients believe it's a little bit patchier that others. But it's been compensated to some extent as we've seen in our numbers, by growth in the Eurozone, particularly Germany, Spain and Italy, and of course the UK. Although France still is a bit in the doldrums. The Greek crisis has receded certainly in terms of media attention, although it may well come back depending on the results of the election whether a government can be formed. We've seen strong growth in India, double-digit growth continues in India, but slowing growth, as Paul has covered in China, and weaker growth in Brazil and in fact, a decline in Russia.

In terms of deficit management, it still key for the US, and everybody is focused on the Fed might or might not due this year. I think our view would be that it's unlikely the Fed will increase rates even from low levels in 2015, but we will see what happens as we go through the rest of the year. And in the UK, deficit management is also important, particularly as we've gone into new election cycle, and the [Chancellor] have done an excellent job in the first coalition government but has the challenge now of making sure the economy is in great shape for the next election in 2020 when he may well be the prime minister candidate. The concern about imminent interest rate rises leads to these [paper] tantrums that we see going on in stock market. And there's pressure on traditional media, as Adam has highlighted, from changes in viewing habits. We will come onto that in a minute. And hyperactivity continues around new media. Growth in new media was about 5.5% and our revenues in the first half of this year were 4.2%. I think it was in terms of net sales. In terms of geopolitical concerns, we still have the Middle Eastern concerns, along with the issues surrounding Greece. And the Brexit issues concerning the possibility of a British exit from the -- as a result of the referendum vote next year. And that has, I think, introduced some considerable uncertainty as to what is going to happen in the UK in the longer term.

There are opportunities on the iron. Cuba, launched our involvement in Cuba with our man in Havana. Egypt, just having won this week, again, the Egypt tourism account, the largest account in the country. And then the Iranian opportunity, which is significant. It is another Vietnam in terms of population, around over 80 million highly educated people, highly literate and a big opportunity. But of course we have to wait for sanctions to come off, although there are some countries where the companies are permitted to expand into Iran. On a micro level, clients are definitely focus on the application of technology, we see that with AppNexus and Xaxis. The use of data, we see that with Kantar and our investment in comScore and Rentrak and content. Our investment in Vice and Refinery29 and Truffle Pig and others. And our clients are following consumers in terms of their new media habits, as Alan has highlighted. Client concentration on review media strategy is quite clear, as the reasons why, Paul went through that. And there have been, as you know soon, tsunamis, we call it, of pictures of which we've done well in the early stages. We have to see how things shake out as we go through 2015 into 2016. Clients remain, however, still focused on opportunities in faster growth markets. Whatever the volatility is at the moment, BRICs and next 11 certainly gives the opportunity of topline growth. And clients are investing in capacity and brands in those faster growth markets. In the mature markets of the US and Western Europe, I think they tend to look at brands and invest in brands, but are not willing to increase capacity, but just try to maintain or grow share.

Within that context, there is growing in terms of horizontality which is giving up our people and our agencies to work together for the benefit of clients. And certainly, shopping marketing is a very important area which is showing very strong growth. Efficiency and effectiveness, the rise of procurement and efficiency meaning a lower cost and effectiveness meaning better work, and the rise of procurement is very much still there. We wrote in the release of the parallel universes that we see, sometimes listening to the pronouncements of people in our industry. And you have to be an optimist in our industry to survive, it's true. It tends to be a little bit unrealistic in the sense that procurement is putting pressure on cost, on pricing, on payment terms, on contractual issues such as intellectual property. And there's obviously the pressure as is accepted and pressure of contingency improvement. If you're trying to run a legacy business in this context, you have got opposite ends of the spectrum. One end of the spectrum you have Uber and you have Airbnb, the disruptors trying to disrupt legacy businesses. At the other end you have the 3G zero-based cost, zero cost-based models. 3G and FMCG and Valeant and Endo and pharmaceuticals. In the middle you have the activist investors like a Nelson Peltz or a Dan Loeb or a Bill Ackman who are putting pressure on quarterly earnings.

It's quite difficult we are running legacy businesses, particularly in this geopolitical macro context, to expect people to take risks. Some people point to the M&A boom that's been taking place. I think that a little bit misleading, because I think what's happening there is having run out of cost reduction opportunities, clients are looking for bigger basis on which to reduce costs. In any event, we see an environment where there's tepid GDP growth, certainly less than pre-Lehman, but that was understandable as the world economic system blew up as a result of too high levels of growth. Little or no inflation, focus on cost as a result because there's no pricing power, and that is the environment in which we are operating. And our first half year results, or the first half of this year, are rembrematic of that. Revenue growth in line with GDP growth maybe a bit ahead of that. Net sales growth around that level. Margin improvement 30 basis points pre-currency, including currency on reported basis, 40%, 40 basis points post currency on constant currency basis, ahead of our target. Earnings-per-share and earnings up strongly 12% for pretax profits and 15% for earnings per share.

Our growth strategy remains the same, despite the volatility in China and indeed in Brazil. We're still very focused on the fast growth market, which only 29% of our business against a target of 40% to 45%. The strength of sterling against those fast growth markets has meant those faster growth markets are not growing as rapidly as we would have thought at still 29%. But the growth remains 40% to 45% over the next five years. New media is already at 37%, so approaching 40%, which is well into the target of 40% to 45% over the next five years. And data investment management has already been achieved, one-half of our business being focused on the application of technology, big data and content and the quantitative areas. Finally, horizontality continues to improve with our people together more intensively.

Slide 48 just summarizes where we are today at those ratios I've given you and then 49 the targets that I've gone through as well. And terms of the strategic priorities, you can see how important the BRICs and the next 11, and Adam has mentioned that next year to China and India alone will be equal Western Europe. And you can see the growth figures on slide 50. You can also see our position in those faster growth markets against the competition and the growth in those fast growth markets over the previous 10 or so years and the dominant position that we have. In terms of compound average growth rates in the BRICs, greater China, including Hong Kong and Taiwan, 14% compound over 14 years. Brazil 12% compound over 14 years, India 15% compound over 14 years, and Russia much higher from a smaller base, 45% over 14 years.

You see on slide 53 our position according direct from a very strong in all those fast growth markets. And again, shown by the RECMA data, you can see our position worldwide in terms of media planning and buying, what we call media investment management, and Paul referred to it. I would just draw attention to the fact that these are 2014 statistics, and our market share in the Americas has grown significantly as a result of significant new business wins, even before this rash, or tsunami of media reviews has taking place. Our new media, again, 55 shows the importance of global digital ad spending and its growth over the years, and our targets in the first half of 2015 were up to 37%. And just picking up on what Adam said about television, 56 is some data from Morgan Stanley from Sanford Bernstein and Nielsen on what's been happening to USA cable and network ratings and changes in viewing over the last few quarters, and you can see the negative impact. These are primarily Nielsen figures, and there is no doubt that there is concern amongst clients about the veracity or the accuracy of classic measurements. Certainly for legacy media for offline, the hurdles are very high.

When somebody like Philippe Dauman, for example, at Viacom, complains about these ratings, he is right at least partly. Because the measurement targets, the measurement hurdles for offline are much higher than for online. Online viewability, a subject which is absorbing GroupM, together with Unilever, for example, in pushing for a better standards, can be three seconds of video with sound often 50% of the video cases. And that's obvious not be high enough standard and there's a feeling -- I was talking to one of our clients only yesterday who was completing quite bitterly about his concern that digital video spending in particular might be misplaced and certainly wasn't verified accurately and was concerned about it and in fact, had taken action on that spending to reduce it. I think both Google and Facebook in the video area have some work to do to demonstrate the value, the viewability and the viewership, the viewability of what they're doing on video. I think these statistics directionally indicative.

But there is a change in viewing habits. These are somewhat controversial figures. We show them, it compares time spent versus ad spend. I think the important point is not the numbers themselves, but directionally what they show. They show print under pressure. This is classic print, legacy print, not in digital print, which is in internet and mobile columns. But shows the potential, not so much for internet, but for mobile expansion.

And for the first time, radio is about even-steven, and I think out of home, if we had statistics, would show that too. But for the first time, we're seeing in these merry-meeker statistics, as we call them, some difference between investment and time spent on TV. I hasten to underline that these are subject to the same measurement flaws we've talked before. And that also this is for legacy TV, the digital TV, as Adam pointed out, is in the Internet and mobile column and may have to be reclassified. I think it does indicate, to be fair, a change in consumption habits, particularly amongst millennials and centennials. Just provide adequate balance, it's true to say that legacy media are probably offering, I think, a better bargain then perhaps historically. Certainly given those measurement difficulties that I mentioned, and we see here on slide 58 some of the statistics from Ubiquity, from Microsoft and indeed, from news brands in the UK which for example says that news brands or the newspaper brands in their legacy form reach more people each month than Google. And the basic point is that engagement through these traditional media is more effective and more impactful than -- and we see that obviously in the measurability argument as well on viewability, is more impactful than new media.

Our digital strategy remains the same. We're investing in digital across all our businesses. We developing new services such as our programmatic platform through Xaxis. We're establishing that technology platform based on our own unlicensed technologies and we invest in ability to control and use data for WPP and client benefit. Whilst at the same time maintaining strong partnerships with technology leaders such as Microsoft or Google or Facebook or Apple or Twitter. Xaxis remains the world's largest programmatic media technology platform with forecast billings of around $1 billion for this year. 3,000 clients, growth of 25% and 1,100 employees -- plus employees in 42 markets. We think this is really important in the context of providing our clients with an agnostic platform against DoubleClick and Google where there's increasing examples of bundling which may -- the argument is it's consumer friendly, but may well be anticompetitive. And also we see a similar approach in these wall gardens with Atlas and Facebook. We've launched the light restriction performance-based product as well through Xaxis, which broadens our programmatic offering.

It's not just an investment in technology, I mentioned that Nexus. It is in Globant which is our [saving] killer, which is now, Globant has revenues of about $250 million, so it's about one-third of the size of the agency operation, but going extremely rapidly and competing in the technology space. But to add to that, our investment in mobile and mutual mobile, ActionX and [MediaX] as well in expanding the Xaxis platform. In data, we've invested in Rentrak and in comScore and in [video in the intrascale]. And taking Rentrak and comScore as an example, we very much would welcome them coming together in order to provide a competitive -- meaningful competitive service and better service to try to counter the concerns that our clients have, particularly in the US. On content, the third area, we invested in Vice in early stage and we now have co-investors from Fox, from Disney and of course Time Warner have their production agreement. In Imagina and sports, particularly out of Spain and Latin America. In full screen with 100 YouTube channels, in China media capital in media capital and media rights capital, Indigenous Media. And last but not least, Truffle Pig, which links Snapchat with ourselves and the DailyMail and Sunday Mail. Those investments in technology, data and content are valued now at well over $1.3 billion.

In terms of data, we've achieved our data investment management objective of 50% of our business, as you can see on slide 62. And data is becoming -- marketing is becoming more data driven. Clients need simplified, better utilization of data. They need digital campaigns, as Adam has mentioned, driven by data analytics and feedback in real time. They need an ability to continuously update that data, and we've got a unique combination of real assets. These are not third-party assets. First party assets. And of course at the same time, we've built technology partnerships as a foundation for advantages for WPP and its clients. And you'll see the announcement of another one of those technology partnerships later this week.

On horizontality, we continue to build. We have 38,000 people working on our top 40 accounts. I'll come onto that in a little bit more detail in a minute. We've increased the number of team accounts. But we're ensuring that our people work together for the benefit of clients, we now have 190,000 people in 3,000 offices in 112 countries. And our total revenues, including associates and investments is now $26 billion. Here are the 45 account teams we now have operating, just listed for you. And it covers areas such as government and indeed, an additional one to be formed shortly in the sports area across the group. The other level of horizontality is at a country level, we now have 51 countries out of 112 covered by regional country managers and 17 of those managers. The objective is to make sure we have the best people, the clients and locally and make the best acquisitions to ensure that our people work effectively across the whole operation, across WPP to deliver better results. To deliver specialist skills to focus on client needs and business issues.

And the evidence, the proof in the pudding, is in the wins such as Bayer and Merck; Emirates, General Mills and Pandora Jewelry just recently. We're proud of our $1 billion brands; there are nine of them listed on 69, and we anticipate that will be several others following. We've focused on the faster growth markets in digital in our strategy, the faster growth markets are 29% of our revenues, digital is 37%. But there is a lapover of 9% between the two. You have to reduce the total of 37 and 29 by 9%. Overall, those markets now account for 57% of our actual revenue.

Turning finally to our key objectives, as you know, it is to improve our operating margins. We balance revenue and net sales growth with operating margin improvement. Increased flexibility in the cost base. When life does get tougher, it's important to have your flexibility in that cost base. Using our free cash flow to enhance shareholder value and improve Return on capital employed. Develop the role of the parent company to encourage horizontality. Emphasizing revenue and net sales growth more as margins improve and finally, improving our accretive capabilities and reputation.

73 just tracks our EBITDA progress and margin progress. Our target remains 19.7%. You can see margin last year with 16.7%. This year it's gone from 13% to 13.3% in the first half, and you can see the target of 19.7 in long-term. That will be affected significantly, or we will achieve it significantly by improvements not just in the staff in general and administrative expenses, but also by improving our operational efficiency and effectiveness. We have entered into a transformation program with IBM and already transferred 1,500 people as the first part of this strategic partnership. Central business service teams are already now operating on a direct basis with the operating companies. And we know manage from the center IT communications and development costs across the group.

We've established new shared service centers in Spain and Malaysia in the USA and in our healthcare and PR businesses. We're doing is standardizing the processes simplifying them. We're looking at offshoring and we're looking at outsourcing. We've appointed an international head of shared service centers from outside the group to drive that program in both Asia and Europe. In terms of flexability of the cost base, it's running at about 7% consistently of our cost base of our revenues or net sales. Variable staff costs, that's incentives, consultants as a percentage of our net sales. We've got a lot of flexibility, certainly, if there is a significant shift downwards. We certainly have built in one or two years of margin protection at least as a result of that. Our free cash flow we're using to enhance the dividend payout ratio, as Paul mentioned, our target now is 50%, in the first half we did 47.5%. We're evening out the payments between the first half and the second half, and that explains the very strong increase in dividend of 36%, 37% in the first half of the year. But the objective is to try and get to 50% within two to three years, and it seems more likely that we will do it a year ahead of schedule in 2016. You can see the progress there on 76 of that target payout ratio in relation to earnings.

In terms of using that free cash flow, the yield to shareholder in terms of buybacks and dividends is illustrated on 77. It's not just a question of dividends paid, which is the light blue column, part of the column. It's about buybacks and it's about dividends proposed for the first half of 2015. Then yielding for shareholders around 4%, 5%, 6% in recent years in terms of yield in both dividends and buybacks. And over the last 10 years we've returned to shareholders about GBP4.4 billion out of retained earnings of GBP8.3 billion. So, about half of our earnings are being returned -- of our headline earnings are being returned to shareholders in the form of dividends and share buybacks.

In terms of acquisitions, another use of our funds. There's a very significant pipeline of recently priced small to medium-sized acquisitions, you'll see three or four more of those coming in the future weeks. We're taking a approach very similar to a Reed Elsevier or [Abunzal] in terms of aggregating small and medium-sized acquisitions and building -- we have the breadth of offer we are just seeking to deepen it. We think that's better than going to the public markets and paying premium -- significant premium. We continue to focus on the faster-growing geographical markets and functional services, particularly direct digital and interactive, and of course data. We've accelerated our target on BRICs and next 11 and are looking at those new opportunities I mentioned, such as Cuba or Egypt or Iran. So far this year we've made 30 medium and small sized acquisitions. We continue to find opportunities at acceptable multiples, maybe with the exception still of India and digital in the US. Although that may change. Prices did get ahead of themselves in Brazil, but we're seeing more realistic pricing now in Brazil. And in the first half of 2015, acquisitions added 2.5% approximately to our growth rate. And you can see the acquisitions here in the first half on page 80. You can see them in a diagram over the faster growth markets and the quantitative. In digital, you can see that three of them in China, Peru and Turkey intersect both fast growth and quantitative and digital. But basically, our acquisitions, with the exception of three, on in Germany and two in the US are very focused still on those fast growth or faster growth sectors. And the same thing applies to those acquisitions, another five that a been made subsequent to July 1.

At this time of the year at the end of the year, we take a look at what has been the impact of using our free cash flow for acquisitions. Since Lehman in 2008, we've acquired 177 companies in the five or so years from 2009. And you can see the distribution of those, 32 were in faster growth markets, 57 were in quantitative and digital and 68 were in both. And then there were 20 which were for specific client or creative reasons. The total revenue acquired in the 2015 year in actual first half forecast, second half was just over $2 billion, $2.1 billion. The consideration paid was $2.1 billion. In terms of valuation, I think that is highly satisfactory, it's a one-for-one ratio.

On slide 83, which is a more complex graph, we tried to show what the impact has been in terms of organic revenue growth, what we've seen from those acquisitions. What the operating margin contribution has been and what the return on capital employee has been. But top line there, just under the title, is the 2014 line, that's what we showed you at the end of last year. For example, on organic revenue growth, the faster growing markets were going at 8%. Quantitative and digital in 12%, 11% in quantitative and digital and faster growth markets, client and creative at minus 1% and 8% for the total. You can see the growth had slowed slightly based of the forecast for 2015 in the first half has totaled down to 6%. Interestingly, on creative and client, it actually had increased to 2%. And the other segments were slightly down in terms of revenue growth. On operating margin contribution, however, it was up quite sharply pretty much across-the-board. And the same was true of return on capital employed, which is strong at 13%, 10%, 14% and 13% for the different segments, and 11% overall against weighted average cost of capital of 6%. These acquisitions have been adequately priced and made a significant conservation.

The final objective is to focus on accretive capabilities. We do that through recruitment, we do that by recognizing success tangibly and intangibly. We do it by acquiring highly regarded creative businesses. By placing greater emphasis on awards. And that is shown a lot of fruit. We dominate Cannes and have done for the last five years. We've been first as a group at Cannes, awarded Holding Company of the Year, the Lion for that. From the inception of the award to this year, so five years in a row. And similarly for the Effies, for the last four years we've been voted the most effective holding company.

Some people say, well you're the biggest, therefore you'll end up just naturally because of volume. I think that's a little bit unfair and these results show that. There's English understatement. There are three of our agencies, Ogilvy, Grey and Y&R were in the top four in Cannes this year, at positions one, three and four. Ogilvy & Mathers, that was voted for fourth year in the row the Network of the Year at Cannes. Three out of the top four Cannes networks, as I said, came from the WPP. Two of the top Cannes agencies, that's the single agencies, the second being in second place was Grey in New York, in third place was Ogilvy. In Sao Paulo Grey was Global Agency of the Year for 2013, announced in 2014, and Ogilvy & Mather were the Effie's most effective agency in 2012 and 2013. A very strong position in terms of creativity and effectiveness.

Just to summarize, on slide 87, a very solid H1 with strong like-for-like revenue and net sales growth, which was enhanced by over 2% of net sales from acquisitions. Margin improvement on a reported basis, 30 margin points -- 30 basis points, 0.3 over margin point on the reported basis. And 40 basis points, 0.4 margin point before currency, well ahead of the full-year target which is 0.3 margin points. Constant currency net sales up 4.7%, headline PBIT up 8% and diluted EPS up 15%. Bang-in well at the top end of the financial model, which I will come onto in a minute Strong cash flow enabled the Company to invest just under GBP1 billion in both acquisitions and buybacks of 2% of the share capital. And the average net debt to EBITDA ratio of 1.6 times is still well at the bottom -- near the bottom of our target range of 1.5 times to 2 times EBITDA, in spite of increasing the dividend payout ratio, increasing share buybacks and increasing acquisition payments.

The model, on page 88, is quite clear. We're looking for organic revenue and net sales growth of 0% to 5%, in line with market growth. If Adam is right, that advertising goal is going to follow pretty closely GDP growth, in our view, the GDP growth -- nominal GDP growth is unlikely to break out of that range significantly in the near term. So we, just like our clients, we're looking at tepid GDP growth and the impact of that on advertising growth. Therefore, the focus of margin improvement, and we believe we should have an equal emphasis on revenue and net sales growth and margin improvement. We're not going for revenue growth at the exclusion or the degradation of margins. And we see in some competitive results either margins that have not changed for five years or low level margins or actually margins that are declining.

We think margin improvement is a very important part of our growth and expansion. If you do the math, if organic revenue and net sales growth are in that 0% to 5% region, if we can achieve our 30 basis points of margin improvement where the longer-term objective of 19.7%, and we use our substantial cash flow, which is about $2 billion, a little over $2 billion, about GBP1.4 billion, to enhance EPS through acquisitions, share buybacks and debt reduction, the acquisitions average usually around $300 million to $400 million. Although as Paul has pointed out, comScore and IBOPE have raised the bar a bit this year. Share buybacks of 2% to 3% and a payout ratio at 50%. If you do the maths, that would give us consistently 10% to 15% of EPS growth, which is what we've done in the first half of this year, and which we are indicating we believe we will do for the full year. That issue should check capital reduction, by the way, of 1% to 2%, because you have a little bit of restricted stock issuance and option issuance through buybacks, is equivalent to an impact of another 20 basis points on margin. The model is based around those dynamics. And of course in the first half, we met them at the higher end, very much at the higher end of those model statistics.

For the outlook finally for 2015 on 89, like-for-like revenue and net sales growth in our latest forecast, the quarter two revised forecast of over 3%. Margin improvement in line with our target of 30 basis points pre-currencies. Acquisitions to add about 3% by the end of the year to that. And just point out that we have face easy comparatives in the second half, as Paul pointed out. Last year it was really 4% and 2%, and this year it's running at 2%-plus. And obviously the implication is that it will be 4%-plus in the second half. And of course July was a strong month, which followed our forecast and budgets for the third quarter. And at current exchange rates, the full year currency impact is expected to be a 1% to 2% decline in revenue and net sales at the current levels. Staff costs -- in these circumstances, staff costs and headcount have remain controlled to deliver the margin target. And the operational effectiveness and efficiency programs will start to deliver significant benefits, I'm told, in 2016. That is the presentation. Apologies for being somewhat lengthy, but we thought it was important to go through all the details. There's a lot more detail in the hardcopy that is available, the leave behind, it's on our website as well. So, we're really now to take any questions you have.

(Operator Instructions)

Doug Arthur, Huber Research.

Good morning. Two questions, one on revenues and one on costs. Adam, if I heard you correctly, you do expect to pickup in China, in the second half? Is that correct?

No. What I said was the word back, from our own operation there, was saying that Q3 was coming in as planned. And, Q4 appeared to be doing so as well.

It wasn't necessarily a pickup. It was just confirming that they were sticking to their market forecasts.

So, activity levels in the second half in the Southeast Asia, relative to the first half, so a steady-state?

I only look at the market in calendar years. For operational question, I have to leave that to one of my colleagues, here.

If you look at our forecasts, remembering that for reasons that we've never really been accurately to identify we are more skewed to the second half of the year, in terms of sales and profitability. Our profitability is about 1/3 of our annual profits, here in the first half. And, 2/3 are in the second half.

And what we see, again coming back to the comparatives for a minute. Last year, the comparatives, we were 3 plus, on like-for-like net sales. And, in the first half it was 4, in the second half it was 2. This year, it's been about -- it's running, at the moment, after month seven, after July, at 2.5. And, obviously, we've had a strong start to the third quarter in July.

Our budgets and forecasts for third and fourth quarter, and what Adam is saying is that -- people are saying the forecasts will be maintained. Our forecasts are inline with what we see. If you look at our numbers, the second half of the year, in China, shows an improvement over the first half. Just to reiterate, the first quarter was strong, the second quarter was weak, July was strong.

And so, not dissimilar to the comments have come out of Apple, in relation to July and August, in terms of spending. I think what Adam was saying is, in conversation with our media planners and buyers in China, we see no change to the forecast.

Those forecasts, by the way, would've been done in June and July. And, we consolidate them in July. So, they're up till the end of July. And, I think you're conversations were this week, or earlier this week?

Just yesterday.

Just yesterday. Paul, do you want to add anything?

I think the only other thing I'd say is that, one of the reasons why we are forecasting improvement in the fast-rate markets in the second half, to what we've achieved in the first half, is as much to do with the other halves regions. The first half, as the slides show, we had a very weak centricities in Europe, a flat A&D. And basically, a low, disappointing performance in the Middle East.

In the second half, our budgets indicate those returning to better territory. Positive in Asia in A&D, less degradation in Central and Eastern Europe. Improvement in the Middle East.

And, in addition, faster rates of growth. And, we gave out the specifics for Brazil and China, in Asia Pacific Latin America. Put all that together, you get back to a more normal trend rate, of what we see in the fast-rate markets, returning in the second half of this year.

We don't deny that it is quite a pickup, from where we are today, but July is encouraging. When you go through the detail -- and Adam's, actually, information is quite complementary, in terms of those markets where we have suffered a very big decline in net sales of revenues in media -- is very consistent with the trend in the billings in those markets. And, it's comforting, to a certain degree, that the revised forecasts aren't seeing any further changes to those expectations.

It kind of balances through, just don't think of it as all hinging on one country in the region. China is significant, but the whole region, overall, is 29%, and made up of several different subregions. All are contributing to the second-half performance improvement, in the organic rate.

You said you had a question about costs, as well?

The cost performance in the quarter was very strong. You mentioned the impact to the IBM partnership.

Paul, on the other operating costs, as reported, down a lot. I assume that includes a number of the gains. I'm trying to get a sense of what is the normalized cost number, for other operating costs, in the quarter.

I'm not quite sure you can read into the operating costs down significantly. The main driver, at the end of the day, is in the businesses staff costs. And, we kept staff costs under very tight control.

You can see the staff costs' impact would give you the staff costs to net sales ratios. You can see them down by -- the pre-incentive margins were up 20 basis points, if I remember rightly. That is pre-incentive on a reported basis.

And, what you see also is, the staff costs were down about 110 basis points. As Paul mentioned this morning, on the UK call, the margins pre-associates were up 50 basis points. It's the switch in associates, which lowered it.

Because, when we calculate the returns to net sales, we include associates. I think you have to be careful about it.

If what you're saying is, how much does the IT transformation program impact? It has not impacted yet because, what we've seen is a switch into, effectively, into SG&A. Because, staff costs have been reduced, because of the transfer of 1,500 hundred people. But, there's been an increase in the IT costs.

The benefits from those programs, as we said in the statement, have not come through yet. They wont come through until 2016. I think that is a little bit different.

It does give us a bit more confidence about -- the other question we had it was about the margin outlook for 2016. The IT transformation costs are still, I suppose, running through our system on a net nil basis benefit, in 2015. And, in the statement you will see that, we've committed to our original timetable of GPB30 million benefit coming through in 2016 and GBP50 million coming through the year after. So, GBP80 million in the next two years.

Which, actually, is not insignificant compared to that 1% margin goal we set out to achieve ourselves, which is GBP110 million. We're beginning to bear fruit on those.

And, on the back-office consolidations. While there's a lot of work going on, and a lot of analysis/investment, with some improvement coming through in working capital and collection. Which has been one of the reasons why we've able to hold our receivable position, strongly. I think the real financial benefits of greater consolidation, better control, will actually only come through the next 18 months to 36 months, if I'm honest.

Okay, thank you.

Brian Wieser, Pivotal Research.

Thanks for taking the question. I'm wondering if you could talk through how you're presently thinking about peer-level revenue growth? You've obviously made lots of comments around the pass-through revenues. If we think about how you're benchmarking yourselves, I'm just curious what you're thinking the current organic growth is, for the industry, at this point?

Separately, you mentioned earlier on the call that, and earlier this morning that, you would like comScore and Rentrak to come together. Did you mean as businesses coming together? Or, do you mean in terms of products coming together, that are jointly produced?

You would have to ask comScore and Rentrak that. But, we would welcome cooperation between the two, of any nature, to provide a better measurement product brand.

It's clear from our conversations with clients, that they are extremely concerned about viewability -- online viewability. The standards for video online, it's three seconds. And, in most of the video, the sound is not on. 50% of video advertising, the sound is not on.

That's a much lower standard than the higher standard that is applied to traditional network television. When someone like Philippe Dauman complains about it at Viacom -- he's substantially right, the measureabilities. That's what we are talking about, in relation to that.

What was the first half of the question, that was in relation to? Organic growth and how we measure it?

Yes, what do you think industry is doing right now, essentially? As you know, correctly, other holding companies are not consistently producing a net sales/net revenue number.

They don't listen to us. Maybe they listen to you, Brian. Until they listen to yourself and your brothers and your sisters -- the analysts, there is a necessity to do three things, I think.

One is to give an audited billings figure. The second is to give an audited, obviously, revenue figure. Which they all do. And, the third is to give a net sales figure.

The argument on the net sales figure, by some, is it doesn't make any difference. If it doesn't make any difference, you might as well give it. It's the suspicion that it does make a difference.

In the statement, we say we know there are big barter operations. We know there are big trade sales operations. We know there are similar operations telesales operations, which do show a significant difference between revenue and net sales. Until we get that, you're not going to have a complete picture.

We try and give you the complete picture, we give you all three numbers. The billings number, I don't think anybody else gives a billings number. Denso might, I think, in Japan, but, I don't know whether that's audited or not. It comes from a measurement service. We give you an audited figure.

And, that's important also. Because, there's a significant difference between the RECMA figures, which are Rated, and the figures that actually come through. I think that's important.

If you look at those three things, and balance them, if you look at that graph which compares Goldman and Business Council, forecast for GDP against our revenue and net sales, that's a pretty good approximation. Net sales, actually, follows the WPP's GDP, adjusted, against the world's GDP. The net sales figure follows it pretty well. The revenue figure is in excess of it. That's what I look at, and that's how I would.

The other point is margins. I made the point, in the presentation, that we look at revenue and margins. We don't look at revenue growth.

Anybody can go for revenue growth and sacrifice margins. We're not doing that. In our incentive pools, and in our budgets and in our forecasts, we always look at the balance -- roughly 50/50 in most cases. A balance between revenue growth, or net sales growth, and margin growth.

You can see that in the published results. Our margins are at a very significant level. Some margins of competitors are flat for five years. Some margins have gone down and some have risen, but from much lower levels.

You're paying money, take your choice. If you look at that graph on GDP growth, that tells you. And, compare it to net sales and revenues, we didn't put the billings figures in. But we could, easily, have put those in, as well, into that graph, but, you have the billings figures that you can plug in.

Thank you very much.

James Dix, Wedbush Securities.

Good morning, or afternoon. I think there are four people online. So, I think I have one question for each of you.

Martin, you tend to talk a lot more about China, than India, in terms of the long-term opportunity. Correct me if you think I'm wrong, but when I went to Cannes, for example, I heard companies as different as BoxID and Facebook, talking as much, or more, about the long-term opportunity in India. And, certainly, results currently in India are a lot stronger. I'm wondering how you see WPP's opportunity in India, in particular, relative to it's opportunity in China, going forward?

It's a question of size, isn't it? Do you want to comment on that, Adam?

Yes, it's a question of absolute size. Our market footprint, I suppose, too, because, our market share in India is much greater than it is in China. I spoke this morning about the opportunity presented by China's abundant political advertisers, which comprise a generous share of the total advertising demand there.

But, who may have been buying direct or through other more local arrangements, and find themselves succeeding. And, now, require more sophisticated advice from agencies, and also more price intelligence about the media they want to buy. I would think that, yes, you've got absolute scale. And, you've got also headroom, I guess that's why there might be a truth there.

At the risk of offending our Indian colleagues, I wouldn't diminish the importance of India. What's interesting about today, and all the questions we've had today, whether it be from analysts or press, is everybody's focused on China. I think it's more you, than us, that are focused on it.

India, we're very proud of our business in India. We have, as Adam mentioned, a very significant market share covering advertising, media, data, digital branding in identity. And, across healthcare, across the whole -- I would not diminish the opportunity, but it is a question about relative size.

Our revenues in India are around about $500 million, $600 million. In China, about [GBP]1.6 billion, [GBP]1.5 billion to [GBP]1.6 billion. It's a question about the relative sizes of those markets, not about their importance or lack of importance. In fact, we emphasize BRIC's and Next 11, which takes into account India and China, and other markets too.

Great. And then, my second one might be for Paul.

Do have an outlook for what you are restructuring costs might be in the second half? Are you seeing any greater impact of the restructuring on margin expansion, either by discipline or by geography, this year?

I think the first is, I think it's no coincidence where we saw two very strong margin improvements in the first half. It was Western Continental Europe, and in the market research DIM businesses, which took advantage of the restructuring that we had at the end of last year. Part of the margin improvement in those, I suppose, difficult-to-improve markets, is definitely down to successful restructuring in those market places.

In terms of the outlook, the only thing I do know that we have still to put through, on the exceptional line is the, as anticipated, the other GBP20 million of IT transformation costs. And, the final GBP20 million in the second half, making it GBP40 million last year, GBP40 million this year, to deliver that GBP80 million over the next two years. That's the only one, currently, that we're contemplating.

Obviously, we do look at this carefully at the end of year, depending on how the third and fourth quarters turnout. And, how the budgets look for 2016. That's all our current plans are, in relation to the extraordinary charges we've taken in half one.

Okay, great. Thank you. And then, Irwin, assuming you're there.

If I were a savvy buyer, I would almost think I'd be quite happy with a poor state of measurements of television or audiovisual, because, that would allow me to, potentially, get a more or a competitive advantage over my peers. I'm just wondering if, to any extent, either GroupM feels this way or whether that is a reality? And that, maybe, as the measurement gets better, does that potentially erode a competitive advantage you think you might have now, in advising clients?

Look, having a knowledge asymmetry is always helpful. If you are trading from our perspective.

But the truth of the matter is, what is right for the industry, is a measurement system that is as close to accurate, and that has consistency, as is possible. When one media category is measured improperly, understated in this case, and another one is, perhaps, overstated, it creates an imbalance. It causes monies to move from one place to another. Often, not to the best interests of our clients.

And, from my standpoint, I want to know what the real measurement is. I don't want to speculate behind the trading currency. I would rather have it out in the open and let the market determine what is going on.

And to Irwin's point, I think it's important to understand. We certainly had the conversation with one of our major clients yesterday. There is a great concern about viewability, about value and verification. Those three V's.

To the extent, to your point, that there are some cases were aware of, where clients have restricted the growth of their video spending, their online video spending, because they haven't got their verification. And if you don't have a measurement tool that allows you to measure effectively, people remain, or could become, unsure of the value.

And I think, to Irwin's point, it could be quite serious for us. Obviously, it's important for our clients to know where they're getting the value. I think there's a growing feeling that the value from online video is more questionable.

If you have a three second criterion for video, as the standard for viewability, that is pretty ludicrous in relation to what a traditional network TV company, the hurdles or the hoops they have to jump through.

Very good. I guess my last one is for Adam and, maybe you should tag-team with Irwin on this.

If I look at your forecast and what you updated us on, in terms of the US, in terms of TV growth, my question is, why is television growth so much stronger this year in the UK? Up high-single digits by your latest forecast, versus the US. Where now, it sounds like you're not looking for any growth in television this year. I'm wondering, why such a big difference?

It's fundamentally demand, which is strong in pretty well every category. Including, I might add, by native online brands; Facebook, Google, Amazon, eBay.

We haven't had the level of audience loss that the US has experienced. In fact, nothing like the level of loss. If the US might, it would point to a 10% drop in impacts in peak time, we have between 3% and 5%. It's not nothing like this bad.

I think that's probably the fundamental reason. Supply is, generally, standing up very well. And, we have demand across the board, which we don't see the same pickup, I think, in the US economy.

Okay.

I think if you just look at the upfront market that's occurred, and frame it within the context of a futures market, you probably already know that broadcast was down a couple of points, low-single digits. Cable down mid- to high-single digits, depending on how niche the network is. We believe that, by the time the short-term markets take it's place, that we'll be very close to flat. Maybe a point under, a point over but, let's call it flat for the moment.

Television is being damaged in its perception, by poor measurement. Interestingly enough, when we look at effectiveness, we look at attribution analytics, it scores better than the numbers would indicate. And, just amplifying what Martin said earlier, there could be a little bit of a rollback on digital video, not just because of the viewability issues, but because of some of the attribution analytics that are coming back.

Great. Thanks very much, gentlemen.

Peter Stabler, Wells Fargo Securities.

Two for me. I wanted to talk a little bit about the long-term margin target, 300 bips is a very healthy increase, of course. Martin, I'm wondering if you could frame the timeline for you?

And then, drill down a little bit. We're trying to figure out where is the leverage going to come from? Obviously, it needs to come out of staff costs, at some level.

Would you see differences across either your regions, or your operating segments, on where that margin could be sourced? And, do you think it could impact this drive for margin improvement? Could this impact your ability to recruit in a business where, of course, everyone expects to get a raise every year? Just, if you could, add a little color there.

And then, secondly, thanks very much for the slide 114, on the Xaxis net sales breakout. I'm wondering if you comment on the net sales margin of that type of business? Whether it's still in investment mode or whether it has a net sales margin more comparable to the rest of the media business? Thank you very much

On the net sales margin, we decline to answer that. Just go away and go and get some net sales numbers. And then, we'll train from others, and maybe some billings numbers, and then we will respond. I don't want this to be a one-way street.

On the margin target, it is an ambitious target. I acknowledge that. It's a target that we've had. The reason is just, this odd number of 19.7% is because there's been some pro formas that we've built in when we acquired TNS, et cetera, which we've had to adjust for.

Clearly, given the -- if you look at the WPP and the way that we try to run it, I think our people internally think we're quite centralized. I think people looking at us from the outside, particularly consultants and the like and IT people, would say we're very decentralized.

We've not had an IT function which has been centralized. We hired Robin Dargue from Alcatel a year or two ago. It's the first, really, central IT function.

He now has people reporting directly to him, from the IT function. We have the shared services function. So, historically, we've been a set of relatively independent businesses, from a back office point of view.

We don't think -- the first age is to get process simplification across the functional operations. And then, the second thing is to get people focused on off-shoring, if that makes sense, into lower costs centers, which we've started to do. And even outsourcing, if there are areas of activity that are really not our competence.

On your comment about everyone expecting an increase. I'm not sure that's exactly right. That might have been right in inflationary times. I don't think that is right currently.

With inflation at next nothing, except, there are some markets where, like in Argentina for example, where there is heavy inflation, and where there is legislation in place, to increase base salaries. But, with those exceptions, I'm not so sure you're right. I think people have become much more attuned, as we have as an industry, to incentive compensation.

So, if the results are good, people do better. And if they aren't, we give you -- again, coming back to your question about net sales margins, we give you the incentive payments. We give you the margins pre-incentive payments, post-incentive payments. It's all there for you to look at, and you can see.

For example, in the first half of this year, I think incentives is a proportion of pre-bonus. Operating profit was 14.8%. Our target is 15% of operating profit, before bonuses and taxes go into the incentive pools. At target, our maximum is 20%. There are some super-max opportunities, as we call them, at 25%.

But, historically, we have gone around 16% to 17% incentive pool area. And, you've got complete visibility on that. I don't think there's anything that says we can't reach 17%, 18%, 19%.

If we look at our four sectors of business, and we take our top two performers in each of those segments, and we assume that everybody could operate on that level, we get quite close to the 19.7% figure. Obviously, we're taking the better performers in each segment, and we're saying that applies to everybody. And, you're going to have companies that do well and you're going to have companies that don't do as well. And, it would be wrong to assume that you are firing on all cylinders.

But even today, when we look at the best performers, I don't think there's any intrinsically wrong. I think the more important issue, Peter, is how to do you go about trying to build a business? If you just go for the volume for volume's sake, and you sacrifice margins, you would be right.

But, if you try to balance the two things out, and everybody understands that's what you're trying to do, and everybody agrees to that, it does create tensions, there's no doubt about that. But, everybody agrees that's the way you're going to go. And then, I think you can get there.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Look back over the last five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten years. And, we've consistently increased our margin in every cycle. And, we've peaked at a higher level. And, we have troughed at a higher level. And, we've given you the 29 year record.

Look at it. It's in the leave behind. It's not going to be easy. I'm not saying it's easily achievable. On the timeframe, we said 30 basis points a year. Because, we don't want to do exactly the thing that you said in relation to your question. We don't want to overstress the business.

In fact, just to remind you, originally, our target was 50 basis points. We lowered it to 30 basis points, and a lot of people didn't like it. And, they asked us why.

And they said, are you lowering your long-term targets? We said, no. We just think it will put undue strain on the business. So, we replaced that extra 20 basis points of margin, by buying back another 1% to 2% of stock.

Thank you for the color, Martin.

Dan Salmon, BMO Capital Markets

Good afternoon, everyone. Maybe one for Martin and one for Irwin.

Martin, you could spend a little bit more time on the data investment and management segment for us. We've seen the top line trends there be a bit more challenging over the past few years. Another real strong margin improvement.

You've talked a little bit before that some of the challenges in the custom research business, and focusing more on syndicated products. Are we seeing that come through there, where there is some sort of built-in top-line pressure, because of that? And, likewise, some built-in upward margin improvement because of that?

And then, second, just for Irwin. You've been knee-deep in these reviews, now, for several months.

If you could collect all of the things that fall under this broad bucket of transparency, whether that is online video viewer-ships, whether it's less transparent programmatic models, whether it's the question of agency rebates. If you could put all of the things under one category, what fraction, what percentage of the conversations are centering around those issues? As opposed to more standard things, like mandated reviews and cost cutting? Thanks.

On the first, if you look at the competition again, you've got it in the presentation, on the backend of the presentation. We haven't gone through it formally in the presentation with you just now. But, it's in the back. If you look at the organic growth, we don't get a Nielsen organic growth figure.

But, our pattern of our top-line growth remains very, very similar. I think there is a difference between our custom business, still in our panel business.

Although, to be fair, some our panel business, even in the mature markets, has come under some pressure. But, generally, top-line is pretty much in line with the industry. But, where we have made great strides on data is, really, in two areas.

Firstly, the margins improved quite significantly. They benefited from the restructuring that we've done over the last two or three years. That's one thing.

The other more important thing, and it relates to your second question to Irvin. And, I'm sure Irwin will no doubt, answer is, is the integration of the media investment management and data investment management.

Media investment management, if our revenue base is approximately $20 billion, $5 billion of commission and fees comes from our media operation. And, $5 billion comes from the revenue level, here, comes from data investment management. We call them media investment management and data investment management, because we do see a close connection between the two businesses.

We're increasingly bringing together our management. When's one, Dominic Proctor, Eric Salama, Colin Barlow and others, to look at what our businesses can do.

And, related to the pitch processes, we are now making data an integral part of those pitch teams. In other words, when we pitch a piece of media business, we have a core part of the team. This is not just an add-on, in terms of a presentation our a person's time. But, as an integral part of the team.

We've had a dramatically successful success rate. And, that explains some of the strong growth that we've seen in North America in the first half of the year. It's the impacts of the wins from last year, and the increase in our market share in North America, which has been quite significant in the last few months. And which will come out in the RECMA figures, ultimately, for 2015.

Part of it has been because of the close integration. If you take media and data, it's 1/2 of our business. So, 1/2 of our business, that $10 billion out of the $20 billion, comes from those two things.

We see those two parts of the business as being integrally linked. Nobody else has that, in terms of their data, their operations. The claim it, but, they don't have it in terms of first priority data.

I would say, those two things, revenue growth satisfactory in relation to the competition, margin growth strong and then, the knitting together of the media and data business, where it makes sense from a client point of view, the key points. Irwin, do you want to answer the other part?

Sure. I would argue that, the whole transparency debate, while it is showing no signs of going down, I don't think transparency has a great deal to the do with what's being -- what we're seeing now in the reviews. Not that it isn't critically important.

I just think that most advertisers are going to let the four A's, A&A initiative, evolve a little bit. And just better understand how widespread an issue this really is. And then, deal with it.

I think viewability and box fraud are a completely different category. I wouldn't refer to that in the same breath as transparency. I think it's just a concern about digital investment.

And, I think there are many clients concerned about their spend in the digital arena, as we've mentioned before. Because of those issues.

I think the key driver behind the current tsunami, as we put it, of reviews is, there is a paradigm shift in the practice of media. There is ever increasing complexity. The way that data media and technology have converged, to the point that Martin just made about how data and media need to work much more closely together. All those factors are pointing to the need for clients to reevaluate their positions.

There are a number of clients who have been very cost-savings focused, over the last few years. And, some of them have encouraged over-promising and under-delivery from their agencies. And, I think there are poor business results that follow that kind of behaviour. And, some of those clients are re-looking at their positions, as well.

I would attribute what's going on now, much less to the transparency issue, or the viewability and fraud issue. I would put it much more towards complexity, cost centricity, value effectiveness, evolution of the media practice, importance of data and technology, all of those factors.

And, I'd add to that, Irvin. In media, clients will often say to us, that we are their biggest supplier. And, what they mean is, they include the media costs. We are their biggest supplier, if you look at fees, or commissions, much less now commissions, than they ever were.

But, the media costs is a big line item on the P&L. And, if you're looking at costs, that's something that procurement and others focus on, just by nature of it's size.

And I think, in this sort of environment, the low-growth environment with little pricing power, that's quite understandably. And then, if there's a lot of M&A going on, which there is, for costs reasons, when those budgets are consolidated, one of the first costs they look at is the combined media costs.

Thank you, to both of you.

Thank you, there are no further questions.

Well, thank you everybody. Sorry it was such a long presentation. But, thank you for your interests, thank you for your questions you've had.

If you think of more, Chris Sweetland in London, Fran Butera isn't in London with us today, but he's available over email. Paul, myself, Adam's available. Irwin's available for any further questions you have. Thank you for joining us.