Media: Let's do lunch: Inside the world of advertising

Click to follow
Indy Lifestyle Online
Hard to believe, but even in the ad world it is possible to have too much champagne. Saatchi & Saatchi, which has looked after Lanson's account for eight years, is preparing to dump that client so that it can look after Moet & Chandon instead. Connoisseurs may understand, but at Lanson it will be compared unfavourably with a rush of bubbles up the nose. At Bartle Bogle Hegarty, the agency that won an award for its Moet work only last year, the account team could hardly feel worse if the client had fired a volley of corks at them. Who said champagne doesn't give you a headache?

Meanwhile, the Conservative Party, still desperately searching for a key to electoral success, has turned once again to Saatchi for ideas. Maurice has found a brilliant solution; tackle Labour on the economy. After all, it worked before, eh, Mo?

Ogilvy & Mather, one of several agencies on the Central Office standby roster, was hired last week without having to pitch. The job? To reassure consumers about beef, after that independent panel of scientists declared that there might be a link between BSE and its human equivalent. The agency faced a tricky job: the campaign was run jointly by the consumer's friend, the Department of Health, and the producers' ally, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. How did they want it? Well, rare (nobody likes spending pounds 250,000 too often), medium (press, rather than the more expensve TV) and well done (but of course).

At Kendall Tarrant, headhunters to the world of advertising, two women are playing out an abrupt interpretation of King Lear. Canna Kendall, who co-founded the recruitment agency in the late 1970s, has been ousted by the woman she groomed to take over from her, Gay Haines. Kendall and her co-founder, Freddie Tarrant, brought Haines in as chief executive in 1992. Since then, turnover and staff numbers have risen. Then in mid- February, Haines fired Kendall. On similar provocation, Lear spent a night raging furiously on a storm-swept heath. And Kendall? Not exactly: "I was not in dispute with Haines at all," she told Campaign this week. "I'm certain she's got it all worked out and must know what she's doing. After all, she is chief executive." Dear me, that couldn't be sarcasm, could it? And if it is, then what's this, also lobbed from a general Kendall direction: "I can't just walk away and let someone I put in place destroy me."

Asked for a response, Haines describes Kendall as a "great operator and a terrific lady". Really? Then why sack her?

Comments