Sunday, June 04, 2006


Y&R Brands has named Hamish McLennan, head of its Australian and New Zealand operations, as CEO of Y&R Advertising. As a result, his successor will be Matt McGrath (pictured), currently chief creative officer (Aust/NZ) and Sydney MD of George Patterson Y&R. McLennan remains chairman of Y&R Brands in Australia and NZ but will have no day to day contact.
McLennan, 40, succeeds Ann Fudge in that role. Last year, Ms. Fudge, former Kraft Foods marketer who joined the agency in 2003, said she planned relinquish day-to-day control of the ad agency following a tough stint that included client losses like Sony's Sony Electronics and Ford Motor Co.'s Jaguar.
Ms. Fudge remains chairman-CEO of Y&R Brands, a WPP Group-owned unit that includes Wunderman and Burson-Marsteller.
The appointment of McLennan follows a long search. He'll be expected to help turn around the Madison Avenue giant. A release from the agency said that in his previous post he managed more than a dozen companies in the Australia region, quadrupling revenues over the past four years.
McLennan joined Y&R from George Patterson Bates in 2002 and last year managed the two agencies' merger. He worked at PattersonBates for 17 years, working in every area of the agency. In 1999, he was named national managing director.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Matthew looks kinda, sorta, like Douglas Nichol.


11:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Industry takes another turn for the worst.

1:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is Douglas Nicol renowned for?

1:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

They've been searching to fill this role for a year.

Either Hamish was an awfully long way down their list.

Or he was at the top.

And they waited a year just in case someone better came along.

1:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

1.45pm: nothing. Absolutely nothing.

2:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

'Comment moderation' should ensure very few published reactions to this announcement.

5:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

All of mine have been banned.

5:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah, my first reaction still hasn't been posted.

5:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

McGrath is a good Creative Director, what a shame he will be moving up and out of that role.

Oh, sorry, thought you meant the other McGrath.

5:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Remember that bit when the emperor takes on his apprentice in Star Wars?

8:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Riiiiiiise McGrath.

8:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Isn't it sad that someone genuinely talented like Furby gets blasted almost daily on these forums and someone like Matt McGrath gets complete protection...

8:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

All creatives should be rejoicing. It is very very rare in this industry to have a creative running a multinational. Well done Matt.

11:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A definition of "genuinely talented" would help here.

11:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To be fair, I don't think Matt can be truly described as a 'creative' anymore. He's all suit.

And you obviously work at Patts.

1:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

'Genuinely Talented' meaning constantly producing good work, being know internationally for doing said work, winning folio this year, Cannes lions most years and at least in the top ten of the CB rankings.

That enough for ya?

(And no, I'm not Furby.)

3:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cannes lions most years?

Don't think so.

8:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

He does better than the vast majority of us. Admit that.

9:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This photo looks like it came out of a Country Road catalogue.

10:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh dear...the censor got me...suffice to say Mr Furby is less than popular.

11:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Less than Matt McGrath?

12:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

More like a Fletcher Jones catalogue.

1:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The remarkable thing about that photo is that he’s wearing something other than his trademark dark blue shirt. Seriously, the dude is like the Fonz, wearing a blue shirt and black pants every single day.

As for going to the dark side, it’s true. When you presented concepts to him, his main criteria was whether or not the client would buy it.

Only one question remains – what is going to happen to his ‘young apprenticccce’, Michael Stanton?

5:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No 5:15, the truly remarkable thing is that you imply a criticism by writing "his main criteria was whether or not the client would buy it". As an outsider to your industry, it would seem obvious that if the client won't buy your work, then you have failed, regardless of how many awards you've won. This blog is filled with quasi knowledge about advertising, but is devoid of the true business realities of commissioning or paying for the work you do. I'm not suggesting you don't push hard in your quest for a great ad, but make it an ad your client will buy.

10:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anyone remember a single fucking piece of advertising Telstra's done since Patts got it?

That's giving the client what they want to buy, rather than giving them what they need.

Shit, in this case.

Shame that nodding your head in client meetings can make you so fucking wealthy.

10:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

10:22PM, I think 5:15PM's point was not that "buyability" shouldn't be a criterion, but it just shouldn't be the MAIN criterion.

(Criteria, by the way, is plural.)

11:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Criteria, by the way, was in quote marks. "Buyability" (your word not mine) is most certainly the main criterion. It is the clients responsibility to know what they want according to their marketing objectives. You may not agree with those objectives but then you're not qualified to comment. Even if the objectives are wrong, there are not too many creatives I'd ask for marketing advice (unless I was into self promotion via the award system you people have chosen to use for such activities).

2:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think 5:15 has made a fair point.
A cd should always act in the interests of the client with the work he or she presents.
Sometimes though, there are subtle differences in an idea or the crafting of copy or art direction in its execution. While these differences may not necessarily impact greatly on the ad's desirability in the eyes of a client, they are often the determining factor in whether or not an ad pics up awards.
Anyone who has ever worked under Mr M will know the frustration of his always wishing to present the safer, "creatively weaker" option, if I could call it that.
But don't blame Mr M. His creators simply didn't program him to comprehend such notions as "agency morale".
I believe it's for this reason, that when one sees the name Mr M in a list of award show judges, the Mr M is always that of the J variety.

8:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks 8:48, you've made the point for me. Whether an ad picks up an award has become the prime motivator, and the morale of the agency rests upon the CDs strength with the client. If the work sells you'll still be employed to try to write another ad. If the client thinks you're all a bunch of wankers after a bit of glory at the Cannes Festival (the ad one not the real one), then the business ends up elsewhere and you're back serving fries at Maccas. When you're a big person, with family responsibilities and a mortgage, you might appreciate a CD who takes the business side seriously.

8:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just for the record, Mr M once famously wrote 'success has many fathers' after a few creatives squabbled over a Cannes winning piece.

Interesting turn of phrase for Mr M, seeing as he gloated over 'his Big Ad' on telly last week.

If he was the CD, Carlton Draft would be running ads featuring blokes called 'Davo' and 'Stevo' constructing some hilarious scheme to fool their wives or something equally shit.

9:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry 9:15, your logic escapes me. Of course you may just be wanting to score points in the bagging of Mr M as you so cutely call him. You should stick to criticism of his clothes like 5:15 did.

10:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

WRONG, 8:43AM. Dead wrong.

Yes, the CD should bear in mind the client's business objectives and brand guidelines, etc. But to second-guess what s/he thinks the client will buy is to do that client a disservice.

Clients pay agencies to challenge them, and to move outside their conventional thinking. (At least, the good ones do.) So to kill an idea because you "think" the client won't buy it does neither the agency, nor ultimately the client, any good.

11:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

8:43, nobody gives a shit about your mortgage. Keep your problems to yourself. We just want to make the best ads we can. Award shows are the best way of keeping standards high. What if everybody was like you? There are enough hacks in cushy jobs pumping out safe, politically-correct rubbish.

What if James McGrath had looked at the idea for the big ad when the creative team presented it to him and said "Nah, too out there. I got a mortgage to pay. Let's just do an ad with a bunch of mates on a verandah"? Perhaps if you did some better work, you'd win more awards, get a pay rise and pay off your sorry mortgage sooner.

Go get a job managing a Maccas store, you toss. Stay away from the the barbecue sauce though. Tomato sauce is much safer.

I wish I was big like you.

1:52 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home