The NS Interview: Martin Sorrell
“People say that the aim is to make money. They’re wrong” - Martin Sorrell, businessman.
By Mehdi Hasan Published 01 October 2010
You've been running WPP for 25 years. Do you have a retirement plan?
People who head businesses are usually in two groups - people who start things but can't run things and people who run things but can't start them. I try to do both. Bill Shankly said: "Football's not a matter of life and death; it's much more important than that," and that's WPP. It's difficult for me to envision doing anything different.
Is it true you made £60m over five years?
No, it was over 15 years. At WPP, since 1991-92, I and others have made investments in the business over five-year rolling periods. These are stock plans, not options: like Warren Buffett, we don't believe in giving management an option over the company stock for ten years, at no cost.
Would you say you're worth it?
Well, that's not for me to say.
Are you optimistic about our economic future?
I can't be sure, but I don't think that there'll be a double-dip recession worldwide. I think the coalition government's made a good start. This may be a honeymoon period and maybe events will catch up with them. But I think they have done the right thing in terms of trying to address the deficit issue.
Why should the public sector and poorest people pay for the sins of bankers?
When you look at the sub-prime mortgages and how that tied in to Lehman and associated problems, it's not solely due to the bankers.
According to a study, bankers will be paid £7bn in bonuses this year. Does that bother you?
I believe in the market economy. It depends on the results, what people have done. But I think it's dangerous once you start to interfere with the system through excessive regulation, particularly in industries that are highly mobile. You'll just move people to other parts of the world.
What's your view of the public sector?
What we've seen over successive administrations, and particularly under Gordon Brown, is an expansion of the public sector that has been extreme.
And you think that needs changing?
It's about rebalancing. That sector cannot produce the growth we need in future. It's the private sector that's going to have to do that.
Did you vote Conservative?
That's between me and the ballot box - none of your business!
How do you think George Osborne is doing as Chancellor?
I think it's early days. So far, so good.
What advice would you give a budding entrepreneur starting out in this climate?
Be persistent. Be determined. And realise that you have to have some luck. You've got to have fun with what you do. People say that the aim
is to make money. They're totally wrong. You do it because it's fun.
What is your favourite gadget?
The iPad is extraordinary. It's the first iteration and they've sold three to four million. It's incredible. And the free applications are amazing. Steve Jobs is the quintessential example of innovation and branding.
Can big traditional broadcasters such as ITV and Channel 4 survive?
They are very challenged. But I think it's more the newspaper groups; print is really challenged. People like Rupert Murdoch understand that it's about the communications business, about geography, about consumer insight.
People describe you as the leading Jewish businessman in the country.
I have always objected to that. People don't talk about the leading Catholic businessman.
Shimon Peres said that the English are anti-Semitic, anti-Israeli. Do you agree?
I think it's much less than it was. I wouldn't agree with Shimon Peres. One of the UK's greatest strengths is its diversity.
Have you experienced anti-Semitism yourself?
I remember while at school being on the bus to a cricket game. A kid turned around to me and said, "You know, Sorrell, that you're different," and I said, "Why's that?" and he said, "Because you're Jewish." I always remember that.
What book are you reading now?
The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest - by Stieg Larsson.
Is there anything you'd like to forget?
At Harvard Business School, there was this exercise with three circles - "family", "career" and "society" - and balancing the intersections of these three things. I'd like to forget the times when I've been unable to balance those things.
Are we all doomed?
No. I think in times of adversity the world is full of tremendous opportunities.
Defining moments
1945 Born in London
1975 Joins Saatchi & Saatchi and is nicknamed "the third brother"
1985 Leaves Saatchi & Saatchi to take over WPP
1987 Launches "hostile" takeover of the J Walter Thompson ad agency
1989 Buys Ogilvy & Mather for $825m, making it the biggest ad agency in the world
2000 Is knighted for his services to the communications industry
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists


9 comments
oh yea sorrel,never admit your a greedy bastard money making tory who will be mixing down birmingham way over the next few days with the rest of these toffs and torys ponces who will announce we must make cuts to the poorest in society just to get a 5 minute applause from the heirs of thatcher cameron and co in this sickly coaltion of bastards who will leave poor people even more poorer than they was before you lot got in,god new labour messed up big time but this nation is going to suffer and i mean suffer after this lot finish what thatcher started and no amount of fluffy new caring tory bullshitt wil ever fool me.damm you bastards who voted this lot in
"Why should the public sector and poorest people pay for the sins of bankers?
When you look at the sub-prime mortgages and how that tied in to Lehman and associated problems, it's not solely due to the bankers."
What the hell does that mean, and how does it go anywhere near answering the question? Sub-prime lending was engineered by the bankers... no-one else lends!
Is this guy worth it? Its not for him to say, but I will.
He is a worthless c***.
The paucity of comments so far say it all: a chap with rather unpleasant views and uninspiring to boot.
"People say that the aim is to make money. They're totally wrong. "
Right.
Wow, his views really are astonishingly banal and predictable...
His views are always banal and predictable. Even for an accountant. And he does love the sound of his own voice and will offer himseld up for interview on any subject - even if he knows nothing about it.
''When you look at the sub-prime mortgages and how that tied in to Lehman and associated problems, it's not solely due to the bankers."
American borrowers were enticed into over-leveraging themselves to fuel a house price bubble. Banks used to care that their loans would be repaid - today they don't because they expect the state to clear up the mess for them. It was always going to be a win-win.
It is true that we can ask why these sub-prime borrowers took out sums they may not have been able to pay back. The answer lies in the fact that those loans were foisted on them after a major advertising campaign. There is psychological research which suggests that someone believes they can repay a loan if someone is prepared to lend it to them. Those sub-prime borrowers were people who live with the drip-drip of consumer advertising everyday, have the lives of the rich dangled before their eyes every night on TV and are made to feel like failiures if they don't own their own homes. We ALL got up in the spending madness of the 00's.
And why couldn't they repay their mortgages? Because wages have been continually supressed since the late 70's and work has become less stable and less secure. There was once a time when a man could support a wife and children on his income alone - now both parents have to work and many still barely scrap by. That is not a paen to the days when men dominated the work place, I am just asking who has benefited from the change - it hasn't been the family. Mortgages require a twenty plus period of stable payments - the modern free market economy wants people to be endlessly flexible or to cut staff in order to maintain profits. And we haven't even addressed the fact that so many sub-prime properties were overpriced in the first place...
There are numerous other examples of the financial sector inflating commodity bubbles and then bursting them when prices peaked (dot.com bubble and the Russian stock market in the 90's to name but two). Each time Wall Street has walked away not only unscathed but with massive profits.
We need to understand that the Finance houses are 'helping' us get on the property ladder, they are not 'helping' businesses with loans - they are seeking profit wherever they can and have become ever more short-termist in their outlook.
Why Martin Sorrel thinks the disenfranchised poor and low paid should pay for this I just can't imagine...
*Mortgages require a twenty plus year period of stable payments
oh dear another typo - apologies.
*'We need to understand that the Finance houses are NOT 'helping' us get on the property ladder'