Thank you very much, operator. Third quarter trading update for WPP, we did a presentation earlier this morning, which was also webcast to U.K. investors and analysts, and I'll be doing it this afternoon with people on the other side of the Atlantic. I -- we've got a lengthy presentation which has been posted on the website, which I hope you all have. Paul will deal with the first 2/3 of it, and I'll come back for the last 1/3. So Paul, over to you.

Okay. Good morning, good afternoon, everybody. So for the third quarter, I'm on Slide 4, hopefully, with the same slide as the web. So in the third quarter, we have reported revenue growth of 5.9% with like-for-like revenue growth of 4.6%, 3.3% growth from acquisitions and minus 2% from currency. On a net sales basis, reported growth is 4.2%, with like-for-like growth of 3.3%, 2.8% growth from acquisitions and minus 1.9% from currency. The reported 9-month headline operating profit margin was up 0.3 margin points and up 0.5 margin points on a constant-currency basis. The constant-currency revenues and net sales growth was in all regions and all business sectors, and we had net new business of just over $3 billion in the third quarter, making it just over $5 billion for the 9 months, resulting in the 9 -- in the #1 position of all net new business tables. So to summarize our growth rate, on Page 5, we've done it both for revenues and for net sales and take you down the left-hand column. So quarter 3 like-for-like revenue growth was 4.6, acquisitions added 3.3. So constant-currency growth in revenues for the third quarter was 7.9%, foreign exchange was minus 2%. Hence, reported sterling revenue growth for the quarter was 5.9%. If we had been a dollar-reporting company, this would have been minus 1.6%. If we had been a euro-reporting company, the growth would have been 17%. And if we had been a yen-reporting company, the growth would have been 15.4%. Likewise, I've done the same on the net sales. On the right-hand column showing the like-for-like growth in the quarter, 3.3% translates to reported growth of 4.2%, and on the year-to-date basis, the like-for-like growth of 2.6% translates into a reported growth of 4.9% in sterling. On Slide…

Okay. Thanks, Paul. I'm on Slide 34, where we just described how we feel about the market environment, what are the key factors, macro and micro. So starting with the macro. 2015, as we've indicated in the press release, forecasts nominal GDP growth forecast to come down, started to come down maybe the last quarter of 2014. And in the third quarter, about -- well, the World Bank, IMF and Goldman Sachs were example of trimming their forecast more on the nominal than the real, but even the real, and the real went from about 3.3 to 3.1 and nominal in the 3.5 to 4 area. The stock market correction, generally, and particularly in China, which didn't affect the Chinese market that much because the stock exchange is not quite as important in consumer spending or consumer saving in China and elsewhere. But that had an impact on the markets, and we witnessed fast-growth markets slowing down. As we've indicated, the last man standing of the 4 BRICs markets, Brazil, Russia, India and China, is really India, at least for the moment. There's continued recovery in the U.S.A. It's a bit patchy. You talk to different clients, they have different views of some view the U.S. market as continuing to be really strong. Some others say it's not just a function of a strong dollar, which is driving tourists elsewhere, but also domestic consumption is affected as well. U.K. continues to grow, but I think we are getting into an election cycle here in the sense that the chancellor and the government want to contain the deficit and deal with the deficit. And they've got until 2020 the next election to do so, and the chancellor will probably be leading the conservative party into the election. The Eurozone, however --…

[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from James Dix of Wedbush Securities.

I guess, I had 3 things. First, it seems to me one of the subtexts behind what the ANA and the other groups have been looking at regarding trading and transparency is that it's having some impact on margins potentially in the media business that perhaps clients are -- might not be aware of. So assuming that your margins in your media business have been trending higher along with the rest of your consolidated operations, are there any insights you can give as to what's been driving that in that business? Or are the drivers there not all that much different than they are to the rest of your businesses?

Okay. Well, first of all, James, margins have not been improving, so we can just put that to one side. Secondly, on principal trading, we made quite clear, as you well know, for the last and I think it's 2 years, that we are principals that the basis on which we went to the principle trading online was on the basis of opt in, and we could have chosen the opt out, which I think Omnicom basically took that position, although they did not disclose until well into the process that they were principal trading until it came out on a quarterly call of this nature about a year or so ago. So we've always gone on the basis that this was a different approach, and we would only go in on the basis of opt in. And just to point out in relation to what you're saying is that the client always have the right of audit and that continues to be the case. On the ANA thing, I should say I can guess [ph] the pity that the 4 A's and the ANA didn't agree between them, the basis on which any further inquiries will be made. But it is what it is, unfortunately. But we'll obviously cooperate with everything that we make and quite clear that the U.S. is not a rebate market. Several of our competitors have also said the same thing, although not all have confirmed that to be the case. And just finally, I would say, we've been absolutely transparent. If we're talking about transparency, James, we've been absolutely transparent about 3 numbers: Billings, we have an audited billings number. Nobody else does that. I'm talking about in terms of audited accounts. We report half yearly, so you get a billings number. You get…

Right. No, those are fair points. And just one other on the margins and then I had a broader one. I just want to be clear, those expectations for GBP 30 million and then GBP 50 million in savings in 2016 and '17, are those the all-in expectations from the shared services and IBM and other initiatives? Is that just IBM? I'm just trying to make sure I have the right total amount that you're looking for at this point in terms of savings.

I believe it's just IBM, but Paul can answer.

Yes. I think it's just IBM, James, because like every one of these projects, there seems to be a sort of 1-, 2-year investment phase. And then the payback comes. So that was, as always, that it should be, the way the IBM infrastructure outsourcing project will phase it through. So there was cost in '14, cost currently in '15 with a benefit from the '16, '17. The shared services, I think, have different benefits, more in control and working capital management and probably less so in terms of costs. Initially, when we set these things up in terms of putting the teams together, having consistent accounting software in the region to be -- to pilot it and then put into operations. So they tend to be cost neutral, but their benefits are in different areas, as I mentioned on control, audit cost and working capital. The IBM projects are the numbers you've got. Obviously, we have led in a new project with them, as I have it also with IBM on this application, development and maintenance that's not nearly as significant. And whilst there are some modest costs upfront, I think we can absorb them and deal with them and get the benefit until we finally gain more in platform efficiency rather than financial direct benefit.

Okay, great. That's very helpful to break that out.

And James, I would ask you. Solicit your aid, along with the 43 people that are on this call, to get a little bit of standardization in terms of billings, revenue and net sales.

I will. I will take it upon myself.

They won't listen to me. They might listen to you.

Trust me, they'll listen to you. And just my last one. Following on your, I guess, was your last point on Slide 34, kind of breaking out a difference between disruptors and then seeing the more zero-based budgeting clients, I mean, are you seeing any broad differences in -- either in terms of the media spending intensity relative to revenue or in the media mixes between those 2 groups? It seems to me, like back in Web 1.0 days, there was once some sense that some of the newer players would come in and they would start spending on traditional or classic media in order to raise their brands, and that was one source of growth for TV. Maybe that's not happening as much now. So I'm just wondering since you broke it down, whether you're seeing anything there that we should be thinking about.

No. I think it's an interesting point. I think on the disruptors you do get the disruptors investing in not just new media, but in traditional media, too. I mean, without naming names, a number of the new media companies, I can think of one which is in our top 50 clients and make significant investments not just in new media, obviously it's interesting, but in traditional media too. So on the other side on the zero-based, I mean, there is evidence that the zero-based budgeters are becoming increasingly focused on the top line. And it's all very well making the investments or making the acquisitions, I should say, and stripping out the cost. But if it's going to be a long-term model that it is clear that if you're going to have a long-term model, you are going to have to grow the revenues, and it can't be by just cutting costs. And we are starting to see, if not public statements, certainly, private or semiprivate statements that clearly say that we're in business for the long term and we're going to have to do something about the long term future of the business. I'd even say, for the activists investors -- we made our presentation this morning. One activist investor contacted me today, I won't say which, and said that he believes he is interested in the long term. So I said, I would -- without naming him, I would make a point that there are activist investors who are not solely interested in the short term.

Our next question comes from Dan Salmon of BMO Capital Markets.

So Martin, I wanted to ask a little bit about China to start. You noted, I think, on Slide 39 that it remains a smaller proportion of your revenues than it does as a percent of global GDP. And yet we've seen over the past few years, your net sales there have been flattening out a little bit more, underperforming GDP when we'd expect it still to be accelerating and maybe seeing that balance of revenue and proportional GDP come in line a little bit more. So could you start just by commenting on that disconnect? Is there something structurally different about China? Does it still need to get more competitive? And then I've got a follow-up after that.

Yes. I don't think -- if I look back and you got it on the Chart 19, when you look at Greater China, year-to-date obviously is disappointing. But if you go back to 2014 and indeed 2013, I think perfectly satisfactory. The question, Dan, is do you think that the economy is going at 7% or 7.5%? The president, I think, said this morning, and I quote a news item when I got up this morning that said that 7%, 7.5% is not sacrosanct. They're in the midst of developing the 13th 5-year plan. The 12th was 12.5% compound. Actually, the 11th was 12.5% compound also, but they delivered 11% compound. Now it's true to say that we grow at roughly -- well, at GDP levels or GDP in 1 to 1.5x GDP growth if you went back in time. But I have to say that the current sort of focus on China -- the one question is, is the GDP growing at 6% or 7%? Or is it more likely 4% or 5%? But if you look at some of the specifics coming out, for example, electricity supply, it clearly indicates that the economy is growing at a slower rate than 6% or 7%. And I think that's sort of in our statistics. Now the other point is -- so what I touched on is that the local companies certainly are becoming much more competitive. If you look at the competitions of multinationals, it's not fellow multinationals I think anymore, but it's the local and regional companies. And the local companies in China who are really becoming regional multinationals, even global multinationals, are becoming much more conscious of branding, and they account in [ph] advertising. And they account for about 40% of our client base, and we'll see improvements…

Great. And then just a quick follow-up. On the data investment management segment, we saw a sort of flattish top line growth again this quarter. Last quarter, you put that up as well, but also had really strong margin expansion. Is that continuing as the trend in the third quarter? And more importantly, as we look ahead to next year, is it another year of sort of modest top line growth and working on efficiencies? Or do you think the top line can start to work there as you have some easier comps?

Well, it continues -- the margin expansion or the margin strength continues. I think, from a top line point of view, the problem, as we've discussed, is the perhaps the project business, the custom business, as we call it, rather than the panel business. The panel business continues to do well. And it's the project business pretty much in the mature markets, it's not so much in the fast-growth markets where insight -- consumer insight and knowledge market research becomes more and more important. So I -- we're planning on the basis. I mean, it's -- nobody's asked about 2016 yet, they probably will. But I mean, we're planning on '16 and it's early days. We've done our 3-year plan updates for '16, '17 and '18, which aren't just organic but growth for [ph] acquisition. But we're just going into the budgets for '16. My guess would be, if the position for '16 will be very similar to '15. The worldwide GDP growth forecast are very similar. The kicker that we will get next year would be around the Olympics, which I think it will be certainly a visually stunning Olympics around the Football Championships in Europe. And last but not least, the presidential election, where there will be heavy obviously political spending, not that it affects us directly, but indirectly, it does. So I think maybe you get another 100 basis points on the basis of history is what we see in terms of industry growth, not GDP growth, obviously. But -- so I would say we're planning our data business that it will be -- continue to be tough in terms of top line. The other thing that is quite clear is that the new business record is supported and reinforced by our investment in data and data investment management. It's quite clear for me, the pictures that I've seen and had a direct knowledge of rather than indirect that those areas of technology and applied technology data and consumer insight and last but not least, content are becoming more and more important in terms of client evaluating whether agencies know what they're doing or not.

Our next question comes from Brian Wieser of Pivotal Research.

First, you made comments during the earlier call this morning about potentially a swing back to traditional media in a sense. I was wondering if that sort of thing is positive, neutral or negative for you? To the extent that digital media is more labor-intensive and revenue-enhancing, but then on the other hand, it's a bit more automated, I'm just curious, to the extent that there are concerns around bots and fraud, do cause any sort of swing back? [ph] What, if any, impact you would see? And the second question, I'll just put it out there, I'm curious about any collaboration that you'd like to see from Kantar with the combined comScore and Rentrak?

Okay. On the first, I find myself a little bit bemused because when we're moving to digital, I'm not suggesting it was a Brian Wieser comment, it was a general comment, is the move into digital margin dilutive and causing us problems. And now -- you're now -- if that was the case, well, then traditional probably would have been stronger. So now if it's possible that traditional is becoming a little bit more prominent but we're asked the reverse question, is that I am a little bit confused by that question. But maybe I'm being a bit unfair because you didn't raise it. I think the answer is no. I mean, I think you're right. It's less labor-intensive or some areas are less labor-intensive. But what we're trying to point out is not that there are massive swings, but in looking at the effectiveness of online, which has gone through this growth surge certainly for the turn of the millennium, for 15 years, that as new media, it's for 30% -- almost 40% of our business. As new media has become more prominent and on average, it seems to be about 24%, 25% of budgets, clients have been looking at that spending more carefully with greater intensity. And they've been saying, not everybody, but if you look at our second largest client, the CMO said he's worried about 3 Vs, which is value, viewability and validity. So validating how effective it is, you have on top of that concerns about bots, as you pointed out, and measurements, C3, C7 measures of viewability. I mentioned before there's 3 seconds per view. It does not constitute a view if half the sound is off or half of the views are made without sound. So the standards -- the end point I'm…

That is very useful. I think we hear occasionally from investors who do wonder whether or not activities that are associated with digital are more profitable versus less profitable, and obviously, these concerns aren't going to cause some broad trends to change right now. But on the second matter regarding Rentrak and comScore and in relations with Kantar, I'm just curious if there are any sort of things on a wish list that you have in terms of the further collaboration that might have emerged in your mind in the last couple of months.

Well, first of all, the regulatory things have not happened, so it's premature. But we anticipate or hope that, that's going to be dealt with fairly quickly. And on the assumption, it is -- I know that Rentrak and comScore are going to unite to bring together a standard. What I want, not what I want, but what we wanted WPP, GroupM at Kantar, which is half of our business between the 2 of them. It's about $10 billion in total revenue out of the $19 billion. What we want is in the U.S. and elsewhere and the countries in which we operate using this measurement as well, 45 countries or so, is the best standards of measurement not just for offline but for online. And I always use the example when Philippe Dauman complains that Nielsen doesn't mention MTV or Nickelodeon, right? He's right. He may not be totally right, 100% right, but a high proportion right because it doesn't capture the alternative screen viewing. It doesn't capture, on the C3 basis, it doesn't capture everything. I think Nielsen says that they capture some data on a C7 basis. But they are -- I mean, if anything, they are being pushed harder into providing a better measurement, so this -- which I think is the right thing to do. So what media owners want is better measurement. What clients want is better measurement and what the agencies want. I mean, even one of our competitors, Omnicom, in its quarterly call, did say that they thought they've got our stake wrong, it's not 20%, it's 16.5% of the combined Rentrak, comScore when the deal -- if the deal goes through. But even they were saying that it's what's needed. And I think we're all agreed on that, all the agencies agreed, all the clients, if not almost, and the media owners. So we want a better, more dependable, more robust, more widespread, more -- a better sample. And this is not to be critical in Nielsen because it -- the same thing is true. In other jurisdictions and other countries, it is where the approaches have been too narrow and you've got different changes in population. But rural to urban, urban becoming more important. And you haven't got the coverage that you need necessarily in the system, the panels change, et cetera, and you have to update the panels and have more sophisticated technological ways of capturing the data.

Our next question comes from Alexia Quadrani of JPMorgan.

Just a couple of questions. First, just circling back on your commentary I think around the first question that was asked about the net sales and the difference in the reporting, I guess, in gross revenue from you and your peers. If you were to look at your like-for-like constant currency growth and I guess, what they call organic growth in the quarter, would you say that the difference between sort of what Omnicom and IPG have reported so far, even Publicis, and what you have reported really is just that difference in reporting style or reporting metrics? Or do you think there's other elements that might influence the difference?

Well, I think Alexia, it's 2 things. I mean, our approach is a balanced approach. So as you well know, as we talked about this for years, we incentivize our people. We're transparent about that, by the way. We shared margins before incentives and after incentives, which, again, I think with the exception of IPG, there's nobody else that does that, and that might be a good idea to incorporate that as well. But we have a balance between revenue growth and operating profit growth and margin growth. Some of our businesses are keen on that approach, some are not. And you know how we give the incentive [indiscernible], that's roughly -- it's 50-50 for both. I don't think necessarily that's the same approach applied. I can't specifically talk about -- you mentioned 3 companies. I didn't quite know how their incentives work. But in 1 of those 3 cases, I know it's based just on profit and revenue and profit and it's not based on margin. We've taken a different approach. We're looking for higher-quality improvement in our revenues and margins. So if you said to me, how do I compare our performance to the competitors? I look at it, at revenue growth, net sales growth, well, net gross [ph] we don't have a number and margins. Now we do have the margins. IPG starts from a lower level, has grown its revenues well and starts from a lower level, same for Havas. At Publicis, high level of margins but of course, revenue growth has come under pressure. Omnicom, strong revenue growth but the margin stayed the same and had stayed at the same for the last 5 or 6 years. So it's a different way of doing it. The other thing is I'm very focused on buybacks. The…

And just a follow-up, if I may, on your comments on new business earlier in your slide deck. We went through it, I think you call it a tsunami sort of accounts put out for review earlier this year in the spring, and it seemed to settle down a bit. There's clearly up couple of bigger accounts still sort of expected to be announced the next month...

I disagree with that, Alexia. The bulk is yet to come.

Okay. So you think there's going to be more put into review or the more to be decided? That's my question.

No, the bulk of the results is yet to come. And there is more stuff out there which has not been -- has not surfaced. So when I think more stuff, I wouldn't say an enormous number, but there are 1 or 2 things going on, which are not public knowledge and should remain not public knowledge. But I'll just say that even the stuff that is known about, there are major that's not -- there have been major decisions already but there's major stuff to come.

I guess, my question is, do you think we'll have another wave of sort of known reviews or big headline reviews? Or do you think that was sort of a onetime really big...

I think it's become -- for whatever reason, it's become part of the business. So you get these reviews on a pretty continuous basis because the pressure in the system, if that's the right way of putting it, is so great that clients are looking for better work and delivered in a more cost-effective way. I mean, I know people in our business, when we meet one another and we say to one another, "How's business," you invariably hear, "It's fantastic. It couldn't be better." It's something -- might be shutting the lights down, but it's always wonderful. And you have to be optimistic in our business to succeed, I guess or even to stay active. But the reality is, it's a tough environment. Low GDP growth, I repeat for the nth time, low GDP growth, pricing -- little pricing power because inflation has evaporated. And with the oil price fall, which would get to 1/3 of where it was and unlikely to flip up from what I'm told for some time. Our pricing power -- inflation is limited, deflation is a worry. Pricing power isn't there. So clients are very focused on cost. And the M&A boom is really primarily cost based. All the analysis you read about in the press from analysts has nothing to do with revenue synergies. In fact, if anybody gives revenue synergies, they're shunned. If you're -- it's cost synergies, you tax them, you apply a multiple. If the result in the sum is greater than premium, great deal. If it's less than the premium, bad deal, that's it. That's the analysis you read about every day. And so everybody's cost focused. And that's the situation. So these reviews, this focus is likely to continue. I don't think it's going to get any better, the new normal, if there is such a phrase, is that situation. That's the way you have to run your business, I think.

Our next question comes from Peter Stabler of Wells Fargo Securities.

Just a couple. First, for Paul, going to Slide 15, your 2-year stack analysis, it's very helpful. Comparables ease for you guys in Q4, implying an acceleration if you kind of stick to the net sales, 2-year stack on, call it, mid-6s. Martin, your comments were a little bit cautious on Q4. Just wondering if you could give us a sense whether you think this thing's going to break down or this momentum could carry into this quarter. And then I have one follow-up.

Well, you're right to -- I mean, if you run -- if you do the run rate, you're kind of expecting a 4% to come out of quarter 4. I think as we said it, it's a time of year in which our businesses are relatively cautious in terms of what the final month would bring. And you've heard it from others in terms that there's a big project swing in the final month yet no one can predict it. I think the businesses have to plan for the worst case scenario. We tend to take a view, having seen the same pattern of our forecast and then watch what's having materialized [ph] over the final 3 months of the year, we've taken educated guess about what we believe will come out from the sort of past 10 years' experience. I think we obviously are aware of the fact that our Asia business has been a little weaker in the last 2 quarters and it's still expecting to be -- have a stronger final quarter although it has taken down what we originally thought it would do in quarter 4 to a more, I think, reasonable level. And I think against that, we're also supported by all, pleased with the acceleration we've seen in Europe and North America. So to a certain degree, the parent company has to take a view from all the budgets that come up. But I'd say that our best analysis of this is actually the 2-year run rate because the weaker comparables, as you see they're dropping down from 3% in quarter 3 to 4% in quarter 4, should give us a like-for-like lift in quarter 4 this year. And I think you're already getting an early view of what will then be sort of hashed out the next couple of weeks in New York as we go through reviews and the final numbers as sort of anticipated by our businesses get back to us and get reported to you either month, you're quarterly depending on how the trends go.

The only thing I'd follow up on is we said we haven't reviewed the Q3, we'll do that in the next couple of weeks in New York. Historically, they've been consistently conservative. I mean, I always remember John, Miran [ph] and I comparing notes on this many years ago and saying we should switch jobs in December because that way, we share the same burden, people being very conservative. So I think people like to beat their budgets, beat their forecast and they tend to be conservative. But that's all it is. I don't think you want to read anything more into it.

Okay, great. Two quick additional ones. So on Continental Europe, we see a bit of inflection point. I think over the last 7 years, we've seen false starts as well. Your comparables there are flat essentially sequentially, is this acceleration in Europe, the fact that a number of countries are involved here, I guess, is this a sign of optimism that the worst is behind? Or was new business and perhaps taking of share a bigger driver over the last quarter and the previous [indiscernible]

Okay. On Continental Europe, I think Germany's the strong man of Europe. It's very powerful despite being hurt and probably most significantly by the Russian, Ukrainian sanctions. I mean, Germany is still the country that has the strongest Russian influence and connection. So I think that is the prime reason. Secondary is the recovery in Spain, which has gained momentum, which is good news. But we've got to put that into perspective of what you said. It's taken us 7 years or thereabouts to -- or 6 years to get to this level. Italy is improving. I was there over the weekend, and they -- I was talking to the guy who runs our media business there. And he's looking for his, done his first budget for next year and he's looking for 5%, 6%, 7% top line growth there. And then finally, if one looks at, I mean, France, being the other one of the big 5, including the U.K., France continues to be challenged. I think we've seen a little bit of an improvement there but not material. So I would say France is the one that of the 4 that is the toughest. So I think generally -- and then you see peripheral markets, if I can call them that, improving as well as smaller markets. But the key ones, the key drivers are the big 4 or if you include the U.K., the big 5. And they all are moving in the right direction, although the U.K., I think, is going to be tougher as we get into this sort of budget deficit reduction cycle that the government will make before -- as they move towards the next election in 2020. So all in all, I think Western Continental Europe is looking in better shape and about time too.

Yes. And don't forget, the currency is the big advantage in terms of this explorability in terms of product [ph] robustness [indiscernible] I think. From what I understand, it's seems broadly based both by currency, by -- sorry, by country and by discipline. In some sense it's long overdue. So hopefully, it will continue for some time to come.

Great. And the last one, if I could, Martin. I was intrigued by your comments around billings. Billings has been a number that we've always been somewhat skeptical of. Wondering why should we be looking at billings as...

I think very simple, billings flow through the company, don't they? In case -- so wouldn't you -- I find that response extraordinary. Wouldn't you want to know the flow of billings through the company?

If I had confidence in the numbers.

Well, they're audited. They're audited. So if you've got confidence in any audited number, here you go.

The media billings data is audited every quarter or twice a year?

I'm talking about the flow-through of billings throughout not rate card. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about auditing the billings number. I mean, the true turnover inside these businesses is the billings number. That's the true turnover. There is then revenue. There is then increasingly net sales for the reasons we talked about. But the true number, the true volumes through the business is the billings number.

Our next question comes from Doug Arthur of Huber Research.

Two questions on Xaxis. Has there been any change in the growth trajectory at Xaxis as you go into the second half? And then you talked about ad blocking not as a major issue currently. If it gets more prevalent, does that, in general, changes any approach at Xaxis?

Okay. On November 18, we have an Investors Day or Investors Half Day in London, and that will be webcast, I'm sure, probably visually as well as sound. So we'll have Brian Lesser there, Irwin Gotlieb, Dominic Proctor. Then we'll have -- we're covering 2 major issues. What we think investors are concerned about which is media along the lines of what you're talking about and also fast-growth markets and we're focusing on China. So we'll have 3 or 4 of our people from China here talking about China. So we'll cover that in more detail. I think the growth rate in Xaxis continues to be strong in the second half of the year and we are hoping will hit at least $1 billion of billings in Xaxis, which, over a 4-year period, is quite an outstanding achievement I think for Brian and his people so I think it continues. On ad blocking, I think there's much we can add at this stage because ad blocking because has not had -- I mean, even the estimates, and I think the estimates that are being made are pretty woolly, but the estimates that have been made so far for the impact of ad blocking have been on the smaller side. That doesn't mean by the way that we can be complacent about it. And it doesn't mean that we're saying it won't become important. But it reminds me a little bit of the discussion about PVRs many years ago, when everybody was terrified that PVRs was going to put us out of business. And now we're not so worried about that. So I think the same thing applies to ad blocking. And I thought it's very interesting. The guy who, I can't remember his name, who created the piece ad blocker…

Our next question comes from Tim Nollen with Macquarie.

Yes. By the way, the growth rate on Xaxis, I'm pulling this just for us, I mean, it continues at the same rate, at exactly the same rate actually. So there's -- we see no slowdown. Sorry, go ahead, Tim.

I appreciate you've been doing this for close to 4 hours now, I think both in London and New York time.

Yes, we have nothing else to do.

Nothing else going on today, right? Actually, I have 3 questions still. First off, I don't know if you have any comment to make on October organic revenues. I don't know if you're done with the month yet.

Well, the last time I checked, October hasn't finished. So...

Well, yes, that was my -- yes, that was the ending in my sentence so I'll take that as a no, okay. Second question, I've always thought of ad agency and holding company growth on the top line is coming from a balancing out of pricing pressure with volume gains from clients. And it seems to me you should be able to continue that with more and more complexity and fragmentation on -- overcoming ad blocking, whatever it may be. But with so much commentary on pricing, both in the account reviews and with companies like P&G talking about reducing marketing spending, I just wonder if that dynamic still holds?

Well, I think it does and I think -- I haven't sort of passed the latest, you mentioned P&G, the latest P&G comments. But as I understand it, they want more efficiency and they want more effectiveness. They want better work at low prices and they want to cut out, as others have done it, what they call nonworking costs or nonworking fees, often excess production costs, duplication. To your point, do I think we can be more efficient? I mean, yes. I mean, we have built a business over 30 years which is multibranded. You can go to the leaf behind the 29-year history from 47 onwards, and you'll see the structures that we have. They're laid out actually on 54, 55 and 56, the sort of brand structures. And they're not rationalized. We think those brand structures are important, they are important in some areas of the business, in -- particularly in the area of conflict, conflict of plans and to some extent, conflict of people. But having said that, there is room for rationalization. So in the same way as there is zero-based budgeters on the client-side, we think there should be sort of zero-based budgeting on our side, too, to make sure we're doing things in the most efficient way. And next week, in Shanghai, we'll unveil our WPP Campus. We'll have 3,500 people on one site in Shanghai, which is 3,500 people out of 16,000 in China. So it's significant, but not all-embracing. It's spread throughout China, this fair. But we want to capture, even in Shanghai, all of the businesses but we'll capture most of them. So there are things -- we've done the same thing in Madrid, with most of the businesses -- about 2,500 people in Madrid in the old Telefónica business…

Yes. I understand. I see the macro is a swing -- big swing factor. Focusing on the micro, my last question was about some of your content investments. I know what you're doing with comScore and Rentrak and the measurement to investments there. But in a similar vein, you talk about Media Rights Capital and Vice Media. What are you doing with these content investments? I mean, it's not just making more ads. I mean, your agencies do that. What are you doing with these companies?

Well, I mean, if you look at what we're doing in terms of pitching activity, day-to-day involvement with new clients, we're exposing, I mean, 2 communities, our clients and our people, to the latest developments that we think are important in content. So if you went through the list for a minute. If you take Vice, millennial content, not just male, but the extension to broadly. I mean, I should mention Refinery29, which is female millennial content, the same thing. Imagina, based in Spain, probably most famous for controlling La Liga, the football rights for La Liga, so Barcelona, Real Madrid, et cetera, but also one of the -- well, probably the leading Hispanic program producer based in Spain and Madrid and Barcelona. Fullscreen, more than 100 YouTube channels, biggest investor in that piece of churn in is the guy who put that together. And AT&T, a very big investor in that. China Media Capital, the leading content developer in China, I mean, historically, I think I'm right in saying the first investment that they made was in buying a controlling interest in Rupert Murdoch's media interest in China within about 3 to 6 months that turned that around very successfully. Media Rights Capital, developing House of Cards with Netflix. And obviously, content spanning a number of other, Bruno, Borat, Ted, Ted 2. Indigenous Media, developing online content with clients. And then Truffle Pig, Snapchat, the male group [ph] and ourselves looking at how we could develop social content with our clients. So it's client involvement, it's our people's involvement, getting them and indeed ourselves to understand what's going on in the content space. So I mean, does that explain sufficiently?

Sure.

As there are no further question at this time, I would like to hand the conference back to the speakers for any additional or closing remarks.

All right. Thank you very much, operator. Thanks, everybody, for joining us. Any further questions, Fran Butera in New York, Chris Sweetland here in London with me and Paul, but happy to by e-mail have any further questions. Thank you. Look forward to talking to you early next year. Thank you.