Talk:FGS Global

Requested Additions and Factual Changes
Hi, I’d like to declare myself as a representative of Finsbury PR. I’ve gone onto the page and deleted a couple of inaccuracies that I have explained and cited here. I’d also like to propose a couple additions, which are listed below. Happy to clarify further if necessary. Thanks Finsburyrep101 (talk) 16:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Deletions
 * Deleted “RLM” under the first and second mention of “RLM Finsbury” in the History section.
 * The firm was originally founded by Roland Rudd as Finsbury and only became RLM Finsbury when it merged with Robinson Lerer & Montgomery (RLM). The firm rebranded to just Finsbury in 2014. Source: http://www.holmesreport.com/agency-playbook/agency-profile/finsbury
 * Additions: I’m proposing the following additions to the page:
 * Under History: The firm is headquartered in London and New York City, with offices in Washington DC, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Brussels, Moscow, Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Hong Kong, Beijing and Singapore. Source: http://www.finsbury.com/who-we-are/
 * Under Astra Zeneca Defense: In 2014, Finsbury advised AstraZeneca in defending against a hostile takeover by Pfizer. Source: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/d0abc682-dce1-11e3-ba13-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3eAtQtMxU

Thank you for declaring your COI here. That is the way it should be (and should have been) done. Zezen (talk) 08:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Rename post-merger
Considering renaming this article as Finsbury Glover Hering and combining with The Glover Park Group to reflect the recent merger and rebrand. Any help on this action would be appreciated.

Requested move 16 January 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Finsbury (public relations) → FGS Global – The recent merger between Finsbury (public relations), Hering Schuppener, The Glover Park Group (later known collectively as FGH) and Sard Verbinnen & Co. resulted in an entity called FGS Global. Charlotte at FGS (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Comment User:Charlotte at FGS is a paid contributor. 162 etc. (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support as per nom. 162 etc. (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Update
Hello. Now that the article has been renamed to reflect the current company, I'd like to suggest updates to the content as well. I've created a draft based on the existing article, which includes updates and references. It also trims the Wikipedia-related story and includes it as part of the History, according to WP:UNDUE and WP:CSECTION. Please have a look and let me know if it would be appropriate to implement into the main article. Pinging, and  as they may have some thoughts. Thanks for your help, Charlotte at FGS (talk) 11:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not against trimming the wikipedia section or merging it in other section, but I think the coverage in the draft is not neutral, it is a bit whitewashed. Vpab15 (talk) 11:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This is clearly an episode that the firm would like to be minimised in the article, however, it was important enough for both the Telegraph and The Times to report. The way we have discussed it in the current article is sourced, neutral, and sticks to the facts. I, therefore, oppose this attempt to whitewash the article. I think they are stuck with it, however, the rest of the article is lacking in depth so if they want the unflattering material to occupy a smaller part of the whole, they could suggest some expansions to the rest of the article. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC)


 * ,, thanks so much for taking a look. I'm definitely open to your suggestions- the language I proposed for the Wikipedia incident was based on the only reference that wasn't a dead link in the existing section, and I thought it covered the main points and gave the appropriate amount of weight. I realize this is also a sensitive area for me to be involved in considering the context, which is why I am bringing it to the community. Any ideas you have as to how to improve this to avoid "whitewashing" would be greatly appreciated.


 * Do you have any thoughts about the rest of the updates? I included more recent information regarding the merger and FGS Global as well.


 * Thanks again for your time, Charlotte at FGS (talk) 10:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I have implemented most of the proposed recent updates to the corporate history, and have also broken the history up into sections - including one about the Wikipedia editing episode (I agree with Philafrenzy that this should not be downplayed given that it saw Finsbury mentioned in UK broadsheet newspapers). I think the text proposed by Charlotte at FGS has some referencing issues - in particular the final shareholding text has a citation from 2014, not FGS post-merger. Perhaps Charlotte can suggest an appropriate citation? Paul W (talk) 11:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)


 * thanks so much for going through this, and for your edits! Thanks also for pointing out the issue with the Shareholders reference- here is the correct source.
 * The rather awkward elephant in the room is now the "2012 Wikipedia editing controversy", which still doesn't seem to quite adhere to WP:UNDUE. Perhaps there is some context I am missing, but judging by the coverage, especially in relation to general coverage about the company and its history, this seems to highlight a relatively minor incident, albeit one that is undoubtedly important to the Wikipedia community. I understand from earlier discussions that my rewrite missed the mark, possibly because I couldn't access those old sources, but I still feel it would be more appropriately included as part of the history as opposed to as its own section (or subsection, as you have it now).
 * Thank you again for your help with this. Charlotte at FGS (talk) 11:09, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I have updated the shareholders reference, removing the 'citation needed' template.
 * The recent changes have expanded the article from 311 words to 497 words, so the Wikipedia paragraph (128 words) now forms 26% of the article, down from 41% a couple of months ago. I have fixed the broken links so that the original coverage - still the only national newspaper coverage of the business in the article - is now accessible (it is preferable to fix 'dead links', not use them as a premise to delete content). And I lowered the prominence of the Wikipedia section from a standalone Heading to a Sub-heading within the history section, and removed the word 'controversy' from the subheading so that it is more neutral. I think this addresses the WP:UNDUE point, but happy to hear what other editors - including Philafrenzy and Vpab15 - think. Best wishes. Paul W (talk) 12:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing the changes, it looks much better now. I agree that any potential WP:UNDUE issues with "wikipedia controversy" are now resolved. Vpab15 (talk) 13:09, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks OK to me. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)


 * , and, thanks for your work on this. I appreciate it. Would you be able to update the Predecessor parameter in the infobox to include Finsbury, Hering Schuppener, The Glover Park Group and Sard Verbinnen & Co?


 * I've looked at the Wikipedia section again- thank you for fixing those references. With that done, I understand the relevance of the story, and that my initial suggestion doesn't work because it excludes these sources. I still think there is a bit too much detail (as per WP:TMI), such as the background surrounding Usmanov's business plans. As for the weight- I understand what you mean about the percentages, but I still struggle to see how one interaction with a former client has the same gravity as a company-wide rebrand or merger. It's not that I am concerned with readers being exposed to this story, and, as you said, it's been covered in the press and therefore should be included, but more with the consistency and logic of the general article. It just seems to make more sense to include this as an event in the firm's history as opposed to on par with subsections covering mergers. As such, I would like to suggest the following edits:


 * The addition of another subsection entitled RLM Finsbury to go before the 2011 merger with Robinson Lerer & Montgomery, under which the Wikipedia incident would be included with trimmed language (but all sources intact). I've marked up what I propose trimming, and have highlighted my other changes for clarity:


 * "On 12 November In 2012, The Times reported that Alisher Usmanov, a Russian billionaire who was about to launch one of the largest stock market listings in London for his MegaFon mobile phone company hired RLM Finsbury which to 'covertly clean ed up' his online image and removed details of his past' before the offering . The Telegraph reported specifically that the firm's RLM Finsbury staff anonymously 'deleted details of a Soviet-era criminal conviction and freedom of speech row' and then 'replaced those sections with text outlining Mr Usmanov's philanthropy and art collection.' According to O'Dwyer's PR , the firm publicly apologized in The Times , giving the following statement: 'This was not done in the proper manner nor was this approach authorized by Mr. Usmanov. We apologize for this and it will not happen again.'"


 * Thank you again for your careful attention and patience with this. Charlotte at FGS (talk) 09:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I made a few small changes but I think it reads well now. (You are wasting your time if you think you can keep working away at it until it is reduced to almost nothing.) Philafrenzy (talk) 10:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Philafrenzy. I think your edits hit the mark (and I've done the requested 'predecessors' infobox edit). I don't think I should edit further on the Wikipedia editing matter as I potentially have a historic conflict of interest, which I will explain....
 * The current and previous revisions have not included other coverage of the WP editing. In addition to the cited broadsheet and O'Dwyers PR coverage, there was also significant coverage in industry newspaper PR Week and marketing magazine The Drum while The Times series ran to at least three articles. In PR Week, others in the PR industry defended RLM Finsbury on the grounds that Wikipedia editing was, in their eyes, "cumbersome" - see "PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia for Finsbury editing issue" (source). There was then a Wikimedia UK (WMUK) response reported in PR Week's "Wikipedia defends editing processes following Finsbury 'clean-up'" (source). And the PR membership body, the CIPR (of which I am a member) also made a statement, reiterating its June 2012 membership guidance on editing Wikipedia (also covered in The Drum - source). And The Times followed up its 12 November article with others on the 13th (source) and 17th November 2012 (source).
 * (And the story continued to ripple, even years later - it was mentioned in a piece in Isreali newspaper Haaretz (source) last May, for example.)
 * As I disclose on my user page, I had some involvement with early discussions between WMUK and the CIPR, and later (2014 and 2021) helped to update CIPR's Wikipedia guidance (in 2012, I was just an ordinary CIPR member; I was later a member of CIPR's Council from 2014 to 2018, including two years on its Board). For the avoidance of doubt, I won't edit the article further in respect of the Wikipedia episode.
 * Paul W (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Paul, for putting all that down. The article is looking a lot better. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)


 * and, thanks again for your time and consideration. In that case, would you be willing to simply add the "RLM Finsbury" subsection header above the sentence which reads "In 2011, Finsbury merged with Robinson Lerer & Montgomery of New York to form RLM Finsbury" to match the rest of the newly-revised structure? The subsequent sections refer to RLM Finsbury without additional context, which may be confusing to a reader in the current format. Much appreciated, Charlotte at FGS (talk) 11:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Subheading added. Paul W (talk) 11:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Lead suggestion
Hi, I'd like to ask that the lead be updated to more accurately reflect all firms involved in the merger. Perhaps something like this would be appropriate?

"FGS Global is a public relations company formed in 2021 by the merger of Finsbury Glover Hering and Sard Verbinnen & Co. It is a subsidiary of British advertising and media conglomerate WPP plc, and specialises in financial services clients."

Pinging in case he has a moment to look at this.

Thanks again for your help, Charlotte at FGS (talk) 09:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC) Done   Paul W (talk) 09:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)


 * thanks again. Would you please consider removing "and specialises in financial services clients" from the lead as this is unsourced and inaccurate in regards to FGS Global? Again, many thanks for your continued help and patience. Charlotte at FGS (talk) 09:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Paul W (talk) 09:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)


 * thanks again for your time. Charlotte at FGS (talk) 09:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

RLM Finsbury section
Hello. Following a lengthy discussion above in which the engaged editor disclosed a potential historic conflict of interest, I'd like to request input from the rest of the community regarding the following:

Currently, all sections in the article focus on company-wide changes such as rebrands and mergers since inception aside from the one titled "2012 Wikipedia editing".
 * As this section relates to a specific, historical RLM Finsbury interaction with a former client, it should likely be catalogued as a subsection under the "RLM Finsbury" header.

"On 12 November In 2012, The Times reported that Alisher Usmanov, a Russian billionaire who was about to launch one of the largest stock market listings in London for his MegaFon mobile phone company hired RLM Finsbury which to 'covertly clean ed up' his online image and removed details of his past' before the offering . The Telegraph reported specifically that the firm's RLM Finsbury staff anonymously 'deleted details of a Soviet-era criminal conviction and freedom of speech row' and then 'replaced those sections with text outlining Mr Usmanov's philanthropy and art collection.' According to O'Dwyer's PR , the firm publicly apologized in The Times , giving the following statement: 'This was not done in the proper manner nor was this approach authorized by Mr. Usmanov. We apologize for this and it will not happen again.'"
 * I would also like to suggest that the paragraph be trimmed to adhere to WP:UNDUE and WP:TMI as follows (my changes marked for clarity, all sources are left intact):

Thank you for your time, Charlotte at FGS (talk) 13:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Please establish a consensus with editors engaged in the subject area before using the Request edit template for this proposed change. Edit requests are for uncontroversial proposals (WP:EDITXY), and if I'm interpreting it correctly, any further trimming has already been identified as being excessive in the above discussion. Be aware that simply making further requests is not going to change the outcome of this discussion. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for taking a look at this, I appreciate it. My intent was not to make a further request, but to get engagement and input from additional editors. For now, two editors have engaged, but one bowed out given a former conflict of interest (if I understood correctly), and I'd love to hear the greater community's thoughts on some of the points I've raised. My understanding is that a consensus requires more than one or two stated opinions? Is there a more appropriate way to draw eyes to the discussion? Thanks again for your assistance. Charlotte at FGS (talk) 11:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, Charlotte at FGS. As previously described (see my 22 March 2023 reply above), it is also about NPOV: 'the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each' (WP:RSUW). At the moment, the text relating to the Wikipedia editing (a prominent news story in the PR industry at the time) cites only three sources, but other disinterested editors might choose to add further 'prominent' verifiable sources. Achieving consensus isn't about how many people are engaged in discussion or editing (the quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view), but - if required - consensus-building might be achieved through third opinions, dispute resolution noticeboard or requests for comment, for example. Paul W (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * , thank you for your assistance with the Predecessors section, and for your continued help here. Do you think seeking a third opinion would be appropriate, or less so? If not, would you consider simply moving the entire Wikipedia editing paragraph into the subsection called "RLM Finsbury", without trimming the content? Thanks again. Charlotte at FGS (talk) 08:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Given that myself and two other editors have already made inputs on this, I am not sure seeking further 'third opinions' will elicit different responses ("raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages ... is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus"). Subsection amendment seems reasonable. Done. Paul W (talk) 09:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand. Thank you for your continued assistance! Charlotte at FGS (talk) 13:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Predecessors
Hello again.

I would like to suggest the addition of a "Predecessors" section to the article, perhaps after the Shareholders section, with a brief overview of the three firms currently listed in the infobox.

I have a drafted the following, and look forward to input from the community: Predecessors The Glover Park Group was founded in June 2001 by former White House and Democratic campaign officials Michael Feldman, Carter Eskew, Joe Lockhart and Chip Smith. It was a consultancy based in Washington, D.C. which assisted companies with their legislative goals using television advertising and public relations. In November 2011, Glover Park was acquired by WPP. At the time, the firm had $60 million in annual revenue.

Sard Verbinnen & Co. was founded in 1992 by George Sard and Paul Verbinnen. The firm managed deals, investor relations, and crises. As of 2021, the company had more than 200 employees.

Hering Schuppener was founded in 1995 by Ralf Hering and Bernd Schuppener and headquartered in Düsseldorf, Germany. The firm assisted with capital market communication including acquisitions, mergers, and restructuring, and advised clients on crisis public relations, reputation issues, and political communication.

Thank you, Charlotte at FGS (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Reverted apparent vandalism
Hi, just popped back on to revert what appeared to be vandalism in the lead. As per many sources, including this Guardian article, FGS is a PR company. Happy to discuss further if needed. Charlotte at FGS (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)