The Board of Directors of The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc. (“Interpublic”, “IPG”, the “Company”, “us”, “we” or “our”) is providing this Proxy Statement in connection with the Annual Meeting of Shareholders, which will be held in the McGraw Hill Building, 1221 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York, at 9:30 a.m., Eastern Time, on Thursday, May 22, 2014.

Interpublic’s principal executive office is located at 1114 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036. The Proxy materials are first being sent to shareholders beginning on or about April 11, 2014.

Our Proxy Statement also is available on our website at http://www.interpublic.com/2014/proxymaterials

Why Did I Receive a Notice in the Mail Regarding the Internet Availability of the Proxy Materials Instead of a Paper Copy of the Proxy Materials?

Again this year, we are taking advantage of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission rule that allows companies to furnish their proxy materials over the Internet. As a result, we are mailing to many of our shareholders of record a notice about the Internet availability of the proxy materials in lieu of a paper copy of the proxy materials. All shareholders receiving this Notice of Availability have the ability to access the proxy materials over the Internet or request to receive a paper copy of the proxy materials by mail. In addition, the Notice of Availability has instructions on how you may request to access proxy materials by mail or electronically on an ongoing basis.

Choosing to access your future proxy materials electronically will help us conserve natural resources and reduce the costs of distributing our proxy

materials. If you choose to access future proxy materials electronically, you will receive in connection with future meetings an email of a Notice of Availability with instructions containing a link to the website where the proxy materials are available and a link to the proxy voting website. Your election to access proxy materials by e-mail will remain in effect until it is terminated by you.

Who Can Vote?

You are entitled to vote or direct the voting of your shares of Interpublic common stock (the “Common Stock”) if you were a shareholder on March 27, 2014, the record date for the Annual Meeting. On March 27, 2014, approximately 424,962,468 shares of Common Stock were outstanding.

Who Is the Holder of Record?

You may own your shares of Common Stock either

If your shares are registered directly in your name, you are the Holder of Record of these shares, and we are sending these proxy materials directly to you. If you hold shares indirectly through a broker, bank or other intermediary, these materials are being sent to you by or on behalf of that entity.

How Do I Vote?

Your vote is important. We encourage you to vote promptly. You may vote in any one of the following ways:

How Many Shares Must be Present to Hold the Annual Meeting?

A quorum is required to transact business at the Annual Meeting. We will have a quorum at the Annual Meeting if the holders of more than 50% of the outstanding shares of Common Stock entitled to vote are present at the meeting, either in person or by proxy.

How Are Votes Counted?

All shares that are the subject of a valid proxy will be voted at the Annual Meeting in accordance with your instructions. If you sign and return your proxy card but do not specify how you wish your shares to be voted,

your shares will be voted in accordance with the following Board of Directors recommendations:

A New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) member broker that holds shares for the account of a customer has the authority to vote on certain limited matters without instructions from the customer. Of the matters being submitted to a vote of shareholders at the Annual Meeting, NYSE rules permit member brokers to vote without instructions only on the proposal to ratify the appointment of our independent auditor. On each of the other matters, NYSE members may not vote without customer instruction. A notation by a broker on a retuned proxy that it is not permitted to vote on particular matters due to the NYSE rules is referred to as a “broker non-vote.”

How Can I Revoke My Proxy or Change My Vote?

You can revoke your proxy or change your vote by:

Who Will Count the Vote?

The Board of Directors has appointed Computershare to act as Inspector of Election at the 2014 Annual Meeting.

Who Is The Proxy Solicitor?

D.F. King & Co., Inc. has been retained by Interpublic to assist with the Annual Meeting, including the distribution of proxy materials and solicitation of votes, for a fee of $18,000, plus reimbursement of expenses to be paid by Interpublic. In addition, our Directors, officers or employees may solicit proxies for us in person or by telephone, facsimile, Internet or other electronic means for which they will not receive any additional compensation. Banks, brokers and others holding stock

for the account of their customers will be reimbursed by Interpublic for out-of-pocket expenses incurred in sending proxy materials to the beneficial owners of such shares.

How do I submit a proposal for inclusion in Interpublic’s 2015 proxy materials?

Shareholder proposals submitted for inclusion in Interpublic’s proxy statement and form of proxy for the 2015 Annual Meeting of Shareholders scheduled to be held on May 21, 2015, must be received by Interpublic by December 12, 2014, in order to be considered for inclusion. Such proposals must comply with all applicable Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) regulations.

How do I submit an item of business for consideration at the 2015 Annual Meeting

A shareholder wishing to introduce an item of business (including the nomination of any person for election as a director of Interpublic) for consideration by shareholders at the 2015 Annual Meeting, other than a shareholder proposal included in the proxy statement as described in response to the preceding question, must comply with Section 2.13(a)(2) of Interpublic’s Bylaws, which requires notice to Interpublic no later than February 21, 2015, and no earlier than January 21, 2015, accompanied by the information required by Section 2.13(a)(2).

At the Annual Meeting, nine Directors are to be elected, each for a one-year term to hold office until the Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held in 2015 and until his or her successor is duly elected or appointed or until his or her earlier death, resignation or removal.

Unless authority is withheld by the shareholder, it is the intention of persons named by Interpublic as proxies on the proxy card to vote “for” the nominees identified in this Proxy Statement or, in the event that any of the nominees is unable or decline to serve (an event not now anticipated), to vote “for” the balance of the nominees and “for” the replacement, if any, nominee designated by the Board of Directors. If no replace is nominated, the size of the Board of Directors will be reduced.

Unless authority is withheld by the shareholder, it is the intention of persons named by Interpublic as proxies on the proxy card to vote “for” the nominees identified in this Proxy Statement or, in the event that any of the nominees is unable or decline to serve (an event not now anticipated), to vote “for” the balance of the nominees and “for” the replacement, if any, nominee designated by the Board of Directors. If no replace is nominated, the size of the Board of Directors will be reduced.

Each of the nominees is currently a Director, and each has been recommended for re-election to the Board of Directors by the Corporate Governance Committee and approved and nominated for re-election by the Board of Directors.

The Board of Directors recommends that shareholders vote “FOR” each of the nominees.

Nominees for Director

The following information on each Director nominee is as of March 27, 2014, and has been provided or confirmed to Interpublic by the nominee.

JOCELYN CARTER-MILLER is President of TechEdVentures, Inc., a community and personal empowerment firm that develops and markets educational and community-based programs. Ms. Carter-Miller was Executive Vice President and Chief Marketing Officer of Office Depot, Inc. from February 2002 until March 2004. Prior to that time, Ms. Carter-Miller was Corporate Vice President and Chief Marketing Officer of Motorola, Inc. from February 1999 until February 2002. Ms. Carter-Miller is also a former board member of the Association of National Advertisers.

Qualifications: Ms. Carter-Miller provides the Board with an important perspective in the marketing field, which is a critical component of Interpublic’s business, based on her extensive executive and marketing experience acquired during her time at Motorola, where she served as its Chief Marketing Officer and more recently as Executive Vice President and Chief Marketing Officer of Office Depot, Inc. Her current work as President of TechEdVentures provides the Board with a meaningful voice in keeping Interpublic focused on its corporate social responsibilities.

JILL M. CONSIDINE served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC) and its subsidiaries (securities depository and clearing houses) from 1999 to 2008. She was President of the New York Clearing House Association, L.L.C. from 1993 to 1998. Ms. Considine served as a Managing Director, Chief Administrative Officer and as a member of the Board of Directors of American Express Bank Ltd., from 1991 to 1993. Prior to that, Ms. Considine served as the New York State Superintendent of Banks from 1985 to 1991. She completed a six-year term as a member of the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in 2008 where she served as Chairman of the Audit and Operational Risk Committee. Ms Considine was appointed as one of three trustees of the AIG Credit Facility Trust by the Federal Reserve Bank of NY and the US Treasury and served from 2009 until 2011 when the trust was terminated. She also served as Non Executive Chairman of Butterfield Fulcrum Group Ltd. (a hedge fund administrator) from January 2008 until 2011 when the company was sold.

Qualifications: Ms. Considine’s history in the financial industry, from her time as a director at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, her senior executive roles at DTCC and New York Clearing House Association, serving as the New York State Superintendent of Banks and to her recent time as Chairman of Butterfield Fulcrum Group Limited, all contribute to the financial expertise of the Board. Her knowledge and experience in financial, credit and liquidity matters provides a valuable perspective beneficial to the Board in its overall assessment and management of Interpublic’s credit and

liquidity positions and overall assessment of industry and operational risks.

RICHARD A. GOLDSTEIN retired as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. (IFF) in May 2006 after serving in that position for six years. Prior to his six years leading IFF, Mr. Goldstein served for 25 years in key executive positions at Unilever, including as Business Group President of Unilever North American Foods from 1996 to June 2000 and as President and Chief Executive Officer of Unilever United States, Inc. from 1989 to June 2000.

Qualifications: Mr. Goldstein brings to the Board his leadership and experience as a former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. His time as Chief Executive Officer of IFF and Unilever United States as well as his directorships at other public companies, provides him with a broad perspective on corporate governance and financial control matters.

H. JOHN GREENIAUS retired as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Nabisco Inc. in 1997 having served in that position between 1993 and 1997. Mr. Greeniaus was named President and CEO of Nabisco in 1989 following KKR’s leveraged buyout of the company and served in that position until 1993. Prior to that time, he held various marketing and general management positions with Nabisco in Canada, Europe and the U.S. Mr. Greeniaus began his career with Procter and Gamble in Canada and subsequently he worked at J. Walter Thompson and PepsiCo before joining Standard Brands, a Nabisco predecessor, in 1977.

Qualifications: Mr. Greeniaus provides insight into the challenges and issues facing a global enterprise from his experience as the former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Nabisco as well as his time managing Nabisco’s European operations. His experience at PepsiCo, where he served as Vice President of Marketing, and his time at J. Walter Thompson allow him to offer valuable perspectives on issues relevant to a marketing services company. Mr. Greeniaus’ prior directorships at other public companies across a variety of industries give him the expertise to provide valuable contributions on accounting and corporate governance matters.

MARY J. STEELE GUILFOILE is currently Chairman of MG Advisors, Inc., a privately owned financial services merger and acquisitions advisory and consulting firm. From 2000 to 2002, Ms. Guilfoile was Executive Vice President and Corporate Treasurer at JPMorgan Chase & Co. and also served as Chief Administrative Officer of its investment bank. Ms. Guilfoile was Partner, CFO and COO of The Beacon Group, LLC, a private equity, strategic advisory and wealth management partnership, from 1996 through 2000. Ms. Guilfoile continues as a Partner of The Beacon Group, LP, a private investment group.

Qualifications: Ms. Guilfoile’s knowledge and expertise as a financial industry executive and her training as a certified public accountant contributes an important perspective to the Board. Ms. Guilfoile’s tenure at JP Morgan Chase, and its predecessor companies, serving as Corporate Treasurer, Chief Administrative Officer for its investment bank, and in various merger integration, executive management and strategic planning positions, as well as her current role as Chairman of MG Advisors, Inc., brings to the Board someone with valuable experience and expertise in corporate governance, accounting, risk management and auditing matters.

DAWN HUDSON has served as Vice Chairman of The Parthenon Group, an advisory firm focused on strategy consulting, since March 2009. Prior to that, Ms. Hudson served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Pepsi-Cola North America, or PCNA, the multi-billion dollar refreshment beverage unit of PepsiCo, Inc. in the United States and Canada from March 2005 until November 2007. From May 2002 through March 2005, Ms. Hudson served as President of PCNA. In addition, Ms. Hudson served as Chief Executive Officer of the PepsiCo Foodservice Division from March 2005 to November 2007. Prior to joining PepsiCo, Ms. Hudson was Managing Director at D’Arcy Masius Benton & Bowles, a leading advertising agency based in New York. Ms. Hudson is a former Chair and board member of the Association of National Advertisers (ANA). In 2006 and 2007, she was named among Fortune Magazine’s “50 Most Powerful Women in Business.” In 2002, she received the honor of “Advertising Woman of the Year” by Advertising Women of New York. Ms. Hudson was also inducted into the American Advertising Federation’s Advertising Hall of Achievement, and has been featured twice in Advertising Age’s “Top 50 Marketers.” Ms. Hudson is the former Chairman of the Board of the Ladies Professional Golf Association.

Qualifications: Ms. Hudson’s extensive experience in strategy and marketing, both at PepsiCo and at major advertising agencies, and her time as Chair of the ANA brings valuable expertise to the Board on matters which are vital to the Company’s business. In addition, her experience as Vice Chair of Pantheon Group, and as the former Chief Executive Officer of Pepsi-Co North America, provides the Board with valuable insight

and perspective on matters involving the Company’s business strategy and planning. Ms. Hudson also provides a unique perspective of having been both on the agency and client side of the industry. Her twelve years of experience on various public company boards is a valuable resource on corporate governance matters.

WILLIAM T. KERR is the retired President and Chief Executive Officer of Arbitron Inc., a media and marketing research firm. He was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Meredith Corporation from 1998 to 2006. He was President and Chief Executive Officer of Meredith Corporation from 1997 to 1998. Mr. Kerr served as President and Chief Operating Officer for Meredith Corporation from 1994 through 1997 and as Executive Vice President of Meredith Corporation and President of its Magazine Group from 1991 through 1994. Prior to that time, Mr. Kerr served as Vice President of The New York Times Company and President of its magazine group, a position he held since 1984.

Qualifications: Mr. Kerr’s general business background and knowledge in the fields of marketing research and media make a valuable contribution to the Board. Serving as Chief Executive Officer and a member of the board of Arbitron, as well as his previous executive experience at Meredith Corporation, a diversified media company, Mr. Kerr provides to the Board the perspective and insights of an organizational leader who has managed issues similar to those faced by Interpublic.

MICHAEL I. ROTH became Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Interpublic in January 2005. Prior to that time Mr. Roth served as Chairman of the Board of Interpublic from July 2004 to January 2005 and has been a director of Interpublic since 2002. Mr. Roth served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of The MONY Group Inc. from February 1994 to June 2004.

Qualifications: Mr. Roth’s leadership and perspective as Interpublic’s Chief Executive Officer gives him an intimate knowledge of the Company’s operations and his role as Chairman of the Board is aided by his successful tenure as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of The MONY Group. Mr. Roth’s other directorships, and his accounting, tax and legal background, as a certified public accountant and holding an L.L.M. degree from New York University Law School, also adds significant value to his overall contributions as a member of the Board and in his role as Chairman.

DAVID M. THOMAS retired as executive chairman of IMS Health Inc. (IMS) in March 2006, after serving in that position since January 2005. From November 2000 until January 2005, Mr. Thomas served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of IMS. Prior to joining IMS, Mr. Thomas was Senior Vice President and Group Executive of IBM from January 1998 to July 2000. Mr. Thomas also serves on the Board of Trustees of Fidelity Investments.

Qualifications: Mr. Thomas’ experience as a Chief Executive Officer and overall management experience at premier global technology companies provides a vital perspective for the Board as it addresses the rapidly changing and growing landscape in advertising and marketing. Such leadership experience is also vital in his role as Presiding Director. Mr. Thomas also provides the Board with a great deal of insight and perspective in the healthcare advertising field having served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of IMS.

The Audit Committee is responsible for the appointment, compensation, retention and oversight of Interpublic’s independent registered public accounting firm. As part of these responsibilities, the Audit Committee reviews the independence and performance of the independent accounting firm in connection with the Committee’s determination of whether to engage another auditor as Interpublic’s independent accounting firm, and is involved in the selection of the independent accounting firm’s lead engagement partner. Included in such assessment is the Committee’s review of the independent accounting firm’s independence and integrity, its expertise, performance and qualifications, as well as the quality of the firm’s personnel and communications.

The Audit Committee and the Board believe that it is in the best interests of Interpublic and our shareholders to retain PricewaterhouseCoopers to serve as our independent registered public accounting firm. In light of this, the Audit Committee has appointed PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (“PricewaterhouseCoopers”) as Interpublic’s independent registered public accounting firm for 2014. This firm has been Interpublic’s independent accounting firm since 1952.

Worldwide Fees (In Millions)

A representative of PricewaterhouseCoopers is expected to be present at the Annual Meeting and will have the opportunity to make a statement and to respond to appropriate questions.

Fees Paid to PricewaterhouseCoopers

The following is a summary and description of the fees for services provided by PricewaterhouseCoopers in 2012 and 2013.

(A) Audit Fees: Consists of fees and out-of-pocket expenses billed for professional services rendered for the audit of Interpublic’s consolidated financial statements and the audit of the effectiveness of Interpublic’s internal control over financial reporting, for review of the interim consolidated financial statements included in quarterly reports and for services that are normally provided by PricewaterhouseCoopers in connection with statutory and regulatory filings or engagements and attest services, except those not required by statute or regulation.

(B) Audit Related Fees: Consists of fees billed for assurance and related services that are reasonably related to the performance of the audit or review of Interpublic’s consolidated financial statements and are not reported under “Audit Fees.” These services include employee benefit plan audits, compliance audits and reviews, attest services that are not required by statute or regulation and consultations concerning financial accounting and reporting standards.

(C) Tax Fees: Consists of tax compliance/preparation and other tax services. Tax compliance/preparation includes fees billed for professional services related to federal, state and international tax compliance, assistance with tax audits and appeals, assistance with custom and duties audits, expatriate tax services and assistance related to the impact of mergers, acquisitions and divestitures on tax return preparation. Other tax services include miscellaneous tax consulting and planning.

(D) All Other Fees: Consists of the performance of studies related to information technology and human resources and financial diligence for potential acquisitions.

Audit Committee Pre-Approval of Audit and Permissible Non-Audit Services of Independent Auditors

The Audit Committee has established policies and procedures regarding pre-approval of all audit and permissible non-audit services provided by the

independent accounting firm and is responsible for the audit fee negotiations associated with the engagement of the independent accounting firm. The permissible non-audit services include the services described above for which we paid Audit Related Fees, Tax Fees and All Other Fees. Under the policy, pre-approval is generally provided for up to one year and any pre-approval is detailed as to the particular service or category of services and is subject to a specific budget. In addition, the Audit Committee may pre-approve particular services on a case-by-case basis. The Audit Committee has delegated pre-approval authority to the Committee’s Chairperson for projects less than $200,000, who must then report any such decision to the Audit Committee at the next scheduled meeting.

The Board of Directors recommends a vote “FOR” the confirmation of the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers as Interpublic’s independent registered public accounting firm for 2014.

The Audit Committee operates under a written charter adopted by the Board. The Board has determined that each member of the Committee is independent and financially literate under the listing standards of the NYSE and satisfies the financial expertise requirements of the NYSE. The Board has also determined that each member of the Audit Committee has the requisite experience to be designated an “audit committee financial expert” as that term is defined by rules of the SEC.

In accordance with its written charter, the primary function of the Audit Committee is to assist the Board of Directors in its oversight of Interpublic’s financial reporting process.

Management is responsible for Interpublic’s consolidated financial statements and overall reporting process, including the system of internal controls. PricewaterhouseCoopers, Interpublic’s independent registered public accounting firm, is responsible for conducting annual audits and quarterly reviews of Interpublic’s consolidated financial statements and expressing opinions as to the conformity of the annual consolidated financial statements with generally accepted accounting principles and the effectiveness of Interpublic’s internal control over financial reporting.

In performing its oversight function for the year ended December 31, 2013, the Audit Committee:

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE GUIDELINES

Interpublic has a strong commitment to maintaining sound corporate governance practices. Interpublic’s Corporate Governance Guidelines are available free of charge on Interpublic’s website at http://www.interpublic.com or by writing to The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc., 1114 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036, Attention: Secretary.

Director Independence

In accordance with NYSE listing standards (the “NYSE Listing Standards”), the Board annually evaluates the independence of each member of the Board of Directors under the independence standards set forth in Interpublic’s Corporate Governance Guidelines, and under the NYSE Listing Standards.

Interpublic has nine directors, one of whom, Michael I. Roth, is an employee of Interpublic (referred to in this Proxy Statement as the “Management Director”) and eight of whom are not employees of Interpublic or its subsidiaries (referred to in this Proxy Statement as “Non-Management Directors”). Of the eight Non-Management Directors, the Corporate Governance Committee determined at its meeting held on February 20, 2014, that each is an independent director under Interpublic’s Corporate Governance Guidelines and the NYSE Listing Standards.

Meeting of Independent Directors

The NYSE Listing Standards require that if the group of Non-Management Directors includes one or more directors who are not independent, then at least once annually, the Non-Management Directors should hold an executive session attended by only independent directors. Although not required under the NYSE Listing Standards for 2014, the Board nevertheless held an executive session of its independent directors on February 20, 2014. Mr. Thomas served as the Chairperson of the executive session.

Director Selection Process

The Corporate Governance Committee is charged with the responsibilities described below under the heading “Principal Committees of the Board of Directors—Corporate Governance Committee.”

One of the Committee’s responsibilities is to identify and recommend to the Board candidates for election as directors. The Committee considers candidates suggested by its members, other directors, senior management and shareholders as necessary in anticipation of upcoming director elections or due to Board vacancies. The Committee is given broad authorization to retain, at the expense of Interpublic, external legal, accounting or other advisers including search firms to identify candidates and to perform “background reviews” of potential candidates. The Committee is expected to provide guidance to search firms it retains about the particular qualifications the Board is then seeking.

All director candidates, including those recommended by shareholders, are evaluated on the same basis. Candidates are considered in light of the entirety of their credentials, including:

In determining the needs of the Board and Interpublic, the Committee considers the qualifications of sitting directors and consults with other members of the Board (including as part of the Board’s annual self-evaluation), the CEO and other members of senior management and, where appropriate, external advisers. All directors are expected to exemplify the highest standards of personal and professional integrity and to assume the responsibility of challenging management through their active and constructive participation and questioning in meetings of the Board and its various committees, as well as in less formal contacts with management.

Director candidates, other than sitting directors, are interviewed by members of the Committee and by other directors, the CEO and other key management personnel, and the results of those interviews are considered by the Committee in its deliberations. The Committee also reviews sitting directors who are considered potential candidates for re-election, in light of the above considerations and their past contributions to the Board.

Shareholders wishing to recommend a director candidate to the Committee for its consideration should write to the Committee, in care of its Chairperson, at The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc., 1114 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036.

Any recommendations will be considered for the next annual election of directors in 2014. A recommendation should include the proposed candidate’s name, biographical data and a description of his or her qualifications in light of the criteria listed above.

Succession Planning

Interpublic’s Board of Directors is actively engaged and involved in talent management. Annually, the Board reviews and analyzes the alignment of Interpublic’s strategy on personnel and succession with its overall business strategy. This includes a detailed discussion of Interpublic’s global leadership bench, strength and succession plans with a focus on key positions at the senior officer level. In addition, the committees of the Board regularly discuss the talent pipeline for specific critical roles at Interpublic and each of its global agencies. The Board seeks opportunities to provide potential leaders with exposure and visibility to Board members through formal presentations and by holding a number of Board and committee meetings throughout the year at key operating units. In addition, the Board is regularly updated on key talent indicators for the overall workforce, including climate, diversity, recruiting and development programs.

COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND NON-MANAGEMENT DIRECTORS

Interested parties may contact Interpublic’s Board of Directors, or the Non-Management Directors as a group, at the following address:

Board of Directors or Non-Management Directors, as applicable:

The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc.

1114 Avenue of the Americas

New York, NY 10036

Communications may also be sent to individual directors at the above address. Communications to the Board, the Non-Management Directors or to any individual director that relate to Interpublic’s

accounting, internal accounting controls or auditing matters will also be referred to the chairperson of the Audit Committee. Other communications will be referred to the Presiding Director (whose responsibilities are described below) or the appropriate committee chairperson.

CODE OF CONDUCT

Interpublic has adopted a set of ethical standards known as the Code of Conduct, which applies to all employees of Interpublic and its subsidiaries and affiliates. Interpublic’s Corporate Governance Guidelines provide that members of the Board of Directors and officers (which includes Interpublic’s Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer and other persons performing similar functions) must comply with the Code of Conduct. In addition, the Corporate Governance Guidelines state that the Board will not waive any provision of the Code of Conduct for any Director or executive officer. The Code of Conduct, including future amendments, is available free of charge on Interpublic’s website at http://www.interpublic.com or by writing to The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc., 1114 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036, Attention: Secretary.

MEETINGS AND COMMITTEES OF THE BOARD

Board Structure and Committees

The standing committees of the Board consist of the Executive Committee, the Compensation and Leadership Talent Committee, the Corporate Governance Committee and the Audit Committee. The activities of the Compensation and Leadership Talent Committee, the Corporate Governance Committee and the Audit Committee are each governed by a charter that is available free of charge on Interpublic’s website at http://www.interpublic.com or by writing to The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc., 1114 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036, Attention: Secretary. A description of the responsibilities of each standing

Committee of the Board is provided below under the heading “Principal Committees of the Board of Directors.”

Attendance at Board of Directors and Committee Meetings

The Corporate Governance Guidelines provide that each director is expected to prepare for, attend and participate in, at least 75% of all regularly scheduled and special meetings of the Board, absent special circumstances. The Board of Directors held 6 meetings in 2013 and committees of the Board held a total of 22 meetings. During 2013, each director attended 75% or more of the total number of meetings of the Board of Directors and committees on which he or she served.

Attendance at Annual Meeting of Shareholders

Interpublic does not have a specific policy for attendance by directors at the Annual Meeting of Shareholders. However, each current director, each of whom was a director at the time of the 2013 Annual Meeting, attended the meeting.

Executive Committee

The Executive Committee is authorized, when the Board of Directors is not in session, to exercise all powers of the Board of Directors which, under Delaware law and the by-laws of Interpublic, may properly be delegated to a committee, except certain powers that have been delegated to other committees of the Board of Directors or reserved for the Board of Directors itself. Due to the frequency of meetings of the Board and other committees of the Board, the Executive Committee did not hold any meetings in 2013.

Corporate Governance Committee

The Corporate Governance Committee is responsible for recommending to the Board of Directors the persons to be nominated for election to the Board of Directors and the membership and chairman of each Board committee. The other responsibilities of the Corporate Governance Committee include the establishment of criteria for membership on the Board and its committees, the review and recommendation to the Board as to the independence of Non-Management Directors under the requirements set forth in Interpublic’s Corporate Governance Guidelines and the NYSE Listing Standards, the evaluation on an annual basis of the collective performance of the Board and the Board’s committees, the recommendation to the Board of compensation and benefits for Non-Management Directors, the establishment and recommendation to the Board the process and procedures of the emergency CEO succession plan, the review and general oversight of the Company’s corporate social responsibility programs and practices, and the periodic assessment and recommendation to the Board of the best practices in corporate governance matters generally. The Corporate Governance Committee is authorized to hire experts or other independent advisers or legal counsel, at Interpublic’s expense, to assist the Committee in the discharge of its duties. Each member of the Corporate Governance Committee is a Non-Management Director and is independent in accordance with the standards set forth in Interpublic’s Corporate Governance Guidelines and the NYSE Listing Standards.

Audit Committee

The Audit Committee assists the Board in fulfilling its oversight responsibilities with respect to (i) the annual financial information to be provided to shareholders and the SEC; (ii) the system of internal controls that management has established; and (iii) the internal and external audit processes. The Committee is also responsible for the selection, compensation, retention and oversight of Interpublic’s independent accounting firm and the review of its compensation. Specific activities of the Audit Committee are described in the Audit Committee Report on page 12. Other responsibilities of the Audit Committee are described below under the heading “Risk Management.” The Audit Committee is authorized to hire experts or other independent advisers or legal counsel, at Interpublic’s expense, to assist the Audit Committee in the discharge of its duties. Each member of the Audit Committee is a Non-Management Director and is independent in accordance with the standards set forth in Interpublic’s Corporate Governance Guidelines and the NYSE Listing Standards. The Board has determined that each member of the Audit Committee qualifies as an “audit committee financial expert” within the meaning of applicable SEC rules.

Compensation and Leadership Talent Committee

The Compensation and Leadership Talent Committee (the “Compensation Committee”) is responsible for the adoption and periodic review of an executive remuneration strategy for Interpublic and its subsidiaries, with a view to ensuring that compensation for key senior executives is designed to incentivize and reward long-term growth, profitability and return to shareholders.

In the execution of such duties, the Compensation Committee is responsible for approving the compensation paid to senior executives of Interpublic and its subsidiaries. For these purposes, compensation includes but is not limited to: (i) salary, (ii) deferred compensation, (iii) bonuses and other extra compensation of all types, including annual and long-term performance incentive awards under Interpublic’s 2009 Performance Incentive Plan (the

“2009 PIP”), (iv) awards under the Amended and Restated Interpublic Restricted Cash Plan, (v) insurance premiums paid for by Interpublic or any of its subsidiaries other than group plans, (vi) annuities and individual retirement arrangements, (vii) benefits under the Executive Special Benefit Agreements, (viii) benefits under Interpublic’s Senior Executive Retirement Income Plan, and (ix) benefits under Interpublic’s Capital Accumulation Plan. The Compensation Committee also administers the 2009 PIP (and its predecessors) and the Employee Stock Purchase Plan (2006).

The Compensation Committee is responsible for approving the adoption of new plans and changes made to existing plans and makes recommendations to the Board with respect to incentive compensation and equity based programs. The Compensation Committee also reviews initiatives of Interpublic and its subsidiaries to retain and develop key employees on an ongoing basis and coordinates, manages and reports to the Board on the annual performance evaluation of key executives of Interpublic. The Compensation Committee is authorized to hire experts or other independent advisers or legal counsel, at Interpublic’s expense, to assist the Compensation Committee in the discharge of its duties.

The Compensation Committee’s primary processes for establishing and overseeing executive compensation are described in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis under the heading “Setting Compensation for the Named Executive Officers.” Each member of the Compensation Committee is a Non-Management Director and is independent in accordance with the standards set forth in Interpublic’s Corporate Governance Guidelines and the NYSE Listing Standards.

Board Leadership Structure

The Board continually examines its policies to ensure that Interpublic’s corporate governance and Board structure are designed to maximize the Company’s effectiveness. Currently, the Board believes that Interpublic’s Chief Executive Officer is best situated to serve as Chairman because he is the director most

familiar with the operations of the Company, and most capable of determining the strategic and operational priorities of Interpublic and leading discussions with the Board. To ensure a proper level of independent board oversight, the Board has also designated a Presiding Director, who has the duties described below. The Board believes that the corporate governance measures it has in place ensure that strong, independent directors effectively oversee our management and provide vigorous oversight of our key issues relating to strategy, risk and integrity.

Interpublic’s Board structure allows for independent directors to bring experience, oversight and expertise from outside Interpublic and other industries, while the Chief Executive Officer brings a company-specific knowledge base and expertise. The Board believes that the combined role of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer promotes more effective strategy development and execution and enhances the information flow between management and the Board, which are essential to effective governance. The Board believes the combined role of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, together with a Presiding Director, provides the most efficient and effective leadership structure for Interpublic, and accordingly is in the best interests of Interpublic and our shareholders.

Presiding Director

The Presiding Director of the Board helps to coordinate communications between the Board and management of Interpublic. Specifically, the Presiding Director, convenes and chairs meetings and executive sessions of the Non-Management Directors, coordinates feedback to the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer on behalf of the Non-Management Directors on business issues and management, and coordinates and develops with the Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer the agendas and presentations for meetings of the Board. Mr. Thomas currently serves as the Presiding Director.

Risk Management

The Board and its committees have an active role in the oversight and management of Interpublic’s risks. Elements of the Board’s risk management practices include:

Each committee also regularly informs the Board of any

potential issues or concerns raised when performing its risk management duties.

REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF TRANSACTIONS WITH RELATED PERSONS

Interpublic’s Code of Conduct requires directors and employees to avoid activities that could conflict with the interests of Interpublic, except for transactions that are disclosed and approved in advance. Interpublic has adopted a Related Person Transaction Policy under which approval is required for any transaction, agreement or relationship between Interpublic or any of its consolidated subsidiaries and a Related Person (a “Related Person Transaction”).

Under the Related Person Transaction Policy, a “Related Person” is defined as any (i) director, nominee for election as a director, an executive officer or any of their “immediate family members” (as defined by the Related Person Transaction Policy); (ii) any entity, including not-for-profit and charitable organizations, controlled by or in which any of the foregoing persons have a substantial beneficial ownership interest; or (iii) any person who is known to be, at the time of the transaction, the beneficial owner of more than 5% of the voting securities of Interpublic or an immediate family member of such person.

Under the policy, Related Person Transactions do not include any employee benefit plan, program, agreement or arrangement that has been approved by the Compensation Committee or recommended by the Compensation Committee for approval by the Board.

To facilitate compliance with the policy, the Code of Conduct requires that employees, including directors and executive officers, report circumstances that may create or appear to create a conflict between the personal interests of the individual and the interests of Interpublic, regardless of the amount involved, to Interpublic’s Chief Risk Officer using Interpublic’s Compliance Report Form. Each director and executive

officer annually confirms to the Company certain information about Related Person Transactions as part of the preparation of Interpublic’s Annual Report on Form 10-K and its annual proxy statement. Director nominees and persons promoted to executive officer positions must also confirm such information at the time of their nomination or promotion. Management also reviews its records and makes additional inquiries of management personnel and, as appropriate, third parties and other sources of information for the purpose of identifying Related Person Transactions, including Related Person Transactions involving beneficial owners of more than 5% of Interpublic’s voting securities.

The Audit Committee reviews transactions subject to the Related Person Transaction Policy and determines whether or not to approve or disapprove those transactions, by examining whether or not the transactions are fair, reasonable and within Interpublic policy. The Audit Committee makes its determination by taking into account all relevant factors and any controls that may be implemented to protect the interests of Interpublic and its shareholders. Among the factors that the Audit Committee takes into account in determining whether a transaction is fair and reasonable, as applicable, are the following:

No director may participate in any consideration or approval of a Related Person Transaction with respect

to which he or she or any of his or her immediate family members is the Related Person. Related Person Transactions entered into, but not approved or ratified as required by the Related Person Transaction Policy, are subject to termination by Interpublic. If the transaction has been completed, the Audit Committee will consider if rescission of the transaction is appropriate and whether disciplinary action is warranted.

Related Person Transactions

Since January 1, 2013, there have been no transactions involving a Related Person identified in the responses to the annual questionnaire sent to each director and executive officer of Interpublic or that otherwise are known to the Audit Committee or Interpublic.

DIRECTOR SHARE OWNERSHIP GUIDELINES

The Compensation Committee has adopted Common Stock ownership guidelines for Non-Management Directors. These guidelines set the minimum ownership expectations for Non-Management Directors at a value of $300,000, which represents three times the Directors’ current annual cash retainer of $100,000. Non-Management Directors elected after 2009 have five years from their initial election to meet this guideline. Outstanding shares of restricted stock are included in a Director’s share ownership, but Common Stock underlying unexercised stock options is not included. The Company believes that the equity component of director compensation serves to further align the Non-Management Directors with the interests of our shareholders. For information about share ownership of our Non-Management Directors, see “Non-Management Director Compensation” on page 23 and “Share Ownership of Management” on page 110. For a discussion of the share ownership guidelines applicable to Interpublic’s executives, see “Compensation Discussion and Analysis — Share Ownership Guidelines.” As of December 31, 2013, all Non-Management Directors had met or exceeded these guidelines.

Annual Board/Committee Retainer Fees

During 2013, each Non-Management Director received as cash compensation for services rendered an annual retainer of $100,000. No additional compensation was paid for attendance at Board or committee meetings.

For 2013, the Chairpersons of the Compensation Committee and the Audit Committee each received an additional annual retainer of $20,000 and the Chairperson of the Corporate Governance Committee received an additional annual retainer of $15,000 per year. Effective April 1, 2013, Mr. Kerr was appointed as chair of the Compensation Committee, replacing Ms. Considine and Mr. Thomas was appointed as chair of the Corporate Governance Committee, replacing Mr. Goldstein and the chairperson fees for each respective committee were split between such chairpersons.

Presiding Director Retainer Fees

For 2013, the Presiding Director of the Board received a retainer of $25,000. Mr. Goldstein who served as Presiding Director through March 31, 2013, received $6,250 and Mr. Thomas, who was appointed Presiding Director effective April 1, 2013, received $18,750. This retainer was in addition to any retainers for service each received as a Non-Management Director and during their respective time in 2013 serving as the Chairperson of the Corporate Governance Committee.

Non-Management Directors Plan

Each Non-Management Director in 2013 also received, as consideration for services rendered as a member of the Board, an award of restricted shares of Common Stock having a market value of $150,000 on the date of grant (the “Restricted Shares”) under the 2009 Interpublic Non-Management Directors’ Stock Incentive Plan, which was approved by the shareholders in 2009 (the “2009 Directors Plan”).

Under the terms of the 2009 Director Plan, a recipient of restricted shares has all rights of ownership with respect to the shares, including the right to vote and

to receive dividends, except that, during a restricted period ending on the first anniversary of that date of the grant, (i) the recipient is prohibited from selling or otherwise transferring the shares and (ii) the shares are subject to forfeiture if the recipient’s service as a director terminates for any reason.

On May 30, 2013, in accordance with the 2009 Directors’ Plan, Mss. Carter-Miller, Considine, Guilfoile and Hudson and Messrs. Goldstein, Greeniaus, Kerr and Thomas each received a grant of 10,460 Restricted Shares.

Deferred Compensation

Mr. Goldstein and Ms. Considine each have an agreement with Interpublic under which they deferred all director fees for service before 2007. In 2013, the amounts deferred earned interest credits at an annual rate of 0.16%. The amounts deferred and accrued interest will be paid in a lump-sum within 30 days after the director’s separation from the Board. This rate did not constitute “above-market” or “preferential” earnings on deferred compensation as defined by SEC rules.

Charitable Matching Program

Under a charitable matching program (the “Charitable Matching Program”), which was approved by the Board of Directors and has been in effect for a number of years, Interpublic matches up to $20,000 in charitable contributions made to eligible charities and academic institutions by members of the Board of Directors and certain senior management employees of Interpublic and its subsidiaries.

In accordance with a requirement under the federal securities laws, enacted as part of the recent Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) and SEC rules thereunder, we are submitting to an advisory vote of shareholders the compensation of our named executive officers as disclosed in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis, the compensation tables, and the narrative discussion set forth on pages 26 to 91 of this Proxy Statement. In addition to complying with the requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Board recognizes that providing shareholders with an advisory vote on named executive officer compensation may produce useful information on investor sentiment with regard to the Company’s executive compensation programs.

At our annual meeting of shareholders held in May 2013, a substantial majority of the Company’s shareholders voted on an advisory basis to approve the compensation of the Company’s named executive officers. The Compensation Committee believes this reflects shareholders’ support of the Company’s approach to executive compensation.

As described in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis section of this Proxy Statement, our compensation principles and underlying programs, as developed and administered by the Compensation Committee, are designed to provide a competitive level of compensation necessary to attract, motivate and retain talented and experienced executives who are crucial to our long-term success. The compensation paid to our named executive officers reflects our commitment to pay for performance and includes long-term cash and equity awards that are designed to encourage management to achieve results to the mutual benefit of shareholders and management. Moreover, a significant portion of our named executive officers’ annual cash compensation is paid in the form of annual performance-based incentives, which are contingent on the Company’s achievement of predefined performance measures.

We encourage you to carefully review the Compensation Discussion and Analysis beginning on page 26 of this Proxy Statement for additional details on Interpublic’s executive compensation, including Interpublic’s compensation philosophy and objectives, as well as the processes our Compensation Committee

used to determine the structure and amounts of the compensation received by our named executive officers in fiscal 2013. The Compensation Committee and the Board believe that these policies and procedures are effective in implementing our compensation philosophy and in achieving its goals.

We are asking you to indicate your support for the compensation of our named executive officers as described in this Proxy Statement. This vote is not intended to address any specific item of compensation, but rather the overall compensation of our named executive officers and the philosophy, policies and practices described in this Proxy Statement. Accordingly, we are asking you to vote, on an advisory basis, “For” the following resolution at the Annual Meeting:

“RESOLVED, that the compensation paid to the named executive officers of The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc., as described in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis, compensation tables and narrative discussion set forth on pages 26 to 91 of this Proxy Statement, is hereby approved.”

While the results of this advisory vote are not binding, the Compensation Committee will consider the outcome of the vote in deciding whether to take any action as a result of the vote and when making future v for named executive officers.

The Board of Directors recommends that you vote “FOR” the resolution approving the compensation of our named executive officers as disclosed in this Proxy Statement.

This section of our Proxy Statement provides an overview of our compensation philosophy and our executive compensation programs, which are designed to reward our senior leaders for effectively building long-term shareholder value. This section of the Proxy Statement also details how we pay our “Named Executive Officers,” as well as the factors weighed by the Compensation and Leadership Talent Committee of our Board of Directors (the “Committee”) in arriving at specific compensation policies and decisions involving executive pay in 2013.

Our 2013 Named Executive Officers:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Executive Compensation Highlights for 2013

Our executive compensation programs are aligned with best practices in corporate governance:

We align pay with performance. Our incentive plans are closely tied to performance making the ultimate payout from these incentives higher when performance is strong and, conversely, lower or zero when performance is weak. This correlation between our performance and pay aligns Executive Officers with the interests of our shareholders. The incentives provided to our Named Executive Officers (NEOs) are 100% performance-based and are earned based on achieving corporate financial goals, with the exception that our Chairman & CEO receives a portion (1/3) of his long-term incentives in stock options which are tied directly to our stock price performance. In 2013, our NEOs, on average, received approximately 77% of total target compensation in variable pay (annual and long-term incentives).

Our programs require executive share ownership. We adopted share ownership guidelines in 2007; in 2012, we increased our Chairman & CEO’s required share ownership guideline from 5x to 6x base salary. All NEOs are in compliance with or are in progress of achieving their established ownership guideline. Beginning in 2013, those executives who have not met their established guideline level in the time allotted were required to hold all net after-tax shares delivered from equity vestings until requirements are met.

Our incentive plan includes appropriate safeguards. We prohibit our NEOs and other senior executives from engaging in any transaction involving derivatives designed to hedge against the risk associated with ownership of IPG shares. Our Performance Incentive Plan prohibits the repricing of stock options without shareholder approval and does not allow for the granting of “reload” stock options which provide for the grant of additional stock options upon the exercise of previously granted stock options. In addition, we adopted a “clawback” policy under which compensation can be

recovered in the event of a significant restatement of our financial results due to fraud or misconduct.

We appropriately limit guaranteed compensation. As indicated above, the majority of our compensation is performance based. As shown on page 64 in footnote 6 of the Summary Compensation Table, we do not provide company-paid perquisites to our most senior executives. We also do not provide for any cash severance payments that exceed 2.99 times the sum of base salary and target bonus. Dividends cannot be earned on unvested performance shares.

We do not provide for any excise tax gross-up payments. Section 4999 of the Internal Revenue Code imposes excise taxes if payments made to executives due to a change of control exceed certain limits. If IPG were to experience a change of control, payments to our executives may be reduced to avoid adverse tax consequences to the executive, but under no circumstances would IPG provide additional payments to cover these excise taxes.

These practices were validated at our annual meeting of shareholders in May 2013 when a substantial number of votes (98%) were cast in favor of our executive compensation. Given that an overwhelming majority of shareholders supported our pay practices in 2012, we did not make any significant structural changes to our compensation programs in 2013.

2013 Business Highlights

Significant progress was made by our company in 2013 on a number of important fronts.

INTERPUBLIC OVERVIEW EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

financial infrastructure and deploy our balance sheet to enhance value creation.

transactions that improved our credit position and will yield go-forward savings that will significantly enhance shareholder value. Our return of capital programs saw us repurchase an additional 32 million shares, bringing the total amount that has been put to work on behalf of our owners to $1.6 billion. Cash flow generation for the year was also significantly improved relative to 2012. These factors combined to positively impact the company’s financial results which, along with our strong growth prospects, were evident in our outstanding share performance.

Target Compensation

For 2013, approximately 88% of the target total compensation (excluding benefits) for the Chairman & CEO was variable pay, while on average variable pay represented 74% of target total compensation (excluding benefits) for all other NEOs. For our NEOs, 100% of the annual incentives and performance-based awards could be earned only if corporate financial performance goals were met. Note: In order to link a portion of compensation for the Chairman & CEO directly to shareholder interests, 1/3 of target long-term incentives were granted in stock options tied directly to our stock price performance.

2013 Target Compensation Pay Mix for Chairman & CEO

2013 Target Compensation Pay Mix for

all other NEOs (excluding Chairman & CEO)

2013 Compensation Highlights

The Committee annually reviews the Company’s compensation policies and programs and continues to believe that they encourage executives to remain focused on delivering against both the short-term and long-term goals of the Company. In 2013, the Committee made the following few adjustments to remain competitive in the market for talent, to strengthen the retention of our current NEOs and continue strengthening the linkage between pay and long-term performance:

restructuring and impairment charges, and after the cost of all incentives and a commensurate reduction in the percentage of the target annual incentive tied to strategic and non-financial goals. The Committee increased the annual incentive target for Mr. Roth from 160% to 200% and for Messrs. Mergenthaler and Krakowsky from 100% to 125%. These increases were to provide better alignment with the market and in consideration of increased responsibilities within the roles for Messrs. Mergenthaler and Krakowsky. No changes were made to the annual incentive target levels for other NEOs.

COMPENSATION PHILOSOPHY AND BASIC PRINCIPLES

Our executive compensation philosophy remains to provide a performance-based, market-competitive total compensation program that:

Our success continues to depend on our ability to attract, motivate and retain a diverse group of talented individuals throughout our organization – who will enable us to deliver the best and most contemporary marketing solutions to drive our clients’ businesses. Talent is our Company’s most vital asset, which is why it represents our most significant expense. We must continue to ensure that the investments we make in our key people are disciplined and designed to drive results. To this end, our compensation programs are guided by the following basic principles:

HOW COMPENSATION DECISIONS ARE MADE

Role of the Compensation and Leadership Talent Committee

The Committee is responsible for establishing, implementing and continually monitoring adherence to the Company’s compensation philosophy, as well as approving compensation awarded to senior corporate and operating executives, including the NEOs. Among its duties, the Committee is responsible for formulating the compensation recommendations for our Chairman & CEO and approving all compensation recommendation for select senior executives. Following review and discussion, the Committee submits its recommendations for compensation for the Chairman & CEO to the non-employee members of our Board for approval. The Committee is supported in its work by the EVP, Chief Strategy and Talent Officer, his staff, and an independent executive compensation consultant as described below.

The Committee’s charter, which sets out its duties and responsibilities and addresses other matters, can be found on our website at www.interpublic.com.

Role of Executive Officers and Management in Compensation Decisions

The Committee makes all pay decisions related to the NEOs. The Chairman & CEO does not participate in the Committee’s deliberations or decisions with regard to his own compensation.

At the Committee’s request, the Chairman & CEO does present individual pay recommendations to the Committee for the CFO, the other NEOs and other executives whose compensation arrangements are subject to the Committee’s review. The Chairman & CEO’s pay recommendations for such executives are informed by his assessments of individual contributions to the Company’s financial performance, achievement of specified performance or strategic objectives, Talent Review results, as well as competitive pay data and other factors. These recommendations are then considered by the Committee with the assistance of its independent consultant.

The Chairman & CEO, the EVP, Chief Strategy and Talent Officer, the SVP, General Counsel & Secretary, and the Vice President of Global Executive Compensation all attend Committee meetings, but are not present for the Committee’s executive sessions, or for any discussion of their own compensation. Other senior executives, as appropriate to the topic, may be asked to attend Committee meetings to provide relevant information or advice, but they also do not attend executive sessions, or any discussion of their own compensation.

Role of Independent Consultant

In 2013, the Committee again retained the services of an external independent executive compensation consultant, Meridian Compensation Partners, LLC (“Meridian”), to work for the Committee in its review of executive and non-employee director compensation practices, including the competitiveness of pay levels, executive compensation design issues, market trends, and technical considerations.

At no time during 2013, nor at any other time, has the Committee directed Meridian to perform its services in any particular manner, or using any particular methodology.

The Committee has the final authority to hire and terminate the consultant, and the Committee evaluates the consultant annually. Pursuant to SEC rules, the Committee has assessed the independence of Meridian and concluded that no conflict of interest exists that would prevent Meridian from independently representing the Committee. Meridian does not provide any consulting advice to IPG, or any of its subsidiaries, outside the scope of executive compensation and will not do so without the prior consent of the Committee Chair. Meridian meets with the Committee chair and the Committee outside the presence of management.

Role of Shareholder Say-on-Pay Votes

We provide our shareholders with the opportunity to cast an annual advisory vote on executive compensation (a “say-on-pay proposal”). At our annual

meeting of shareholders held in May 2013, a substantial majority of the votes (98%) cast on the say-on-pay proposal at that meeting were voted in favor of the proposal. The Committee believes this affirms shareholders’ support of our approach to executive compensation, and the Committee did not change the structure of its programs in 2013. The Committee will continue to consider the outcome of the Company’s say-on-pay votes and evolving best practices in this area when making future compensation decisions for the NEOs.

Setting Compensation for the Named Executive Officers

The Committee reviews and assesses the total compensation of each NEO on an annual basis. Material changes in compensation typically occur only based on performance, in response to significant changes in an individual’s responsibility, due to changes in market conditions, or in limited circumstances when the Company is at risk of losing a highly talented and valued employee.

Compensation decisions are made based on the following information:

USE OF COMPETITIVE DATA FOR COMPENSATION REVIEWS

The Market for Talent

In order to ensure our compensation programs reflect best practices, as well as to maintain competitive compensation program designs and levels, the Committee considers market data and compensation ranges of our peer group. In 2012, the Committee considered market data from two separate peer groups when making compensation decisions. In 2013, the Committee reevaluated the compensation peers and approved a single peer group that reflects both talent peers as well as industry peers. The Committee believes that this change in peer group is appropriate given the recent industry consolidation.

In December 2012, Meridian Compensation Partners conducted its annual market review to assess the competitiveness of each NEO’s target total compensation (consisting of base salary, target annual incentives and target long-term incentives). Compensation data were analyzed for comparable positions at the 2012 Compensation Peer Group (detailed in the column to the right) as well as several published survey sources. Compensation data for comparable positions at peer companies were adjusted to reflect IPG’s size by considering the correlation between revenue and pay using a common statistical technique called regression analysis. Retirement benefits are reviewed independently, with the last review conducted in 2011.

Using these size-adjusted data, the 2012 study concluded that, executives in aggregate, were positioned near the median of the market for total compensation, however certain officers had various elements of pay that were either above or below this level. The Committee utilized this information, as well as other incumbent specific factors, to determine whether any pay adjustments were warranted for 2013.

Due to an increasingly convergent media landscape, the Company increasingly competes for executive talent not only with direct industry peers but also a broader group of companies. To reflect this key development and capture the full scope of labor markets in which the Company now sources talent, the annual compensation review benchmarked pay against peers that include industry comparitors as well as companies in other industries. In 2012, the Committee considered two separate peer groups when making compensation decisions, one included direct advertising and marketing services peers while the other included talent peers. This 2012 Compensation Peer Group is detailed below: