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 Paley Center for Media, 25 West 52 Street, New York, NY, at 9:30 a.m., Eastern Time, on Thursday,

May 21, 2015. 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 10, 2015.

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

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

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 of the Internet availability of the proxy materials in lieu of a paper copy of the proxy materials. All shareholders receiving this Notice of Availability may access the proxy materials over the Internet or request 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 reduce the costs of distributing our proxy materials and helps conserve natural resources. 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 electronically 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, 2015, the record date for the Annual Meeting. On March 27, 2015, approximately 413,571,842 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 returned proxy that it is not permitted to vote on particular matters due to the NYSE rules is referred to as a “broker non-vote.”

What Vote is Required to Approve Each Proposal?

The table below shows the vote required to approve the matters being submitted to a vote of shareholders at the Annual Meeting:

*Advisory and Non-binding

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 2015 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 compensation other than their regular compensation as directors, officer and employees. 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 2016 proxy materials?

Shareholder proposals submitted for inclusion in Interpublic’s proxy statement and form of proxy for the 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders scheduled to be held on May 19, 2016, must be received by Interpublic by December 11, 2015, 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 2016 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 2016 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, 2016, and no earlier than January 22, 2016, accompanied by the information required by Section 2.13(a)(2).

ITEM 1. ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

At the Annual Meeting, ten Directors are to be elected, each for a one-year term. The directors so elected will hold office until the Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held in 2016 and until his or her successor is duly elected and qualified 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 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 replacement 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, 2015, 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.

DEBORAH G. ELLINGER is the former Chief Executive Officer of The Princeton Review, a test preparation and college admission services company, where she served in that role from 2012 until 2014. Ms. Ellinger previously served as President of Restoration Hardware in 2009. Prior to that, she was the Chief Executive Officer of Wellness Pet Food from 2004 to 2008. Ms. Ellinger also served as Executive Vice President, Business Development and Strategy at CVS Pharmacy from 2001 to 2003, Senior Vice President, Strategic Planning and Business Development at Staples from 1999 to 2001 and was a partner at The Boston Consulting Group. Ms. Ellinger began her career with Mellon Financial Corporation. Ms. Ellinger also served as a director of National Life Group from 2007 until 2014, and as a director of Sealy, Inc. from 2010 to 2013. She is qualified as a Barrister-at-Law in London, as a member of the Inner Temple. Ms. Ellinger holds an M.A. and B.A. in Law and Mathematics from the University of Cambridge. Ms. Ellinger is a member of the Board of Directors of iRobot Corporation.

Qualifications: With her experience as a CEO and executive of several large, consumer-focused companies across a wide variety of industries, Ms. Ellinger brings to the Board significant organizational and operational management skills, combined with extensive experience in international, consumer oriented businesses vital to a large public company in the marketing and advertising space. Her executive business development positions at both Staples and CVS Pharmacy also provides the Board with valuable insight and expertise in its oversight of the Company’s business strategy.

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 & 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.

Public Directorships:

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 Chief Marketing Officer for the National Football League since October 2014. Previously, she served from 2009 to 2014 as vice chairman of The Parthenon Group, an advisory firm focused on strategy consulting. Prior to that time, 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 2005 until 2007. From 2002 to 2005, Ms. Hudson served as President of PCNA. In addition, Ms. Hudson served as Chief Executive Officer of the PepsiCo Foodservice Division from 2005 to 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 Parthenon 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.

HENRY S. MILLER has been Chairman of Marblegate Asset Management, LLC, a privately owned asset management firm, since 2009. Mr. Miller was co-founder, Chairman and a Managing Director of Miller Buckfire & Co., LLC, an investment bank, from 2002 to 2011 and Chief Executive Officer from 2002 to 2009. Prior to founding Miller Buckfire & Co., LLC, Mr. Miller was Vice Chairman and a Managing Director at Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein and its predecessor company

Wasserstein Perella & Co., where he served as the global head of the firm’s financial restructuring group.

Qualifications: Mr. Miller’s expertise and knowledge as a financial industry executive contributes an important perspective to the Board on the Company’s business strategy and financial control matters.

JONATHAN F. MILLER was the Chairman and Chief Executive of News Corporation’s digital media group and News Corporation’s Chief Digital Officer from April 2009 until October 2012. Mr. Miller had previously been a founding partner of Velocity Interactive Group (“Velocity”), an investment firm focusing on digital media and the consumer Internet, from its inception in February 2007 until April 2009. Prior to founding Velocity, Mr. Miller served as Chief Executive Officer of AOL LLC (“AOL”) from August 2002 to December 2006. Prior to joining AOL, Mr. Miller served as Chief Executive Officer and President of USA Information and Services, of USA Interactive, a predecessor to IAC/InterActiveCorp.

Qualifications: Mr. Miller’s extensive knowledge and senior leadership positions in the media industry, including executive roles at News Corporation, American Online, Inc. and USA Networks Information, provides the Board with a broad and valuable perspective and expertise on the complex media and advertising landscape.

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), a healthcare information, services and technology company, 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.

ITEM 2. APPOINTMENT OF REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

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 2015. This firm has been Interpublic’s independent accounting firm since 1952.

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 2013 and 2014.

(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 Auditor

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.

AUDIT COMMITTEE REPORT

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, 2014, the Audit Committee:

Based on the review and discussions referred to above, the Audit Committee recommended to the Board of Directors that the audited consolidated financial statements be included in Interpublic’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014.

THE AUDIT COMMITTEE

Mary J. Steele Guilfoile, Chairman

Jocelyn Carter-Miller

Dawn Hudson

David M. Thomas

February 18, 2015

ITEM 3. ADVISORY VOTE TO APPROVE NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICER COMPENSATION

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 21 to 58 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 2014, a substantial majority of the Company’s shareholders voted on an advisory basis to approve the compensation received by our named executive officers in fiscal 2013. 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 pre-defined performance measures.

We encourage you to carefully review the Compensation Discussion and Analysis beginning on page 21 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 2014. 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 21 to 58 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 compensation decisions for named executive officers.

OUR CORPORATE GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK

Our corporate governance framework is designed to ensure strong commitment to maintaining sound corporate governance practices. Our governance framework enables independent and skilled directors to provide oversight, advice, and counsel to promote the interests of Interpublic and its shareholders. Key governance policies and processes include our code of conduct, our comprehensive enterprise-wide risk management program, our commitment to transparent financial reporting, and our systems of internal checks and balances.

You may view our Corporate Governance Guidelines, and the charters of each of our board committees, and the codes

of conduct for our employees and directors on Interpublic’s website at http://www.interpublic.com or you may obtain copies free of charge by writing to The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc., 1114 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036, Attention: Secretary. These documents provide the framework for our governance at the board level. Our directors understand that they serve you as shareholders in carrying out their responsibility to oversee the operation and strategic direction of our company. To do so effectively, our board along with management regularly reviews our Corporate Governance Guidelines, our charters and practices to assure that they are appropriate and reflect high standards.

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 ten directors, one of whom, Michael I. Roth, is an employee of Interpublic (referred to in this Proxy Statement as the “Management Director”) and nine of whom are not employees of Interpublic or its subsidiaries (referred to in this Proxy Statement as “Non-Management Directors”). At its meeting held on March 25, 2015, the Corporate Governance Committee determined that each of the Non-Management Directors 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 2015 (because all of the Non-Management Directors are independent), the Board nevertheless held several executive sessions of its independent directors during 2014, with Mr. Thomas in his role of the Presiding Director serving as the chairperson of the sessions.

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.

Effective as of March 1, 2015, Deborah Ellinger, Henry Miller and Jonathan Miller, were elected as directors by the Board (the “New Directors”). The New Directors were initially identified to the Corporate Governance Committee through a combination of a third party search firm used by the Board and candidates identified by a significant shareholder of the Company. Prior to their election, the Committee performed a review of the backgrounds and qualifications, including interviews with each New Director, on the basis of which the Committee recommended each New Director to the Board as a nominee for election by the Board. Each of the New Directors has been nominated for election by the shareholders at the 2015 annual Meeting.

Each of the directors nominated for election at the 2015 annual meeting were evaluated and recommended to the Board for nomination by the Corporate Governance Committee, and nominated by the Board for election.

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 2016. 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 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 work environment, diversity, recruiting and development programs.

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, may be viewed on Interpublic’s website at http://www.interpublic.com or a copy may be obtained free of charge by writing to The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc., 1114 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036, Attention: SVP, General Counsel and Secretary.

Interested parties may contact Interpublic’s Board of Directors, or the Non-Management Directors as a group, or to any individual director, as applicable, by writing to them at the following address:

c/o SVP, General Counsel & Secretary

The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc.

1114 Avenue of the Americas

New York, NY 10036

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.

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 13 meetings in 2014 and committees of the Board held a total of 19 meetings. During 2014, 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 who was a director at the time of the 2014 Annual Meeting attended the meeting.

Board Structure and Committees

The standing committees of the Board consist of the Audit Committee, the Compensation and Leadership Talent Committee, the Corporate Governance Committee, the Executive Committee and the Finance Committee. The activities of the Audit Committee, Compensation and Leadership Talent Committee, the Corporate Governance Committee and the Finance Committee are each governed by a charter that may be viewed on Interpublic’s website at http://www.interpublic.com or may be obtained free of charge by writing to The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc., 1114 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036, Attention: SVP, General Counsel & 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.”

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.

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.

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 his or her compliance with Related Person Transaction Policy 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 compliance 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 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, 2014, 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.

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 19 and “Share Ownership of Management” on page 60. For a discussion of the share ownership guidelines applicable to Interpublic’s executives, see “Compensation Discussion and Analysis — Share Ownership Guidelines.” As of March 27, 2015, all Non-Management Directors had met or exceeded these guidelines, with the exception of Ms. Ellinger and Messrs. H. Miller and J. Miller, each of whom joined the Board on March 1, 2015.

NON-MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

Annual Board/Committee Retainer Fees

During 2014, 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 2014, 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.

Presiding Director Retainer Fees

For 2014, the Presiding Director received a retainer of $25,000. This retainer was in addition to the retainers Mr. Thomas received for service as a Non-Management Director and for serving as the Chairperson of the Corporate Governance Committee.

Non-Management Directors Plan

Each Non-Management Director in 2014 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, 2014, 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 7,867 Restricted Shares.

Deferred Compensation

Mr. Goldstein and Ms. Considine each had an agreement with Interpublic under which they deferred all director fees for service before 2007. In 2014, the amounts deferred earned interest credits at an annual rate of 0.12%. This rate did not constitute “above-market” or “preferential” earnings on deferred compensation as defined by SEC rules. The total amounts deferred, plus all accrued interest, was paid to them in a lump-sum in 2015 following their retirement from the Board.

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.

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION & ANALYSIS

Our 2014 Named Executive Officers:

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 2014.

2015 Compensation Decision

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:

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 recommendations for select senior executives including the NEOs. 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, is reviewed annually and 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 & Benefits 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.

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.

Role of Independent Consultant

In 2014, 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 2014, 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 annually assesses the independence of Meridian and in 2014 the Committee again 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 2014, 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 in 2013 and the structural changes that were approved for 2014. The Committee welcomes feedback and dialogue with shareholders and 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.

Compensation decisions are made based on the following information:

In December 2013, 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 incentive and target long-term incentives). Compensation data were analyzed for comparable positions at the 2013 Compensation Peer Group (detailed below) as well as size-relevant data from several published survey sources. Meridian compares each of IPG’s covered positions to comparable positions at peer companies and within the published survey sources based on title and described

roles and responsibilities. Retirement benefits are reviewed independently, with the last review conducted in 2011.

Using the size-adjusted data, the 2013 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 2014.

For 2013, in light of the consolidation in the advertising industry, the Committee decided to combine its two prior peer groups (Direct Advertising Competitors and Talent Peers) into one, eliminate peers that underwent a corporate transaction, eliminate peers that were considered too large and add peers based on industry, size and consideration by proxy advisory firms. Accordingly, the company eliminated from the 2012 peer groups Aegis Group plc, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Amazon.com, Inc., Google Inc. and The Walt Disney Company, then added Cablevision Systems Corporation, Nielsen Holdings N.V. and Sirius XM Holdings Inc. The resultant 2013 Compensation Peer Group, which was affirmed again for 2014, included the following companies:

Base Salary

Purpose

Base salary is central to our ability to attract and retain talent, including our NEOs. Although its prominence in the pay mix declines with seniority, base salary generally remains an important part of compensation discussions with executive talent in our sector and related industries.

2014 Base Salary

For the NEOs, base salaries are specified in individual employment agreements (described in greater detail beginning on page 51, under the heading “Employment Agreements”), which give IPG the ability to increase, but not decrease, base salary. In considering whether to increase an executive’s base salary, the Committee takes into consideration market pay for comparable executives at peer companies as well as the individual’s performance and experience.

In an effort to continue aligning Mr. Bonzani’s compensation with market following his first two years with IPG and proven performance as SVP, General Counsel and Secretary, the Committee increased Mr. Bonzani’s salary from $600,000 to $700,000, effective January 1, 2014. No changes were made to base salary levels for other NEOs during 2014.

Purpose

Annual cash incentives remain a standard component of compensation within our labor markets and are in place to reward performance that grows annual organic revenue, increases profitability and involves the achievement of high priority strategic objectives, all of which ultimately drive increased long-term shareholder value. Given this design, our annual incentives encourage senior leaders to stay focused on results, but do not encourage or allow for excessive and unnecessary risk-taking in achieving said results.

Target Annual Incentive Opportunities 

Individual incentive award targets are expressed as a percentage of each individual’s base salary. These percentages are based, in part, on the target annual incentive data for compensation peers. Each year, the Committee determines the annual incentive target for the Chairman & CEO and approves the annual incentive targets for the other NEOs after considering recommendations from the Chairman & CEO. In determining the annual cash incentive target, the Committee takes into account the same factors that it considers in determining base salary.

In 2014, as in past years, actual annual incentive awards earned could vary between 0% and 200% of the individual incentive target, depending on the Company’s financial performance and individual HPO ratings. The following changes were made to performance metrics and weightings for all IPG NEOs in 2014:

A change in the annual incentive design was approved for the 2014 incentive cycle; specifically in regards to the financial measures used to calculate awards. The first measure, Organic Revenue Growth (OG), remained unchanged from previous years. The second measure was changed from Operating Income After Incentives (OIAI) Margin to Operating Income Before Incentives (OIBI) Margin. This subtle change intends to better align the plan with the way our Networks/Agencies track profitability, also allowing them to more accurately push down clear and understandable financial targets to their respective local units. OG and OIBI Margin targets are set early each year, as part of the Company’s annual budgeting process.

High-priority Objectives (“HPOs”) are also set early in the year, and may consist of quantitative and/or qualitative objectives

specific to the individual. HPOs include goals tied to the Company’s overall, or an operating unit’s, strategic priorities and typically include talent management, diversity and inclusion and cross-agency collaboration. For quantitative HPOs, specific objectives are established. For qualitative HPOs, specific accomplishments or expectations are defined and the Committee exercises judgment in assessing performance.

With all HPOs, performance is assessed after considering written assessments submitted to the Committee for both the Company as a whole and its principal operating units. Results are then ranked as “poor,” “fair,” “good,” excellent” and “spectacular,” and a rating between 0% to 200%, respectively, of the target is assigned.

HPO Performance vs. Goals

For the corporate NEOs other than Mr. Roth, each executive’s HPO rating was based on the Committee and Chairman & CEO’s assessment and the Committee’s approval of the executive officer’s achievement of the established key strategic objectives. Mr. Roth’s assessment rating was based on an assessment by the full Board of Directors of his achievement of the established key strategic objectives. There were no material adjustments made to actual financial performance in determining these ratings.

Mr. Roth

Mr. Roth received an HPO rating of 153% against the 2014 HPOs. This reflected his financial and strategic leadership that resulted in: the Company’s highly competitive professional offerings across the portfolio and resulting strong topline growth; further improvement in the Company’s margins and financial position; significant shareholder value creation. Key accomplishments included:

Mr. Mergenthaler

Mr. Mergenthaler received an HPO rating of 175% against the 2014 HPOs. This reflected his leadership that resulted in: continued improvement in the Company’s operating results and key financial metrics, as well as its strong capital structure; enhancement of its marketing services offerings; significant shareholder value creation. Key accomplishments included:

Mr. Krakowsky

Mr. Krakowsky received an HPO rating of 200% against the 2014 HPOs. This reflected his leadership role in: building a portfolio of offerings that is highly competitive, particularly in growth areas such as digital/emerging media; a range of operational, talent and client matters; significant shareholder value creation. Key accomplishments included:

Mr. Bonzani

Mr. Bonzani received a HPO rating of 141% against the 2014 HPOs. This reflected his leadership in the enhancement of the Company’s legal department, his stewardship of certain

board functions and his increased involvement in operating matters. Key accomplishments included:

Mr. Carroll

Mr. Carroll received an HPO rating of 153% against the 2014 HPOs in recognition of his leadership of the controller’s organization and successful implementation of a number of major finance optimization initiatives. Key accomplishments included:

Purpose

Long-term incentive awards are designed to retain and attract top talent, and align executive and shareholder interests by focusing recipients on the long-term performance of IPG and its principal operating units. Like our annual incentives, our long-term incentives encourage senior leaders to focus on delivering on our key financial metrics, but do not encourage or allow for excessive and unnecessary risk-taking in achieving this aim. The long-term plan also ensures that executives have compensation that is at risk for longer periods of time and is subject to forfeiture in the event they terminate their employment.

2014 Long-term Incentive Awards

In 2014, as in prior years, annual long-term incentive awards were made on the final trading day of February. This allowed for synchronized communication of annual and long-term incentives with each executive, which enforces the concept of total compensation.

At its March meeting, the Committee determined the long-term incentive target awards under the Performance Incentive Plan, defined as a dollar expected value, for the Chairman & CEO and, after considering recommendations from the Chairman & CEO, approved the long-term incentive targets for the other NEOs. The Chairman & CEO’s long-term incentives were discussed and approved by the full Board.

The determination of the annual long-term incentive award is assessed as part the total compensation review for senior executives and, as in the case of setting salaries, takes into consideration the independent consultant’s competitive review and other factors such as each executive’s total compensation, pay history, absolute and relative performance, and expected future performance.

For the NEOs, long-term incentive targets are the subject of individual employment agreements (described in greater detail beginning under the heading “Employment Agreements” on page 51) which allow IPG to increase, but not decrease, long-term incentive targets.

For 2014, IPG shifted the focus of long-term incentive awards for NEO’s from cash-based awards to equity-based awards. Accordingly, the Committee decided that 75% of the target long-term incentive value for each of the NEOs would be delivered in equity (an increase from 67% for the Chairman & CEO and from 33% for the other NEOs). The total target value of the NEOs 2014 grants consisted 50% of performance-based shares, 25% of restricted shares and 25% of performance-based cash.

Restricted Shares

Restricted shares serve primarily as a retention vehicle, with ability to motivate executives to improve stock price. The sale or transfer of the these shares is restricted until the third anniversary of the date of grant. Dividend equivalents are accrued on all outstanding shares on a quarterly basis. The shares and dividend equivalents are subject to forfeiture if the executive leaves Interpublic before the restrictions expire. The Company believes that these vesting provisions promote a long-term focus and provide a strong retention incentive. The number of target shares was determined by dividing the target value by the average of the high and low stock price on the date of grant ($17.665 on February 28, 2014) and rounding down to the nearest whole share.

Performance-based Shares

Performance Period and Vesting

For 2014, performance-based share awards for NEOs are based on a longer-term financial performance forecast of 3 years rather than the 2-year performance that was utilized for awards granted in prior years. In 2014, performance share awards were granted for the performance period beginning on January 1, 2014 and ending on December 31, 2016. Vesting will occur on February 28, 2017, provided that the executive remains employed at that time.

Three–year cumulative financial objectives are set at the start of each performance period. The Company does not disclose the multiple-year performance goals for its long-term

performance plans at any time during the performance cycle, as these data are not publicly disclosed and would provide insights to competitors that could harm our business. When they were established at its March 2014 meeting, the Committee considered the performance targets for the 2014-16 performance cycle difficult to attain, while appropriate for the current economic environment.

Performance Metrics

In addition, while the performance-based share awards granted to NEOs in 2014 continue to be tied to the Cumulative OG (30%) and OIBI Margin (70%) of IPG, we have also introduced a Relative TSR Modifier to this award. This Relative TSR Modifier may provide as much as a 10% upward or downward adjustment to the performance rating determined based on OG and OIBI Margin. The amount of the adjustment is based on how well IPG’s 3-year Total Shareholder Return compares to that of its 2013 Compensation Peer Group (detailed in the 2014 Proxy Statement and on page 28) at the end of the performance period.

For purposes of calculating the Relative TSR Modifier, TSR will be based on 30-trading day average opening and closing prices; calculated as (Closing Price + Reinvested Dividends)/Opening Price – 1. For purposes of this award the opening price will be the average of closing prices for the 30-trading days prior to January 1, 2014 and the closing price will be the average closing price for the 30-trading days up to and including December 31, 2016.

Potential Payouts

Under the terms of the awards, the actual value, if any, that the executive would receive at the end of the performance period and subsequent vesting period depends on the extent to which the cumulative performance objectives are achieved at the end of the performance period. Based on year-over-year comparisons, management and the Committee deem these financial performance targets as relatively difficult to achieve or predict.

The final value of the awards before applying the Relative TSR Modifier may vary from 0% to 300% of the target amount, based on IPG’s multi-year performance against financial objectives (achieving a payout of 200% or greater involves exceeding financial targets that the Committee deems to be exceptionally difficult to achieve). The Relative TSR modifier can then adjust this rating upwards or downwards by up to 10%.

Performance-based Cash

Performance Period and Vesting

The 2014 Performance Cash awards are subject to evaluation of financial performance over a two-year performance period, with vesting occurring on the third anniversary of the grant date. In 2014, performance cash awards were granted for the performance period January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2015 and subsequent vesting period of January 1, 2016 to February 28, 2017.

Performance Metrics

For the NEOs 30% of the target award value for performance cash awards was tied to IPG’s cumulative organic revenue growth (OG) and 70% was tied to operating income before incentives (OIBI) margin targets.

Two–year cumulative financial objectives are set at the start of each performance period. The Company does not disclose the multiple-year performance goals for its long-term performance plans at any time during the performance cycle, as these data are not publicly disclosed and would provide insights to competitors that could harm our business. When they were established at its March 2014 meeting, the Committee considered the performance targets for the 2014-15 performance cycle difficult to attain, while appropriate for the current economic environment.

Potential Payouts

Under the terms of the awards, the actual value, if any, that the executive would receive at the end of the performance period and subsequent vesting period depends on the extent to which the cumulative performance objectives are achieved at the end of the performance period. Based on year-over-year comparisons, management and the Committee deem these financial performance targets as relatively difficult to achieve or predict.

The final value of the awards may vary from 0% to 300% of the target amount, based on IPG’s multi-year performance against financial objectives (achieving a payout of 200% or greater involves exceeding financial targets that the Committee deems to be exceptionally difficult to achieve).

2012-2013 Performance Award Payouts

On February 28, 2012, the Committee granted performance share awards and performance cash awards, both under the 2009 Performance Incentive Plan (PIP), one-third of which were delivered to NEO’s as performance shares with the other two-thirds to be delivered as performance cash (with exception to the Chairman & CEO who received one-third in each performance shares, performance cash and stock options). In addition, 50% of the performance cash awards are settled in cash with the remaining 50% to be settled in shares of IPG. The performance cycle for these awards began on January 1, 2012 and ended on December 31, 2013. However, by design, all of the performance awards were subject to an additional vesting period which ended on February 28, 2015.

The final award values were determined in March 2014 based on IPG’s cumulative performance against financial objectives over the two year performance period. The final number of shares for the performance share award and the final value for performance cash awards for each of the NEOs were settled in March of 2015, after the additional vesting period ended. The cumulative OG and OIBI Margin targets set for the 2012-2013 Performance Plan were 3.6% and 14.4%, respectively. The cumulative results were somewhat below target, with OG of 1.8% and OIBI Margin of 12.4%. Based on these results, Mr. Roth, Mr. Mergenthaler, Mr. Krakowsky, Mr. Bonzani and Mr. Carroll each earned a performance rating of 77.6% of target.

Purpose

The Company views retirement benefits as a key component of our executive compensation program because they encourage and reward long-term service. Therefore, we offer our NEOs and other employees a comprehensive benefits program that provides the opportunity to accumulate retirement income.

Program Descriptions

Our retirement programs include the Company’s qualified 401(k) savings plan, the Capital Accumulation Plan (“CAP”), the Senior Executive Retirement Income Plan (“SERIP”) and Executive Special Benefit Agreement (“ESBA”)

The Company’s 401(k) savings plan is a tax-qualified retirement savings plan pursuant to which all U.S.-based employees, including the NEOs, are able to contribute compensation on a before-tax basis, subject to dollar limits prescribed by federal tax laws. For employees with less than 10 years of service, the Company matches 50% of the first 6% of compensation contributed. For employees with 10 or more years of service, the Company matches 75% of the first 6% of compensation that is contributed. The Company’s 401(k) savings plan also allows after-tax contributions up to limits prescribed by federal tax laws. The match applies to the total amount contributed on both a before- and after-tax basis.

From time to time, the Company may provide an additional performance-based matching contribution to the 401(k) plan based on the Committee’s assessment of the Company’s annual performance, including the Company’s operating margin for its consolidated U.S. businesses relative to pre-set targets. The objective of this feature is to induce greater participation in the 401(k) savings plan and to allow all U.S. employees to benefit from the Company’s strong performance. For 2014, the Committee approved an additional matching contribution equal to 8.25% of participant matched contributions.

The CAP provides participants with an annual dollar credit to an interest-bearing account. Under the terms of the CAP,

interest is credited on December 31st of each year at an interest rate equal to the closing 10-year U.S. Treasury yield on the last business day of the immediately preceding calendar year. For a more detailed description of the CAP, see “Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Arrangements—The Interpublic Capital Accumulation Plan” on page 49. Messrs. Roth, Mergenthaler, Krakowsky and Carroll participate in CAP at the levels described on page 50.

The SERIP provides a defined annual annuity to selected executives for a 15-year period following retirement upon satisfying specific vesting provisions. Participation is limited to a select group of very senior executives and requires Committee approval. Mr. Roth is the only NEO, who participates in the SERIP, and Mr. Roth no longer accumulates pay or service credit in the plan as his future benefit is fully vested. For a more detailed description of the SERIP, see “Pension Arrangements—The Interpublic Senior Executive Retirement Income Plan” on page 48.

The ESBA also provides a defined annual annuity to selected executives for a 15 -year period following retirement upon satisfying specific vesting provisions. This type of agreement is frozen to new participants; participation is limited to a select group of very senior executives and requires Committee approval. Mr. Krakowsky is the only NEO who participates in the ESBA, and Mr. Krakowsky no longer accumulates pay or service credit in the plan as his future benefit is fully vested. For a more detailed description of the ESBA please refer to page 48.

Benefits Review and Decision Process

As part of its competitive pay review, the independent consultant periodically provides the Committee with a comparison of IPG’s benefits programs to those of a sample of competing companies. This benefits program review is conducted in the context of total compensation, and the review considers compensation and benefits in total.

Decisions regarding new or enhanced participation in these programs, other than 401(k), are made after considering the total compensation as one component to a total pay discussion. For a number of the NEOs, retirement and other

benefits are the subject of individual employment agreements (which are described in greater detail beginning on page 51, under the heading “Employment Agreements” and which give IPG the ability to increase, but not decrease, the specific benefit).

On a case-by-case basis, the Committee, and the Management Human Resources Committee (MHRC) – consisting of IPG’s Chairman & CEO, CFO, General Counsel and Chief Strategy and Talent Officer – to which the Committee delegates certain responsibilities, consider the appropriateness of CAP and SERIP participation and benefits although all such decisions for NEOs are made solely by the Compensation Committee. In making recommendations to the Committee or MHRC, the Company considers an individual’s role, level in the organization, total compensation level, performance, length of service, and other factors. When making determinations to award additional CAP and SERIP awards, the Company also considers an individual’s current retirement positioning, including all forms of accrued qualified and non-qualified retirement benefits previously awarded or earned and the value of the individual’s Company match in the 401(k) savings plan or if not a participant for any year it assumes the executive contributed the maximum amount permitted to the plan.

Severance and Change of Control Benefits

In order to provide market-competitive total compensation packages to our executive officers, as well as to ensure the ongoing retention of these individuals in the event of potential takeovers that would create uncertainty as to their future employment, the Company offers severance and change of control benefits upon the occurrence of several specified events.

The NEOs may receive severance benefits from the Company under the terms of their employment agreements (described in greater detail beginning on page 51 under the heading “Employment Agreements”), the Company’s Executive Severance Plan and/or change of control agreements, depending on the circumstances of a potential termination.

Under the 2014 PIP, if a Change of Control occurs in the first quarter, NEOs receive an accelerated and prorated payout at target of their annual incentive. If a Change of Control occurs after the first quarter, NEOs receive a full accelerated payout at target of their annual incentives. Upon a Change of Control, the vesting of long-term incentives would remain in tact unless there is a qualifying termination (upon which vesting is accelerated). Under our change in control agreements, individuals are eligible for enhanced severance benefits, contingent on a Change of Control being followed by a Qualifying Termination.

We have adopted share ownership guidelines for non-employee directors, NEOs and other senior executives. The purpose of these stock ownership guidelines is to:

The share ownership guidelines are expressed as multiples of base salary. The multiple for the Chairman & CEO was increased from five times base salary to six times base salary in October 2012. Executives in the program have five years from 2008 (or from the date at which he or she joins the Company or is promoted into a position in which the guidelines apply) to reach the established guideline level. Beginning in 2013, those executives who have not met their established guideline level in the time allotted will be required to hold all net after-tax shares delivered from equity vestings until requirements are met.

The Committee regularly reviews the levels of stock ownership against the stock ownership guideline levels applicable to the NEOs and other senior executives. As of December 31, 2014, all NEOs who are required to have

reached their stock ownership guidelines had met or exceeded these guidelines (average ownership of over 300% of target). Mr. Bonzani will have until October 2017 to reach set ownership guidelines.

Deductibility of Executive Compensation

Section 162(m) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”) prohibits the Company from taking a tax deduction for compensation paid in excess of $1,000,000 to a NEO (other than the principal financial officer). However, performance-based compensation, as defined in the tax law, is fully deductible if the plan under which the compensation is paid has been approved by shareholders and meets other requirements. The Company’s policy is to qualify the compensation paid under its incentive compensation programs as tax deductible to the extent feasible and consistent with its overall compensation objectives.

As part of its responsibility, the Committee reviews and considers the deductibility of executive compensation. The Company believes that compensation paid in 2014 under its executive incentive plans is deductible for federal income tax purposes, except as indicated below. In certain situations, the Committee may approve compensation that is not deductible in order to ensure competitive levels of total compensation for its NEOs. In this regard, for 2014, with respect to each NEO who is covered by Section 162(m) of the Code, to the extent that the sum of the executive’s base salary, the fair market value of restricted stock awards that vested during the year and the additional bonus awards exceeded $1,000,000, the excess was not deductible for federal income tax purposes.

The Company has guidelines for reviewing the impact of the accounting and tax treatment of various forms of compensation covered by the PIP. The guidelines identify specific responsibilities and actions required by the Human Resources, Accounting and Tax departments for all group and individual actions. These guidelines are designed to ensure that accounting and tax treatment of the awards granted under the plan are properly addressed.

Nonqualified Deferred Compensation

Effective since January 1, 2005, most of the Company’s deferred compensation and nonqualified retirement benefit arrangements, including most of the Company’s severance arrangements; have been subject to Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code which provides that nonqualified deferred compensation plans follow certain rules on the timing and form of payments. Noncompliance with these rules could result in adverse tax consequences for the executives. The Company has made significant efforts to ensure that affected arrangements comply with the new requirements.

Accounting for Stock-based Compensation

Beginning on January 1, 2006, the Company began accounting for stock-based payments including its grants of stock options, restricted shares and performance shares in accordance with the requirements of FASB ASC Topic 718.

The Company regularly reviews its compensation policies and practices, including any risks that may be inherent in the design of the Company’s compensation plans. In early 2015, the Company reviewed its 2014 risk assessment process and the resulting analysis with the Committee, which concluded

that the compensation plans reflect the appropriate compensation goals and philosophy and any risk arising from the Company’s compensation policies and practices was not deemed likely to have a material adverse impact on the Company’s performance or financial results.

The Company has adopted a “clawback” policy under which, in the event of a significant restatement of financial results due to fraud or misconduct, it will review payments made to senior executives on the basis of having met or exceeded specific performance targets during the restatement period. If any bonuses paid based on such performance targets would have been lower had they been calculated based on such restated results, the Board of Directors will, to the full extent permitted by governing law, seek to recoup for the benefit of the Company all such bonuses to senior

executives whose fraud or misconduct, as determined by the Board of Directors, resulted in such restatement. For purposes of this policy, the term “senior executives” means “executive officers” as defined under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the term “bonuses” means awards under The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc. 2009 Performance Incentive Plan or any equivalent incentive plan which supersedes such plan, including, among other awards, annual incentives, stock options, performance cash and performance shares.

COMPENSATION AND LEADERSHIP TALENT COMMITTEE REPORT

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION