17458: On Brand Investment, Interest, And Indifference For Black Consumers.

 

MediaPost published an almost stereotypical perspective on connecting with Black consumers.

 

From emphasizing Blacks shape culture to insisting Black audiences are swayed by authentic and accurate representation in advertising, the op-ed offers nothing new. The exposition mimics pitch decks of every past and present Black advertising agency.

 

The author delivers the standard declaration: “Brands that invest in authentic cultural representation have a larger, more responsive audience ready to engage and convert.”

 

Okay, except history has shown brand investment rarely exceeds crumbs—and brand interest is even crumbier. Indeed, the current anti-DEIBA+ vibe in Adland fuels brand indifference.

 

Cultural Trust As Currency: Why Black Consumers Shift Spending Due To Brand Values

 

By Charlene Polite Corley

 

Black consumers continue to shape culture that captures attention, but tokenism alone is not enough to earn loyalty. Increasingly, Black consumers are making intentional decisions about where they spend their money, and those decisions are directly tied to whether a brand demonstrates real cultural understanding and alignment. In times of economic uncertainty, that bar is only getting higher.

 

The data makes the stakes even clearer. According to Nielsen’s 2025 Attitudes on Representation Study, over half of Black consumers say a brand’s stance on social issues is a major factor in their purchasing decisions, and 70% say they will stop buying from brands perceived as devaluing their community, up from 66% in 2023. That upward trend signals that Black consumer expectations are growing, and brands that are not keeping up the pace are actively losing ground.

 

What drives this shift is visibility and relevance in practice. Black audiences are more than twice as likely to rank authentic and accurate representation of their race or ethnicity as the strongest motivation to engage with new content compared to respondents overall. Additionally, 67% of Black consumers say they pay more attention to brands that reflect their culture, compared to 46% overall.

 

For marketers, this gap represents both a risk and a clear opportunity. Brands that invest in authentic cultural representation have a larger, more responsive audience ready to engage and convert.

 

Where and how brands show up matters significantly. Fifty-six percent of Black consumers prefer to buy based on ads that appear in culturally relevant content, compared to 35% overall. This is not a preference to ignore. It means that media placement is a value signal, not solely a targeting decision. Showing up in the right cultural contexts communicates that a brand understands and respects the audience it is trying to reach.

 

Earning attention from Black consumers requires cultural fluency built over time, through community partnerships, creator collaborations and storytelling that reflects the full range of Black experiences. For example, Black suburban consumers are among the most likely to agree that a brand’s stance on social issues influences their purchasing decisions, at 59%, compared to 51% of the suburban total, according to Nielsen’s 2025 Advanced Audience Attitudes Study. Strategies that treat Black audiences as monolithic will miss this nuance entirely.

 

Ultimately, brands that earn lasting loyalty are the ones that approach cultural understanding as an ongoing commitment—and a competitive advantage. Black consumers watch to see how brands show up consistently, how they listen and how they invest the time to understand the communities they are trying to reach. When consumers feel genuinely seen, they respond with loyalty and advocacy. When they feel like an afterthought, they spend elsewhere.

 

In today’s marketplace, cultural trust is a business metric, and it is one that Black consumers are actively scoring every day.

17405: On YABs, YACs, YAPs, YUCK.

 

Advertising Age and PR Newswire spotlighted YABs, YACs, and YAPs—Youth Advisory Boards, Youth Advisory Councils, and Youth Advisory Panels—which are described as follows:

 

Youth advisory panels (YAPs) are groups of Gen Z and Gen Alpha consumers (e.g., SuperHeroes’ 80-member panel) employed by advertising agencies to provide direct, authentic insights for marketing strategies, creative development, and client pitches. These panels help brands connect with younger demographics by providing feedback, producing content, and identifying emerging trends. They are increasingly used to ensure authentic youth engagement, particularly in social media and brand strategy.

 

Based on the images above and below, YABs, YACs, and YAPs appear to be consultants of color.

 

White advertising agencies routinely appoint committees for cultural appropriation and approval, a storied tradition of delegating diversity started by tapping mailroom staff, cafeteria workers, security personnel, custodial services, and elevator attendants.

 

In recent years, White ad agencies have used such schemes to win pitches and prizes.

 

Seems like a slick workaround to conceal diminishing employment opportunities for entry-level youth in Adland.

 

Do YABs, YACs, and YAPs experience forms of Prime Redlining and crumbs compensation?

 

Probably YES.

 

YIPPEE-KI-YAY.

17372: BHM 2026—NADI Marketing.

 

 

NADI Marketing presents “9 Ways to Celebrate Black History Month: Campaigns & Partnerships Ideas for Sustainable Brands”—comprised of 5 BHM Campaign Ideas and 4 Strategic Partnerships for BHM.

 

It’s a cornucopia of competent creative conception for the culturally clueless—likely delivered for crumbs.

17341: On Working With Cancer.

 

MediaPost reported on Publicis Groupe’s philanthropical propaganda Working With Cancer launching a new $100 million global campaign.

 

The initiative is a pet project of Publicis Groupe CEO and Cancer Survivor Arthur Sadoun, who has enlisted major brands and rival White holding companies to provide backing.

 

Granted, Working With Cancer is a laudable endeavor. Yet it also symbolizes the reigning exclusivity and dominating hierarchy in Adland, whereby leaders dictate which projects gain priority status.

 

Working With Cancer receives a lion’s share of support. DEIBA+ gets a shrug.

 

It’s the difference between Working With Cancer vs Working With Crumbs.

 

‘Working With Cancer’ Breaks $100 Million Global Campaign

 

By Steve McClellan

 

Publicis today announced the launch of a new global “Working With Cancer” campaign that’s backed by $100 million in media donated by media companies across the industry.  

 

The campaign urges companies worldwide to commit to supporting cancer patients in their organizations.

 

The Working With Cancer initiative was launched three years ago after Publicis chairman and CEO Arthur Sadoun’s own cancer diagnosis and treatment in 2022. 

 

The latest campaign follows a research review done in collaboration with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, underscoring evidence that many employed cancer survivors report better quality of life compared to unemployed survivors. The research found that employed survivors tend to function better physically and are less prone to depression.  

 

Working with Cancer has also unveiled a new AI Coach designed to help employers better tailor support to individual employed survivors. The large language model-based system draws from curated, vetted resources to deliver responses that avoid potential privacy violations and other risks associated with open internet health queries.  

 

The anchor film of the new campaign was created by Publicis Conseil and features survivors from all walks of life sharing how working helped them maintain normalcy during treatment. Participants include Sadoun and other survivors, from companies like Walmart, L’Oreal, Pfizer, Barclays and others. It was directed by award-winning filmmaker Kailee McGee, a stage IV cancer survivor.  

 

“The most important thing to do when you get sick is listen to yourself,” Sadoun says in the film. “Some will consider that they need to stay home and others like me would consider that going to the office and being supported can make a big difference. It’s a very lonely experience, anyway.”  

 

The campaign includes a Times Square NYC out-of-home takeover today (Feb. 4) in recognition of World Cancer Day.   

 

To date, more than 5,000 companies covering 40 million-plus employees have signed the Working With Cancer pledge to support workers battling the disease.   

 

Media donors to the new campaign include Disney, Google, Zeta Global, TikTok, NBCUniversal, Paramount, iHeartMedia, Westwood One, Clear Channel Outdoor, Captivate, Screenvision and NCM.

17331: Expelling Excrement On The CMOs’ Expectations Study.

 

More About Advertising reported on the European Association of Communications Agencies (EACA) CMOs’ Expectations Study, which revealed what CMOs really want from White advertising agencies.

 

The study spotlighted an obvious contradiction. Specifically, CMOs are seeking relationships built on trust and deep business involvement—yet they prevent the possibilities via constant pitching and switching.

 

Not mentioned in the study is how CMOs perpetuate systemic racism in Adland by pursuing partnerships from an exclusive pool of White advertising agencies.

 

What’s more, CMOs comprise an exclusive, predominately White group themselves.

 

After all, there’s plenty of data showing non-White advertising agencies are underrepresented, underutilized, and underpaid by clients. The few shops receiving assignments are compensated with crumbs.

 

Sorry, the CMOs’ Expectation Study shows CMOs can be expected to deliver deliberate discrimination, disinterest, and disrespect.

 

EACA report: do clients actually want real agency partners?

 

By Stephen Foster

 

A new report from the European Association of Communications Agencies (EACA) with Kantar, reveals the contradiction at the heart of what clients want from their agencies.

 

The CMOs’ Expectations Study reveals that nearly all (94%) clients believe agencies can be true partners they can trust but they continue to undermine the process of building trust by constantly holding pitches and changing partners.

 

Nearly half of those questioned ran a pitch within the last year, and 65% of those resulted in an agency change. Such constant turnover makes it harder to agencies to behave as true partners and produce more effective communications. Research into Effie Europe 2025 entries reveals that partnerships that have lasted five years or longer are far more effective and successful than those that have shorter tenures.

 

The report, designed to help agencies understand how they can better meet client needs, is the most comprehensive European study to date on what CMOs expect from their agencies, based on responses from 141 different companies in 22 European markets, with 95% of respondents in marketing/communication or top management roles across a broad range of brand-driven sectors such as consumer goods, banking, insurance, energy, tech and services.

 

EACA worked closely with Kantar to analyse responses, using both closed-question analytics and open-ended semantic analysis, delivering both a clear ranking of CMO priorities and a deeper understanding of the emotional and cultural expectations shaping today’s client–agency relationships.

 

The result is a clear hierarchy of what truly convinces CMOs when choosing an agency, or to continue to work with an existing partner. Trust (49% first choice) and deep business involvement (41%) emerge well ahead of creativity. However, both can only really develop over time and are constantly undermined by inefficient repitching, where six out of 10 winning ideas are never even implemented.

 

Creative excellence remains important (it’s a Top Three factor for 72% of respondents), but only when paired with strategic intelligence, operational reliability and strong brand stewardship.

 

“This report confirms the anecdotal evidence from the industry that the agency remit is continuing to expand, with client expectations at an all-time high, while output timelines are shrinking,” says Charley Stoney, CEO of EACA. “It is critical that the industry tackles these expectations and work with advertisers to help them flex remuneration models that pay for this expanded remit, included technology investment. It supports the EACAs opinion that agencies need to move away from the time-based payment structure towards an agile model that works with a blend of human and artificial intelligence services.”

17328: ICYMI USPS RFI BS.

MediaPost reported the US Postal Service retained a White search consultancy; plus, an RFI has been issued to White advertising agencies and White media firms.

 

The USPS and consultancy insist the RFI represents an exploratory exercise, and a competitive pitch has not yet launched.

 

Expect the following delivery process: RFI > RFP > RIF

 

Also, non-White advertising agencies and media firms can count on collecting crumbs and experiencing Prime Redlining.

 

Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these [White] couriers from the swift completion of their appointed [discriminatory] rounds.

 

Postal Service Issues RFI, Taps JLB To Study Ad Market

 

By Steve McClellan

 

In advance of a likely competitive pitch for new media and creative agency assignments, the US Postal Service has retained search consultant JLB + Partners and issued a request for information to a number of media and creative shops.  

 

USPS spent approximately $150 million on net media expenditures in 2025, according to agency research firm COMvergence. 

 

A spokesman for the postal service stressed that it has not yet launched a formal review for new agencies. 

 

Instead, he said it is “performing ongoing market research regarding the advertising and media services market and issued a Request for Information (RFI) in December ... to both creative and media agencies.” 

 

JLB, the spokesman added, “is supporting this effort as a consultant focused on market trends. The RFI is not a competitive Request for Proposal (RFP) concerning any potential future requirements.” 

 

In recent years USPS has worked with McCann Worldgroup and its agency MRM on campaigns.

17312: How Junk Food Advertising Bans Could Affect The Health Of Adland.

 

MediaPost Marketing Daily published an interview probing possibly implementing junk food advertising restrictions in the US, mimicking UK junk food advertising bans.

 

Such a move—which could happen given Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s MAHA platform—would lead to more layoffs in US Adland.

 

Plus, it could mean a significant reduction in crumbs to non-White advertising agencies whose work disproportionately targets non-White audiences with unhealthy products.

 

In short, advocating for healthiness dramatically and adversely impacts the health of everyone in US Adland.

 

Could U.K.-Style Junk Food Ad Ban Happen Here?

 

By Sarah Mahoney

 

The U.K.’s new junk-food advertising ban is sweeping. Its impact is vast: No TV ads for foods high in fat, salt or sugar before 9 p.m., and no paid online ads at all. The goal is curbing the obesity epidemic among British kids by reducing exposure to commercial messaging—an approach backed by growing research on how advertising affects children’s preferences and consumption.

 

A national ban here is unlikely, thanks to First Amendment protections for commercial speech. But marketers aren’t off the hook. Pressure is coming from a patchwork of state bills, city rules, school policies, digital-privacy efforts and front-of-pack labeling proposals—plus increasingly loud MAHA parents and politicians pushing cleaner food sentiment into the mainstream.

 

To understand what’s next, Marketing Daily spoke with DeAnna Nara, Ph.D., a licensed nutritionist and campaign manager at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit advocacy group.

 

Interview has been edited for length and clarity.

 

Marketing Daily: What is the U.K. trying to solve with this ad ban?

 

Nara: Childhood obesity, but also reducing unhealthy food exposure, particularly to children. This applies to soft drinks, candy, pizzas, ice creams. Evidence shows repeated exposure to this type of advertising influences children’s food preferences, consumption patterns and long-term health risks—and we see evidence of this even after one exposure.

 

Marketing Daily: Marketers here tend to say, “That could never happen in the U.S.” Are they right?

 

Nara: An exact U.K.-style ban is going to be tough. Advertising for general products is protected by the First Amendment. There are legal tests that get applied to commercial-speech restrictions, which usually make it hard to do a broad ban and hard to defend if it’s narrowly tailored.

 

We couldn’t just ban all junk-food ads on TV and online like the U.K. But it does show governments globally are looking at the relationship between marketing environments and public health. In the U.S., what we can do, and what we’re seeking to do, is reduce harmful exposure through targeted, legally defensible strategies. We’re focusing on deception, targeting practices and government-facilitated advertising in children’s environments like schools.

 

Marketing Daily: New York recently adopted the “Sweet Truth Act,” which requires sugar warnings. What else are you working on?

 

Nara: One of the biggest is the Predatory Marketing Prevention Act. Instead of banning speech, PMPA expands consumer-protection law to consider whether advertising is targeting specific groups. It gives attorneys general factors to consider—are ads targeting children, older adults or other vulnerable groups unfairly or deceptively?

 

It recognizes that targeted marketing of unhealthy products is a public-health and equity harm. We’re shifting the frame from what is being advertised to how and to whom. PMPA is a strong legal anchor because it operates within consumer-protection doctrine, meaning it can hold up in U.S. courts more easily than a broad ban on commercial content.

 

Marketing Daily: Others?

 

Nara: Limiting unhealthy food and beverage advertising in government-controlled spaces. Governments have more authority over property—transit screens, buses, kiosks—and they’re not required to display harmful commercial content. We’re working in New York to urge the MTA to revise policies that allow unhealthy food and beverage advertising and to avoid government-facilitated surveillance and targeting in digital out-of-home.

 

This mirrors what Transport for London did in 2019, restricting junk-food ads across the transit system. We saw reduced exposure and changes in purchasing patterns.

 

In Massachusetts, we’re working on the Healthy Kids Healthy Futures Act. It prohibits sugary-drink marketing in schools and requires added-sugar warnings on chain-restaurant menus.

 

Digital protection is another area. New York’s Stop Addictive Feeds Exploitation for Kids Act restricts personalized feeds and nighttime notifications for users under 18. Other states, including Virginia, are moving toward laws limiting kids’ use of addictive social media and increasing age verification. We’re trying to make it harder for companies to collect data and target children with personalized ads.

 

Marketing Daily: Many companies hit by the U.K. ban are multinationals. Could this change what they sell or how they market in the U.S.?

 

Nara: We’re hoping. We’re seeing a tide change in how ultra-processed foods are viewed. There’s a world where consumer demand pushes companies to offer healthier products. We’ve done national polling, and people are interested in healthier products.

 

Industry will also be pushed by front-of-package warnings. The FDA is looking at warnings that reflect nutrition info on the back, which is confusing. That’s going to push more reformulation. Regardless of political views, we know these products create harm. Pushing companies to reduce sodium, sugar and saturated fat is something they can do. Reformulation is happening globally, and that trend is expanding.

 

Marketing Daily: We’re in a strange political moment, with ultra-processed foods under fire from both left and right. The risk to marketers are clear. What are the opportunities?

 

Nara: Some are taking advantage of changes. When politicians started talking about seed oils and ultraprocessed fats, some companies, like Shake Shack, started frying in beef tallow. Marketers can use these changes to make more money.

 

It’s not necessarily about eliminating marketing, but changing what gets rewarded in the marketplace and by consumers. Brands that lead on health and responsible marketing are building long-term trust with parents and families. There’s an opportunity to make products healthier, help consumers and make the healthy choice easy.

17243: Representation & Innovation Lacks Representation & Innovation.

Digiday published an interview with the newly appointed 4As EVP of People, Talent and Upskilling. It would be interesting to read the job description for that title. Or maybe not.

 

Has the 4As ever made an impact on DEIBA+ in Adland? Perhaps in the early 1970s when MAIP launched, leveraging the era’s societal commitment to progress. Since then, the trade organization has mostly fabricated heat shields, performative PR, and embryo recruitment stunts.

 

The new EVP sounds like all her predecessors, promoting the same Kumbayadda yadda yadda.

 

While the popular argument declares DEIBA+ ignites creativity, the DEIBA+ conversation continues to be clichéd, contrived, and cookie-cutter—ultimately generating crumbs.

 

Why 4As’ new EVP Sylvia Banderas Coffinet is investing around ‘representation and innovation’

 

By Kimeko McCoy

 

Between the AI arms race, political and economic headwinds, the ad industry finds itself at an inflection point, reshaping how organizations invest in and talk about talent. Most notably, advertisers are grappling with the pullback from diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives — largely given President Trump’s scrutiny of DEI.

 

The 4As hasn’t been immune from that recalibration. Earlier this year, the U.S. trade association for advertising agencies overhauled Multicultural Advertising Intern Program (MAIP) and Vanguard — two of the marketing industry’s cornerstone diversity programs — to be more be more inclusive beyond race and ethnicity. The changes were meant to fall in line with cultural shifts, but sparked concern from former MAIP fellows who argued that the move diluted the original mission.

 

As the industry navigates changes to DEI and surge in AI use, the 4As appointed Sylvia Banderas Coffinet as the organization’s evp of people, talent and upskilling, to expand the foundation’s reach and strengthen key programs, including the Multicultural Advertising Intern Program (MAIP) and Vanguard.

 

Coming into the role, Banderas Coffinet is pitching diversity as a business imperative rather than a moral initiative by measuring intern hiring rates and incorporating AI into program curriculum. Banderas Coffinet came with a background in media as CEO of Latina Media Network and corporate general manager at Vox Media. She was announced as the 4As latest hire under CEO Justin Thomas-Copeland on October 21.

 

“At the end of the day, engagement, inclusion, learning — these are not nice to have. They are the economic levers that are going to make you successful,” she said.

 

Digiday recently caught up with the newly appointed 4As exec to learn more about future-proofing MAIP and Vanguard, diversity amidst political headwinds and AI’s impact on the next generation of advertisers.

 

This conversation has been lightly edited for clarity.

 

How will you approach talent initiatives given the current climate of DEI setbacks and AI’s impact on job roles?

 

Innovation is still the goal. And while technology serves as the tool, it will never replace human ingenuity. As it relates to diversity, equity, and inclusion — we can get into the semantics of the words — but fundamentally, diversity is central to innovation. One without the other doesn’t exist. Probably the greatest killer of creativity is group think. Often, we talk about diversity and inclusion is good ethics, and it is. But I also believe it’s good business, and sometimes we get caught up in these conversations that forget that the numbers and the research and the years of analysis that have been done by numerous experts still show that there is a direct correlation between diversity and inclusion, talent and more successful campaigns.

 

Is there a difference between DEI and inclusion in terms of semantics, and how does this impact talent initiatives and programming?

 

Diverse workforces are a form of creating inclusion. Inclusion and belonging are ultimately rooted in equity. And the idea that when we have more voices in the room, when we create an aperture for more just more — more thoughts — innovation is a natural result of that. It’s unfortunate that we’ve turned this conversation into semantics. Because whatever we call it, the bottom line is the facts support that it’s good for the business. 

 

Considering the current climate around DEI, what initiatives do you plan to tackle to advise 4As members?

 

The biggest difference is the way we’re talking about it. Before, we could openly say this was a moral initiative. And that was correct. In many ways, that seems to be not as popular now. But the reality is the support and the numbers are there. So it’s OK to then turn it into a business conversation. I’m not saying it has to be either-or. It’s very much an “and.” It also depends very much on who you’re speaking to. Most of us that have done this work and believe in this work and understand the importance of this work, know that you can call it whatever it is, representation and innovation are critical to the bottom line. 

 

Does the shift from ‘moral’ dilemma to business imperative change how the 4As pitches partnerships to agencies and others?

 

The conversation is going to be best received if it’s grounded in the dollars and cents of it all. I don’t think that that’s the only anchor point. I believe most of us in the industry are living in New York and in the world, and just the way things are now, Gen Z is 50% diverse. There is a return to wanting to speak more on things like ROI and on impact business metrics. In many ways, I welcome that we are poised to have those conversations and there’s plenty of data that supports it. And if that’s what it’s about — if it’s about doing the right thing for the business — that’s good news for us.

 

How will you measure the continued impact of your MAIP or Vanguard programs, ensuring they deliver real outcomes rather than just symbolic initiatives?

 

The full-time hire rate is a critical measure. It’s a huge investment in time and upskilling and training. These programs are really rigorous and they also support the fellows after the fact. One of the most important measures for us is, did they land that full-time job? Did the agencies hire them full-time? The national average is around 53% for most internship programs [according to the National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE) 2024 internship and co-op report]. We are at around 48%, and our goal is to get to 55%. 

 

Could you outline the expansion plans for the MAIP and Vanguard programs and how they will contribute to achieving the 55% full-time employment goal?

 

Part of that is ensuring that our curriculum and our upskilling is really responding to the greatest need of the industry — which is around AI upskilling — and to make that central. The other part of that is there’s a certain level of educating and reminding our partners that in many ways, our role has and always will be…our strategy has always been to identify and power and employ the next generation of creative leaders. That’s what MAIP is about. How we get to that 55% is very much by ensuring that our industry values and understands the importance of representation as innovation, that they can correlate how hiring inclusive talent ultimately means they see benefits in their bottom line. 

17231: On Brand Values & Value Of Inclusive Marketing.

 

Advertising Age published a perspective advocating for brands to hold firm on their values—especially when facing cultural and political pressures—to avoid alienating key consumer segments.

 

Okay, except there’s plenty of data underscoring how brands undervalue non-White audiences—and often don’t value such groups at all.

 

For brands, true values and value can be measured in performative PR, heat shields, and crumbs.

 

Brand values must hold firm, even under cultural pressure

 

By Tara DeVeaux

 

As a child from the Northeast with parents from Virginia and South Carolina, I remember Cracker Barrel as a part of the annual trips “down south” to visit family. I thought it was as much for us as it was for anyone else. I don’t think I ever thought about the logo once. I’d guess most people would have been hard-pressed to draw it from memory if they had to (there’s a barrel, right?).

 

When the restaurant redesigned the logo to remove Uncle Herschel and then quickly caved to public outcry over its “woke rebrand,” my first thought was: Wait, was the old man supposed to be a “cracker?”

 

And more importantly, I questioned what signal the company was sending. Does it see itself as a whites-only brand? Are my family and I no longer welcome? Have I been wrong about this brand’s values all these years?

 

Cracker Barrel is just the latest example of a brand navigating current consumer sentiment and beliefs about its brand with rapidly shifting cultural mores. Its choices are a reminder of how woven brands are into the fabric of consumers’ lives. These include Target, with its public pullback on DE&I initiatives in January, and American Eagle, with its Sydney Sweeney wink to blue “genes.”

 

In the words of Marvin Gaye, “What’s going on?”

 

Whether purposeful or not, brand advertising is raising the hackles of the consumers it is supposed to court. And like many human-to-human relationships, the cause of the consumer alienation starts with a perceived betrayal. A betrayal of the values the brand has communicated, advertently or otherwise, that consumers held dear.

 

That’s why brand values, once firmly established, must be unshakable. They can evolve as culture evolves, but they cannot tremble and collapse from a shift in political winds unless they want to risk consumer alienation and declining sales.

 

Some brands seem to be getting it right. Shareholders of Costco, another big-box retailer beloved by its clientele, overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to reevaluate its DE&I policies in January, the same month Target announced its rollback. Lines were initially around the block, and Costco’s sales have risen steadily each month this year.

 

In August, Ralph Lauren launched a campaign that pays homage to the generations of African Americans who have vacationed on Martha’s Vineyard. And this brand, celebrating the Black elite, has also evolved to embrace their status as the inspiration of the “Lo Life” movement among Black and brown folks, a term of deep affection.

 

Values are not simply words on a corporate website or in an onboarding booklet. They are a behavior code. And when brand actions or words are inconsistent with past behavior, consumers will feel betrayed and might rebel.

 

Those of us who work in advertising agencies have a major role to play in advising our client partners on the importance a brand’s values play in shaping consumer sentiment.

 

Agencies must support our brand partners by defining a concise, actionable set of brand values and then creating a framework to test every public action, partnership, or statement against those principles. If something doesn’t align, it’s a signal to rethink.

 

But even with that forethought, crises will arise, which is why agencies must also help brands develop crisis agility and crisis avoidance. Before a campaign launches, agencies should simulate scenarios where a cultural flashpoint tests the brand’s values in the event of boycotts or political commentary.

 

To avoid knee-jerk reactions to creative work once it’s in market, agencies must combine social listening with a deeper understanding of who a client’s audience is and how they will feel in the moment. Developing a “cultural dashboard” can help distinguish real, values-related risks.

 

People and attitudes evolve. Brands and their messaging evolve. Advertising science evolves. I’ve written before that demographics alone are not destiny when it comes to marketing. While age, income, life stage, race, and ethnicity all play a role in developing consumer audiences, so too does the intersection of culture and community among all those groups.

 

Those inflection points are why so many consumers could relate to Cracker Barrel’s perceived nod to southern heritage without seeing racism and why they felt betrayed once they caved to public sentiment.

 

While it’s the brand that will determine its values, it’s the consumer who will hold them accountable for living up to them. Understanding the relationship between the brand and the people the brand serves is the key to unlocking continued growth.