13712: Creative Equals ≠ Equality.

Campaign published diverted diversity delirium from Creative Director and Creative Equals Founder Ali Hanan, who sought to explain, “Why we lose our female talent before they even start.” The most disturbing part of Hanan’s hype is the photo (depicted above) accompanying the perspective—which appears to be a stock image that hardly represents the true diversity of women in adland. It’s a safe bet that Hanan is primarily concerned about why we lose our White female talent before they even start. While she does acknowledge BAME females have it far worse than White females, she doesn’t bother noting that BAME males have it far worse than White females too. Hell, battling “maternal bias” trumps confronting regular bias every day. Creative Equals covers a very narrow and exclusive definition of equality—as shown by the photo below from a Creative Equals event.

Why we lose our female talent before they even start

By Ali Hanan

The current system with ‘creatives’ of ‘placements’ fails our young female talent. While young women will leave the UK’s advertising and design colleges in equal numbers, about 40% of them will never make it to their first rung of the career ladder. Yes, you read correctly, writes Ali Hanan, creative director and founder of Creative Equals.

Two-fifths of young female talent are lost between graduation and industry

At advertising colleges across the country, women attend equally or skew slightly more, but then the current placement process of landing a job isn’t working for our young female talent. The question is why? The IPA’s statistics show just 29.6% of creative departments are staffed by women — up from 25% last year. What this statistic doesn’t show is many of departments Creative Equals sees run at 10% and below.

Many creative departments across London have no female creatives at all

That means a young female placement talent who comes into an environment like this will not see someone who may look or sound like themselves. Just 12% of creative directors are women and as bias studies show, people mentor those who reflect “people like me”. Young women won’t get mentored from day one on the creative shop floor. They’ll look up the ladder where those important role models are few and far between. Dig into BAME female representation at a senior level and you’ll find these numbers are not just fewer, but gulfs apart.

Social mobility is also a huge barrier

With the odds stacked against young women as they come into the workplace, there is also the simple fact some can’t afford to take up their placements. Some lack social mobility, and faced with crippling student debts and staggering London rents, they won’t even start on the ladder. More research needs to happen, which is why Creative Equals is working with D&AD New Blood to further unpack what happens over the coming months.

What we can do to change this straight away is start funding young female talent

Last year, the managing director of Major Players, Helen Stokes, died tragically. In her memory, £7,000 was raised, £5,000 of which went to an internship bursary with D&AD New Blood and Creative Equals. There were 16 applicants for the fund, but only one to give, awarded to Rebecca Rhoysn Petts-Davies. Although she had won a Yellow Pencil and received a first-class degree, her personal circumstances meant she had no means to take up a placement.

Thanks to the fund, she now has a flying career at Wunderman, where she has won second place at the recent Cannes Young Lions UK competition and D&AD New Blood Award. She said: “I really couldn’t have done any of this without this bursary.”

We already have female teams telling us they won’t come into London without financial help

To raise funds, Creative Equals has launched a bursary fund on Chuffed.Org in partnership with D&AD, teaming up with the CANNT Festival, Facebook and Major Players. The campaign — designed and shot by Petts-Davies and her copy partner Maya Halilvoc — is an ode to their talents.

Creative Equals have already put a portion of the starter funds in. We’re a tiny non-profit start up. So now your turn, adland.

13690: Annual Waclique.

Campaign spotlighted the annual Wacl Future Leaders. The accompanying photo (depicted above) underscores the power of diverted diversity. The Campaign story opened by declaring, “This year’s Wacl Future Leaders are sending the industry a clear and simple message…” Yes, and the message is that White women are doing fabulously in adland—while the fair representation of women of color remains a dream deferred, delegated and denied.

13671: Diverted Diversity Not Diverse.

Business Insider presented, “The 30 most creative women in advertising”—a collection of creative females that shows diverted diversity is not very diverse.

13512: Snowballing Diverted Diversity.

At Campaign, Cilla Snowball explained “How adland can crack gender equality in 2017”—which essentially means that diverted diversity will extend throughout the year as more White women are promoted in White advertising agencies. Snowball’s lengthy perspective isn’t worth re-posting, so here’s the condensed version:

Eliminate the gender pay divide; Unconscious-bias training for everyone; Know your diversity stats and set targets; Get more female creatives; Encourage women to say what they want; Encourage women to say what they don’t want; Get men to lead on equality; Balance shortlists, balance everything; Theworktheworkthework, and; Sponsor promising female leaders.

Heaven forbid a culturally clueless idiot like Snowball might replace the gender-based terms with racial and ethnic references to address true diversity. But given the current and historical attention paid to actual inclusiveness, the title of such an exposition would have to read, “How adland can crack racial and ethnic equality by 3017.”

13458: ANA Scoring With Women.

Advertising Age reported the Association of National Advertisers devised a diverted diversity device: The Gender Equality Measure. Now it’s possible to rate advertisements or entertainment on the prominence of depicted White women. Maybe there will be special bonus points for women of color, as well as lesbian and transgender depictions. Would love to see the scores for Annie the Chicken Queen, the Pine-Sol Lady and Aunt Jemima.

Are Your Ads and TV Shows Defective on Gender Equity? The ANA Has a Tool That Can Help

By Jack Neff

Are your TV ads or the shows where you advertise defective in the way they portray women? The Association of National Advertisers has a new system to tell you.

The Gender Equality Measure scores ads or entertainment on how and how prominently they depict women, like an ad-industry version of Six Sigma, the data-driven methodology aimed at eliminating defects in products or services.

“Increasingly our customers are holding us accountable, society is holding us accountable, for our footprint,” said Stephen Quinn, chairman of the Alliance for Family Entertainment subcommittee of the ANA. In earlier days as a chief marketing officer at Walmart and PepsiCo’s Frito-Lay, Mr. Quinn saw other parts of his companies paying closely monitor quality in their supply chains. Now he’s on a mission to get marketers to pay similar attention.

“We need the same supply-chain mentality as others in our company to fix this, or we’re going to struggle as a function for respect,” he said.

The Alliance for Family Entertainment earlier this year introduced an initiative under the #SeeHer banner to improve depiction of women in ads and entertainment. While its past efforts jawboned networks to run more family-friendly shows or encouraged advertisers to produce their own, #SeeHer takes a different approach, drawn more from the world of manufacturing process improvement.

The Alliance for Family Entertainment has already evaluated 4,000 TV ads for its Gender Equality Measure, working in conjunction with research firm ABX, which uses an online panel to rate ad creative. It has shared the results privately with ANA members.

“We’re not out there naming and shaming,” Mr. Quinn said. That’s partly because he doubts it would be very good for ANA revenue to embarrass its paying members publicly. But the goal is really to show advertisers how they’re doing compared to competitors and the broader industry.

And members can make their own results public if they want—which will of course occur when the news is good. That happened at last month’s ANA annual Masters of Marketing conference, where Georgia-Pacific CMO Douwe Bergsma noted that his company produced an ad with the second-highest GEM score in the first round of research.

“We’re not seeing ANA members or AFE members doing much better than average,” Mr. Quinn said. But he believes much of that is due to “unconscious bias” that will start to disappear once advertisers are conscious of it. Some marketers have privately said they plan to rework creative in the pipeline after seeing their GEM scores, he said.

Ad effectiveness

AFE is also looking at how ads with higher GEM scores fare in the market, and the results so far suggest they do better. Among the findings is that about 75% of voiceovers today are done by men, even though the research shows ads with female voiceovers are at least slightly more effective on average, based on ABX scores for such things as purchase interest.

In phase two, the AFE is turning its eye to programming. For that, it’s working with TiVo for a study that will rate TV shows for gender bias and, working with loyalty-card data, also track how ads placed in shows do at driving sales. “We’ve got data showing your same ad works very differently in good content than bad content,” Mr. Quinn said.

Then, the AFE will go even farther up the chain to celebrities who appear in ads and entertainment, including their digital and social-media activity, working with research firm MVP to look at how they’re viewed by people on gender equality issues.

Realistically, one celebrity likely to get a subpar GEM score—following a campaign in which his statements about women were a central issue—did ultimately close a big sale. Then again, President-elect Donald Trump lost the popular vote by more than 2 million, particularly in higher-income coastal markets that account for an outsized share of consumer spending, and bookings at his hotels reportedly suffered.

Meanwhile, data also suggests the entertainment industry, seen as a bastion of progressive politics, will have long way to go to improve its GEM scores. Research by the University of Southern California Media Diversity & Social Change Initiative shows only 31.4% of the 4,370 speaking roles in the top 100 feature films analyzed last year were female. That’s up from 28.1% in 2014, but a longer-term look shows only minor and wavering variations in that share since 2007.

Mr. Quinn is particularly puzzled by portrayal of women in science and technology roles in entertainment. which he said actually lags their representation in the U.S. workforce.

“I think that’s stunning,” he said.

Of course, research such as USC’s has been around eight years and nothing much has changed. But what’s different with GEM is that it will grade TV programs individually and share the results with AFE member marketers that are footing the bill. The #SeeHer initiative also has the support of big advertisers, including media executives from Unilever and Procter & Gamble Co., who helped lead it.

Gail Tifford, Unilever VP-Media and Digital Engagement for North America, was among the originators of #SeeHer. She wouldn’t go so far as to say that GEM scores would influence media buys, but said in a statement that the tool would help the industry “identify unconscious bias.”

P&G Chief Brand Officer and newly installed ANA Chairman Marc Pritchard listed gender equality issues and #SeeHer among his top priorities at the association. The GEM index will inform ad and media decisions at the country’s biggest advertiser, said spokeswoman Tressie Rose.

“P&G brands are committed to use our leadership voice in advertising and media to promote gender equality, including through our campaigns and where we place our media,” she said in a statement. “We have high standards for the ads we create and the programs where those ads are placed, and the GEM index is one more tool that can provide insights into our choices.”

13433: Galloping Gobbledygook.

Campaign published earlier crazy talk from diverted diversity diva Cindy Gallop, who urged White people to “stop talking about diversity” and presumably do something about it. Of course, based on Campaign’s version of Gallop’s rant, the veteran adwoman’s perspective on diversity is really focused on promoting White females. She also issued a challenge to attendees at the recent girlfriend get-together from The 3% Conference: “Write a strategic and creative brief for diversity within your company. Let’s come up with an incredibly strategically insightful, creatively innovative way to make your company diverse.” Um, most White advertising agencies can’t even manage to draft competent briefs for client projects. And if someone did craft a brief per Gallop’s instructions, the inevitable executions would undoubtedly regurgitate clichéd, contrived and culturally-clueless concepts including minority internships, tax-deductible scholarships, inner-city toddler recruitment, diversity committees, Chief Diversity Officers and charitable contributions to ADCOLOR® and The 3% Conference. And after making minimal-to-zero progress boosting racial and ethnic percentages, everyone would proceed to promote more White women and old White men, cheering it as addressing diversity with high-fives all around. Finally, Gallop would take full credit for igniting change while tearfully accepting an ADCOLOR® Award.

Cindy Gallop urges 3% Conference to ‘stop talking about diversity’

By Eleftheria Parpis

When agencies tell their employees that it’s vital to diversify, “you seriously alienate straight, white men,” said the activist.

Cindy Gallop, speaking at the 3% Conference in New York City on Thursday, gave men a selfish reason to hire and promote more women into senior positions: It’ll make their lives easier.

“Women make shit happen and get things done,” said Gallop, addressing attendees of the conference’s “Manbassadors” track, a concentration dedicated to the role of men in creating change. “It’ll make your life easier instantly.”

Women will do all the things that you don’t want to do and they won’t take credit for it, Gallop told the men—while simultaneously acknowledging this is behavior women need to change.

Gallop’s talk centered on seven steps she said would help foster diversity. One, put more women in leadership positions. Then, give them senior roles, step back and give them autonomy; equalize pay; stop talking about diversity; communicate through demonstration and end sexual harassment.

Though she bemoaned the tenor of the 2016 presidential election, she expressed gratitude that it had brought the topic of sexual harassment into the public eye. It is a widespread problem in the industry, and one that every woman working in it has been subjected to, including herself, she said, and it has had a profound impact on talent. “Sexual harassment manages women out of the industry,” she said. “Our industry has lost so much talent, so much creativity, so many skills over the decades because of sexual harassment.”

In regards to diversity, Gallop challenged the orthodoxy by advising the audience to stop talking about it. “Talking about diversity doesn’t help,” she said.

When agencies tell their employees that diversity is a priority, “you seriously alienate straight, white men,” she said. “They feel threatened and feel unsure of their position within your company.” And echoing the sentiment of another speaker, author Steve Almond, she said, “when men feel threatened, men weaponize their self-doubt.”

Not only should agencies stop talking about diversity in general, she said, they should stop talking about their diversity programs because it makes other people feel they don’t have to own the issue. “When people feel diversity is taken care of, they won’t do anything,” she said. Research has proven when you focus on remedying one area, it gives permission to “carry on with the same vices in other areas,” she said. It’s the same principle behind drinking a diet soda so you can eat a bag of potato chips.

“The quickest way to make people understand the business benefit of gender equality and diversity is to do it in a way that makes those benefits manifest,” she said.

To do that, she gave the audience a challenge, reminding them of the conference’s theme, “What are you going to do about it?”

“Write a strategic and creative brief for diversity within your company,” she said. “Let’s come up with an incredibly strategically insightful, creatively innovative way to make your company diverse.”

13375: Running On Empty Heads.

Adweek reported on She Runs It (the White women’s organization formerly known as Advertising Women of New York), which presented data trying to explain why White women are allegedly underrepresented in leadership roles in the advertising industry. The funniest part of the Adweek piece is the title, “How the Ad Industry Can Help Women Attain Top Leadership Positions.” In most cases, asking adland to foster equality is like assigning The Three Stooges to build a nuclear weapon—it’s a task well beyond their capabilities, and the mere attempt is a dangerous proposition. Yet for White women, reaching C-suite roles on Madison Avenue is not really a challenge. White women have the numbers and the presence to make it happen, probably with minimal support from White men in the field. What makes the She Runs It platform absolutely obscene? White advertising women of New York have been co-conspirators with White advertising men in preventing racial and ethnic minorities from integrating into White advertising agencies for decades. To suddenly position themselves as victims—and put themselves ahead of true minorities—is pretty pathetic. If She Runs It is honestly interested in diversity versus diverted diversity, the organization should compare its data charts against those of racial and ethnic minorities. Hell, the White women would probably feel downright grateful for the exclusive privileges they enjoy.

How the Ad Industry Can Help Women Attain Top Leadership Positions

And why they’re leaving in the first place

By Katie Richards

It’s a well-known fact that there are not nearly enough women in leadership positions in the advertising industry. This year during Advertising Week, She Runs It (the organization formerly known as Advertising Women of New York, or AWNY) released new data around the topic of gender diversity in agencies and why more women aren’t taking on the top leadership roles.

The extensive study, “Accelerating the Path to Leadership for Women in Marketing and Media,” was commissioned in partnership with LinkedIn and Ernst & Young and looked at more than 4,000 companies. Results from the study account for roughly 3.7 million LinkedIn members.

She Runs It looked at men and women across seven disciplines in media and marketing including creative and media agencies, publishers and ad-tech companies. The results uncovered suggest that while 41 percent of “early stage professionals” are in media and marketing gigs, by the time you reach the executive leadership stage only 25 percent of those roles are filled by women.

But the most significant drop off point, according to head of She Runs It, Lynn Branigan, comes at the non-executive level, or the VP level. “Everyone always talks about the fact that we lose women in the messy middle, that we lose them when they are at childbearing age, that they want to have families that cultures and company cultures aren’t at a place where they are family friendly and that’s where we lose them. When you take a look at that chart you see the biggest drop starts at non-executive leadership, that makes you think something else is going on here,” Branigan said. Women are either stalled, she argued, of they are exiting the industry.

Branigan argued one of the ways women could help propel themselves into higher positions begins with networking. According to the research, 70 percent of endorsements on LinkedIn are made by men, with 69 percent of women’s endorsements coming from men and 78 percent of men’s endorsements coming from men.

Added Branigan: “Clearly the importance of building your network, endorsing others and building your social score are all-important things for women to do. We build our career based upon relationships. Women have to recognize our differences and be proactive in changing some behaviors that are more natural for men.”

Plus, at the middle management level, there are a few skills gaps between men and women in HR, finance and strategy that may be preventing women from getting to that next level. If companies begin building out programs in those areas that help provide women with the necessary skills, Branigan argued that could be one way to help women move up in the business.

13291: Provocateur Or Poseur?

Campaign Editor-in-Chief Douglas Quenqua has done decent reporting in recent months, including exposing former JWT Worldwide Chairman and CEO Gustavo Martinez as an ignorant bigot. But Quenqua’s latest piece—“Cindy Gallop and the plight of the female provocateur”—warrants winning a big advertising agency copywriter job, as the editorial shows extraordinarily original and imaginative thinking.

Gallop apparently earned her “female provocateur” badge after being dissed by soon-to-be-former Saatchi & Saatchi Chairman Kevin Roberts, who opined, “I think she’s got problems that are of her own making. … I think she’s making up a lot of the stuff to create a profile, and to take applause, and to get on a soap[box].” From there, Quenqua labeled Gallop as a victim by stating, “Women who make it their business to agitate for social change, particularly if it leads to paid speaking or writing gigs, can expect regular accusations of opportunism.” Um, if that’s the worst Gallop endures, it only underscores the outrageousness of diverted diversity dimwits posing as true diversity advocates.

To clarify, diverted diversity dimwits are people who’ve jumped onto the White women bandwagon, protesting the alleged crimes that Caucasian females have endured in the advertising industry. Sure, White women are underrepresented in the upper ranks on Madison Avenue and beyond. However, besides White men, they are the most well-represented group by far. White women enjoy a lot of the same White privileges as their male counterparts. So while diverted diversity dimwits can be saluted for being concerned do-gooders, they’re more like fair weather fans, cheering an already successful team.

Riding the White women bandwagon is a drive in the country compared to fighting for true diversity. Women comprise over 50 percent of the total population in adland; hence, it’s easier to execute the six ways to rewrite gender proposed in the previous post. On the flip side, when you’re woefully underrepresented—as minorities are—building momentum is an arduous undertaking. It’s impossible to organize a Million Man March with single-digit crowds. Funding inclusive initiatives with crumbs is a financial hardship. Making more minorities visible when they’re currently invisible requires serious magic tricks. In contrast, the minority bandwagon has been deprived fuel—and even tires—for decades.

It’s true that Neil French and Kevin Roberts did terribly clumsy jobs of expressing their gender perspectives. However, the idiots’ opinions do not significantly differ from those of other industry leaders, including Sir John Hegarty. Additionally, many female advertising honchos agree that the proverbial glass ceiling is a relic of the past. Before becoming a born-again diverted diversity dimwit, FCB Global Chief Creative Officer Susan Credle confessed she didn’t believe the advertising field was tougher on women than men. To top it all off, gender diversity enthusiast Karen Mallia actually published a data-filled report explaining the dearth of dames in adland, using many of the same rationales as Messrs. French, Roberts and Hegarty.

Regarding Gallop, it’s difficult to fully embrace her as a “female provocateur” agitating for social change. There’s little evidence she marched for the cause when holding a position of power at BBH that would have allowed her to ignite the revolution. As for Quenqua’s assertion that Gallop faces gender-based backlash for her views, well, it’s hard to feel pity. As an outsider no longer professionally toiling in the field, she’s won’t suffer too much. Contrast Gallop’s plight to any adperson of color who has spoken out for diversity and against discrimination, and it’s no contest. Black executives especially have been blatantly blacklisted and blackballed for criticizing the White majority. True diversity champions such as Sanford Moore and Harry Webber—whose professional accomplishments exceed Gallop’s by leaps and bounds—established breakthrough programs to help minorities and served as fiery representatives for progress, only to be banished from Madison Avenue. On a side note, if any 56-year-old male leader regularly and openly bragged about their penchant for having sex with twentysomethings, would they remain employed very long? Gender advantages and disadvantages cut both ways—and the cuts aren’t nearly as sharp as those inflicted upon minorities.

Kudos to Quenqua for his fantasy-filled inventiveness. But he should spend some time spotlighting true diversity defenders versus cruising in the White women bandwagon.

Cindy Gallop and the plight of the female provocateur

By Douglas Quenqua

Kevin Roberts accused the outspoken diversity advocate of using the cause to glorify herself. Does it matter if he’s right?

Kevin Roberts is old enough to know what Mark Twain said about picking fights with people who buy ink by the barrel (hint: don’t do it). And he’s also young enough to know that the same warning applies to anyone with 45,000 very engaged followers on Twitter and a bio that reads, “I like to blow shit up.”

But there he was last week, publically dissing Cindy Gallop, former chairman of BBH and outspoken diversity advocate, as an opportunist who exploits issues of gender and race to raise her own profile.

“I think she’s got problems that are of her own making,” said the Saatchi & Saatchi chairman in the now-infamous Business Insider article. “I think she’s making up a lot of the stuff to create a profile, and to take applause, and to get on a soap[box].”

It may have been his comments about women in advertising and their lack of “vertical ambition” that got Roberts placed on leave. In 2016, telling a reporter that, when it comes to gender diversity, “the fucking debate is all over” is a one-way ticket to early retirement.

But it was his comments about Gallop that sealed Roberts’ fate as Public Enemy No. 1 on social media this past weekend. Once Gallop instructed “the women and men of the ad industry, all around the world, to tweet at @krconnect,’” Roberts’ chances of survival went from slim to dismal. By Saturday—barely 24 hours after the article was published—Roberts had been shown the door.

PETA, the ACLU and Cindy Gallop


Though Gallop said publicly on Monday that she won’t dignify Roberts’ comments by continuing to talk about them (she declined a request to talk for this article, too), female advocates say Roberts’ criticisms are distressingly familiar. Women who make it their business to agitate for social change, particularly if it leads to paid speaking or writing gigs, can expect regular accusations of opportunism.

“A lot of people still consider it unseemly for a woman to be self-promotional,” said Rachel Sklar, founder of female networking group The Li.st and the closest thing the tech community has to a Cindy Gallop. “Meanwhile, this guy Kevin Roberts created a hashtag out of his own name.”

Indeed, anyone who’s spent enough time eavesdropping on adland’s private conversations about Gallop has surely heard some version of Roberts’ rant: She goes too far, she blows it out of proportion, she’s only in it for herself. Like PETA or the ACLU, her actions can sometimes elicit eye-rolls from more moderate allies.

Sklar, who originated the #Changetheratio hashtag that Gallop has adopted, says men and women in tech have been accusing her of exploitation from her earliest days as a public advocate. Most famous were the barbs aimed at her by former TechCrunch editor Sarah Lacy at the 2010 TechCrunch Disrupt Conference, which Sklar had criticized for a lack of female representation.

“You’ve done great for you,” Lacy said to Sklar during a panel discussion. “You’re on stage at Disrupt, you drive lots of traffic, you get lots of attention. I think you’ve played it brilliantly.”

Such criticism is difficult to refute because it “cuts to the credibility of your motivations,” said Sklar. “When it’s first lobbed at you, your first reaction is to get defensive. Maybe they’re right! Maybe its your fault for becoming prominent by raising your voice about something that not that many people are yet raising their voice about.”

But over years of establishing herself as a force for change within the industry, Sklar says she no longer bothers to fight charges of opportunism. Instead, she asks why anyone should care. “It’s a ludicrous accusation,” she said. “What does it matter? Why is that the focus?”

“For the first time in the ad industry, there have been major consequences for explicit sexism” thanks largely to Gallop’s efforts, she continued. “And I find it really amazing that anyone would focus on, ‘Yeah but isn’t Cindy really getting something out of this? She should!”

The price of advocacy


To Gallop’s supporters, the fact that she simultaneously agitates for social change and raises her own profile doesn’t represent a conflict of interest. Jonathan Mildenhall, CMO at Airbnb, notes that Gallop plays an essential role in the industry by speaking unpleasant truths that others may shy away from. “Cindy is a provocateur for sure,” he said via email. “Even I wince a little at some of the things she says.”

“But I always credit her for having the balls to speak up,” he continued. “That said, does the industry need her? For sure. Is she making a difference? You bet. Does she benefit directly? Of course.”

Kat Gordon, founder of the 3% Conference, knows a thing or two about Gallop’s predicament. “Women who are accused of being self-serving when pointing out gender bias are in a double bind,” she said in an email message. “On the one hand, they’re missing opportunities or witnessing injustices in their companies. So they’re already in a no-win situation. Yet if they speak up about it, they’re griping, possibly because they’re ‘not a team player’ or are using their gender as an excuse for other problems in their performance.”

Which is one more reason why it’s important for everyone to speak up about workplace injustice, she says. “The ‘principle of another messenger’ phenomenon is quite powerful,” she said. “If a man points out something he notices that unfairly impacts women, he must be telling the truth. He has no ‘agenda.’ And if a white person points out something she notices that unfairly impacts people of color, she is also perceived to be telling the truth.”

Also driving the exploitation narrative are a couple of misperceptions about the life of a cultural activist, said Sklar. Most common is that the barrier to entry is low, that it costs someone nothing to make waves over an issue in an industry they’re not a part of. Just as Gallop hasn’t worked in advertising for years, Sklar had never worked for a tech startup before she raised her voice on gender issues, which helped feed resentment to her actions.

But being outside the industry gives Gallop the freedom to say things people in positions of power can’t afford to, said Ian Schafer, CEO of Deep Focus. “She’s been on the inside in an executive chairman position, but now that she’s on the outside, she can reflect on it without recourse,” he said.

“There’s no corporate PR telling her she can’t say something,” allowing her to be “a lightning rod to attract a conversation.”

It’s also a mistake to assume that the role doesn’t exact a price on the activist, said Sklar. “You’re risking people not wanting to deal with you, not wanting to book you cause they don’t want to ruffle feathers, don’t want to offend the power structure you may be challenging” she said. “I, for sure, have experienced that.”

“There should be rewards for sticking your neck out for social change,” she said. “And those rewards should not then vitiate the praise or appreciation we have for the people who take the risk in the first place.”

The publicity paradox


To be sure, there is little reason to believe Gallop’s diversity work has added considerably to her wealth or her fame. As several people interviewed for this article noted, her main business pursuits at the moment, the startups IfWeRanTheWorld and MakeLoveNotPorn, are only tangentially related to gender diversity, and she has been vocal about women’s issues in advertising since her days as an agency executive (“This has always been her thing,” noted Schafer). Exactly what Roberts believed Gallop was reaping from her advocacy work is unclear. (UPDATE: Gallop got in touch this morning to assure us that she earns “absolutely nothing” from her work on diversity and the ad industry.)

And being a relentless voice for change can, paradoxically, have a negative effect on your profile. An editor for an advertising trade publication, who requested anonymity to preserve relations with Gallop, talked about sometimes being reluctant to use her as a source.

“On the one hand, she always comes to mind when you need someone to talk about diversity,” said the editor. “She’s always good for a quote.”

“But that comes with grain of salt,” the editor continued, “because these issues are complicated, and nothing is as easy as it looks on Twitter. What Cindy is able to do is bring it down to the most simple-to-understand bit, and that makes her, on the one hand, invaluable. But I do question if we’re missing the finer points of this debate.”

That said, the debate might not be where it is today were it not for Gallop’s efforts. “Cindy’s voice, her tenacity, her presence is doing more to change the ratio of gender diversity in our industry than any other single source,” Mildenhall said. “Simply because she is directly changing the way the industry shows up and presents itself to the world.”

“Sure it’s uncomfortable for the establishment,” he continued, “but that’s because the establishment have the most to lose. And, if we are honest, what Cindy has to gain is a fraction of what the current establishment has to lose.”

13254: You Da Manbassador.

Advertising Age published more diverted diversity dreck via The Martin Agency President and COO Beth Rilee-Kelley’s call to arms for “Manbassadors”—that is, White men advocating for the promotion of White women in the advertising industry. See, Rilee-Kelley admits that White men have helped her rise, and she acknowledges the need for their committed collaboration to create change. Of course, no mention is made about the way that White men and White women in the field have failed to take such deliberate action steps to foster actual diversity. Indeed, White men and White women have historically conspired to divert, defer and deny diversity. There are no “BlackManbassadors” advocating for Black men on Madison Avenue and beyond—rather, there are only self-absorbed hypocrites and covert racists.

Calling All Manbassadors

Better Gender Diversity Requires More Male Sponsors

By Beth Rilee-Kelley

I first heard the term “manbassador” at the 3% Conference a few years back.

And it resonated with me.

Manbassadors are men who are particularly tuned in to the roadblocks women face in business and do all they can to mentor, encourage and promote women in the workplace. In essence, they’re sponsors.

There’s a very important conversation going on right now about gender diversity and respect (or sometimes lack thereof) of women by men in our industry. But in the midst of this discussion, I want to acknowledge the men who elegantly served as manbassadors long before the term was coined and who played instrumental roles in the careers of women like me. And perhaps more importantly, I’d like to ask more men to step up and carry the manbassador torch for the aspiring female leaders of tomorrow.

Several weeks ago, I was named president of The Martin Agency. I’ve worked at this great company for 33 years and it’s a wonderful honor to be named president. And yes, it’s even more wonderful to be the first female president.

So, a moment like that naturally spurs a great deal of personal reflection. As I thought about what I might want to say to our staff following the announcement of my new role, I reflected on the most influential people in my career.

That’s when it struck me. They were all men. And of course they were, because early in my career there simply weren’t very many women in leadership positions in our industry.

Here are three lessons I learned from my “manbassadors:”

1. Have a presence. From the way you prepare for meetings to how you carry yourself, engage with a room full of people and speak your mind, work to have a presence in every interaction with co-workers and clients. This is one of the fastest ways to go from being bystander to participant to leader. Have an opinion and let your voice be heard.

2. Master and move on. I learned early on the importance of mastering the job or assignment at hand, training someone else to take over and then moving on to another assignment that needed me more. This advice—go where you’re needed and never get bored—is always in the back of my mind, and explains my winding career path through account management, to creative services and human resources, to chief operating officer and now president.

3. Be confident. Sounds simple, right? We all know it’s really not that easy. But a funny thing happens when you over-prepare for every meeting, presentation or one-on-one encounter. Your confidence goes up. And your confidence inspires others to be confident. (See how this pays it all forward?) And while some may believe rehearsals are so old school, think again. When you know your material like the back of your hand and you’ve practiced transitions and answering tough questions with your team (and in front of the mirror) you can bring swagger to a potentially nerve-wracking meeting.

These three pieces of advice were critically important to me and they were not simply shared with me. I watched the best of the best, in action. And they’re good reminders for us all, no matter your gender, job title or industry.

I hope that I have, or will make, as much of a difference in someone else’s career as my manbassadors made in mine. So years from now, what will young men and women remember as my rallying cry? Only time will tell for sure, but I hope it would include these two things:

1. Be a mentor. Better yet, be someone’s ambassador. At almost any level in your company you can lead by example, be an encouraging role model and help accelerate career growth for someone else. Mentoring doesn’t need to be a formal, regularly-scheduled process. It can be casual conversations, phone calls or even text exchanges. Whatever works. And by the way, I can’t imagine not mentoring. I find it a rewarding experience watching others grow. I think of it as a daily way to live my work life.

2. Seek out an ambassador. When you find that person with the experience and talent you admire, reach out to him or her, ask for advice and get a conversation started. Think of it as an important step in managing your career. Most leaders I know enjoy this part of their jobs. In fact, it’s a highlight.

Sometimes the issues in our industry seem so big and complex that it’s hard to know how any of us, as individuals, can contribute to the solution. But take the manbassadors in my career as an example; their positive influence wasn’t the direct result of any one thing at any one point, but instead was the sum of little things done consistently over time.

If you want to make a difference in a future leader’s career, you might start with something as simple as having a cup of coffee.

Beth Rilee-Kelley is president and chief operating officer of The Martin Agency.

13025: How White Women Succeed.

Campaign diverted diversity by publishing “How to succeed as a woman in advertising”—featuring Grey London ECD Vicki Maguire and Hanson Search Founder and CEO Alice Weightman. The interview included references to diversity, but mostly in regards to the success of White women in adland. You go, girls!

12991: Diverted Diversity In 2015.

Diverted Diversity was the theme for 2015. After all, the past year saw the most progress for diversity in decades—albeit exclusively benefitting White women. Yes, the oh-so-awful plight of White women to achieve equality in the advertising industry is finally being addressed. Shattering the glass ceiling has become, well, sexy. You go, girl! Go ahead and create diversions to take the ever-dimming spotlight off racial and ethnic discrimination in our field.

AMV BBDO Group Chairman-CEO Cilla Snowball diverted diversity by stressing the imperative to fight sexism and ageism—completely ignoring racism.

CES 2015 digitally diverted diversity by showing “the smartest people in the room” are predominately White women.

Y&R combined Diverted&Diversity with its White woman appointment.

Deutsch diverted diversity with its White women succession success.

Thinkbox CEO and Wacl VP Lindsey Clay diverted diversity like a damned dumb dame, prompting a request that she stifle herself. BTW, Wacl is wack and wildly exclusive.

M&C Saatchi diverted diversity by replacing one White woman with four men. Plus, the place hired a White woman to serve in the new role of head of talent.

Kat Gordon diverted diversity with a fumble for the Super Bowl. The woman is fast becoming the Queen of Diversity Diversion, with certifiably nutty ideas. Honestly, how many women of color have advanced through 3% Conference efforts? Probably less than three.

Ogilvy New York diverted diversity by finding a qualified White woman in their own hallways.

Japanese-owned Dentsu diverted diversity, bypassing Asian for Caucasian.

Why, diverting diversity is getting redundant at times.

Wieden + Kennedy diverted diversity by hiring a White woman as an Executive Creative Director—Now that’s fucked up!

Leo Burnett diverted diversity by not making White women wait 66 years for fair representation.

Diversity is diverted when you embrace failure and hold bitch sessions and whine events.

OgilvyOne diverted diversity with one round of promotions.

Omnicom diverted diversity with an exclusive training day—and the holding company will divert accountability by steadfastly refusing to reveal EEO-1 data.

PHD Chief Strategy and Innovation Officer Frances Ralston-Good diverted diversity via some not-so-good advice to White women.

Business Insider diverted diversity by saluting White women in creative departments.

Cannes diverted diversity with a new award, new juries, new jurors and old smokescreens. The festival displayed its true colors too.

Is anything more annoying than a White woman diverting diversity by complaining about the gender pay gap while openly acknowledging minorities are even worse off than White women? How about a White woman diverting diversity by griping about the insulting ways White women are depicted in advertising, seemingly oblivious to the fact that minorities are stereotyped in worse ways—in the few instances when they’re depicted at all? Or another White woman diverting diversity by imploring White women to band together for greater White dominance?

Adweek diverted diversity and celebrated the rash of White women hired as Chief Creative Officers, including a laughable quote from Y&R NYC CCO Leslie Sims: “Diversity of any kind on an agency leadership team is a real advantage. And given that there’s such a wide array of clients and even a broader diversity of consumers, making sure you have a mixture of perspective is really important.” A peek at the People page of Y&R’s website clearly shows the “real advantage” is essentially White privilege.

White men diverted diversity by jumping on the White women bandwagon, inspired by daughters, Glass Lions, Rosa Parks, Harriet Tubman and Caitlyn Jenner. Plus, the ever-culturally-clueless Sir John Hegarty chimed in to declare, “There is no glass ceiling in our industry.” The old man also presented a semi-polite version of the Neil French perspective.

As the year progressed, White women continued to divert diversity through their words and actions. Susan Credle moved from diversity-averting Leo Burnett to diversity-delinquent FCB. JWT Creative Kat Thomas claimed she’s thrived in the advertising industry as a White woman because she sorta acts like a White man. Saatchi & Saatchi London CCO Kate Stanners wrote, “How to be a chief creative officer,” ultimately demonstrating how to be a CCO—a culturally clueless oaf. Newly appointed Wunderman CMO Jamie Gutfreund proved White women are just as capable of spewing mindless gobbledygook as White men. FCB Global Chief Talent Officer Cynthia Augustine ripped Raven-Symoné while exhibiting extraordinary ignorance.

Havas Chicago diverted diversity by bragging over its White gender equality. SapientNitro diverted diversity by bragging over its program to help White women return from extended time away—yet offered no schemes to recruit and retain minorities. Digiday diverted diversity by predicting holding companies will make diversity a priority in 2016. Hate to keep hammering the same point, but the holding companies aren’t even publicizing EEO-1 data.

PepsiCo Global Beverage Group President Brad Jakeman diverted diversity when ripping advertising agencies for being too White and male—despite the fact that Jakeman still conspires with White shops. Jakeman later jumped on the White women bandwagon.

DDB prefers Coke versus Pepsi, diverting diversity by poaching Wendy Clark from The Coca-Cola Company.

The Women of Tomorrow awards diverted diversity yesterday, today and tomorrow.

Finally, BBDO New York President and CEO John Osborn wished he will divert diversity in 2016. And he’ll probably do it—along with the rest of the advertising industry.

12944: Follow The Bad Leader.

Advertising Age published a perspective by Collins President Amber Guild titled, “Agencies Should Follow Clients’ Lead on Diversity.” Guild makes some decent points; however, her piece lacks any new ideas on the old topic. For example, Guild opened by saluting PepsiCo Global Beverage Group President Brad Jakeman—who criticized White advertising agencies for their abject lack of diversity and alleged surfeit of gender inequality despite constantly conspiring with the firms. So it could be argued that agencies are following client’s lead on diversity, in that both parties talk the talk while failing to walk the walk. Guild also claimed her company is attempting to be progressive about inclusion. Yet one of Collins’ first solutions involves a Harlem high school apprenticeship. Wow, that’s a fresh concept.

Agencies Should Follow Clients’ Lead on Diversity

By Amber Guild

A few weeks ago, PepsiCo’s Brad Jakeman called out advertising agencies for not evolving with the times. Most important, he criticized them for their lack of diversity.

Amen, Mr. Jakeman.

As a woman of color who is the president of a growing brand and experience firm, I can tell you from firsthand experience that everything Mr. Jakeman said is true.

I got my first job in advertising when I was 19. I needed to make some money to help pay for my next year at college. My sister, who had been working as a receptionist at Bozell Worldwide, asked her friend in HR if there were any openings. Before I knew it, I was a secretary in their retail group.

That summer, I was introduced to a world I never knew existed. A vibrant world where people came together to play each other songs (I learned they were called jingles), where you could spend all day at an edit studio eating M&M’s, where artists sketched all morning long and where the last day of the week was Keg Friday.

But it wasn’t until I sat behind a two-way mirror and listened to people talk about what our clients’ brands meant to them that I was hooked. What self-respecting psychology major wouldn’t want to work in a world where we tried to figure out what people think? And it was fun.

From day one, though, I noticed that the only other people of color seemed to be secretaries, receptionists or workers in the mail room. And the only women on the executive floor sat in front of their C-suite bosses’ office doors minding their calendars. It was 1998.

Over the next 17 years, I experienced the worst and the best of the ad industry. I saw people of color relegated to “urban” work. I heard male supervisors say that women “lost their focus” after they came back from maternity. I saw working mothers call their babysitters at 8 p.m. and through cracked voices tell them they weren’t sure when they’d be home. I witnessed women being consistently paid less than their male counterparts.

By the summer of 2014, I was a senior executive and I just walked out. I was tired—exhausted really. Yes, I had “leaned in,” but I was starting to think, “Why should I? Why should we be the ones who have to lean into a world and a culture that wasn’t created for us?”

I am not saying there has been no progress. The client world is changing much faster than ours. There are many more senior female marketing executives than when I began—and that’s a good start. But it’s time for agencies to do what many clients are doing: take a long, hard look at their cultures and identify the areas for change.

We are in the business of ideas. Diversity—and collision of thought, experience, perspective and people—is where the electricity comes from. It just doesn’t make business sense to ignore it any longer.

It’s time that the leaders of the industry start asking themselves:

• Is there a correlation between the lack of diversity and the ad industry’s growing business irrelevancy?

• Why exactly do women leave? And why have the people of color never arrived?

• Do we think our culture of overwork really leads to great work?

• Why are women paid less than men doing the same job?

Last fall, I had coffee with Brian Collins and Leland Maschmeyer, two creative leaders whose work I deeply admire. We realized that the three of us were trying to answer the same question: Why should an industry tasked with building brands have a talent base that in no way reflects the diversity of the world we live in?

We also had a shared belief that the only way we could get to business-changing ideas for our clients is if we focus on building a culture that represents the wider world and allows us richer perspective into it. That meant creating a new kind of place where women, parents, people of color, people with disabilities, gay, lesbian, straight, transgender, caregivers, introverts, white dudes, extroverts, data seekers, “Firefly” geeks and every faith can thrive.

So last December, I joined the team at Collins. While we certainly don’t have it all figured out at our firm, we’re moving full steam ahead, working to build a culture for a quickly evolving creative industry. Among our first efforts is one that starts at the beginning: a new program with Harlem high schools for apprenticeships in design thinking. (But that’s a story for another day.)

We need more places where all people are valued—and supported. Our clients face new, complex challenges every day. The only way we can create meaningful experiences for people is if we share a real understanding of how we all live. Then we can celebrate our unity in our diversity.

12938: WoT WTF.

Campaign Global Editor In Chief Claire Beale posted a pathetic and patronizing perspective on gender equality in adland, inadvertently exposing the cultural cluelessness that persists in the field. For example, Beale opened by stating, “When a select bunch of the brightest and best young stars in the ad business were asked this week to name a leader they admired, there were plenty of answers, from Nelson Mandela to John Lennon.” First of all, why would the brightest and best name John Lennon as an admired leader? Second, putting Lennon in the same category as Nelson Mandela is pretty sad. Third, naming Mandela while working in a field where the exclusivity is arguably worse than pre-Mandela South Africa shows extraordinary hypocrisy, insensitivity and ignorance. Beale then segued to plug the Women of Tomorrow awards. Additionally, Beale spotlighted initiatives launched by various White advertising agencies to address the alleged dearth of dames, including equal pay schemes and Rooney Rule-style mandates for interviews. Um, why haven’t such tactics been implemented to address diversity in regards to recruiting and retaining non-Whites? If someone hatched an awards show to salute racism in the advertising industry, it would require producing an infinite number of first-place trophies.

Plenty of room at the top for women in advertising

By Claire Beale

When a select bunch of the brightest and best young stars in the ad business were asked this week to name a leader they admired, there were plenty of answers, from Nelson Mandela to John Lennon.

What there weren’t, though, were any women. Not a single female leader made the impromptu list.

The respondents were attending the second Campaign Future Leaders Programme. All had been identified by their agencies as people heading for top jobs in our industry. As it turned out, only a third of the future leaders on the course were women, which is in itself a worrying prognosis for the future of our business.

Anyway, if this group of ambitious execs had been asked to name great female leaders, no doubt they would have offered up plenty of examples — there’s no shortage. As it was, they appeared to succumb to a default association that conflates leadership with men.

So it was appropriate that this was also the week that the IPA and Campaign kicked off the Women of Tomorrow awards for 2016, which identify and champion those women on track for leadership positions in agencies. The awards invest a new generation of role models for young women coming into the business.

Yes, these are awards that recognise women but, crucially, they are designed to drive the success of the industry and secure its future: businesses with a good gender split at the top are proven to be more successful. A report last month from the accountants Grant Thornton found that publicly traded companies in the UK with only male directors missed out on £49 billion of investment returns last year — about 3 per cent of GDP.

We simply aren’t doing enough to encourage and support women as they rise through the ranks. WoT is a fabulous initiative and sits alongside Wacl’s prestigious Future Leaders award, which offers a training bursary to help women get to the top. But agencies themselves need to take systematic action.

It was clear from the WoT debate on Tuesday night, which officially launched the call for entries, that plenty of agencies are already doing just that. Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO has set up a benchmarking system to ensure salary parity across the company; Bartle Bogle Hegarty is into the second year of its equal pay initiative but, when the agency interrogated its salary data, it actually found that it only had issues with the pay of three executives — and one of them was a man; J Walter Thompson is introducing a new approach to hiring creative talent, ensuring there’s always a woman on the interview shortlist and that interviews are conducted by a man and a woman. If your agency isn’t working on similar schemes, now’s the time to ask why not.

12936: Supergirl, Defender Of Diversity.

Campaign continues to jump on the White women bandwagon by presenting Supergirl as a launching pad to discuss diversity.

‘Supergirl’ has a diminutive name but could have a big impact on diversity

By I-Hsien Sherwood

The new CBS TV series highlights the difficulties of working with old properties in a modern world

In the pilot episode of “Supergirl,” CBS deftly highlighted the glaring issue of its main character’s anachronistic name, choosing none other than Ally McBeal (née Calista Flockhart) to argue for the defense.

“What do you think is so bad about ‘girl?’ Huh? I’m a girl. And your boss, and powerful, and rich, and hot and smart,” says Flockhart as Cat Grant, founder and owner of the eponymous media conglomerate CatCo. “So if you perceive ‘Supergirl’ as anything less than excellent, isn’t the real problem you?”

Certainly, CBS isn’t the first to embrace the “girl” moniker. The Girl Scouts have long been at the vanguard of women’s empowerment, the Always “Like a Girl” campaign won the first Glass Lion at Cannes this year and a generation of children grew up watching the Powerpuff Girls kick butt.

But the way CBS chose to handle the inevitable questions about “Supergirl” exemplifies a problem many companies face when dealing with comic book media — a growing challenge in our comics-saturated culture. Namely, how does one reflect the diversity and values of the audience while remaining true to source material that is often decades behind the times?

“We sort of wanted to have a conversation with our characters that we believed that the audience would be having, and that others might be having in terms of saying, ‘Well, she’s an adult woman — why isn’t it called Superwoman?’” executive producer Andrew Kreisberg said in a conference call after the pilot aired. “The temptation is there by executives to alter things that are, I think, just part of the DNA of what was so great about the comic book, and so we really wanted to be protective about the name of the show.”

It’s a name with plenty of history. Supergirl was introduced in 1959 as part of a pattern of young sidekicks to established male superheroes. Power Girl — an alternate universe version of Supergirl known for her particularly revealing costume — appeared in 1976. Janet van Dyne was a founding member of the Avengers in 1963, and T’Challa debuted as Black Panther in 1966.

So historically, comics properties haven’t been very diverse, and that’s reflected in present-day casting choices. Batman and Superman are both played by white men, as are five of the six original Marvel Cinematic Universe Avengers. “It’s still a white, middle-class, cisgender world in comics, but there has been some improvement,” said Alyson Buckman, an associate professor at California State University, Sacramento who teaches pop culture and multiculturalism and an editor of “Joss Whedon’s Dollhouse: Confounding Purpose, Confusing Identity.”

But what is a studio or a TV network to do?

In most cases, they simply run with it. Hollywood is pretty white anyway (all 20 of the 2015 Oscar acting nominations went to white actors), and diverse casting changes can sometimes backfire. A black Batman, for example, might justifiably be viewed as pandering, but less-than-iconic characters have proven to be more malleable. “Supergirl” recasts red-haired, freckle-faced cub photographer Jimmy Olsen as award-winning African-American photojournalist James Olsen. “It just kind of goes to show you that all things are possible, that we can reimagine what our great-grandfathers didn’t,” Mehcad Brooks, who plays the updated Olsen, told IGN at San Diego Comic-Con this summer. Black British actor Idris Elba portrays Heimdall the Asgardian (aliens based on the ancient Norse gods) in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

In CBS’ case, they already had a popular female character with a difficult publication history (at one point, the comics simply wrote her out of existence) and a child’s name. Fans would have resisted a name change for someone so well-known that hadn’t already been telegraphed in the comics. Yet it would have pushed the bounds of believability to have the show’s millennial characters refrain from commenting on the old-fashioned name. The only choice CBS had was to call it out and explain it away. Results were mixed.

“I reacted to the ‘Supergirl’ conversation in the pilot as a post-feminist moment: we’re all just girls here!” Buckman said. “Calling a woman over the age of 18 ‘girl’ is insulting, though they’re not going to change the name.” While Buckman understands the reasoning behind that decision, she said the negative consequences remain. “Clark Kent gets to be a ‘man,’ while his cousin remains infantilized due to her gender.”

That post-feminist feeling was intentional. “In today’s world it kind of doesn’t matter that she’s female. She’s just a powerful, incredible person,” said executive producer Ali Adler at New York Comic-Con last month. “If we were to have a female president, we’d talk about her gender first, but ultimately we’re going to see her as the president, and I think that’s the same thing with Supergirl. She just is an incredible, strong, brave, smart ass-kicker, and so it’s great that she’s female, but she’s really just getting the bad guy every week.”

Still, “Supergirl” does get credit for being more diverse than most shows. “It’s unusual to have four powerful women: the two Danvers women, Supergirl’s aunt and the newspaper boss,” Buckman added. “I also like that they made Jimmy/James Olsen into a black man who is smart and insightful.”

An alternative to reimagining characters is to elevate lesser-known but diverse characters to prominence. In 2011, DC Comics made Cyborg — a black athlete turned human/machine hybrid after a serious accident — a founding member of the Justice League, making him a close colleague of the holy trinity of comics: Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman. War Machine, Falcon and Scarlet Witch are now full-fledged Avengers in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Marvel also took the bit character Peggy Carter and fleshed her out as a fully capable secret agent. After a starring role in “Captain America: The First Avenger,” the character (as well as the actress, Hayley Atwell) went on to headline her own series. “I’ve really enjoyed ‘Agent Carter,’” Buckman said of that show. “She’s smart, resourceful, and physically capable.”

Of course, even when minority characters appear in comics, they’re not always represented well. Consider the kerfuffle over “Supergirl” star Melissa Benoist’s costume. No exposed midriff, dark tights — a far cry from the more traditional cheerleader outfit Kara Zor-El usually sports. One of the first TV-to-comics characters was Joker-sidekick Harley Quinn, who first appeared on “Batman: The Animated Series” in the 1990s, but she’s become more a caricature and sex object than relatable woman. Still, the character is very popular, and Margot Robbie could bring depth to the role in the upcoming 2016 film “Suicide Squad.”

The other, more difficult, more expensive option is to create new, more diverse characters. But that requires the will to invest in creative processes that value new and different viewpoints. There’s evidence that it pays off, in time. The superpowered private investigator Jessica Jones first appeared in comics in 2001, but the much-anticipated Marvel series debuts on Netflix later this month.

12929: White Women Of Tomorrow.

Campaign reported on a pathetic and patronizing film—created by Campaign, the IPA and Lida—to hype the Women of Tomorrow competition. The film essentially exposes the oh-so-shocking differences between White women and White men in the advertising field. Jesus, this faux outrage over adland’s alleged gender inequality is getting tired. Why not focus instead on what these two groups have in common—that is, they are co-conspirators in deliberately and systematically maintaining the exclusive status quo in our industry?

12926: Daughters In Distress.

This patronizing and pathetic video advocates for gender equality—yet the key creators appear to be White men. The girls in the video express shock and dismay to discover women face insults, inequities and injustices that one might expect to happen in 1915 versus 2015. Um, in the advertising industry, White men have aimed discrimination towards minorities for about 200 years—and counting.

12922: WACLusivity.

Had a delayed adverse reaction to the WACL post on the organization’s Future Leaders Award. The future looks bleak, given the White women exclusivity presented in the award winners photo. More disturbing is the Campaign write-up (see below) authored by Ogilvy & Mather Group UK Chief Marketing Officer Nina Jasinski. For starters, Jasinski repeatedly used the word “diverse” in her gushing; however, the term only referred to diversity of disciplines and training opportunities. In other words, the Future Leaders Award—like the overall UK advertising and marketing community—has little concern for racial and ethnic diversity. Additionally, a former WACL President was quoted as saying, “Research shows that women do not get a fair share of the training budget for senior leadership courses. This highly valued fund puts WACL’s money where its mouth is and has made important contributions to the careers of many of our current and future stars.” Really? Please cite the specific research. Besides, no research is necessary to confirm that minorities receive even less than a fair share of the training budget for senior leadership courses. Hell, they probably don’t register a fraction of a share of the budget at all. Of course, Jasinski was quick to point out that the overall prize winner “was born in London to a Spanish father and Colombian mother…” Was every winner identified by her parents’ cultural backgrounds? Oh, never mind—it’s not necessary.

WACL celebrates Future Leaders Awards

By Nina Jasinski

There’s plenty going wrong with our industry, but this is a scheme dedicated to what’s going right, says the chief marketing officer at Ogilvy & Mather Group UK.

Everyone was so busy celebrating the Big Awards last week that it might be easy to overlook this week’s announcement of another of our industry’s prizes. The Future Leaders Awards from Women in Advertising and Communications London (WACL) is in its 10th year.

The prizes of these women-only training bursaries for 2015 ought to be a matter of rejoicing, for they are backed by the major media, advertising and marketing companies across the industry. Chairing the judging has been one of the most fulfilling roles I’ve done.

It all started with the work of one woman — Tess Alps, well known to Campaign readers in her Thinkbox chair role but slightly less well known as a former WACL president.

She set out to create a scheme to support early and mid-career women who have high potential but may be in danger of not making the next step up to the senior level.

Alps said: “Research shows that women do not get a fair share of the training budget for senior leadership courses. This highly valued fund puts WACL’s money where its mouth is and has made important contributions to the careers of many of our current and future stars.”

An FLA gives a training bursary of up to £2,250 and, via formal entry form and panel interviews, the winners have to demonstrate high potential for senior leadership roles, acting as role models for other women.

This year there were 147 entries — the highest ever — with 14 final winners. This year’s cohort of winners came from a diverse group of organisations ranging from Aviva, Barclays and Google as well as agencies J Walter Thompson, Ogilvy & Mather, Mother, and Starcom Mediavest Group.

The winners also work in huge variety of roles, from a young woman working as head of support in a small charity to an operations director in a digital agency, a development manager at Google and a group head of brand at Aviva.

The training that it will fund is as diverse too, from presentation training at Rada to a marketing strategy course at the London School of Economics.

The overall prize, known as the Patricia Mann Award and named after the late advertising executive, went to Pilar Santos, an art director at Mother. Santos was born in London to a Spanish father and Colombian mother and worked on the original “Here Come The Girls” Christmas campaign for Boots.

An accomplished creative, Santos’ ambition is to lead not only creative projects, but also the agency as a whole. Her training grant will co-fund one craft course and one leadership course. In some ways her ambition mirrors Patricia Mann’s dynamic career — Mann started as a copywriter at JWT and rose to the top of her profession via roles on the ASA council and board positions at the Woolwich and Centrica.

The award has helped numerous women in their leadership journey who are now in high profile roles including Claire Valoti, the director of agency partnerships at Facebook; Frances Ralston-Good, the chief strategy and innovation officer at Omnicom Media Group; and Sophie Maunder-Allan, the chief executive at VCCPme.

Mauder-Allan said: “I won the FLA in 2007 and completed a course at the IPA. While the content of the course helped my career enormously at the time, the real boost was about confidence and feeling supported, encouraged and believed in by an incredible group of leading women in my industry.

“As CEO of VCCPme now and a WACL member, I am proud to have come full circle and now sit on the FLA committee.”

Over the past 10 years WACL has given out 90 Future Leaders Awards, worth over £150,000. It’s been an honour be involved with a scheme that really helps our future stars.

There’s plenty going wrong with our industry, but this is a scheme dedicated to what’s going right. Congratulations to all our winners.

Nina Jasinski is the chief marketing officer at Ogilvy & Mather Group UK

12915: WACL Is Wack.

Campaign reported WACL celebrated its Future Leaders Award, and the accompanying photo underscored the organization’s exclusivity—as well as underscored that WACL President Lindsey Clay is a fucking idiot.

12908: 3% Conference 100% Certifiable.

Adweek reported on the latest propaganda from The 3% Conference: a certification program to designate advertising agencies as friendly advocates of gender equality. Agencies could be certified upon submitting data on women staffers, followed by successfully meeting suggested goals. If this goofy idea takes off, someone should file a major league lawsuit against the industry. After all, White holding companies and White advertising agencies have steadfastly refused to openly publicize staff figures for minorities—so suddenly sharing such information on White women in the field would be, well, certifiably obscene.

Agencies That Care About Gender Equality Can Now Get ‘3 Percent Certified’

Advocacy group announces voluntary auditing

By Katie Richards

The 3 Percent Conference has a new plan for promoting gender equality at America’s advertising agencies: It’s introducing a certification program. The advocacy group announced the initiative at its New York conference today, equipped with data from a study that details what 328 women working in agencies really want.

The seal of approval—introduced by twtw Companies president Erin Carpenter and Accelerating Women founder and CEO Lisen Stromberg—is called “3 Percent Certified.” The program will certify agencies that not only set out to promote equality, but make real changes to their organization along the way.

“We are going to go out and talk to the talent, find out what the talent is experiencing, look at the individual agency’s programs, cultures and community and go beyond that to see what’s the benchmark, not just in the industry but outside the industry,” Stromberg said. “You can find out, how is your agency doing and what can your agency do to make changes?”

When an agency applies for certification, an independent auditing committee will collect information on salaries, the breakdown of men and women in leadership positions, and more. Then, the group will suggest benchmarks along with ways to reach a more balanced agency. If the shop can successfully hit those goals, it will be certified.

“We’re not going to be unrealistic and say to an agency that’s 8 percent women to be 50 percent in a year, but we will have reasonable, attainable goals that will move that needle,” Carpenter said.

“By earning that [certification], you’re sending the message out that says, ‘Hey, this is an agency that really honors and respects diversity, honors and respects respects women,’ and that is a talent-acquisition tool like there is none,” Stromberg added.

While 3 Percent Conference founder Kat Gordon had the idea awhile ago, Carpenter said the organization had to prove that placing more women in leadership roles leads to happier employees and better work cultures. Once the study on what ad women want was complete, it provided the necessary data to kick the certification program off.

The 3 Percent Conference study showed that while 56 percent of women reported they were making an adequate salary ($100,000 a year or more) and 78 percent stated they were satisfied with their current roles, 30 percent have no female leaders to look up to. An additional 60 percent reported that their agency was below the new standard of 11 percent of females holding creative director roles.

At agencies where women make up at least a quarter of the creative leadership, women reported higher levels of job satisfaction, better pay and fewer instances of discrimination than other agencies. For instance, 64 percent said they earn over $100,000, compared with 54 percent of their counterparts at more male-dominated agencies.

“Integration of data and the importance of having analytics to drive what we are talking about just became much more important. It became less abstract and more concrete. We were able to track what happens when the leadership ratio goes up a bit, and we’re seeing a real impact,” Carpenter said.