17593: On Zapping Callaway And Good Good Golf.

Adweek published more seemingly self-promotional schadenfreude from the Chief Marketing Officer of Zappi, who threw her sanctimonious soapbox at Callaway and Good Good Golf for their misogynistic marketing.

The author made one semi-insightful point: “The problem is that the infrastructure hasn’t kept up. Brands are producing more content, across more platforms, with more partners, for more audiences. The old model of heavily researching a few major campaigns wasn’t built for hundreds of smaller decisions.”

This is followed by shameless self-promotion, as the CMO presents Zappi AI services as capable of screening content quickly and efficiently.

There are key flaws in the proposal.

First, the old model never heavily researched a few major campaigns—at least not through a culturally competent lens. Indeed, work was evaluated with an exclusive, predominately White perspective.

Second, AI has already been called out for its cultural cluelessness. The real problem in this area involves technology and algorithms created with an exclusive, predominately White perspective.

Third, the root problem—which Adland has absolutely failed to address for at least 75 years—is the global DEIBA+ issue. That is, White advertising agencies—and companies like Zappi—perpetuate an exclusive, predominately White perspective.

The problem is that the infrastructure is built on systemic racism.

Callaway and Good Good’s Ad Was So Bad, Even AI Audiences Sounded the Alarm

Callaway and Good Good are arguing about approval, but should be arguing about why no process existed to flag the video before it aired

By Nataly Kelly

You know the clip by now. Good Good co-founder Garrett Clark shoves fellow creator Alexis Miestowski to the ground as she reaches for his new Callaway driver. He stands over her and tells her not to touch it.

The ad is gone. So is the partnership. 

Retailers pulled Good Good merchandise, the company withdrew as title sponsor of a PGA Tour event, while Callaway pledged $1 million to organizations working to prevent violence against women in an effort to wash away the controversy. 

And the entire public argument is about approval. Callaway CEO Chip Brewer says the video was produced by Good Good but signed off by Callaway, and that “that approval should have never happened.” 

On Friday morning, Good Good CEO Matt Kendrick broke an 11-year Twitter silence at 3:38 a.m. to accuse Callaway of asking for the ad, approving it, then dropping his company in a “coordinated media blitz.” Asked whether he’d sue, he replied: “Not opposed.”

Both men are addressing the wrong questions. It’s not about who approved the ad; it’s how nobody and no process stopped it before it went live, when the tools to catch the warning signs cost less than the driver they’re selling. 

The story is much bigger than just one terrible ad

We’ve entered a dynamic where brands and creators need each other. Brands need creators to reach communities they can’t, while creators need to monetize their audiences.

That relationship comes with risk, as brands put decades or centuries of hard-earned equity into the hands of culturally nimble third parties, and ask them to translate it for new audiences. That’s inherently risky. It’s also increasingly necessary.

Creators aren’t the problem. The problem is that the infrastructure hasn’t kept up. Brands are producing more content, across more platforms, with more partners, for more audiences. The old model of heavily researching a few major campaigns wasn’t built for hundreds of smaller decisions.

An ad so bad even AI frowned upon it

The frustrating thing about the Good Good ad is that the warning signs weren’t particularly difficult to find. We tested the ad after it was pulled, first with U.S. consumers. It performed significantly below advertising norms on appeal, likelihood to drive behavior, brand fit, relevance, believability, and attention.

More telling was the reaction underneath those scores. Nearly one-third said there was something offensive, unpleasant, or disturbing about the ad. Shock was eight times higher than our norm. 

But let’s assume the Good Good and Callaway teams involved didn’t have the time, resources, or know-how to commission a traditional market research study for one piece of creator content. Fair enough. They at least could have tested the ad with AI.

So that’s what we did at Zappi. We ran the creative past 150 AI synthetic respondents trained on real consumer response data. We had answers back in just minutes. The ad received the lowest possible score (1/5) and even synthetic respondents could spot the warning signs about the content of the ad. Its recommendation, in hindsight, is almost unbearable to read: “Soften or clarify the physical moment so it reads as playful rather than awkward.”

Testing with humans allows you to feel the fire and know exactly how hot it was. But AI was a smoke detector that, if it had only been in place, would have told people to look more closely before the brand equity went down in flames.

Now, to be very clear, AI should never be the cultural arbiter deciding what’s acceptable, but when content moves faster than the infrastructure legacy brands have at their disposal, it can be an incredibly helpful early warning system that tells a human when something deserves a second look. 

What brand leaders should take from this

Who’s at fault here? Everybody involved. Who can learn from it? Marketers. Agencies. All of us.

Creator partnerships and the creator economy aren’t going away. Neither is the pressure to produce more content, faster, for increasingly fragmented audiences.

Brands need creators, and creators need brands. Both need better guardrails, frankly, to cover their own (brand) asse(t)s. 

For brands, those guardrails protect hard-earned equity. For creators, they protect the livelihood and audience they’ve spent years building. The lesson isn’t to slow creator marketing down until it resembles traditional advertising. It’s to build processes capable of moving just as fast as the media they’re meant to govern. And in this not-so-new reality, what the Callaway scandal makes clear is that AI already has an important role to play, but that many brands remain behind the curve.

17589: At Target, Black Beauty Is Nearly Invisible.

 

From Modern Retail at Digiday…

Target’s new beauty selection has almost no Black-owned brands

By Mitchell Parton

 

Target’s refreshed beauty assortment aims to promote emerging brands, but it includes very few from Black entrepreneurs.

Target Beauty Studio is set to launch Sept. 10 in more than 600 Target stores and on the company’s website. The new beauty selection replaces former Ulta Beauty shops within Target stores and will feature more than 1,600 products from 90 brands, largely brands new to Target.

Of the 90 brands listed as part of the new beauty assortment, Modern Retail could only identify two with Black owners or founders: hair-care brand Briogeo and Glamazon Beauty, a line of cosmetics. Otherwise, the selection appears to mostly include brands owned or founded by white or Asian entrepreneurs, with around a dozen Korean brands. More than two-thirds of the brands are new to Target.

The Beauty Studio doesn’t represent Target’s entire selection of beauty products, which may be found elsewhere in the store or online. Still, the lack of representation in the more curated assortment has raised questions from founders and outside consultants about Target’s desire to sell and promote products from Black-owned businesses. It remains unclear whether Target failed to recruit such brands to the program or if brands refused to take part in the new beauty initiative.

A Target spokesperson told Modern Retail that the collection was focused on beauty brands from around the world, pointing to Korean, Japanese, Mexican and French brands. Nearly 40% of the brands were founded by “diverse” founders, they said, but did not explain how they define that word. They added that offerings of Black-owned and -founded brands are comparable to its previous in-store experience, likely referring to the Ulta shops. The selection still does include products in a range of shades for different skin complexions.

“Getting back to growth starts with investing in the categories and experiences where Target is uniquely positioned to win, all through our distinctive combination of style, design and value,” a Target spokesperson said in a statement, adding that new brands and products will launch throughout the year.

The company also said it has helped to introduce and grow Black-owned brands through opportunities such as exclusive launches and programs designed to expand access to mass retail.

Modern Retail previously reported that Black entrepreneurs have described Target as a frustrating wholesale partner and that Black-owned brands once featured at Target have been removed from the retailer’s assortment without explanation. Some have voluntarily stopped working with Target because of the company’s handling of their brands’ inventory, lack of communication, or decision to end diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives last year.

Who still signed on

Former Goldman Sachs vp Nancy Twine started one of the two black-founded brands in Target Beauty Studio, Briogeo, in 2013. She was the youngest Black woman to launch a product line at Sephora, according to the brand’s website. In 2022, Twine sold the brand to Wella for nine figures, she told Forbes. Neither Briogeo nor Twine immediately responded to requests for comment.

The other brand, Glamazon Beauty, was founded and formulated by celebrity makeup artist Kim Baker in 2017. Baker remains the founder, CEO, creative director and majority owner, according to the company. Baker told Modern Retail in a statement that Target has proactively offered access to resources, marketing support and guidance to support the brand.

“Target has been a dream retailer for me for many years, and from the beginning of our partnership, I’ve felt seen, heard and supported,” she said. “We work with a diverse team that has been thoughtful about how Glamazon shows up and how we authentically serve women across shades and ethnicities.”

Baker also said her partners at Target have been receptive to ideas on using her platform to create visibility and opportunity for other entrepreneurs and minority-owned businesses. She added that she was not involved in determining the Beauty Studio assortment.

“I can only speak from my own experience, and I’m incredibly grateful for the partnership we’ve built with Target,” Baker said. “My focus now is on making the most of this opportunity, serving our customers exceptionally well and using Glamazon’s growing platform to help open doors wider for those coming behind us.”

Target revealed the details of the Beauty Studio just days after it pulled a children’s Halloween costume from its shelves Monday, following social media backlash and criticism that it was similar to racist Jim Crow-era minstrel caricatures. The company apologized in a statement: “The costume is offensive and should never have been part of our assortment,” the company said. “It is no longer available for sale.”

“When you don’t have diverse voices and, more importantly, diverse life experiences in a room, people don’t see the problems that are around the corner,” said Christy Pruitt-Haynes, a consultant and strategist with a background in human resources and DEI. “When you have a room full of executives who all have the same blind spots, that means you’re missing the potential problems that situations could present.”

Target last year concluded its three-year DEI goals, concluded its Racial Equity Action and Change initiatives, stopped all externally diversity-focused surveys such as the HRC’s Corporate Equality Index, and renamed its “supplier diversity” team to “supplier engagement.” Still, the company said it fulfilled its 2021 commitment this year to invest $2 billion in Black-owned businesses and that most of the new partners it brought in remain partners today.

Critics of Target’s DEI decision said it was an about-face from the company’s previous work to uplift Black-owned brands. The company had previously made public statements on racial equity and investing in scholarships, business consulting and sponsorships aimed to support marginalized groups, especially following the murder of George Floyd in Target’s hometown of Minneapolis.

In May, a Target representative told Modern Retail that the company still had hundreds of Black-owned brands on its shelves, double what it had in 2020, and that it has continued to partner with Black designers, creators and founders.

Potential solutions

Meanwhile, other retailers in 2020 and 2021 signed on to the Fifteen Percent Pledge, a nonprofit that calls on major retailers and corporations to commit 15% of their annual purchasing power to Black-owned businesses, as Black or mixed-race people make up about 15% of the U.S. population. This includes Ulta Beauty and Sephora, who have partnered with the organization on accelerator programs or grants for underrepresented founders as recently as this year.

“What we really want to look at when we look at these things is the percentage and how that compares to the percentage of the population at large,” said Lola Bakare, a CMO advisor, inclusive-marketing strategist and author of “Responsible Marketing.” Two of 90 brands being from Black founders would make up about 2% of the Beauty Studio assortment. “I think the average consumer might be glad there are two, but what we also know is that they can do so much better.”

Bakare said Target should consider the Fifteen Percent Pledge as a potential solution. “Let’s not have another apology,” she added. “You want to replicate what Sephora and Ulta are doing? Replicate them all the way and take the Fifteen Percent Pledge.”

Danyail Lawton, founder and CEO of consultancy BoldMoves — which specializes in public relations, reputation management and crisis management — and a former people operations manager for the U.S. Air Force, said Target’s new CEO, Michael Fiddelke, should have made a public announcement on DEI when he entered the role to avoid deterring consumers or brands any further. She said Target executives need to address the issue directly to move on from it.

Former Target CEO Brian Cornell wrote about uncertainty over Target’s values in an email to staff last year, but communications, marketing and leadership consultants said the message was vague and failed to reassure people about any continued commitment to underrepresented groups.

“The longer it goes without being addressed, the more challenging it is going to be to gain that momentum and credibility back,” Lawton said. “The longer it goes without being addressed, the more people are going to speculate and the more people are going to make their own narratives, and that’s what you want to avoid when you’re dealing with the public in the communications role.”

Pruitt-Haynes similarly said Target could win back brands by making a public statement about wanting them in its store. “That implies a level of support and consent,” she said. “They would start to see a return of their consumers, which would lead to more sales.”

17584: AD + CW + ACD + CD @ VML + WPP = WTF.

This actual job listing—along with numerous listings promoting other roles—seeks a Creative Director for VML, underscoring how the White advertising agency within global flaming dumpster WPP should be avoided by applicants at all costs.

VML and WPP have collectively released thousands of employees in recent times, announcing that additional worldwide downsizing is planned. So, why the hell are they recruiting? Seeing job listings during constant and impending layoffs is not exactly a morale booster.

The entry includes:

“VML is a leading creative company that combines brand experience, customer experience, and commerce, creating connected brands to drive growth. VML is celebrated for its innovative and award-winning human-first work for clients including AstraZeneca, Colgate-Palmolive, Dell, Ford, Microsoft, Nestlé, The Coca-Cola Company, and Wendy’s.”

Um, the client status of Coca-Cola and Wendy’s is pending.

The entry also states:

“We are looking for a hands-on, visionary Creative Director, Copy to join a tight-knit team dedicated to elevating our creative output. This role is designed for a true maker and master of the written word — someone who is genuinely passionate about television, film, and the craft of writing for the screen.”

Are these AI-generated generic descriptors? Most hiring managers demand candidates fill specific roles and requirements—right down to having relevant brand and category experience for the position.

Or is this exercise satisfying performative DEIBA+ initiatives? White advertising agencies often posted fake job listings to claim offering opportunities to minorities and underrepresented groups. Although such tactics have almost disappeared given the current anti-DEIBA+ vibe in Adland.

The single White operating company boasting to be the trusted growth partner for the world’s leading brands should consider being the trusted employer for its worldwide workforce.

17581: Appealing To Black Consumers One Month—And One Holiday—At A Time.

 

Adweek interviewed The Gathering Spot Co-Founder Ryan Wilson, who was closing out Black Business Month and reflecting on brands appealing to Black audiences.

“The biggest mistake is treating Black businesses and Black consumers as a moment on the calendar instead of an important part of the economy and culture every day of the year,” Wilson opined. “Black Business Month can be a great catalyst for attention, but the goal should be to build relationships that extend well beyond August.”

There’s not much new to Wilson’s words, in terms of pointing out brands’ cultural cluelessness and dismal DEIBA+ dedication.

Black History Month, Black Music Month, Black Business Month, Juneteenth, and Kwanzaa are combining to create opportunities to collect crumbs all year long.

Just need nine more months of Black celebrations to complete the calendar.

Ryan Wilson On Why Many Brands Still Don’t Know How to Appeal to Black Consumers

“Manufacturing authenticity” will never capture the community’s $2.1 trillion in spending power

By Robert Klara

A recent study by the Brookings Institution found that Black-owned employer businesses have blown past the 200,000 mark for the first time ever, collectively accounting for 1.8 million jobs and $249 billion in revenue. 

But the growth comes despite persistent challenges. According to data firm WifiTalents, Black entrepreneurs start off with a third less capital than their white counterparts, receive just 1% of venture-capital funding, and often cite lack of mentorship as a growth impediment.

Few understand these dynamics better than Ryan Wilson. In 2019, the Atlanta native recognized the need for a club where Black entrepreneurs could convene, co-work, and make professional connections. Today, The Gathering Spot is an Atlanta institution “where business deals are made, ventures financed, and community initiatives take hold,” according to Black Enterprise.

Brandweek, ADWEEK’s three-day marketing summit, will host an evening social at RETREAT, The Gathering Spot’s rooftop venue, from 7:00 -10:00 p.m. on September 15. In advance of the function, we sat down with Wilson to talk about Black businesses, the Black dollar, and what major brands frequently get wrong about both.

ADWEEK: We’re wrapping up Black Business Month, when it’s common for major retailers and credit cards to spotlight Black-owned businesses and encourage people to shop with them. Do you have any thoughts on why these brands don’t encourage support of Black-owned businesses all year long? Are they missing an opportunity because they don’t?

RYAN WILSON: The biggest mistake is treating Black businesses and Black consumers as a moment on the calendar instead of an important part of the economy and culture every day of the year.

Black Business Month can be a great catalyst for attention, but the goal should be to build relationships that extend well beyond August. If a company only engages Black-owned businesses when there is a campaign or cultural moment attached to it, that engagement can start to feel transactional rather than authentic.

Yes, I think brands are absolutely missing an opportunity when they take that approach. Supporting Black-owned businesses isn’t simply a social-impact strategy; it can also be a smart business strategy. These businesses are creating products, employing people, building communities, and shaping culture. The brands that understand that will build deeper relationships and, ultimately, greater trust.

Why did you see a need for a networking hub like the Gathering Spot, and have you seen success stories emerge from it that have validated the concept?

When we started The Gathering Spot, we believed there was a need for a different kind of community. Traditional networking can be very transactional: you meet someone, exchange information, and hope something happens afterward. We wanted to build a place where connection was part of the infrastructure: a creative could sit next to an attorney, an entrepreneur could meet an investor, or someone with an idea could meet the person who helps turn it into something real.

One of the clearest validations has been watching that idea grow beyond a single clubhouse in Atlanta. We expanded physically to Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles and built membership communities in cities including New York, Detroit, Charlotte, Houston, and Chicago. 

There are countless individual relationships and collaborations that have come from people meeting at The Gathering Spot, but what validates the original vision most for me is that people continue to see value in intentionally being in community with one another.

According to 2025 Nielsen data, the U.S. Black community packs $2.1 trillion in spending power. Brands obviously know that on some level, and yet we still see examples of marketing that fails to reach that community effectively—and sometimes offends them. What do brand marketers misunderstand or consistently get wrong about Black consumers?

One of the biggest mistakes is trying to manufacture authenticity at the end of the process.

You can’t develop a campaign without meaningful Black perspectives in the room and then add cultural references at the end and expect that to create an authentic connection. Representation has to exist upstream. Who is helping develop the strategy? Who has decision-making authority? Who are your partners? Who are you listening to before the campaign ever reaches the public?

At The Gathering Spot, we’ve seen firsthand how powerful it can be when people are invited into genuine community rather than simply marketed to. The same principle applies to brands. If your first meaningful conversation with Black consumers happens when you’re trying to sell them something, you’ve probably started too late.

The companies that will get this right are the ones that approach the Black community with curiosity, consistency, and respect—not simply because of the size of its spending power, but because Black consumers are helping shape culture, entrepreneurship, and the broader marketplace every day.

17580: Outraged Public’s Not Clowning Around With Target.

 

People reported Target took heat for hyping a racist Halloween costume (depicted above).

It’s not the first time trick-or-treating at Target touched off trouble. It’s also not the first time “Black guests” have been personally and/or professionally disrespected by the mega-retailer.

Given Target was among the first to diminish DEIBA+ initiatives in recent times, the latest Halloween scandal is, well, scary.

Target Pulls Clown Halloween Costume After Backlash, Says ‘We Got This Wrong’ in Apology Note

The costume was called out on social media for being racially insensitive

By Madison E. Goldberg

 

Target has removed a clown Halloween costume following criticisms that it evoked blackface, minstrel shows and racist imagery.

 

“An apology from us: We removed an offensive Halloween costume that should never have been part of our assortment,” Target wrote in a statement shared on social media on Monday, Aug. 24. “It is no longer for sale. As a company, we got this wrong, and we are deeply sorry.”

 

“We know this is especially hurtful for our Black guests, team members and partners,” the statement from Target continued. “Removing the costume is an important first step, and we are looking closely at how this happened and what needs to change to ensure this won’t happen again.”

 

In photos of the now-deleted costume, sold as “Kids’ Glows under Blacklight Circus Clown,” a young Black boy modeled the outfit, which featured a black-and-orange printed bodysuit and hood with an exaggerated smile and mini top hat.

 

The model’s pose, in which he stands with one leg and arm raised in a waving gesture, particularly sparked criticism for its affiliation with Jim Crow-era negative depictions of Black people, according to The Cut.

 

“Target, for real? I’m not surprised, but this is a new low,” comedian LaTrez Anderson said in a now-deleted Instagram Reel about the costume, per the outlet.

 

“The amount of people this costume had to go through to get approved says A. LOT. WHAT YEAR IS IT!?” an Instagram user commented on Target’s apology post.

 

Blackface is defined as “dark makeup worn to mimic the appearance of a Black person and especially to mock or ridicule Black people,” according to Merriam-Webster. The use of blackface in the U.S. was initially recorded through “minstrel shows,” in which white performers would wear blackface and mock Black people based on negative stereotypes, according to the National Museum of African American History and Culture.

 

The Halloween costume controversy comes nearly a year after Target rolled back Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Target CEO Brian Cornell later stepped down after 11 years with the company, it announced in August 2025. Target has faced consumer boycotts since early last year due to the DEI cuts, PEOPLE previously reported.

 

Anne and Lucy Dayton, the daughters of one of Target’s co-founders, called the company’s actions “a betrayal” at the time, CNN previously reported.

17578: Another Perspective On Whistleblowers In Adland.

MediaPost published a perspective on the WPP whistleblower lawsuit that made one significant point:

Don’t rely on agency self-reporting. Demand log-level data for programmatic buys and contractually insist on third-party audits for all barter or non-transparent arrangements. If an agency claims an inventory pool isn’t auditable, treat that as a red flag.

This notion could be directly applied to the history of DEIBA+ in Adland.

That is, White advertising agencies cannot be trusted with self-reporting, as firms often inflated representation figures by counting minority employees like janitorial maintenance, security, and cafeteria workers.

Additionally, White advertising agencies cannot be trusted with self-regulation, as firms routinely engage in performative propaganda, heat shields, and delegating diversity.

Alas, no one ever succeeded in demanding third-party audits—or disputing White advertising agencies’ classic excuses for non-compliance, lack of commitment, and absence of accountability. Forget red flags—White flags are the weapon of choice.

BTW iconic DEIBA+ whistleblowers in Adland were never able to pursue a $100 million lawsuit.

The WPP scenario exposes schemes involving media, which mirrors Adland’s duplicity involving minorities.

The Foster Whistleblower Case: How Holdco Culture Enabled WPP’s $350M Mess

By Maarten Albarda, Featured Contributor

It has been a week of legal fireworks, relevant to day-to-day marketing management. No, I am not (yet) commenting on the federal trial brought by 29 U.S. states accusing Meta of designing manipulative features that addict children and harm teen mental health on Facebook and Instagram. That trial is underway in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in Oakland.

I am talking about Richard Foster’s $100 million wrongful termination and retaliation lawsuit against WPP, playing out in the Supreme Court of the State of New York.

The latest legal filings in this suit against WPP make for grim reading. Internal audit details from Sony allege undisclosed markups, shell brokers used as financial warehouses, and missing rebates disguised as principal media buying in China.

To understand the scope, let’s understand what happened. A 2023 Chinese government probe into GroupM (now WPP Media) executives over kickbacks led to criminal convictions. And now we learn that a Sony investigation alleges that WPP used 47 shell brokers to improperly retain $350 million in client rebates in 2024 alone. GroupM allegedly passed off proprietary media deals to launder those funds into corporate profit while pitching artificial “80% discounts” to clients.

I don’t think you can hold WPP corporate fully responsible for the rogue mechanics of a local scam. The individuals in China clearly acted for their own personal enrichment in a market where opacity is sadly often standard procedure.

Still, WPP corporate does not get off scot-free. It clearly missed the mark in governance. By aggressively pushing principal media trading across its network to juice corporate margins, WPP’s leadership set the tone at the top. They created an environment where local executives were guided into pursuing principal media income to bolster agency performance (and with that, their personal performance score).

If I were a juror on the Foster case, I’d view the Sony findings as a crucial signal. They show WPP built a culture where principal-beneficial buying was incentivized, leaving the back door wide open for local leadership to take it to extreme levels.

Which raises the question every marketer should ask: How many other “Chinas” exist in agency holding company networks? And why did it take a client audit by Sony to expose this?

It’s fair to say (again) that marketers should stop treating principal media as a harmless discount. When your agency buys inventory upfront and resells it to you, they aren’t your fiduciary agent anymore. They’re a vendor selling goods they own. If you don’t know the exact markup, you’re funding their profit margins (and executive bonuses).

To prevent this from happening, you should require explicit opt-outs for proprietary or non-transparent media, unless your C-suite approves a written business case. Demand clear visibility into media flowcharts and mandate proof-of-performance data down to a detailed performance level (and compare/contrast that against “normal” performance for “normal” paid media buys).

Don’t rely on agency self-reporting. Demand log-level data for programmatic buys and contractually insist on third-party audits for all barter or non-transparent arrangements. If an agency claims an inventory pool isn’t auditable, treat that as a red flag.

The agency model is shifting. Agencies need profit, but you need transparency. Set the rules in your contract now, or your media dollars will end up paying someone else’s bonus. 

17575: Help Wanted—Human Heat Shields.

 

This actual job listing seeks a partner for an executive search firm specializing in DEIBA+ candidates.

The base salary is $175k; plus, incentives could escalate income to greater than $750k annually.

Given the current anti-DEIBA+ vibe—especially in the US—it seems like a dead-end role. Yet the posting quickly lured over 100 Human Heat Shield applicants.

Probably lots of former Chief Diversity Officers from White advertising agencies.

17569: Overreaction Of The Weekend.

 

Mediapsssst reported a Louisiana-based White advertising agency created a $50k scholarship, supplemented by additional financial assistance, for students at the LSU Manship School of Mass Communications.

It’s another sign that DEIBA+ is DOA in Adland when White ad agencies deliver performative PR hyping scholarships for White students.

Baton Rouge Agency Creates $50,000 Scholarship For LSU’s Manship School

By Richard Whitman

Baton Rouge, LA-based full-service marketing agency DAA Media + Marketing is marking its 50th anniversary in 2026 and as part of a year-long celebration has announced it is underwriting a $50,000 advertising scholarship to the Louisiana State University Manship School of Mass Communication.  

Scholarships will be distributed by LSU in $10,000 yearly increments over five years. 

The first selected students will be awarded this fall. Criteria for selected students will be determined by the university.  

“DAA has been a valued partner of the Manship School for many years, and this generous investment reflects our shared commitment to preparing the next generation of communication leaders,” said Manship School Dean Kim Bissell.  

The scholarship commitment to LSU builds on DAA’s yearlong 50th Anniversary initiative to give back to the organizations and communities that have helped shape the agency’s success over the past five decades. 

The agency has pledged an additional $50,000 throughout 2026 through a combination of financial and in-kind contributions. It is also continuing to invest in the next generation of industry leaders through mentorship, career opportunities, and initiatives like the DAA Emerging Leaders Laptop Giveaway, which will award Apple MacBooks to five students pursuing degrees in advertising, marketing, graphic design, or communications.  

“Reaching this 50-year milestone as a company has given us the opportunity to reflect on our five decades in business and on the relationships that we have had the privilege to build throughout the years,” said DAA CEO Nancy Steiner. “That, along with our passion for mentorship, and creating the unique opportunities that our young professionals in our field need to get ahead is something that collectively fuels us as a team and as a company.”