16717: ANA Ethics Code Of Marketing Best Practices For Worst Perpetrators.

The ANA published ANA Ethics Code of Marketing Best Practices, which is described as follows:

 

The ANA Ethics Code of Best Marketing Practices is a framework of high-level principles, guidelines, resources and examples of ethical marketing and advertising best practices applicable to all entities engaged in marketing, advertising, and fundraising. The Code has been shaped by your peers on the ANA Ethics Code Steering Committee and is designed to be a resource to guide the industry towards ethical business practices with the overarching goal of rebuilding and maintaining consumer trust.

 

Our vision is to advance an accountable and ethical marketing ecosystem for brand growth through a central Code of Ethics, alongside complementary efforts that help implement the spirit of that code, managed by the Center for Ethical Marketing and ANA's leadership as a force for responsible growth. The Code is voluntary and matched with a foundational self-regulatory program to help educate companies on implementing acceptable industry standard practices. These efforts stave off regulation at the state and federal levels. It serves as the baseline of best practices for our industry through ethical accountability and elevates ANA and its members as leaders in this area.

 

The document includes a section titled, “Diversity and Inclusion Marketing Principles,” which poses numerous issues warranting examination.

 

First, did the ANA also deliberately decide to delete the E—ie, Equity—from DEI?

 

Second, was the D&I section delegated to committees of color and/or ERGs within the ANA?

 

Third, given that the ANA has almost annually admitted its membership does a lousy job of embracing multicultural marketing and supporting non-White vendors—ie, perpetuating systemic racism in Adland—what’s the value of best practices targeting the worst perpetrators?

 

Fourth, what’s the point of a pseudo manifesto on DEIBA+ from an organization that has no power, authority, or desire to mandate its recommendations? In short, ANA Ethics Code of Marketing Best Practices is nothing more than patronizing propaganda—a performative PR heat shield.

 

15817: Presenting A New Oxymoron: Havas Ethics.

 

Adweek reported that Havas Media Group is partnering with the Institute of Advertising Ethics to offer a free advertising ethics certification course to over 9,000 staffers and clients. Um, at least two gentlemen in the Havas network will not be eligible for the program.

 

Sorry, but Havas doesn’t deserve ethics-related accolades in any category. The place is certifiably unethical.

 

Havas Media Group Offers Free Ad Ethics Certification to Over 9,000 Global Staff and Clients

 

It's the first network to partner with the IAE to deliver this training at scale

 

By Olivia Morley

 

Today Havas Media Group announced it will offer an advertising ethics certification course to over 9,000 of its employees and clients. It’s the first network to partner with the Institute of Advertising Ethics (IAE) to roll out an independently-administered ethics certification.

 

The IAE, which is an educational foundation dedicated to the advancement of ethical advertising practices, developed the certification course in collaboration with the University of Creighton Business School and the University of Austin at Texas. The Certified Ethical Advertising Ethics (CEAE) is the first ethics certification the industry has ever seen.

 

Media networks are increasing their knowledge of and commitment to ethics, as the global spotlight turns toward data compliance, privacy violations and the media’s role in funding misinformation. Until now, there hasn’t been a formal ethics certification available for advertising professionals. The result of this has been a widespread lack of understanding and of established principles that agencies can fall back on for ethical guidance.

 

“Our industry, astoundingly, is virtually the only professional industry—unlike law, medicine, architecture, engineering, et cetera—that doesn’t have any sort of industry code of ethics or certification for ethics,” said Andrew Susman, founding chief operating officer at the IAE, noting that this will now change.

 

Ethics give agencies an edge

 

HMG’s commitment to media ethics is not new, evidenced by its investments in other initiatives. It was the first media network to join the Conscious Advertising Network, created the Meaningful Marketplace and launched the Social Equity Marketplace to promote minority and LGBTQ+-owned businesses. Within its Havas University education platform, the agency, like many others, has already been educating its employees on GDPR compliance and responsible advertising. What it was missing was a real framework that could streamline that education for employees and account for more of the complexities.

 

Offering the certification provides tangible proof of an organization’s commitment to producing advertising ethically.

 

As both consumers and brands become more invested in social good, they want to work with media partners whose values reflect their own.

 

“There’s a lot of interest from clients and increasingly from new business and procurement interest in this as well,” said Ben Downing, global managing director, ethical media and strategic partnerships at Havas Media Group. Downing also serves on IAE’s advisory council.

 

Havas plans to have most of the network in North America certified by the end of the year.

 

It doesn’t stop at Havas

 

Ethics, according to Downing, can extend to many things. Some include issues of brand safety and ensuring that clients are not using discriminatory ad filters that impact minority creators. For example, putting “LGBTQ+” on a blocklist.

 

The digital course includes three video lecture modules and an assessment and is available to HMG staff through Havas University. Clients will be able to access the course in the coming week. Accredible.com is administering the CEAE certification, making it possible for individuals to carry the credential with them should they leave the agency.

 

“These individuals are being gifted by Havas with the certification, which will be their own personal certification and which will travel with them wherever they go,” said Susman. Within a year or slightly more, the IAE estimates it will have certificates at virtually every large network.

 

Marketing and communications students will soon be the next generation of practitioners, said Susman. For a small fee, HMG’s support will also allow students, apprentices and those new to the industry to earn the certification. It’s not discipline-specific, making it applicable to employees and students at all levels and in all advertising roles.

 

The outcome of this initiative will raise “the professional identity of the advertising professional, so that when people come in the frame is more positive,” said Susman, noting that the threshold of acceptable behavior will be higher. “Right now you have people inside of agencies, and they have zero reference point, nothing to even grab on to.”

14659: I Can’t Believe It’s Not Bullshit.

Campaign reported on the Conscious Advertising Network, allegedly committed to “empowering advertisers to make choices that will take a stand against unethical practices in advertising.” Of course, the agenda does not include taking a stand against the unethical hiring practices of the White advertising agencies employed by advertisers.

12900: ANA Fact-Finder Fuck-Ups.

Adweek reported the ANA hired two investigative—or “fact-finding” per Adweek’s description—firms to check into the hot topic of media kickbacks. Seriously, what “facts” will be found? It’s unlikely any media company accounting departments are openly labeling kickbacks on the revenue spreadsheets. Additionally, neither the ANA nor the “fact-finders” have authority to take action if bad behavior is uncovered. This is no different than when the ANA exposed the diversity issues in the industry and blatant inequities in multicultural marketing. Ultimately, the trade group could only present the realities with wringing hands and gnashing teeth—before launching multicultural conferences and minority award shows.

ANA Hires 2 ‘Fact-Finding’ Firms to Investigate Media Rebates

Ebiquity, K2 Intelligence selected

By Lisa Granatstein

The Association of National Advertisers, which represents the country’s top brand marketers, on Tuesday announced the hire of two firms to look into the controversial issue of media rebates.

At issue is whether agencies, represented by the 4A’s, are receiving large rebates—or kickbacks—from media outlets in exchange for buying ads in large volumes. The ANA issued a request for proposal (RFP) this summer to hire an auditor to examine allegations that such savings are being hidden from clients and pocketed by agencies, which crosses an ethical line.

The ANA, in fact, selected two fact-finding firms after a review of 26 companies: U.K.-based marketing analytics firm Ebiquity/FirmDecisions, which in 2014 served as one of the consultants on the ANA Media Transparency Task Force that researched the problem of rebates, as well as K2 Intelligence, a global investigative consultancy founded by Jeremy and Jules Kroll, which bills itself as the founder of the modern investigations industry. Both firms have offices in New York.

The ANA’s project calls for a multi-phased approach, the ANA announcement said. “Phase I will focus primarily on domestic and global fact-finding via confidential interviews with senior ecosystem executives and other business intelligence processes.

“We believe ANA’s objectives will be best facilitated by combining a company that specializes in business examination and fact-finding with a firm that knows the industry and has superb awareness of media transparency issues,” said Bob Liodice, ANA president and CEO. He added that the ANA looks forward to “sharing K2’s findings with our colleagues at the American Association of Advertising Agencies.”

“While the 4A’s favored the continuity and effectiveness of our joint efforts, the ANA has decided to move forward with its solo sponsorship of a fact-finding initiative into agency media practices,” a 4A’s statement said. “The 4A’s will continue to collaborate with ANA on media transparency to the fullest extent feasible.”

The ANA board’s decision to move forward with the hire of two investigative firms comes on the heels of last week’s Masters of Marketing Conference in Orlando. At the conference following an ANA board meeting with invited guest 4A’s CEO Nancy Hill, ANA CMO Duke Fanelli had said, “We are trying to understand which questions to ask, the breadth of the situation, and very much want the 4A’s to be part of that. We want this to be a collaboration—something that benefits the industry.”

The 4A’s had requested that the ANA move forward instead with a set of media transparency principles for the industry created by a joint 4A’s-ANA Transparency Task Force, and those guidelines are expected to be released in the coming weeks, per the announcement.

The media rebates issue came to a head in March at ANA’s 2015 Media Leadership Conference, where former Mediacom CEO Jon Mandel gave a blistering presentation accusing agencies of questionable business practices involving rebates and the lack of disclosure to clients.

12562: Lacking Ethics And Ethnics.

Campaign asked White advertising agency executives, “Should agencies axe unethical clients?” Um, can a typical White advertising agency even define unethical? Hell, agencies won’t axe unethical staffers. The debate was inspired by the refusal to pitch a payday loan company. Yet are payday loan companies less ethical than Big Tobacco, Big Booze or even Fast Feeders? Adpeople should look in the mirror before questioning the ethics of clients—as they’ll minimally see White faces that have been highly unethical in their discriminatory denial of diversity.

Should agencies axe unethical clients?

In taking the unusual step of announcing that it has declined to repitch for the Wonga account because of the payday loans company’s alleged unethical behaviour, Albion raises questions that the ad industry struggles to answer.

It isn’t that adland collectively does not want to behave in a principled way or represent clients with questionable business practices. The problem is that it has no clearly defined moral code. Whether or not an agency is acting ethically will always be hard to judge because what constitutes ethical behaviour defies easy definition.

Clearly, Wonga is in territory that many in advertising find discomforting. Indeed, at least one major agency is known to have turned down the chance to pitch for its account. The difficulty about preserving your ethical credentials is in knowing where to stop. “Will JWT be firing HSBC?” an agency boss asks. “I rather doubt it.” Another senior industry figure finds the issue equally perplexing. “Why stop at payday loan companies?” he enquires. “Should we refuse to advertise sweets because they fuel obesity? And the amount of betting advertising really makes me feel uncomfortable.”

Agency head

Ian Pearman, chief executive, Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO

“Every agency needs to make its own ethical choices and one man’s poison is another’s meat. It’s down to the values of the agency founders and successor management team to decide what they are comfortable with, even if it is different to the industry norm. While it might sound sensible to ask searching questions before taking on new accounts, in reality most agencies will have a debate internally rather than ask clients directly. If you have enough reason to ask questions in the first place, then you probably know already that you’re uncomfortable about having the account in your agency.”

Agency head

Camilla Harrisson, chief executive, Anomaly London

“Our job as agencies is to build a climate of trust between brands and consumers. If we don’t trust those brands ourselves, not only can we not do our jobs properly but we become complicit in unethical behaviour. What’s more, we have to consider what effect such behaviour is likely to have in the war for talent. Our brightest young people want to work in agencies and for brands they can respect. Agencies must make their own decisions about what is ethical and what is not. But if we think what a client is doing is disreputable or unethical, then we’re right to walk away.”

Intermediary

David Wethey, chairman, Agency Assessments International

“At a time when some agencies will pursue any kind of business however unethical they think it might be and irrespective of whether a client is in a good financial situation, I applaud Albion for the decision it has taken. Agencies have always been defined by the kind of work they do for their clients. So good for Albion if it has found that Wonga is too uncomfortable for it. Agencies are not like lawyers. They are not there to ‘get the client off’ but to develop persuasive communication with consumers. If those consumers are short-changed, that’s the agency’s responsibility.”

Agency head

Lisa Thomas, group chief executive, M&C Saatchi

“Agencies have a moral right to nudge a client towards better behaviour if they feel it’s necessary. But if the management of the agency and the people working on the account feel uncomfortable about it, then walking away is the responsible thing to do. However, this is a tricky area in which it’s difficult to know where to draw the line. But, at the end of the day, no agency is going to do its best work on a piece of business with which it is unhappy. That’s a situation that’s no good either for the agency or the client.”

9543: Delayed WTF 15—IPG = No New Taxes.

MultiCultClassics is often occupied with real work. As a result, a handful of events occur without the expected blog commentary. This limited series—Delayed WTF—seeks to make belated amends for the absence of malice.

Earlier this month, global news sources reported on a study revealing 30 big and greedy U.S. corporations that paid zero taxes in 2008 through 2010. On the list is Interpublic Group, parent company of advertising agencies like McCann Erickson, Lowe + Partners and Draftfcb. IPG brags about values including integrity and transparency—as well as corporate governance grounded in accountability. Yet explaining the tax dodging would require seriously twisting McCann’s classic line, Truth Well Told. Who knew there are tax incentives for inept leadership, account mismanagement, offensive advertising and mass layoffs? Perhaps IPG will become a case study for the Institute of Advertising Ethics. Or a target for the Occupy movement.

8704: Inside Madison Avenue By Industry Outsider.

It’s always interesting to see the advertising industry being examined by people who are completely clueless about the advertising industry. Take Michael Miner, for example, who wrote a lengthy Chicago Reader story about the new Principles and Practices of Advertising developed by the AAF and the University of Missouri. Miner is a decent journalist who usually does his homework on subjects, yet he apparently didn’t see the obvious indications that the ethics manifesto was bullshit. OK, most folks unfamiliar with Madison Avenue might not realize that the AAF is an irrelevant trade organization with zero power and influence over the happenings in advertising agencies. But why would anyone think the University of Missouri was qualified to weigh in on matters? Mizzou representatives are no more suited for the task than graduates of Westwood College—and far less capable than former adwoman/corporate criminal Shona Seifert. Anyway, if you’re inclined to lose roughly 15 minutes of your life that you’ll never get back, feel free to peruse Miner’s analysis. But don’t complain afterward that you weren’t warned.