17615: On Escalating The Exclusivity Of Account Reviews In Adland.

 

Advertising Age spotlighted a twist on account assignments, whereby a brand charged its White media agency to conduct a creative review for its first White advertising agency.

Or was it really a twist? It’s not the first time a pitch turned into an exclusive, closed, and clandestine affair—although the scenario offered an uncommon maneuver to maintain the status quo in Adland.

The brand is Humann. Yet the new partnerships appear to favor White humans.

P.S. to Humann: Your self-hype boasts being “The trusted name in cardiovascular health.” Research shows people of color in the US are at increased risk of cardiovascular disease and poor disease outcomes. Did you choose the best media and advertising partners to reach such critical audiences?

How media agency Eden Collective conducted a creative review for one of its clients

By Brian Bonilla

When cardiovascular-health supplement company Humann went looking for its first creative agency of record late last year, it did not hire a consultant or issue a request for proposal. Instead, it took the unusual step of asking its media agency, Eden Collective, to conduct the search.

Launched in 2009, Humann built its business around a supplement called SuperBeets that supports healthy blood pressure. The company has seen strong growth lately, expanding from a limited retail presence to more than 180,000 points of distribution in the past 20 or so months, said CEO and co-founder Joel Kocher. Humann is also diversifying into cardiovascular health more broadly, with cholesterol, blood sugar, omega and CoQ10 products.

“Our aspirations changed. Our ambitions changed. So naturally, the way you run your business has to change along with that,” Kocher said.

Eden was managing Humann’s media when Kocher began reconsidering the company’s in-house creative model. When he laid out his ambitions to Eden CEO and founder Alison Monk over coffee in New York, she was frank: “I don’t think you’re going to get there without an ad agency; a creative agency that can deliver the goods,” she recalled telling Kocher.

Monk initially suggested hiring a search expert. But Kocher persuaded Eden, which it had already entrusted with its strategy and business data, to lead the assignment. (Eden was hired as Humann’s media AOR in February after previously working on a project basis.)

How the process worked

That coffee meeting led to a four-week process that replaced lengthy questionnaires and rounds of pitching with a detailed video briefing and two primary interactions: an initial chemistry meeting designed to become a working session, followed by an in-person presentation by the finalists.

Six independent agencies were initially invited before the field was narrowed to three, with Humann ultimately selecting independent agency WorkInProgress as its creative AOR. Kocher declined to identify the other contenders.

Monk, who felt up to the task because she also spent much of her career on the creative agency side at shops including Grey and Digitas, said the review’s scope was intentionally broad because Humann hadn’t yet determined if it was looking for a long-term creative agency or a shorter-term solution.

“It was an amorphous ask: What do we need?” Monk said. “So we went through a range, and Joel and I sat down and said, ‘OK, let’s look at a couple of folks that skew more project-based, and let’s also look at deeper, more AOR-like partners.’”

The review began in mid-December with a mandate to reach a decision by February, ahead of Humann’s planned retail launch of a broader cardiovascular product suite in April. Monk said Humann’s executives spent “dozens, if not 100 hours” preparing for the process.

Rather than ask agencies to complete what Monk called a “27,000-page RFI,” Eden sent agencies a video featuring Kocher and his executive team, along with supporting materials.

The extensive briefing covered Humann’s history, its origins from research conducted at the University of Texas, its Nobel Prize-winning scientific roots, and information on how nitric oxide—a key ingredient in its products—works. It also detailed the brand’s past creative, evolution from direct-to-consumer to Amazon and retail, recent packaging redesign, consumer research and customer profiles, product expansion, media strategy and competitive landscape.

Agencies had one week to review the material before a two-hour meeting with the company.

“It was a chemistry meeting, but it became a work session because of the information we were given,” said Evan Russack, co-founder and partner at WorkInProgress. “As an agency, we value those moments deeply because they allow us to ask a variety of questions—important backgrounders—but also to determine if this is right for the agency.”

Russack said the video conveyed the leadership team’s personality, passion and communication style while giving agencies unusual access to Humann’s founder and CEO from the outset.

“It was really helpful that a media agency was running the pitch, because we typically have a ton of questions related to media, and we were able to get them all answered,” Russack said.

Each of the three finalists received a $15,000 stipend. WorkInProgress used the money to research consumers’ relationship with the supplement category, then incorporated the findings into its communications strategy and creative, Russack said.

Why WorkInProgress won the pitch

To Monk, WorkInProgress stood out for its “funnel fluency” across different marketing needs. Specifically, she was looking for shops that understood the difference between what she called “salesmanship” versus “showmanship.”

“Brands with high awareness can do more showmanship and only focus on entertainment, because they don’t have to explain who they are and what they do,” Monk said. “We’re talking about a complex product in a quickly commoditized category, with lower-quality value players nipping at their heels.”

The strategic challenge was to make cardiovascular health relevant beyond older consumers or people already managing a medical condition. Humann also sought to differentiate itself in a supplement category where Kocher said few companies have meaningful clinical science. That said, he acknowledged that the company had “over-rotated on science” with previous creative focused on testimonials, especially from doctors and researchers.

All participating agencies argued Humann needed a stronger emotional connection with consumers, Kocher said.

“Our formula was: give me a point of relevancy, give me a benefit—a reason to care. Then give me the science. Then make it credible,” Russack said.

For Kocher, the defining moment came about 10 minutes into the first meeting, when he asked how the agency views the brand. WorkInProgress Creative Director Josh Shelton responded by characterizing Humann’s existing brand personality as “cool Cheerios.” Kocher embraced the comment, which he recognized as “ostensibly an insult,” because it defined the brand as a management tool for an existing condition rather than one relevant to consumers who think proactively about wellness, longevity and performance.

“I thought, ‘Finally, someone had the guts to call it for what it was,’” Kocher said. “For me, that was the defining moment. I’d made up my mind right then. Ten minutes in, it was game over.”

Kocher actually bought a box of Cheerios that he planned to send the agency—but WorkInProgress beat him to it. Two days after the meeting, a package arrived at Humann via FedEx, with Cheerios boxes decorated with what Kocher described as “cool Ray-Ban shades” stickers.

The process also convinced Kocher that Humann needed an AOR rather than a project shop.

The first campaign, backed by an investment “approaching $50 million,” according to Kocher, will break in early October.

Monk said Eden does not intend to turn agency reviews into a business line. Its role grew from its knowledge of Humann and its position as a strategic marketing partner, she said.

Russack had not previously encountered a creative review run by a media agency, but said he wouldn’t be surprised if this becomes more common.

“We’re all looking for really good partners who have subject-matter expertise we don’t possess, and have a working style that matches ours so we can deliver results for brands,” he said.

17612: On Celebrating Inclusive Beauty.

  

From The Drum…

What Notting Hill carnival teaches us about beauty’s inclusivity problem

By Manish Tiwari, Chairman & Founder Here&Now365

Notting Hill Carnival is a masterclass in what inclusive beauty really looks like. Here&Now 365’s Preet Khanna argues that brands need to go beyond diverse casting and prove their credentials through product, presence and genuine participation in culture.

Every August, Notting Hill Carnival showcases the same beauty truth: the haircare industry still hasn’t caught up with the people it serves. Locs, coils, braids, twists and afros filled the streets, worn loud, proud and completely unfiltered. But most of the products lining supermarket shelves were designed with none of that texture in mind.

So, what better test of a haircare brand than Notting Hill Carnival, where hours of dancing, heat and humidity leave a product that doesn’t perform with nowhere to hide?

At Vatika Naturals, over 140 years have gone into building a brand around one belief: no hair type should be left behind by generic haircare standards. This year, that belief met its truest test at Notting Hill Carnival. The result was #CarnivalOfStrands, a campaign built not simply as a marketing exercise, but as a genuine attempt to meet the community where it already was.

As Roshni Singh, head of marketing at Vatika Naturals, put it: “Our ethos has always been to embrace your natural self, and that belief sits at the heart of everything we create for our multi-ethnic audiences. #CarnivalOfStrands was a genuine attempt to cater to every hair type and celebrate the unique rhythm of every strand, part of a wider journey to build a brand that speaks to the full diversity of hair textures across our communities.”

What did this year’s Carnival tell us about building an inclusive beauty brand?

The gap is about presence, not awareness

Most ‘inclusive’ haircare campaigns stop at representation in imagery: a wider range of models, a more diverse casting brief. That’s necessary, but it’s not sufficient. What became clear early on was that the real gap was physical. Brands simply weren't showing up in the spaces where textured hair is most visibly, joyfully on display. So instead of running the campaign purely through digital media, Vatika went to where the hair was, taking over key spaces at Paddington Station to greet Carnival-goers the moment they stepped off the train.

That decision reshaped how the campaign was thought about as a whole. A poster can say a brand is inclusive but simply meeting someone where they are already celebrating says it more convincingly than any headline could.

Culture-first doesn’t mean culture-adjacent

There’s a difference between borrowing a moment and actually contributing to it. Partnering with Sundivas, a London-based music duo, let Vatika carry its brand ethos, ‘own your story, let them know’, through sound rather than just signage. It’s a small distinction, but an important one: Carnival’s invitation to show up exactly as you are works best when a brand adds something to that spirit rather than simply attaching itself to it.

Product credibility still must do the work

None of this lands without the product actually performing. Vatika’s Aquaboost and Curls Oil ranges exist because curl patterns behave differently under heat, humidity and hours of movement, the exact conditions Carnival puts hair through. But the bigger lesson for the industry isn’t about any single formula. It’s that inclusivity claims collapse quickly if the product itself was never built with textured hair as the standard, rather than an addition to an existing range. Carnival is where that promise was put to the test and proven right.

It’s more than just one campaign message

The haircare industry’s ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach has rarely reflected what Carnival looks like on the streets, and that mismatch isn’t unique to one event. It shows up every time a brand treats textured hair as a niche rather than a norm.

What #CarnivalOfStrands reinforced is that closing that gap takes more than a campaign message; it takes formulation built for the full range of textures, and a willingness to show up physically in the communities a brand says it's serving.

Vatika doesn’t claim to have solved that. But the brand came away from this Carnival with a sharper sense of what “inclusive” has to mean in practice: not a wider casting call, but a wider standard, for what counts as normal hair, and for where a brand is willing to turn up and prove it.

17609: Converse Defender Tells Everyone To KKKalm Down.

 

Adweek published yet another perspective on the Converse lynching controversy, allowing an author to figuratively hang himself.

The color commentator closed by remarking, “I fully expect this column to incur similar wrath from the sanctimonious corners of the internet where offence is easily taken and blame must then be immediately apportioned.”

Okay. Challenge accepted.

For starters, the author seems oblivious to having assumed a stereotypical role in the matter. That is, he’s the Angry Old White Guy.

It’s a waste of time attempting to school the culturally clueless. Although it’s particularly annoying in this case, as the author boasts having a PhD in Marketing and hypes his MiniMBA programs.

He’s clearly out to educate the masses versus consider the opportunity for a teachable moment. Self-absorption always trumps self-enlightenment, self-improvement, and self-awareness.

The final proclamation underscored his ignorance: “It just requires everyone to calm down.”

Yes, calm down despite once again experiencing the lashing disrespect of an industry historically mired in systemic racism.

Calm down by being told how to respond to offensive material by a bona fide representative of the offenders.

Calm down when even the unintentionally biased avoid accountability as intentionally as card-carrying KKK members.

From Converse to Ed Sheeran, Let’s End These Tedious Apology Tours

Converse, Oxford United, and Ed Sheeran all got dragged through the same ritual for mistakes that were accidental or not even theirs

By Mark Ritson

It was a rotten week for Converse. 

On Sept. 3, the Nike-owned brand posted a new campaign on social media for the Chuck 70 X built around Karina, the very famous singer from K-pop group aespa. 

In the key image she stands in a long white skirt, wearing the shoes and holding a second pair in one hand, framed by a spotlight cut in the shape of the Converse star.

Two weeks passed.

Then, someone noticed that the edge of the star projected onto her skirt made a shape a bit like a Klan hood. And that the shoes hanging from her hand could be read as a body. Then a second image surfaced, from Converse Malaysia, of models on a ladder reaching for sneakers strung from a tree branch. 

The two pictures welded together online into a single verdict.

Converse was now running “the most racist ad of the season.” The work was “shocking,” “abhorrent,” “repugnant.” Even if it was unintentional, the fact that it had gotten past legal, marketing, and leadership was itself an unforgivable offence.

Converse apologized within a day, pulled everything and promised to do better, but not enough for Louisiana Congressman Troy Carter. 

“Lynching is not a creative concept. The Ku Klux Klan is not an aesthetic,” he raged. “This campaign should never have been created, approved or released.” Nike and Converse, he said, should explain publicly how the images had passed through their approval process.

Step back from the heat for a second. Nobody seriously thought, for even a moment, that a Korean photographer shooting a Korean pop star for the Korean market was evoking the Klan. It was an accident. And the instant the claims were made, Converse said sorry, and pulled the work. 

Which prompts a question nobody in the pile-on bothered to ask. 

What else was Converse meant to do here?

It didn’t matter, though, as a wrong had been done, and offence taken. It didn’t matter whether it accidental or not, or whether an apology had already been offered.

Penalties must apply. 

The same script ran in England last week around the same time at Oxford United, a third tier football club. The team was founded in 1893, and a new range of American college-style clothing celebrated the fact with UNITED across the shoulders and a big 93 beneath it.

The collection went live on Sept. 11.

Almost immediately, someone inside the club worked out what a United 93 shirt looks like on the 25th anniversary of 9/11. The range and the posts promoting it were gone within two hours. That should have been the end of it.

It wasn’t. A week later, the club was being roasted on CNN, ESPN, and the Washington Post and had issued a full confession. The shirts “should not have reached the point of sale and we take full responsibility for not undertaking proper due diligence.” Again, nobody suggested any of this was deliberate. And again, the mistake was fixed within hours. But still an apology was required.

Then there is Ed Sheeran

On Saturday night, Sheeran delivered the most extreme entry in this new genre: an apology for something he demonstrably did not do. 

In Philadelphia, before playing a note, he stood in front of 60,000 people and said, “I am making mistakes and I’m so, so sorry.” 

He was apologizing for a rapper’s politics, a stadium owner’s ban, and a promoter’s decision, none of which were his, to an audience that just wanted to hear Shape of You. 

A man who has spent his career steering clear of every political issue going found himself in the middle of the most intractable one on earth. Through no fault of his own he found himself apologizing.

We have reached a very low point. The combination of crisis management, the fragmentation of culture and the insidious effects of social media have turned this decade into an unpleasant, sanctimonious place. Where the only option for innocent people is to eat humble pie with a double serving of reputational rescue slathered on top.

Converse set out to offend no one, and when it did, it made amends the same day. Oxford United made an awful accidental mistake and fixed it immediately, then apologised anyway. Ed Sheeran just wants to play music but must first apologize for things he did not do and does not understand. 

I fully expect this column to incur similar wrath from the sanctimonious corners of the internet where offence is easily taken and blame must then be immediately apportioned. 

Real harm, deliberately done, deserves an apology and consequences, and brands that drag their feet deserve everything they get. A mistake with no intent behind it deserves a correction. That’s all. 

“We’ve withdrawn it” is a complete sentence. It does not need “we understand.” It does not need “we’ll do better.” It just requires everyone to calm down.

17607: WPP Production Bids Farewell To Exclusive Bidding.

 

Campaign reported WPP Production has taken down its guidance on rigging the bidding system, a scheme that instructed staff to “actively convince” clients to assign all production work exclusively to the single White operating company, effectively avoiding the standard triple bid process.

The Trusted Growth Partner For The World’s Leading Brands appears to have reconsidered the questionable ethics and lack of transparency posed by such a maneuver.

Looks like WPP Production will have to earn jobs based on performance and capabilities—quite a challenge for the global flaming dumpster. Yikes.

17605: On Exposing Ugliness Of PepsiCo Pageantry.

 

More About Advertising published a lengthy perspective titled, “Ad agency pitch theatre is not a sport, but a beauty contest,” providing a probing analysis of PepsiCo global media duties shifting from Omnicom to Publicis Groupe.

The title poses two inherent flaws.

First, the PepsiCo business was awarded sans pitch. To play off the content concept, a winner was crowned without having to appear in the swimsuit competition—or any other pageant event. Indeed, it’s unclear how the decision was made, rendering the entire affair suspicious and potentially scandalous.

Second, the opinion piece was illustrated by the AI-generated image depicted above. A more accurate cartoon would have presented three Old White Guys, an Asian man, and a White woman. It’s an exclusive—and not very pretty—spectacle.

17604: Continuing Cola Wars Craziness.

 

More About Advertising opined on Ogilvy scoring a Coca-Cola European football project via a pitch featuring WPP Open X (presumably led by Ogilvy), Publicis’ Le Pub, Studio.One (led by former AKQA CEO Ajaz Ahmed), and Uncommon Creative Studio (co-founded by former Grey London Chairman and CCO Nils Leonard).

Was the pitch underway before Publicis Groupe landed PepsiCo global media duties?

Given WPP Open X was invented to solely serve Coke, facing competition from outsider enterprises does not seem to reflect favorably on the single White operating company and its offerings.

The scenario also indicates an industry shift, whereby reviews for major chunks of business are not necessarily closed affairs, exclusive privileges available only to a handful of White holding companies. Although it still involves cronyism and entitled relationships.

In the end, the self-proclaimed Trusted Growth Partner For The World’s Leading Brands hasn’t gained trust, realized growth, or been a partner for any brand in the world—and the global flaming dumpster now competes against ex-employees for assignments.

Coke goes great with humble pie.

More Coke pitches: this time Ogilvy’s on top

By Stephen Foster

They do love their pitches at Coca-Cola despite the creative part of the giant account supposedly safely harboured at WPP. This time it’s a WPP team led by Ogilvy reportedly winning a European football brief in a pitch against Publicis’ Le Pub (which handles Heineken), Ajaz Ahmed’s new Studio.One and Uncommon Creative Studio (there are nearly as many studios these days as pitches.)

Coke has invested heavily in football with some lively campaigns although this seems to be the first time it’s been a separate project. Coca-Cola is an official sponsor of the Premier League in the UK.

Nobody’s saying anything on the record but it’s an interesting pitch. Studio.One, the new creative company formed by former AKQA boss Ajaz Ahmed has already picked up a Christmas assignment from Coke. Ogilvy has won (or retained) a number of Coke assignments recently and seems to be the lead agency on WPP Open X work. Must be frustrating, not to say exhausting, having to keep repeating yourself though.

17602: More Amateurish Clubbing Of Callaway And Good Good Golf.

 

MediaPost published yet another perspective swinging at Callaway and Good Good Golf for their misogynistic marketing.

The author insisted the campaign “needs to be studied by anyone in the ad industry.”

Um, not really. There’s nothing new about the cultural cluelessness, circumstances, or root causes displayed by Callaway and Good Good Golf. Unfortunately, the concept and execution fortify a major stereotype about golf; ie, the game is dominated by White men.

The author’s recommendation involves four questions that should have been asked before greenlighting the concept.

Um, not really. Questions should have been asked and answered when writing the brief. And the concept should have been screened against the brief.

Contrary to the author’s contention that the scenario says something about creator campaigns, the issue is more basic.

First, experience, discipline, and mastery of craft are critical for success—it has nothing to do with the titles of anyone behind the production. In today’s arena, creator does not translate to creative director.

Second, insular and exclusive minds generate ignorant ideas. Full stop.

What The Good Good-Callaway Fallout Should Teach Brands About Creator Campaigns

By Kari O’Neill, Op-Ed Contributor

Good Good’s Callaway campaign, which features Good Good co-founder Garrett Clark running down and aggressively tackling female professional golfer Alexis Miestowski to stop her from grabbing his new Good Good-Callaway driver, needs to be studied by anyone in the ad industry.  

This is a profound example of a mistake in creative strategy. The allure of content creators is huge, but brands need to remain hyper-aware of what concepts are strategically sound for their brand. 

What Good Good said inspired the campaign. Good Good may defend the ad by saying it was a parody of the movie Obsession, where the main character buys a supernatural toy that grants him his wish to make his crush fall in love with him — to the point of unsettling horror. Good Good probably stood up in front of executives and claimed that’s how good the driver is — that the audience would be obsessed with it.   

Unfortunately, the response has been the exact opposite, with many calling out its use of domestic violence against women for entertainment. Amidst the backlash, even Clark admitted, it was “a super dumb ad concept, terrible ad in general. Not the greatest idea.”  

Here’s what Callaway needed to ask Good Good before green-lighting the concept.   

Is this pop culture reference relevant for the brand?  

One clear blindspot for Good Good was likely assuming what is popular in its own social circles may not be relevant to Callaway’s audience. Asking if Obsession was in the movie zeitgeist or something the masses would relate to should have been the primary question posed of the concept. Would the ad still resonate if the audience didn’t know about Obsession? Given that Obsession was released in May 2026 nationally and in the summer, a key risk is easily seen that the ad’s reference back to the movie likely would not be top of mind. 
 
Does this reinforce or add to a brand’s story?  

Additionally, a parody can be extremely effective, but only if translated conceptually well from the original creative into an exciting, authentic brand story. In Good Good’s concept, would the target audience see themselves in the story of the parody? Do most people see themselves in a horror film? Probably not. That, in and of itself, should have killed the concept. 
 
Is this the right feeling for the brand?  

Is this ominous feeling the right one Callaway wants people to walk away with after being introduced to this new driver? While the sound design itself clearly is inspired by horror films, it’s clear that the music alludes to harm while being played over an image of a woman being tackled to the ground. Don’t let an internally-focused haze mask the inappropriateness of the concept.  

Who has the power in the story?  

Even if this driver is targeted only to a male audience (which it probably isn’t, but let’s pretend), why did the person tackled have to be a woman? Strategically, what’s the advantage in that versus a man? The answer: absolutely nothing and worse. The hovering over her body while threatening her takes it even further from the corner of potentially funny to utterly unacceptable. 

Because cancel culture is always a risk in the world of creators and brands, brands need to be aware of power dynamics, whether its gender, race, or sexual orientation, among many others.   

The fallout certainly is not what anyone intended or wanted. According to Front Office Sports, three people, including Good Good’s vice president of brand marketing, Jeffrey Lefkovits have been fired. Good Good has lost its sponsorships from Callaway, its PGA Tour event title sponsorship, and its Golf Channel show, Big Break x Good Good.   

Dick’s Sporting Goods and Golf Galaxy also pulled Good Good merch off shelves. This is a critical lesson for all brands to take a step back and ensure the right questions are being asked of a creator’s concept. Not enough questioning strategically could be the difference between an exciting launch and a brand nightmare.

17600: More Dizzying Dispatches From The Cola Wars.

 

Advertising Age reported WPP is primed to win The Coca-Cola Company global media, data, and technology review.

Although as previously noted by this blog, the “victory” is mostly the result of Publicis Groupe nabbing PepsiCo global media duties. That is, the single White operating company claims the Coke prize by virtue of a prime contender dropping out.

According to Ad Age, WPP will not participate in the upcoming review for Coke North America media chores—although the trade publication previously identified the global flaming dumpster as a participant—which are being phased out of Publicis Groupe, who took the business from WPP last year.

The dizzying antics are likely driving people to drink. But not drink Coke or Pepsi products.

WPP is set to win Coca-Cola’s global agency review

By Ewan Larkin and Brian Bonilla

WPP is set to win Coca-Cola Co.’s global media, data and technology review and will not participate in the food and beverage giant’s forthcoming North America media pitch, according to people familiar with the matter.

The decision comes nearly five years after Coca-Cola hired WPP for creative, media, data and marketing technology across its 200 or so brands, setting up a bespoke unit called Open X. In early 2025, WPP lost its grip on a significant chunk of that business when Coca-Cola Co. hired Publicis Groupe for its North America media account. WPP continues to handle Coca-Cola’s global creative and PR.

WPP’s retention was expected by many after Publicis Groupe, which it had been competing against for the business, agreed to take over global media duties for PepsiCo. The French holding company’s decision prompted Coca-Cola to launch a review of its media account in North America, where Publicis is the incumbent, Ad Age first reported this week.

Coca-Cola and WPP declined to comment.

Coca-Cola has also been in discussions with Omnicom and Dentsu about the North America media business. Dentsu already works with the company in Japan and Korea, which were excluded from the global review.

PepsiCo last week announced it had moved its global media to Publicis from Omnicom without a formal pitch, relocating one of the industry’s most coveted accounts. PepsiCo spent $1.7 billion on global net media in 2025, according to COMvergence, making it a significant account for Omnicom to lose. Omnicom “remains a critical strategic partner across many of our marketing drivers, from creative to sports and PR,” PepsiCo stated.