17048: Bitching About Botching DEIBA+.

 

Advertising Age published yet another pro-DEIBA+ perspective bound to join all other advocacy rants in the literal and figurative trash bin. That is, the content presents more revolutionary rhetoric that’ll inspire disdain, disinterest, and indifference.

 

The Op-Ed’s title claims brands are botching DEIBA+—yet the viewpoint is unintentionally botching its defense.

 

To put a twist on the definition of insanity attributed to Albert Einstein, “Insanity is saying and/or publishing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Illustrating the exposition with royalty-free stock images doesn’t help either.

 

Brands and White advertising agencies have steadfastly ignored the passionate pleas for progress. Hell, even threats of boycotts and legal action have gone unheeded.

 

The root issue is not that anyone is botching DEIBA+; rather, it reflects the seemingly endless support and success of systemic racism.

 

How brands are botching DE&I—and what to do instead

 

By Lameya Chaudhury

 

Let’s call it how it is: Brands aren’t running out of values—they’re running out of nerve. Somewhere along the way, DE&I stopped feeling like a business driver and started looking like a PR liability.

 

Done badly, DE&I is theater

 

The term got hijacked, siloed and recycled into corporate diversity days, happy-clappy LinkedIn slideshows and echoed in branded panels that look like an Instagram carousel of performative allyship—the kind that mysteriously empowers only the speakers.

 

Let’s be clear, I’m not cussing out DE&I. It’s absolutely vital. I’m saying it’s been done badly, and when DE&I is done badly, it doesn’t shout progress, it signals risk. Remember Pepsi’s Kendall Jenner moment and the annual Pride Month panic-post? No brand wants to be the punchline.

 

This makes it very easy for brands to ditch when things get political. Because if your DE&I strategy doesn’t touch your actual work, your customers or your bottom line, then it’s scenery, not a strategy.

 

Walk the walk

 

The solution is not how your brand talks, but how it behaves.

 

It’s the unsexy stuff no one posts about: who gets paid, who’s in the room and whether you’re reshaping systems or just recycling stories. It takes hard work and a long-game mindset.

 

Because the brands that do this properly aren’t just more likable. They’re more bankable.

 

Don’t take my word for it

 

Spoiler alert: The brands doing this properly? They’re not just righteous, they’re also cashing in. And not in an abstract “hearts and minds” kind of way, but in real commercial terms.

 

When brands walk the walk, it fuels innovation, reduces reputational risk, builds brand resilience and unlocks growth in previously overlooked markets. It helps you attract top talent, retain loyal customers and get ahead of regulatory and cultural shifts before they become problems.

 

According to the Unstereotype Alliance (I know, it sounds like a Marvel spin-off, but trust me, it’s done the work), inclusive brands enjoy:

 

• 16.26% higher long-term sales

 

• 3.46% boost in short-term sales

 

• 54% more pricing power

 

• 15% better customer loyalty

 

• 33% more likely to be the first choice for consumers

 

That’s not fluffy “woke” fantasy. That’s cold, hard ROI.

 

You don’t have to choose between doing good and doing well. The data says you can do both, and frankly, in this economy, you should.

 

From DE&I to real impact

 

Here’s the shift clients can make:

 

Less “How do we look diverse?” More “How do we create systemic change through our actual business?”

 

That means asking:

 

• Are your ethics built into your supply chain or just your social feed?

 

• Are you creating change with communities or just marketing at them?

 

• Are you measuring outcomes or clinging to output?

 

And yet, while some brands are pushing forward, others are moonwalking backward, scrubbing public references to their DEI efforts, or renaming the program altogether.

 

Such changes prioritize optics over outcomes. But if advertising wants to keep its seat at the grown-up table, we need to do better.

 

The truth is: A diverse casting brief means jack if your exec team isn’t. And don’t even talk to me about your B Corp badge if your agency’s still pitching for fossil fuels.

 

Play the long game or get played

 

Things feel tense. The right is loud, the center is slippery and your legal team has just asked if the word “solidarity” could be replaced with “support adjacency.”

 

But backing away from impact won’t protect your brand; it will just make you forgettable. The real risk is not doing too much, but doing nothing at all.

 

Actions give brands a way to lead without shouting. To grow without exploiting. To connect without co-opting. It’s not a trend. It’s not a CSR rebrand. It’s a competitive advantage with a conscience.

 

So, if you want to get it right:

 

• Sort your own house out first

 

• Stop outsourcing the hard stuff to just casting briefs

 

•And commit for the long haul, not just the launch day

 

In the end, you’ve got two choices: Be part of the backlash or build the bounce-back.

16824: Cyrus Mehri Continues To Campaign For DEI.

 

Fast Company published a perspective from Madison Avenue Project Mastermind Cyrus Mehri, emphasizing why DEIBA+ is important for businesses and democracy.

 

Mehri noted that DEIBA+ progress can be thwarted in closed societies. His experience with Adland’s exclusivity certainly corroborated the perspective.

 

Why DEI is important for both businesses and democracy

 

The architect of the Rooney Rule explains why—and how—leaders must respond to anti-DEI backlash.

 

By Cyrus Mehri

 

Since the Supreme Court overturned affirmative action in 2023, leaders have struggled to respond to the backlash against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). 

 

As the nation inches closer to election day, there are two sides to the DEI debate: One values democratic ideals of equal opportunity, and the other bestows strong autocratic tendencies while peddling the anti-DEI backlash. In this complex environment, anchoring our work in the vision and values of fairness and open opportunities is the best way to advance DEI and our democracy. And business leaders have an important role to play. 

 

Even though the majority of Americans support DEI and there is significant evidence that DEI efforts advance innovation and business goals, some companies, publicly or privately, are retreating from their pledges to advance workplace inclusion. Many of these unwarranted retreats overlook that employment laws on the book remain strong notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s landmark decision on college admissions last year. 

 

Still, many leaders have caved to the anti-DEI movement. Rather than operating out of blind fear, leaders can look to our democratic values to keep their commitment on track in the face of the anti-DEI backlash. And there are concrete steps leaders can take to improve their workplaces to make their organizations more diverse, equitable, and inclusive. 

 

Why DEI is an important part of Democracy 

 

Fortunately, there are steps we can all take to promote DEI, advance equal opportunities, and strengthen our democracy. In Fareed Zakaria’s recent book, Age of Revolutions: Progress and Backlash from 1600 to the Present, Zakaria posits that the struggle of our time is less about contrasting visions of democracy versus autocracy but instead of contrasting visions of open versus closed societies.

 

Closed societies are xenophobic, close borders, restrict commerce, fear progress, and resist innovation. Open societies cherish pluralism and religious tolerance, and embrace immigrants, new ideas, and both republican and liberal democratic values. 

 

Today’s DEI backlash follows a tumultuous recent history. Conservative-led book bannings have become rampant. And xenophobia has manifested in many ways including the vilifying of legal immigrants. Former President Donald Trump has even threatened to enact mass deportations if he is elected president. Trump and his allies have also supported efforts to ban DEI at state universities, and the shutting down of modest efforts to open doors to those excluded from capital. This is the playbook of closed societies. If we allow these exclusionary practices to endure, it will diminish the promise of equal opportunity and progress toward a strong and inclusive economy. 

 

DEI advocates can and should champion DEI because they are ultimately derived from principles of an open society, because they are crucial to a democracy, and because they are good business. I’ve seen many of these policies in theory and practice throughout my career. 

 

I’ve represented employees, women and people of color, at companies such as Texaco, Coca-Cola, Morgan Stanley, Ford Motor Company and many other organizations who were completely boxed out of the upper-level management positions, which came with higher salaries, access to stock options, and decision-making power. We championed “open society” reforms. These changes made decisions fairer and more transparent, opening doors of opportunity to our clients. These changes also improved opportunities for white and male employees who didn’t have the connections to succeed under a regime of favoritism and subjectivity. 

 

How to achieve fair competition for opportunities 

 

A few key reforms can break down barriers which keep many employees from competing fairly for promotions—and keep future top talent undiscovered. The first is to open up promotions to fair competition and more transparency. We need to replace “tap on the shoulder” promotions with job posting systems that allow employees to learn about and compete for positions. Job selection criteria can be too narrow, exclusionary and off target, so teams should expand job selection criteria to ensure that they are attracting a wide range of applicants.

 

The second major strategy that can promote fair competition is the use of diverse interview slates. This reform ensures women, people of color, and other overlooked or underutilized candidates can compete for top jobs. 

 

This is a policy my colleagues and I helped enact at the National Football League when we created the Rooney Rule, a diverse slate requirement built on these early initiatives to transform the NFL. It led to record numbers of minority head coaches, general managers, and, more recently, club presidents. In the wake of the Rooney Rule, a head coach or general manager of color led their team to the Super Bowl 10 times. Last year, all of the NFL teams with African American head coaches advanced to the playoffs.

 

The third open society reform leaders should consider is to make DEI data and progress more transparent—such as the use of a “racial equity assessment” like the one my colleagues at Working IDEAL co-created. Every major company should use independent equal opportunity assessments to identify new ideas, innovations, and strategies. 

 

Above all, DEI advocates need to hold their heads high during our tumultuous times. Most Americans want to see fair processes and fair competition for advancement without artificial barriers and preconceived notions of bias. Workplaces can come together on values of fair competition through an open society mindset that brings credibility to inclusive practices—and ultimately innovation, more productivity, and new ideas.

16686: Adland’s Systemic Racism Repeats In New York, New York.

Mediapsssst at MediaPost spotlighted a report from the Center for an Urban Future (CUF) in New York City, presenting proposals to expand access to careers in Adland for New Yorkers of color.

 

Has this organization contacted the New York City Commission on Human Rights for a few pointers?

 

With all due respect, the CUF report reads like a student essay compared to the work done by the New York City Commission on Human Rights, along with Cyrus Mehri and the Madison Avenue Project.

 

Hard to imagine CUF will fare better than the aforementioned entities—who only achieved temporary success at best—as systemic racism has proven to be a powerful force in Adland. Plus, CUF is not being nearly as assertive in its ambitions. Time will tell.

 

Report: How To Fix Madison Avenue’s Diversity Problem

 

By Richard Whitman, Columnist

 

A new report from a New York City thinktank indicates that the advertising industry remains one of the least diverse sectors in the city.

 

That’s not new. The city has been complaining about poor Adland diversity numbers for decades.

 

What’s interesting about the report is some of the ideas it offers to improve the situation.

 

The report, from the Center For An Urban Future, recommends that city and state leaders expand access to advertising careers in New York City through a series of investments, including an “Advertising Talent Pipeline,” modeled on the successful Tech Talent Pipeline.

 

And the report also gives a shoutout to some programs that appear to be working like the 4A’s Foundation’s Multicultural Advertising Internship Program and “promising steps” taken by Horizon Media to combine career exploration in high schools with paid internships that lead to jobs.

 

The city and the industry should redouble efforts to “promote, replicate, and scale up industry efforts that are already working,” like the above-referenced efforts, per the report.

15624: It’s Beginning To Look a Lot Like White Christmas.

 

Campaign published a perspective from Engine Creative Senior Strategist Alpesh Patel—and although Engine is based in the UK, Patel’s rant reads like it could’ve been drafted in and for the US advertising industry.

 

For starters, the piece opens with a likely unintentional nod to Wieden + Kennedy Cofounder Dan Wieden, declaring that cultural cluelessness in the UK ad industry is “fucked up.”

 

Next, the editorial presents the racial/ethnic composition of creative teams behind the latest sleigh load of Christmas campaigns—clearly exposing White exclusivity—which virtually mirrors a report on the creators behind Super Bowl advertising that was delivered by Cyrus Mehri and The Madison Avenue Project in 2010.

 

The viewpoint also veers into a contemporary critique, noting how the spiked inclusion of non-White characters in advertising campaigns doesn’t even accurately reflect the racial/ethnic figures of society at large. That is, the rush to appear anti-racist is producing a false picture of reality. The reparations don’t match the representations.

 

So, the sad story is repeated like a classic holiday tale—except it’s not a wonderful life for people of color in Adland. It will be interesting to see Patel’s fate, provided he isn’t totally ignored. Will his bold voice be revered or reviled—and will he experience the common backlash that other revolutionaries have received before him?

 

How is it still a White Christmas?

 

By Alpesh Patel

 

It’s fucked up that Christmas blockbuster ads came out on Diwali.

 

Experiencing this exclusion first-hand had me asking how adland managed to overlook the largest visible ethnic minority population in the country.

 

Had the agency teams asked any British Indians about the date, or even Googled it? It made me curious about the diversity of the teams behind this year’s crop of Christmas ads.

 

Adland rightly celebrates the brilliance and craft that goes into every ad created for the season. But there is an elephant in the room, and it’s about time to point it out.

 

It doesn’t take much to see on social media how our “inclusion”-infused Christmas work lands with the nation. It brings out the “I’m not racist but” brigade, who ask “Why, when black people make up 3% of the UK, are they in about 80% of the ads?”.

 

The answer is clear. We’re firmly in the middle of change in representation. The Black Representation in Marketing group (BRiM) found that 58% of marketers made decisions that have increased black representation in marketing in the past year.

 

On the other hand, Facebook for Business also published a report revealing that 54% of minority ethnics don’t currently feel represented in advertising.

 

When questioned on this representation gap, our defence as an industry tends to be to point to improvement in on-screen “inclusion”. The problem with this is that, at worst, we’re solving racial diversity issues in casting and passing it off as “inclusion” and, at best, we’re making our own interpretation of how a minority might feel. I am not saying Engine is perfect either, no agency is. We all collectively have a long way to go to reach the truly diverse workforces envisioned by BRiM and other outreach initiatives.

 

This shortfall became obvious when I looked at the teams behind this year’s Christmas ads. Below is a broad breakdown of the diversity of the agency teams credited on 28 different Christmas ads. The data is limited by a binary interpretation of race.

 

 

After two years of “inclusion”, it is still firmly a White Christmas. We have only 9.9% diversity when it comes to delivering Christmas ads. It’s even more dire when you consider that London, where most of adland is based, has an ethnic diversity of 40.2%. It’s clear that representation is changing far faster in front of the camera than behind it.

 

There is a shameful irony in failing to have multi-ethnic teams delivering Christmas while still attempting to be authentically representative in the work. According to BRiM, 25% of marketers said they rarely or never take steps to ensure there is Black representation in key roles across the creative process.

 

It’s no wonder we make crude interpretations of how a different race might act or overlook important multicultural events for the launch of our Christmas ad. It’s not surprising when the rest of the nation questions our performative inclusion. The worst part is that we’re placing minorities as sitting ducks at the very front of the nation’s racist “culture war”.

 

It’s cool that it’s trendy to be “inclusive” but you should be disappointed at how little has changed in our industry. Christmas being launched on Diwali is a microcosm of a much bigger picture. While the industry is taking measures to be more inclusive, it’s incredibly easy to make exclusionary mistakes when you aren’t representative in the make-up of your teams.

 

Please don’t tell me you can’t find talent among minorities. If you can’t, maybe that says more about you than it does about minorities. Speaking to underrepresented people within agencies, they don’t just want to be the sounding board for performative inclusion, they want to be included in making great work.

 

It’s sad to see that the All In survey found 32% of Black, 27% of Asian and 26% of minority ethnic respondents are likely to leave the industry due to lack of inclusion.

 

Perhaps next Christmas, instead of a crude and tokenistic approach to diversity, try working with a diverse multicultural team. You’ll probably find more authentic insights, truth in your representation, and you’ll sure as hell avoid launching your Christmas blockbuster on Diwali.

 

Alpesh Patel is a senior strategist at Engine Creative

13246: Odious Ogre Orlov Out.

Campaign reported RAPP Global CEO Alexei Orlov resigned, presumably in response to a lawsuit branding him a sexist, racist, harassing bully. Now, such character defects are hardly unique for the average honcho in the advertising industry. For proof, simply combine the RAPP debacle with the Campbell Ewald and Gustavo Martinez scenarios to complete a culturally clueless trifecta featuring the Big Three holding companies (Campbell Ewald represents IPG, Martinez represents WPP and RAPP represents Omnicom). WPP Overlord Sir Martin Sorrell probably breathed a sigh of relief to realize he doesn’t employ Orlov, as it would have demonstrated a pattern of bad boy behavior dating back to former WPP Worldwide Creative Director Neil French at least. But wait! Orlov was on the WPP payroll while leading Wunderman from 2000-2008—so it’s tough for Sir Marty to ignore the facts. Somebody please ask Cyrus Mehri to dust off the Madison Avenue Project.

Rapp global boss Alexei Orlov resigns amid racism, sexism claims

By Shona Ghosh

The global CEO was hit with accusations he’d derided women and Jews in a suit brought by former US President Gregg Anderson

Rapp’s global chief executive officer, Alexei Orlov, has resigned in the midst of allegations about bullying, sexism, racism and harassment.

Orlov is replaced by Marco Scognamiglio, considered his number two and formerly the agency’s president for EMEA, APAC and executive vice president for client relations.

Scognamiglio, a Rapp veteran of 17 years, will work closely with chief operating officer and chief financial officer Matthew Hafkin.

The agency is currently battling a lawsuit brought by former US president, Greg Andersen, who is suing for wrongful termination, retaliation and discrimination. Andersen claims he was sacked after complaining about Orlov to Rapp’s HR department.

His catalogue of claims against Orlov include the outgoing CEO’s alleged description of women as “fat cows” and stereotyping a Jewish colleague as “miserly.”

Sources have also pointed out to Campaign the long list of leavers from the Omnicom agency’s London shop, blaming wider bullying and abuse.

Rapp denied Andersen’s allegations in a statement filed to the LA Superior Court earlier this month, and described his sacking as “lawful and appropriate.” It has also denied the allegations made to Campaign about its London arm.

Neither the agency nor Orlov commented directly on the lawsuit, with the latter stating: “I am very proud that Rapp has grown in terms of clients and scope of work, which is a testament to our incredible talent.

“Marco and I have worked closely across a number of initiatives these past two years, and Rapp is in good hands.”

It is not known whether Orlov has a job to go to.

12975: Class Action For Crumbs.

Advertising Age reported the defunct Commonground/MGS is now facing a class action lawsuit for terminating employees without notice when the enterprise sank. It would be somewhat obscene if the class action lawsuit succeeds against the failed minority holding company, considering all the class action lawsuits that have fizzled out after targeting the advertising industry for its lack of diversity. Plus, any monetary awards delivered to the ex-employees would be paid in crumbs.

Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Commonground/MGS

Suit Seeks 60 Days’ Pay and Benefits For Employees; Says Shop Shuttered Without Sufficient Notice

By Maureen Morrison

Plenty of agency employees are enjoying holiday bonuses and parties this time of year. But not those who worked for Commonground/MGS.

Those employees were unceremoniously fired and told that as of Dec. 5, they were out of a job, as the agency closed its doors due to what the company told them was financial issues.

Now a class action lawsuit is being filed against PCH Communications, which does business as Commonground/MGS. PCH is a creation of Panton Equity Partners, the private-equity firm that significantly backed the formation of Commonground/MGS last year.

The plaintiff is Jorge Espinosa, who was managing partner of the Miami office of Commonground/MGS. That office was originally MGSCOMM before the formation of Commonground/MGS network in fall 2014.

“This action arises from Commonground’s decision to terminate substantially its entire workforce without a single day’s notice,” reads the beginning of the complaint. The complaint, which said that the plaintiff was acting on behalf of more than 100 employees, alleges that the employer violated a law called the WARN Act that requires employers to give employees 60 days’ notice of mass layoffs.

“This mass layoff was a violation of the rights of the Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, to receive 60 days’ advance notice of their respective termination under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act,” reads the complaint, filed in district court in the Southern District of Florida.

The complaint said that the Dec. 5 terminations “resulted in the loss of employment for at least 33% of the employees who worked at, were assigned work from, or reported to its Miami office (excluding part-time employees).” The agency overall was believed to have nearly 200 employees throughout its five offices.

The suit aims to award to those employees “their respective wages, salary, commissions, and bonuses, the cost of health and pension benefits, pay for personal days, accrued vacation pay, severance pay, and other fringe benefits for a period of 60 days.”

Former representatives for the now-defunct agency declined to comment.

“Our hope is to get the employees what they are due under federal law, which is 60 days of pay and benefits,” said Brian Chaiken, an attorney for Mr. Espinosa. “The fact that they were given no notice, and they were let go the same day they got notice and weren’t given much of an explanation makes some, especially those who had been around since before the merger, feel they were treated badly.”

When employees were notified of the closing, PCH sent an email to all, saying, “As many of you may be aware, the agency has been dealing with financial challenges. Over the last several weeks, we have been carrying out good-faith negotiations with our senior lender to attempt to obtain relief from these challenges, and we believed we were close to an acceptable resolution with the lender. It continued, “To our surprise and dismay, however, the lender took hostile actions against CGMGS and froze our bank accounts earlier this week.”

Mr. Chaiken said that the WARN Act does have some exceptions, like unexpected events, but he did not expect PCH and Commonground to be exempted, because that often pertains to disasters like fires.

But the memo specifically mentioned the WARN Act. “While the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Act of 1988 may require advance notice of your permanent layoff, the unforeseeable circumstances of the lender’s actions and our faltering business circumstances that necessitated our good faith efforts to actively secure capital to prevent closing the agency, did not afford us an opportunity to provide such advance notice,” it said.

“Faltering business” may have been carefully chosen language. Mr. Chaiken said that another exception is the faltering company exception, though he does not believe that applies either, as that is generally for the closing of a plant or location and not an entire business.

Earlier this month, Sherman Wright and Ahmad Islam, co-founders of Commonground before the merger and partners of commonground/MGS, told Ad Age that they were working on launching a new agency with no relation to the dead entity. MillerCoors, a client of Commonground/MGS, would remain with the two execs at their new shop.

Other agencies that were part of the deal that formed Commonground/MGS include Vidal Partnership, Sway Public Relations and others, creating what its partners called a wholly minority-owned network. Coinciding with formation of the network, three of the ventures—Commonground Marketing, MGSCOMM and Vidal Partnership—merged to form the agency Commonground/MGS. The move united all the agencies involved, forming an entity with offices in New York, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles and Miami.

12808: Stock Value Trumps Diversity.

AgencySpy noted class action lawsuits have been launched against MDC Partners on behalf of investors charging the White holding company made “false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose materially adverse information” from September 2013 through April 2015, resulting in shareholders unexpectedly losing loot as MDC’s stock value plummeted. Hmmm. When a holding company’s lies and illegal acts lead to financial loss, class action lawsuits are filed with wild enthusiasm. When a holding company’s lies and illegal acts lead to institutionalized exclusivity and discrimination, class action lawsuits fizzle with disinterest and indifference. Money trumps diversity.

12456: Super Bowl Inflategate.

MultiCultClassics will forgo an in-depth examination of the latest Super Bowl offerings from Madison Avenue—especially since too many White advertising agency wonks are already doing so. Rather, this post presents a few quick points to ponder.

In 2010, the Madison Avenue Project and NAACP presented a study—conducted by The Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport (TIDES) at the University of Central Florida—that revealed the overwhelming majority of Super Bowl commercials were conceived by White creative directors.

So let’s review the progress five years later.

Black representation in the advertising industry has actually declined.

The Madison Avenue Project has essentially died.

White women have hijacked the diversity discussion.

While Super Bowl XLIX has been tainted by Deflategate, the advertising industry has created Inflategate. That is, White advertising agencies have been inflating the perception of diversity. Hiring figures are inflated via the addition of White women and global citizens. Collaboration and representation are inflated through cross-cultural smokescreens. The illusion of cultural competence is inflated by shamelessly producing patronizing poop.

Deflategate is being debated, scrutinized and investigated ad nauseam. Inflategate is business as usual in adland—and nauseating.

12441: Rewarding Exclusivity.

As Hollywood and Madison Avenue head through their respective award seasons, it’s disturbing to see the similarities in regards to exclusivity. That is, White men drive both industries, and it shows in the work that is ultimately lauded as being the “best” in the business.

The 2015 Academy Awards have already received criticism for the nominees’ lack of diversity. Film Academy President Cheryl Boone Isaacs tried to coordinate damage control, yet her response seemed disturbingly clueless.

The Best Picture nominations underscore matters with an exclamation point. It’s no secret that the academy is roughly 94 percent White, overwhelming male and old. With the exception of Selma, the nominated films essentially depict White males overcoming physical and/or emotional obstacles. But that’s the result when the criteria for excellence—as well as the privileges of production—are viewed and established through a mono-cultural lens.

On the other hand, Madison Avenue appears completely oblivious to its dearth of diversity at award shows, despite past attempts to publicize the problem. Integrating White women into the jury processes is a recent smokescreen—or Caucasian flesh-toned BAND-AID®—that avoids the real root issue of White man dominance. In the end, the advertising award winners are as blatantly Caucasian and male in appeal as the 2015 Best Picture nominees.

If Selma hoped to win accolades, the creators should have taken the Italian approach for hyping 12 Years A Slave. That is, just as an Italian promoter created posters highlighting Michael Fassbender and Brad Pitt for 12 Years A Slave, Selma could have presented itself as a Tom Wilkinson vehicle spotlighting the heroism of President Lyndon B. Johnson. The film’s chances of securing the Oscar would have significantly improved.

12055: White Women Win More Awards.

Adweek reported Women Are Now Winning 11% of Creative Director Awards, Up From 4% in 2004. 3% Conference organizers are not yet popping the corks on champagne bottles, probably because the news might require having to update their name and logo. In 2010, a study conducted with the seemingly defunct Madison Avenue Project showed the creative directors behind the annual Super Bowl commercials were 92% White males and 7% White females. Add the 2014 Marcus Graham Project Infographic indicating Black representation in the advertising industry is actually declining, and it’s safe to say that White adwomen continue to be waaaaaaaaaaaaay better off than minorities. Hell, they’ve got the awards to prove it.

Women Are Now Winning 11% of Creative Director Awards, Up From 4% in 2004

Ad Annual review provides one of the industry’s few metrics

By Noreen O’Leary

The profile of women in agency creative departments appears to have grown, based on the results of the 2013 Communication Arts Advertising Annual. Female creative directors accounted for more than 11 percent of all award winners compared to less than 4 percent in 2004.

Kat Gordon, founder of the industry female empowerment event, the 3% Conference, looked at the CA credits, nine years after University of Texas graduate student Kasey Windels conducted her own dissertation survey of CA Advertising Annual winners and found that only 3.6 percent were women. Of the 2004 total, 11.6 percent were copywriters and 9.6 percent were art directors.

The recent uptick to 11.5 percent of creative director winners being women could mean that more women are now entering their work in CA’s annual competition, according to the 3% Conference. Also, there may be greater awareness of how women influence the consumer marketplace, making judges more likely to award work with a female sensibility.

Three women served as judges for CA’s latest Advertising Annual, out of a total of nine—the same proportion as in 2004. The publication received 4,356 entries.

While the CA winners are an industry indicator, the 3% Conference said that the ad business needs a better benchmark because the annual awards issue may not include the contributions of freelance female creative directors, in-house CDs, digital CDs, design directors, experience design directors, creative technologists, PR CDs and motion graphics CDs. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics does not measure “creative director” as a job title, so there’s no official yardstick to measure gender breakout.

11833: R.I.P. Madison Avenue Project…?

Back in 2009, Cyrus Mehri launched the Madison Avenue Project to expose the lack of diversity in the advertising industry. Roughly five years later, the official website appears to be gone, and there’s only a page dedicated to the effort on the website of Mehri’s law firm. Guess Mehri has raised the white flag.

11830: Madison Avenue Striking Out.

The New York Times reported Major League Baseball released figures indicating only 8.3 percent of players identified themselves as Black. In 2008-2009, Cyrus Mehri and the Madison Avenue Project presented research results showing even worse numbers for Blacks in the advertising industry:

Based on national demographic distribution data, 9.6% of advertising managers and professionals should be African-Americans. The actual percentage in 2008 is 5.3%, representing a difference of 7,200 executive-level jobs.

Gee, it seems like Blacks have a better chance of landing a job in the big leagues versus adland. Madison Avenue continues to strike out.