17165: On The Decline Of Adland.

 

Adweek published content with the following headline and subhead:

 

Marketing and Advertising Internships Are on the Decline The downward trend parallels a decrease in young people employed in the industry overall

 

Gee, did this really need a report?

 

The scenario is not only the result of a “decrease in young people employed in the industry”—it reflects a decrease in people employed in the industry overall.

 

Fuck internships—marketing and advertising jobs are on the decline.

 

All of which leads to DEIBA+ decimation.

17155: The Degeneration Of Adland…?

Adweek reported Adland is dumping younger drones, opining the rise of AI is leading to the demise of generations with letters after X.

 

Wait a minute. Now White advertising agencies are allegedly unfairly cutting older generations and younger generations.

 

Who’s left?

 

Middle-aged White men and White women?

 

BTW, the viewpoint was inspired by US Bureau of Labor Statistics data—which was deemed wrong by septuagenarian President Donald J. Trump.

 

The Ad Industry Is Dumping Younger Workers 

 

Workers under 25 are at their lowest level since 2020, according to U.S. labor data. While plenty of factors are at play, the rise of AI is impossible to ignore.

 

By Paul Hiebert

 

As artificial intelligence becomes a routine part of work at advertising agencies, the industry appears to be shedding younger workers.

 

Figures from the U.S. Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics show employees aged 20-24 occupied 6.5% of all jobs in advertising, public relations, and other related services last year, the lowest since 2020.

 

In 2019, just prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, the same demographic was 10.5% of the advertising industry. But since 2022, the share of younger workers including recent college graduates has consistently declined.

 

The downward trend aligns with struggles young educated people are facing throughout the job market.

 

In recent years, the unemployment rate among college graduates aged 22-27 has inched higher than jobless levels for all workers, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Data reveals this is a new development: Young degree holders have consistently experienced lower unemployment than the general public going back to at least 1990, the earliest year for which data is available.

 

While plenty of factors, from industry consolidation to economic uncertainty, are driving some of these changes, it’s impossible to ignore AI’s role in displacing entry-level jobs particularly in fields like marketing and advertising.

 

Additional numbers from employment data provider Live Data Technologies show staff-level positions at U.S. marketing and advertising companies have declined more than 10% since January 2022. Manager and director jobs, meanwhile, have remained relatively steady during the same period.

16915: Years Worth Of Content On Ageism In Adland.

 

Advertising Age published yet another lengthy report on ageism in Adland.

 

Gen Yers and Gen Zers will not have the patience to read the content, and Boomers will not have the stamina to complete it.

 

Why, it’s multi-generational fluff.

16767: The Voting Wrongs Act.

MediaPost spotlighted a video titled, “Dear Young People, Don’t Vote,” by Nail Communications. Designed to motivate Millennials and Gen Zers to vote via reverse psychology, the message features elderly people encouraging young people not to vote, declaring how the older generation controls ultra-conservativism in society.

 

At least one MediaPost visitor took offense, feeling the stereotypical depiction of old folks reflected ageism and promoted divisiveness. If Carl Warner is still around, he’d likely be outraged too.

 

Another point not mentioned is the lack of diversity; that is, the video only shows White senior citizens. Did the creators deliberately presume most people of color lean towards being liberal Democrats? Were they purposely avoiding the politically incorrect territory of attaching anti-voting sentiments—even facetiously—to those who benefited from, fought for, and died over the Voting Rights Act?

 

It doesn’t help that Nail Communications appears to be a White advertising agency. Or perhaps that nails the explanation.

 

On a final note, the overall “Yes We Cancel” campaign—intended to target a younger audience—is trying too hard. In that regard, the concept is culturally clueless and deserves a 👎 vote.

 

Don’t Read This Column

 

By Joe Mandese

 

See what I did there? Using a little reverse psychology to get you to do the opposite — click through and read today’s “Red, White & Blog” — if only as an act of authoritarian defiance. Well, that’s actually the point of today’s column: using reverse psychology — or more aptly, child psychology — to get young people to vote in this year’s election.

 

As you probably already know, young Americans are notoriously loath to do so, so Providence, Rhode Island agency Nail figured out a way to hit a hammer on their heads in one of the most ingenious spots I’ve come across yet this election cycle.

 

The spot, “Dear Young People, Don’t Vote” features some crotchety elders telling them to sit this one out, because, well, “everything is fine the way it is.”

 

Forget about climate change, tax cuts for the rich, school shootings and a candidate threatening to undermine democracy — it’s old folks that run America, the spot advises young voters, recommending that they stick to tending their social media memes.

 

“Only 46% of people 18-34 years old voted in the last election,” the YouTube video’s description reminds us, adding: “So the elderly have a disproportionate influence on our politics and our country.”

 

It’s enough to make a Millennial’s blood boil, and get a Gen Zer to get off their butt.

 

At least that’s what Nail Creative Partner Alex Beckett hopes, noting that his “client is democracy.”

 

“We specifically didn’t want to have a partisan client because it felt like that would drive off these ultra-low engagement young voters we’re trying to activate,” he continues, adding: “They’re not partisan. They’re not even non-partisan. They’re anti-partisan.”

 

The spot is intended to drive young voters to a broader “Yes We Cancel” campaign consisting of a website, videos, a store and an Instagram page all built around a tongue-in-cheek homage to the Obama campaign’s iconic “Yes We Can” call to arms.

 

Now that’s what I call “cancel culture” — but you know, the good kind.

16605: Crumbs, Continued.

 

Digiday published an article opining why multicultural marketing—particularly for Gen Z audiences—must be part of general marketing investments.

 

Oh, it is a part—albeit a tiny, underfunded, underrepresented, and underappreciated part.

 

In the general marketing investments pie, multicultural marketing is a crumb. And the crumby conditions extend to the specialized practitioners.

 

Why multicultural needs to be part of general marketing investments, especially for Gen Z

 

By Antoinette Siu

 

Media agencies that approach multicultural as a separate or smaller investment almost immediately hamstring their marketing strategies, argues one programmatic vendor — and it will negatively impact their engagement with communities beyond Gen Z and communities of color.

 

In a whitepaper addressing multicultural trends and Gen Z that it is releasing this week, programmatic platform Direct Digital Holdings argues that multicultural communities have an increasing influence on brand preferences and choices for consumers across all brand categories. That trend is particularly acute with Gen Z audiences. Digiday was given early access to the whitepaper and to the agencies that Digiday sought reaction from, it is no longer enough to market to the general market and divide up the rest as just multicultural spending.

 

“The brands that will be at the forefront and the top runners in the future are the ones that understand that inclusivity is the thing that they should be focused on versus multicultural, or versus general market,” said Sherine Patrick, media strategy advisor for consultative group Ops Shop.

 

Even as more agencies and brands pay attention to diversity, equity and inclusion and multicultural marketing efforts, they need to consider how they can effectively market to different communities as demographics, generations and cultures change over time. For one, agencies should prioritize media channels and platforms that resonate with communities of color and LGBTQIA+, but also expand influencer marketing campaigns that feature underrepresented voices and specific demographics and ethnic media outlets, said Mark D. Walker, CEO and cofounder of Direct Digital Holdings.

 

“Understanding how to connect with this generation is crucial for shaping brand choices today and driving strong revenue in years to come,” Walker said.

 

Multicultural and brand preference strategies

 

In its whitepaper, Direct Digital Holdings found that Gen Z and millennial consumers are more diverse than their older counterparts on all levels and brand categories — and Gen Z is most likely to say their connections are more than 50% diverse. Some 81% of Gen Z said that multicultural and diverse consumers have a significant impact on their brand preferences and choices, and 72% of millennials said the same (compared to 48% of Gen X and 32% of Boomers), according to the study.

 

Additionally, 57% of the general population said in the study that multicultural and diverse people have a major influence on their brand preferences. U.S. Census data in the study also noted that the country is getting more diverse than ever: 34% of Americans identify as a race or ethnicity other than white and 8% identify as LGBTQIA+.

 

As a result, agencies have to push beyond general market and multicultural differences if they want to connect with more consumers, argued Patrick. That responsibility lies with the agency, but also on the brands to equally question assumptions and challenge boundaries.

 

“It’s our job as agency people to educate our clients,” she said. “That’s why they pay us. I’m not going to pay my hairdresser to do my hair and then have to tell her how to do my hair — that would actually push me away.”

 

José Villa, president of minority-focused marketing agency Sensis, agreed that brands cannot execute multicultural marketing “because it feels good or it’s part of a diversity effort.” The strategy should rather be focused on the audience as a market opportunity — especially because so many Gen Z and millennials identify strongly with their culture that goes beyond language and race.

 

“Multicultural marketing has been around for about 50 years [and used to] be focused primarily on language and running ads on Spanish TV and beyond,” Villa said. “Starting with millennials, there’s been a shift in multicultural marketing away from language to culture. … That’s also the accelerating focus with Gen Z.”

 

Shifting budgets and perceptions

 

While multicultural marketing and diversity efforts have been around for years, some say the actual financial investments unfortunately paint a different picture. Based on Patrick’s agency experiences, she said oftentimes multicultural was viewed as “expensive” or “checking a box” in a broader media strategy. She recalled that part of the budget was always the smallest or cut first if costs were reduced.

 

“We’d have a $3 million budget for a general market campaign and $50,000 for multicultural,” Patrick said. “It was seen as very disposable.”

 

Yet Villa noted a shift in media consumption that perhaps can attract more multicultural investments going forward. For example, Gen Z and millennials consume more earned rather than paid media — so marketing is now more “focused on things like influencers, social media, events and activations, as opposed to big paid advertising campaigns,” Villa said.

 

While shifting the spending for multicultural marketing is one part of the effort, changing representation, culture and strategy is another ongoing challenge within agencies that could explain the smaller budgets toward multicultural.

 

Janis Middleton, evp and executive director of inclusion strategy at Guided by Good, said it’s particularly important today for agencies to refine and build on their DEI and multicultural efforts – despite the feeling that momentum has slowed at organizations nearly four years since the murder of George Floyd in 2020. Guided by Good agency 22Squared last March launched a client offering, Embrace, aimed at supporting brands on inclusivity, culture and education.

 

“[I want to] implore people, stop with the headlines of ‘DEI is dead’,” Middleton said. “If you’re saying that we need to rethink the strategies, say that. If you’re saying we need to rethink our teams, say that. Let’s do that.”

 

Effective multicultural marketing, Middleton said, has to work together hand in hand with broader DEI initiatives. If there is no diverse culture and inclusion at an organization, the challenge is that much greater to generate authentic multicultural work.

 

“It’s virtually impossible,” Middleton said. “It’s not just people on the margins who want to see diversity. Everyone wants to see it, because we live in a diverse world, right?”

 

No matter how multicultural will evolve, it is clear that agencies are thinking beyond communities, languages and age — as well as striving internally to shape their organization’s workforce representation and culture.

16442: Could Consumer Complaints Create Cultural Change?

 

Advertising Age reported on a 4-year survey whose 2023 results showed 53% of consumers think corporations should not get involved in political or cultural concerns, versus almost 30% saying corporations should take a stand on issues. The figures indicated an increase of about 10 percent versus the survey’s 2019 results.

 

Ad Age also noted the following:

 

“Support for corporate activism grew among younger consumers in the wake of the 2020 killing of George Floyd, and sentiments have stayed that way … Among millennials and Gen Z, 41% say corporations should use their influence to impact political and corporate issues, up from 27% in 2019. Support among Gen X and baby boomers is also growing but remains well below 50%—just 17% of boomers are supportive, with support among Gen X is at 23%.”

 

The data poses questions that could apply to Adland. That is, how would consumers react upon learning that most corporations are partnering with White advertising agencies where diversity is a dream delegated, deferred, diverted, dodged, and denied? Might consumers demand that corporations use their influence to impact change in the exclusive industry?

 

It’s clear that commitment to racial and ethnic diversity has dwindled in recent years at White advertising agencies and corporations. Yet consumer dedication remains steady.

 

MadMen character Don Draper once quipped, “If you don’t like what is being said, then change the conversation.” Hey, if you don’t like the lack of diversity in Adland, perhaps it’s time to invite consumers to join the conversation.

 

Brand activism—over half of consumers not interested in hearing companies’ political and social stances

 

Brands might be better off supporting their employees rather than making public statements, Morning Consult finds

 

By Erika Wheless

 

A majority of Americans say brands should not take stands on social, corporate, or cultural issues—but a desire for companies to speak out is rising, especially among younger generations, according to a new report from Morning Consult. And some issues are more polarizing than others: General statements about diversity in the workforce have widespread support, but there is less support for backing LGBTQ+ rights, especially among older Americans.

 

The report is based on a survey of roughly 20,000 U.S. adults between August 2019 and Sept. 2023. In 2023, the survey found that 53% of respondents said corporations should not get involved in political or cultural issues, while almost 30% said corporations should take a stand. In 2019, 61% of respondents said corporations should not get involved while 19 percent said they should take a stand, according to the survey. (The remaining respondents said they don’t care or don’t know.)

 

Support for corporate activism grew among younger consumers in the wake of the 2020 killing of George Floyd, and sentiments have stayed that way, according to Joanna Piacenza, head of industry intelligence at Morning Consult. Among millennials and Gen Z, 41% say corporations should use their influence to impact political and corporate issues, up from 27% in 2019. Support among Gen X and baby boomers is also growing but remains well below 50%—just 17% of boomers are supportive, with support among Gen X is at 23%.

 

For marketers speaking to a broad audience, this presents a damned if you do, damned if you don’t scenario. But the report also outlines what issues consumers care about the most: often what’s happening internally at a company.

 

It’s what’s on the inside that counts

 

Across generations, how a company treats its employees and customers is a paramount issue. The report found that roughly 9 in 10 Americans said that it’s important that companies they buy from take care of their employees, have products readily available, and always do what’s best for customers, even in challenging times.

 

The data showed that internal company actions resonated with customers more than external advocacy —71% of consumers said they viewed a company as more favorable if they paid their employees well; 69% said they viewed a company as more favorable if a company was known to be a place where employees liked to work; 66% liked if the company paid men and women equally; 65% liked if it made goods in America; and 60% cared if the company supported the U.S. military.

 

“There is a ‘keeping your own house in order’ feel that consumers have toward brands,” Piacenza said. “Brands should be doing more to show their benefits or highlight why their employees are happy. Treating workers well is its own form of good advertising because then you aren’t risking an angry employee going viral about you online.”

 

The actions with the least impact on a brand’s favorability included supporting the Me Too movement, advocating for gay rights, supporting the Black Lives Matter movement, advocating for transgender rights and advocating for stricter abortion policies.

 

External issues

 

If brands are going to issue public statements, there are five issues that consumers feel that brands are able to speak about: support for the police, diversity in the workforce, climate change and the environment, women’s rights and gender equality and voting rights. Race and racism in America was the sixth-most popular topic, with 67% of U.S. adults saying that brands are able to speak about it. But this was a topic that had the greatest difference between the general population and Gen Z, with 73% of Gen Zers saying that corporations should issue public statements around race, compared to 56% of the general population.

 

Among the issues consumers want to hear about the least from brands is access to abortion and contraception, though that topic resonated with nearly 60% of millennials who want brands to speak out, compared with just 45% of the general population. Online censorship, LGBTQ+ rights, transgender rights and efforts to ban books were also among the issues consumers want to hear about the least from brands.

 

Bud Light and Target are among the brands that faced backlash this year among some consumers for LGBTQ+-related marketing campaigns and products.

 

Issues that U.S. consumers agree corporations should be taking a stance on include threats against U.S. democracy, the protection of government institutions, women’s rights, climate change and diversity and inclusion in the workplace, according to the report.

 

Piacenza notes that company statements around certain issues have to be specific, including how they phrase their stance. “We have women’s rights high up as an acceptable issue for brands to make public statements about, but abortion access is lower,” she said. “So if you are a more female-focused brand or a brand with a majority-female customer base, and you want to make a statement about the Dobb’s decision, you should phrase it as a women’s rights issue, not access to abortion.”

 

Why the divide

 

Majorities of Gen Z adults, millennials and Democrats said “a lot” or “some” corporate brands are in touch with the average American, compared with less than half of Gen Xers, boomers and Republicans who said the same. It’s another sign that younger and more liberal Americans see corporations drifting toward their own viewpoint, while older and more conservative Americans feel increasingly isolated from brands.

 

“If you believe that a brand aligns with your values and they take a stand, you’re more open to hearing from them,” Piacenza said. “But on the other hand, if you feel that you aren’t aligned, you don’t want to hear from them as much.”

 

A misalignment in values led to Bud Light’s woes, which began last April when conservatives complained about transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney posting about a custom can bearing her image, eventually leading to a steep sales decline. Morning Consult’s report found that roughly one in five Americans said they have boycotted a company over the past year for political reasons. Younger, college-educated, high-earning consumers, baby boomers, and Republican men are the most likely groups to boycott brands for political reasons.

 

“This really comes down to knowing your audience,” Piacenza said. “If you are unsure about taking a stance, keep your head down and go about your business.”

16428: Talkin’ ‘Bout My Generation, Gripin’ ‘Bout Your Generation.

 

The latest Digiday confessions series installment presents the professional perspectives and pet peeves of a communications executive in their early 30s who is managing a worker in their mid 60s. Of course, there are plenty of cutting counterpoints and vapid videos regularly published in advertising trade publications, wherein Old White Guys hype the value of experience and wisdom. It all underscores a reality that spans the generations: people in communications companies do a lousy job of communicating—especially with each other.

 

‘I find myself being their IT support’: Confessions of a team leader on the pressures of managing older workers

 

By Cloey Callahan

 

The workforce is ageing, and it’s raising new challenges. How do you work seamlessly with someone when there is a 30-year age gap while also steering clear of ageism?

 

Baby boomers – folks currently aged between 57 and 75 years old – are staying in the workforce for longer than people ever have before. So the gap between the ages of more seasoned workers, as well as those at the start of their careers will only widen further.

 

While multigenerational workforces are a must-have and an asset for any organization, at times, presumptions and miscommunications can lead to awkward moments. That goes doubly if you’re a young boss.

 

For the latest installment of our Confessions series, where we trade anonymity for candor, we spoke to a 33-year-old communications executive who manages someone in their mid-60s about the challenges they’re working on overcoming together.

 

This conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.

 

What is it like working with someone in their mid-60s?

 

Largely the average age group [at the company] is in their 30s. We’ve got some people who are about 10 years younger, and then we’ve only got a few people who are older. So the older generation is very much the minority within the whole agency, but they have been here from the very beginning. There’s one person who has been freelancing and came on full time. They’ve been put onto my team and there’s a significant [age] gap between us. It’s the biggest age gap I’ve ever had with someone I’m managing. It’s come with a whole different set of challenges that I’ve just never dealt with or had to think about before.

 

There’s a common stereotype about the older generation not being able to embrace technology. What has your experience been?

 

I’m hyperconscious of this because then I overanalyze that I’m being ageist and if I have an unconscious bias that older people don’t know how to use technology. But I do often have difficulty getting them up to speed with the software that we use and I find myself being their IT support a lot of the time. This person goes to great pains sometimes to explain to me that they lived through the age of moving on to email, so it’s not that they don’t know how to deal with new technology. It’s that the technology isn’t working for them. But I can’t help but notice that no one else in the whole team has these technical issues.

 

I really struggle with that because I have sympathy for it and I have time for it and I understand how frustrating it is. Something that frustrates me about going hybrid and working from home a lot is that everyone’s had to become IT specialists and that drives me bonkers. So I understand the struggle, but it’s frustrating to always hear that excuse as well as to why they can’t log on or that they’re late.

 

I ask him [the 60+ staffer] to share his screen and what to click and how to do it for software issues. But if it’s beyond that, I often pass it off to HR or IT support because it’s just taking up too much of my time. I need to just give the problem to someone who is more familiar with talking through systems and processes because it just takes me a really long time to figure it out. They do a much better job because they’re onboarding people all the time.

 

How have you changed your management style?

 

I’ve just had to become a lot bolder and confident with it. For a long time I was quite apprehensive and nervous to manage him in the way that I manage my other team members where I take the approach of just being super honest and firm, but fair. I was much more gentle because I was nervous about being ageist or saying the wrong thing or seeming patronizing to someone who is older than me. But I’ve come to realize in the last few weeks that actually that’s not fair on my other team members to see that I treat him differently. This person does seem to be performing better with stricter guidelines and they haven’t pushed back saying they know what’s what because they’re older than me. I need to just manage him the way that I would anybody else. That’s fairer than trying to adapt.

 

He does make me think about how we work. I see the value in the way that he works, which is technically a bit more old fashioned. But he gets good results often and proves that the way he would go about something is actually the right way. He just can be slow to get tasks done and I questioned if I can say ‘this is taking too long,’ and I really sounded it out. I realized like no, this is just taking too long, it missed the deadline. Of course I can say that.

 

You’re a millennial, but how do baby boomers and Gen Zers work together?

 

It hasn’t gone well and I’ve had to deal with that. It’s not that anyone has been rude to each other, but the generation gap was far too much and they couldn’t work together well. It’s more than a 40-year age gap and they could not find their rhythm. It was mutually recognized that they just couldn’t figure it out. With me, it’s more like 30 years and we can figure it out. We moved things around because the 20-somethings and 60-somethings just couldn’t finish the project together.

 

It was chaos. Different working styles and paces. He needs time to really sit with it and consider the meatier sides of the project, whereas the younger staffer was just like ‘let’s get it done,’ using tools and technology to move faster. They both said they felt like the other wasn’t listening. I do put that down to the age gap more than anything else. They didn’t seem to be able to just joke around with each other and have fun because ultimately they aren’t on the same page. Their references are too different. I hate sounding so broad strokes and stereotypical, but it did happen. That’s why I struggle with this topic.