Showing posts with label nancy vonk. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nancy vonk. Show all posts

Friday, August 05, 2016

13285: Diverted Diversity Dames.

Adweek published a patronizing pile of poop in praise of dubious diverted diversity advocates—namely, Nancy Vonk, Nancy Hill and Cindy Gallop. Has Vonk accomplished anything in the name of actual diversity since spanking Neil French in 2005? Hell, did that online event even draw any results for the global cause? Nancy Hill tried to push change. But the leader of a trade organization can only do so much—which ultimately translates to not much. Plus, despite imploring White honchos to assume the role of Chief Diversity Officer for their respective organizations, Hill wound up hiring 4As EVP of Diversity & Inclusion Strategy and Talent Development Singleton Beato—whose previous employer was the wondrously diverse JWT. Meanwhile, Cindy Gallop—who appears to be a sex addict now fighting for the fairer (and fair-skinned) sex—condemned “a rot at the top of the industry spreading and still spreading in the most appalling way.” Yet what diversity achievements did Gallop create while she was among the rotten top at BBH? Sorry, but if The Three Stoogettes are diversity advocates, look forward to many more decades of declining representation for the truly underrepresented.

Are Agencies Finally Ready to Confront the ‘Rot at the Top of the Industry’?

Diversity advocates hope we’ve reached a tipping point

By Katie Richards, Patrick Coffee

The advertising industry’s top women are done mincing words.

“A cancer” is how 4A’s President Nancy Hill describes the agency world’s lingering gender bias and racial insensitivity.

“The industry has a huge diversity problem,” says veteran creative Nancy Vonk.

There is “a rot at the top of the industry spreading and still spreading in the most appalling way, and that is what needs to be stopped in its tracks,” says diversity advocate Cindy Gallop.

Their comments come not after the ouster of one major agency executive, but after the high-profile firings or resignations of no less than four top execs in 2016: Campbell-Ewald’s Jim Palmer, JWT’s Gustavo Martinez, RAPP U.S.’ Alexei Orlov and, most recently, Saatchi & Saatchi’s Kevin Roberts.

Roberts’ resignation amid backlash over his dismissive comments about gender balance seems to be, for many in the industry, a tipping point that is forcing the industry to confront its homogeneity and stubbornly enduring chauvinism.

So is the agency world truly ready to confront its own demons rather than dismissing each ham-tongued CEO’s firing as an “isolated incident”?

Dragging the debate into the light

“I do believe I’ve seen that there has been a more concerted effort to root out all of the cancer and root it out faster, but it’s going to take a while,” said Hill, who as president of the 4A’s represents the interests of agencies across America. “The dominant gender and skin color has been white male for the bulk of this industry’s history.”

There is also, diversity advocates believe, a benefit to having high-profile agency PR disasters like Saatchi chairman Kevin Roberts recently declaring that the gender debate is “over” and saying women are often more content with lower-ranking roles because they lack the “vertical ambition” of men.

This kind of incident sparks global debate and “makes it impossible to ignore that the industry has a huge diversity problem,” says Vonk, who runs Toronto creative leadership consultancy Swim and previously served as creative chief for Ogilvy Toronto.

But even if the industry agrees that it has a problem, what can agencies do in the short term to address it?

How conversation may stave off crisis

If agencies can begin having candid, self-aware discussions about race and gender, it could prevent a disastrous moment of cringeworthy leadership.

Media training on the topic is, while not a solution to the core problem, at least one way of helping executives think more carefully about how they phrase their opinions in public and with their staff.

One female agency executive, who asked to remain anonymous, said she believes Saatchi’s Roberts was largely pilloried because of how he phrased his comments (such as saying “the fucking debate is all over” when asked about gender balance), when he could have found a more reasoned way of explaining how agencies can rethink the way they help female employees with career advancement.

“I feel bad for Kevin,” she said. “One of the main reasons I don’t like to talk about it is that there’s such a good chance that your words will be misconstrued.”

In the end, she said, Saatchi’s parent company had little choice but to disown Roberts, given the industry’s ongoing reputation for insensitivity toward diversity issues.

“He could be a scapegoat, but Publicis can’t afford to piss off so many clients and employees,” the executive said. “What did JWT gain from backing Gustavo Martinez initially? Not a whole lot.”

Media training or sensitivity training won’t solve everything, though.

To Vonk and diversity watchdog Cindy Gallop, Roberts’ ouster was less about poor phrasing than about a clear example of gender bias. The best solution, they argue, is to continue building more diverse leadership teams.

“Kevin Roberts’ belief that women don’t have ‘vertical ambition’ is about ignorance, willful blindness and yes, gender bias,” Vonk said. “And he’s not unique—it’s a view among many older white men at the top who aren’t keeping up the tour. These leaders will keep putting people that look like themselves into top jobs because that’s their comfort level.”

One of the agency world’s best-known female leaders, 360i CEO Sarah Hofstetter, agrees:

”The issue is, what’s going on inside your four walls?” Hofstetter says. “Are we acknowledging what needs to change in the culture of these agencies to attract people of different backgrounds in terms of gender, race and sexual orientation?”

At older shops, legacy can be a liability

For her own agency, Hofstetter said the organization benefits from not being a larger legacy shop, where it seems many of the recent problems have stemmed from. That’s not to say that sexism and racism is absent from other agencies, but “it’s easier when you’re building from scratch rather than inheriting a decades-old infrastructure,” she says. “Wallpaper is the go-to solution: It’s quick and it won’t ruffle any feathers on top. But we were founded as a pure meritocracy.”

What about those larger shops? How are they answering these problems and working to rid itself of the “rot,” as Gallop puts it?

Some larger organizations have found success starting from the top and working down. For IPG, that means a diverse board. Heide Gardner, chief diversity and inclusion officer at IPG, noted “40 percent of our board members are women.” With diverse leadership, many execs argue, comes diverse thought and diverse work for clients.

Finding a path forward

Until there is a balance of all kinds, from gender to ethnicity to sexual orientation at the uppermost levels of these organizations, change is going to be an uphill battle, says 4A’s leader Nancy Hill.

“As I said in March [at the 4A’s Transformation conference] … this has to start at the top and the CEO of any agency needs to consider himself or herself the chief diversity officer. It’s their job. Nobody else’s.”

At the agency level, Gardner noted that some IPG agencies have started “conducting unconscious bias training,” while others “are implementing a blind resume practice in which they eliminate any gender identifiers from resumes” to ensure fairer hiring practices.

After a lengthy career of watching misogyny and other forms of discrimination manifest themselves in the agency world, Vonk says she’s optimistic that change will come—but knows it won’t come easily.

“I was glad to see Publicis respond immediately and decisively, but not many leaders with gender bias announce it to the press. It’s not always easy for a holding company to identify people who are doing active damage to their employees and employers,” Vonk says.

“There’s hard work to be done. When those who reject diversity exit roles of great influence and are replaced with forward thinking leaders, we’ll get somewhere.”

Monday, March 21, 2016

13131: Diverted Diversity Advocates.

Adweek rendered a ridiculous report regarding responses to the resignation of former JWT Worldwide Chairman and CEO Gustavo Martinez, featuring a subhead that read, “Diversity advocates see mixed signals in ouster of JWT’s Martinez .” The ridiculousness comes from using the label of “diversity advocates” in reference to the idiots interviewed.

The first “diversity advocate”—FCB Global Chief Talent Officer Cindy Augustine—offered the following bullshit:

“This is a moment where people will look at us and wonder whether there is progress being made. This is the time to redouble our efforts. There are lots of efforts being made, and I think that will continue; this is definitely not the time to take our foot off the gas. It reminds everyone, whether in the ad industry or society at large, that this is a systemic issue everywhere. We are not exempt.

“We’re pretty proud of our efforts. We have [global chief creative officer] Susan Credle, and we have Dana Maiman who runs FCB Health, which is one of the biggest healthcare practices out there. Under [global CEO Carter Murray], probably half of the team members are women. We are very proud and we are just beginning, but we don’t need to be an exception.”

Augustine is exceptionally dumb. She hinted at her dumbness when ripping Raven-SymonĂ© last year, and confirmed it with this latest verbal vomit. To excuse the industry’s diversity disaster as “a systemic issue everywhere” is dodging responsibility and accountability in grand style. To proudly point to promoting White women as progress is pathetic. Sorry, but FCB today is closer to being like IPG sister agency Campbell Ewald versus the revolutionary company envisioned by former Draftfcb President and CEO Laurence Boschetto.

The second “diversity advocate”—the 100% annoying Kat Gordon—added the following drivel:

“No agency is immune from instances of sexual harassment. Nor does it indicate a toxic agency environment. The single most critical thing is that an agency has a clear no-tolerance plan in place and that it enforces that policy swiftly and emphatically should proof of harassment be in evidence. The JWT case is a cautionary tale of what happens when an agency fails to take complaints of harassment seriously when they are first raised.”

Of course, Gordon only sees a sexual harassment case, despite the fact that the charges include anti-Semitism and racism. Additionally, she’s delusional to believe any agency “has a clear no-tolerance plan” that’s actually being enforced. Hell, she’ll probably have trouble finding takers for her certifiably inane certification program to benefit White women.

The third “diversity advocate”—Nancy Vonk—dumped the following dung:

“If the JWT allegations are true, the world just witnessed that sweeping it under the rug is a terrible strategy. … Maybe at this point we can all agree, there’s a better way to address harassment claims. Now company leaders need to state loud and clear that it’s the right thing to do and it’s safe to do it. The unwritten rules that have been at play from the beginning of time need to be torn up, and new ones that support employees need to be displayed in neon in our workplaces. Nothing short of consistent demonstrations that claims will be met with swift action, with no penalty to the employee, will convince people they can and should bring their problems forward. … This could take a while. If history shows [plaintiff Erin Johnson] told the truth, history will show she was a very brave person who helped us all.”

Vonk views the JWT scenario as primarily a sexual harassment case too, which isn’t surprising, given that her “diversity advocate” title is the result of having spanked Neil French in 2005. However, Vonk’s pontifications regarding protecting whistleblowers are outrageous. The woman is clearly ignorant regarding the many minorities who’ve been blacklisted for protesting the discrimination and racism still prevalent in the advertising industry. It should be noted that Vonk’s French rant was titled, “Female Like Me,” an apparent nod to the popular “Black Like Me” book.

For Adweek to deem these three stooges “diversity advocates” is a sad reflection of the state of affairs in the advertising industry, where diverted diversity is the inclusive bandwagon of the moment. Why has no one been asked to comment on the anti-Semitism and racism in the scenario? Could Adweek even identify individuals qualified to speak on such matters? It would be a monumental challenge for anyone to name five legitimate diversity advocates working on Madison Avenue today.