16408: Boredom, Bias, Bullshit—Brought To You By McCann.

 

Advertising Age reported on a culturally clueless incident at McCann New York, where former Co-Chief Creative Officer Pierre Lipton made an “inappropriate” statement during a DEI event.

 

The scenario unfolded on September 14 at the White advertising agency’s fifth annual Day for Meaning, a heat shield soiree designed to brainstorm ideas for recognizing and eradicating unconscious bias. Lipton managed to underscore the need for such endeavors by typing that he felt “so fucking bored” in the comments of a related video meeting, effectively exposing and ratifying unconscious bias.

 

McCann re-assigned Lipton to another role and placed him on a two-week unpaid leave of absence “to consider the full effect of his words”—perhaps even suggesting that he seek counsel from Stan Richards or ex-McCann Health CCO Jeremy Perrott…? Just a thought.

 

Lipton’s declaration arguably qualifies as passive bias or deceptive bias. For clarification, take a stroll down Memory Lane and review MultiCultClassics’ inaugural post. Ad Age also revealed that Lipton had only intended his remark for a single recipient, accidentally sending it companywide—so he might fall into the active bias category. In short, Lipton’s alleged inappropriateness displays bias, compounded by racist ignorance.

 

If racist ignorance seems too harsh an accusation, think about how Lipton perfectly represents his White advertising agency and Adland at large. That is, he’s grown disinterested in the quest for equality—provided his dedication to the cause was not performative patronization. Hey, Lipton’s flub constitutes an embarrassing twist on McCann’s “Truth Well Told” slogan.

 

Lipton could be labeled anti-antiracist, a double negative that’s a double whammy for a leader employed by a firm claiming to embrace countering values, which happens to be part of IPG, a White holding company historically bragging about being recognized for leadership in diversity and inclusion.

 

At some point, the players in this scenario will have to show integrity, talk the talk, and walk the walk. It could start by demanding that Lipton take a walk.

 

McCann Exec Made ‘Inappropriate’ Remark During Inclusion Session

 

Pierre Lipton’s comment during agency’s ‘Day for Meaning’ sparks two-week leave and job change

 

By Judann Pollack

 

McCann is publicly explaining the actions it took, including moving Pierre Lipton to a new role “while he works to further develop his skills as an executive,” weeks after he made what some people interpreted as a racially insensitive remark during an internal agency meeting intended to find ways to recognize and eradicate unconscious bias.

 

On Sept. 14, Interpublic Group of Cos.-owned McCann was observing its fifth annual Day for Meaning, in which the entire agency takes a day to reflect on solving racial inequities and participate in workshops, surveys and meetings in pursuit of, in the agency’s words, fostering “a climate of inclusion” at McCann and the world at large.

 

During the virtual presentation, Lipton, then co-chief creative officer for McCann New York, typed into the comments that he was “so fucking bored,” according to multiple people familiar with the incident.

 

McCann announced Lipton’s move from co-chief creative officer of McCann New York to global executive creative director of McCann Worldgroup on Oct. 5. Soon, people began dissecting the shift on social media, with one person outside the agency posting on LinkedIn on Saturday that McCann is protecting “a parochial racist.”

 

In response to Ad Age’s queries, McCann laid out the decisions it said it made in the wake of the typed comment, which it called “disrespectful.”

 

Amber Guild, CEO of McCann New York, sent a note to staff on Sept. 14 acknowledging Lipton’s behavior, the agency said. McCann also said it held a town hall the following day, in which it called out the incident as disrespectful, inappropriate and unprofessional. Lipton issued a public apology to the agency, McCann said.

 

The following week, on Sept. 19, Guild sent an email to McCann employees that read in part: “In talking with Pierre this weekend, I suggested, and Pierre agreed, that he should take some time away to reflect on his comment and its impact on the community. So, as of today, Pierre is taking a leave of absence for two weeks to consider the full effect of his words, and the power and responsibility of his position as CCO with regard to being a positive force for conscious inclusion in the company, and one whose leadership behaviors model our values.”

 

The note continued: “During that time, I’ll be working with our leadership team to continue to review the feedback we have and are receiving, the Belong and Pulse survey results, and other measures to identify and create an action plan for our company—one that starts with our leadership and one that includes accountability. This will include measures like conscious inclusion scores being tied to leadership bonus structure, an inclusive leadership curriculum … as well as everyone receiving regular feedback, among other measures.”

 

Then, on Oct. 5, McCann announced a trio of executive shifts, and Lipton was among them: Shannon Washington joining from R/GA to become global chief creative officer of Gotham, Shayne Millington moving from co-chief creative officer to CCO of McCann New York and Lipton being named global executive creative officer of McCann Worldgroup.

 

‘Inappropriate, dismissive and not consistent with our values’

 

The agency today issued a statement to Ad Age regarding the move.

 

“During our annual Day for Meaning at McCann Worldgroup, a day that the global network focuses on driving a culture of inclusion, Pierre Lipton made a disrespectful comment in the chat during the New York session that was intended for one individual but went to the entire agency by mistake,” it read. “It was inappropriate, dismissive and not consistent with our values or our expectations of leaders within the company. We addressed this with the agency that night in writing and in a town hall the next day; Pierre personally apologized and went on a two-week unpaid leave of absence while we conducted an investigation into the incident.”

 

It continued: “Following the investigation, we determined that Pierre was not consistently modeling the behaviors that we feel are critical in an agency-specific leadership role and made the decision to remove him from the role of co-CCO of McCann New York to a role as a global executive creative director that focuses his talent on craft and global brands, while he works to further develop his skills as an executive.”

 

The agency’s statement said, “We have been purposeful in addressing this directly and forthrightly with the agency, while also taking the time to ensure we are not making decisions without a full assessment of the core issues. Ultimately, we unearthed that we have more work to do in our systems and structures to ensure inclusive leadership behaviors, but believe this structure brings clarity and puts our leaders and our people in the best position to move forward.”

 

The company also sent a statement from Guild.

 

“As a Black woman, I understand deeply what words like those could mean for my organization and for people who look like me,” it said. “Therefore, it was critical that we were purposeful and not reactive after the incident. We immediately communicated to the company that Pierre did not model the behaviors that are aligned to our values and soon after let the company know he was put on leave for two weeks while we investigated the incident. We have since asked him to step down from executive leadership team of the New York office while he works on his growth and development in a role that is focused on creative craft. We are a new executive leadership team for McCann New York, and this incident has unearthed opportunity for us to put more systems and structures in place to ensure we are a consciously inclusive workplace culture where we can all do our best work.”

 

Others react

 

As news of the incident spread, Mosito Ramaili, managing director of the BoSabi Creative Club and a former executive at BBDO, Droga5 and Nike, wrote on his LinkedIn page that McCann was concealing “a tone deaf racist within their ranks,” and wrote, in reference to Washington, that “moving a [Black woman] into the firing line will not be the solution to your pathetic leadership.”

 

Ramaili’s post received 63 reactions and multiple comments as of late Sunday afternoon.

 

In a phone interview, Ramaili said that the agency’s actions are insufficient. “To say that it has been dealt with is seeing that through the lens of white people,” he said. “People don’t have the right to tell people what is racist and what is not.”

 

Ramaili said that he had a friend on the McCann call, “a non-white person who thought they were finally given a voice,” during the Day for Meaning, until she read what he called “the violence of those words.”

 

Among the responses to Ramaili’s LinkedIn post was one from Walter T. Geer III, chief experience design officer of VMLY&R.

 

“Brother…do not judge until you know the facts,” Geer wrote on Sunday. “I know the facts. And I know the Black woman that runs [McCann] NY. She did everything right and I [will thoroughly] stand behind her 1000%. Check my record on these things. I would not stick my neck out on this kind of topic unless I thoroughly know. And I do.”

15678: Are Unconscious Bias And Conscious Ignorance Equally At Play In Adland?

 

Adweek published a perspective by Alma Head of New Business and Agency Communications Michelle Cobas titled, “Dear Recruiters, It’s Time to Check Your Unconscious Bias.”

 

First of all, it’s probably not right to excuse recruiters’ bias as unconscious. Indeed, the personal story that Cobas shared arguably showed a headhunter displaying active bias. Sorry, but the overwhelming majority of recruiters are absolutely guilty of orchestrating and perpetuating the exclusivity in Adland.

 

Cobas goes on to confront the pigeonholing of multicultural marketing as a “ghetto”—a term routinely applied to nearly every advertising agency of color. To pursue the discussion, it may be helpful to view the dictionary definition of the word:

 

noun, plural ghet·tos, ghet·toes.

 

1. a section of a city, especially a thickly populated slum area, inhabited predominantly by members of an ethnic or other minority group, often as a result of social pressures or economic hardships.

2. any mode of living, working, etc., that results from stereotyping or biased treatment: job ghettos for women; ghettos for the elderly.

 

Well, for an industry dominated by exclusivity and privilege rooted in Whiteness—and fueled by systemic racism—ghetto is actually an accurate and appropriate term.

 

It may also be helpful to peruse the Urban Dictionary take on the topic:

 

When someone is to be described as “ghetto” – it is used to describe that person’s STATE OF MIND. “Ghetto” can be both a noun and an adjective. So, in this case, it is used as an adjective where white and Asian people can be just as “ghetto” as black people. Normally, this results from the poor living and upbringing conditions. “Ghetto” is a derogatory term used towards individuals who lack the standards of manners and ethics.

 

For some reason, “ghetto” is normally directed towards black individuals. However, it is believed and has been proven that other individuals of a different color can and have acted just as poorly.

 

“Ghetto” is NOT black or being black. “Ghetto” is how an individual looks at the world and acts accordingly to the “ghetto” belief. “Ghetto” is how one presents themselves in how they dress, act, and speak that acquires itself from the poor conditionings of a “ghetto” (ref. ghetto – noun) up-bringing.

 

There are also relevant undertones when the thinking above is applied to minority-owned firms. At the same time, even specialists in “below-the-line” disciplines—including pharmaceutical marketing—may be deemed as ghetto.

 

In the end, it starts with those who view traditional advertising as the highest form of industry craft. Coupled with the fact that the majority of these practitioners are White, the class-based biases and feelings of superiority take on racial-ethnic components.

 

Sure, some might insist that minority-owned enterprises ultimately adopt a second-class citizenship attitude. Yet what came first—the oppressed or the oppressors?

 

Dear Recruiters, It’s Time to Check Your Unconscious Bias

 

For industry-wide progress in DEI, brands must revisit how talent is being approached

 

By Michelle Cobas

 

I was recently contacted by a recruiter and to say the conversation didn’t go well is an understatement. From the tone as he delivered his opening line, I knew this conversation was unlikely to be a fruitful one.

 

“How would you like to work at a general market agency?”

 

If he knew me, he’d know I don’t look at opportunities because they’re multicultural or general market—I look for agencies with good people who do good work, so I told him, “It all depends on the agency.” I proceeded to share what I’d been up to in the five years since our last contact (he hadn’t bothered to check) and highlighted what I was most proud to be a part of.

 

I mentioned that I respected the people I work with and that it had been a good experience so far. We talked about my boss, a multicultural thought leader whom the recruiter has solicited for work in the past. And I emphasized I was proud of the ground we’ve gained in earning recognition from the industry at large for the caliber of our thinking and creativity—all of which I’d put up against any of the big “general market” agencies.

 

The opportunity he then pitched was at a lower title level at an agency with regional clients. That part didn’t bother me, as I know that opportunities can be found in any organization. What did initially shock and then infuriate me was what he said next: “Excuse me for saying this but this could be your chance to escape the Hispanic advertising ghetto and move on to general market.”

 

While still reeling from the fact that he actually said “Hispanic advertising ghetto,” I managed to reply “that alone is not compelling to me.” I expanded by mentioning the great work being done by Latin American creative talent worldwide. Leaving alma’s outstanding talent bench aside, I challenged him to consider agencies doing some of the best work right now: agencies like We Believers, Gut and DAVID, which are all led by Latino talent and staffed by multicultural employees.

 

His persuasive comeback? “Well, I’ll keep you in mind for evp positions in multicultural.” 

 

Hearing this stunned me. It was clear he saw me and my current role at a leading Hispanic-led agency as less than. He had completely missed the point and became frustrated with the conversation, which then ended abruptly. And the way he delivered his last comment seemed like he was trying to put me in my place—a lower place.

 

Making everything worse—he is known to regularly place diverse talent. The exchange sparked questions. Is it possible this person reflects a pervasive mindset that I somehow thought was closer to extinction? Even after #metoo, even after BLM, even after the latest Census?

 

Perception vs. reality

 

As a white-presenting Cuban American woman who grew up middle class, I never thought of myself as marginalized. I’d dealt with both sides of the coin: too American for some Latino-led agencies, too Latina for white-led agencies. Having toggled between both, I realized with perfect clarity that this older white male may be a mirror image of how talent at multicultural agencies are still perceived—that we are somehow relegated to our situation, anxious to find some way out of a horrible professional plight. 

 

I grounded myself for a minute and took stock of where I am today: Does a “Hispanic Advertising Ghetto” agency win Golds at the Effies? Does it consistently win Lions at Cannes?

 

Does it win nearly 20 pieces of business in just over a year from brands who fully realize multicultural is mainstream? Does it experience 12 straight years of growth while others close shop? The answer is a resounding “no” on all counts. 

 

Still, I couldn’t shake the thought that this attitude likely still lives on in the minds of many in the industry. And when recruiters like him reach out to starry-eyed Hispanic talent, this is the carrot they dangle—perpetuating the notion that multicultural work is something to leave behind, to graduate from. To be ashamed of. 

 

Recruiters are extensions of brands

 

This entire situation has been a stark reminder that racism and bigotry continue in our industry. This belief that segment agencies are somehow ”less than” is archaic yet that a top recruiter shares the belief proves it’s an endemic one, all while our industry claims great moral progress under the banner of DEI. If our collective aim is for industry-wide progress in DEI, we should revisit our approach to absolutely everything including recruitment.

 

To start, here are a few simple guidelines for recruiters:

 

• Treat multicultural talent with the same respect and interest you would any other talent by doing your homework. It’s easy to check LinkedIn profiles.

 

• Check your level of unconscious bias. There will be no good outcome when engaging with talent from a multicultural agency if you believe the work that they do there is “less than” experience, compared with talent from other agencies. If that’s what you really think, despite your best efforts, your bias will inevitably show up.

 

• Listen. It’s the first step in every successful discussion. And even worse in the case of recruiters, not listening may leave the impression that you see talent as a wholesale commodity—less than a person.

 

As for agencies that use outside recruiters, walking the talk on DEI applies here too. These recruiters are an extension of your brand, providing the first impressions of your organization on an interpersonal level. 

 

Think twice about using someone who isn’t well versed on your position on DEI and multicultural recruitment.  And don’t work with a recruiter whose strategy is to diminish the current role and achievements of potential recruits to aggrandize the opportunity they’re offering.

 

Making these changes is part of accepting the reality that every day it’ll get harder to tell multicultural and general-market agencies apart. Meanwhile, we’ll continue to see the irony at play that multicultural agencies are treated as prime hunting grounds for talent.

 

And alma, for its part, will continue to gain ground with big modern culture work that drives business for clients, elevates the cultural conversation and, most important, obliterates the baseless concept of a Hispanic Advertising Ghetto once and for all.

15221: Delayed WTF 48—Stan Richards & The Peaceable Kingdom.

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

 

The Stan Richards video apology to the University of Texas at Austin inspired additional pondering.

 

During the monologue, Richards mentioned authoring a book—The Peaceable Kingdom: Building a Company without Factionalism, Fiefdoms, Fear and Other Staples of Modern Business—which presents the vision and mission behind The Richards Group. Regarding his culturally clueless campaign critique, Richards declared, “I failed to live up to my own philosophy.”

 

The Peaceable Kingdom was published in 2001, which is technically at least two generational gyrations of industry diversity debating ago. That is, the last 19 years have seen: 1) the exclusivity examinations that sparked around 2006 when the New York City Commission on Human Rights and The Madison Avenue Project put heat on White advertising agencies, and; 2) the current cultural consternations fueled by the #MeToo and Black Lives Matter movements.

 

The Peaceable Kingdom publishing even predates The Richards Group’s foray into multicultural marketing.

 

On a semi-related note, considering that The Richards Group launched in 1976, the Dallas-based shop was around to witness Blacks being hired after the New York City Commission on Human Rights and the New York State Commission on Human Rights applied pressure on Madison Avenue to diversify in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

 

So, what’s the point?

 

For starters, The Peaceable Kingdom makes zero references to diversity, except when discussing cross-functional collaboration or segregated partnerships with agencies abroad. The tome features no commitments to an inclusive workplace from a racial or ethnic perspective.

 

Technically, Stan Richards did not fail to live up to his philosophy. The problem is, his philosophy as articulated in The Peaceable Kingdom never took a proactive position—or any position, for that matter—on diversity.

 

“I can unequivocally say that I have never used racist slurs about any ethnic group, nor tolerated it from anyone around me,” insisted Richards. “And I certainly do not support White supremacy in any form or fashion.”

 

There is no need to doubt Richards’ claims. Yet while he may not support White supremacy in any form or fashion, he has benefited from White privilege in all its forms and fashions. What’s more, he has likely “unconsciously” perpetuated it.

 

Richards is not a card-carrying member of the KKK. Rather, he’s a lifetime representative of the CCC—Culturally Clueless Caucasians—in a professional field that has been publicly recognized for unfair and discriminatory hiring practices since at least the 1960s. Indeed, the advertising industry has practiced systemic racism from the beginning.

 

Was the Home Depot quip “the biggest mistake of [Richards’] life,” per the old man’s contention? Nope. It was merely symptomatic of a deeper defect from an alleged industry leader who should have known better—and done better over the course of his career.

 

The true issue is not what Stan Richards said or did, but what he has failed to say or do throughout his reign in an exclusive kingdom.

 

15116: Now Presenting Another Amazing Black Person Hired To Lead…

 

It’s interesting to see all the White advertising agencies pumping out press releases to display their latest Black hires in senior-level roles, special consultant positions, Chief Diversity Officer slots, etc. Guess all the Whites with hiring authority—who claimed for decades that there was a lack of qualified Black talent available—are exposing their career “unconscious bias” and unconscionable BS.

14723: Delayed WTF 46—Why The Unilever DNA Stunt Doesn’t Fly.

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

A MultiCultClassics visitor pointed out that the recent Unilever DNA stunt was previously executed by Aeroméxico for a promotional initiative. The general premise is that people will be more sensitive to culture and diversity upon learning their true ancestry. It’s important to note, however, the key differences between the Aeroméxico and Unilever experiments.

For Aeroméxico, Advertising Age reported people were given travel discounts based on how “Mexican” they turned out to be. The airline and its advertising agency gave customers DNA tests to reveal the customers’ Mexican heritage. The customers then received flight discounts corresponding with the results. For example, if a customer turned out to be 18% Mexican, they were presented an 18% discount. The more Mexican DNA a person had, the greater the discount offered.

For Unilever, advertising and marketing executives across its own workforce and the staffs of its advertising agencies took DNA tests. The goal was to make the executives more aware of their racial and ethnic identities—which Unilever hopes will lead to fewer stereotypes depicted in advertising campaigns. Unilever ultimately declared the experiment led to a 35% reduction in unconscious stereotyping and a 27% increase in original thinking. Of course, the advertiser cannot provide figures regarding how any of this will affect produced work.

Comparing Aeroméxico and Unilever is apples and assholes oranges. Specifically, Aeroméxico provided financial rewards—i.e., clear incentives—to participants. Unilever, in contrast, awarded nothing to its participants and has no idea if the testing will incentivize more diverse and inclusive campaigns. Hell, it’s unlikely the collected data will lead to more diverse and inclusive workplaces at Unilever and its advertising agencies—which actually could help eliminate stereotypical depictions.

In the end, Unilever devised a diversity sensitivity training program and spun it into a PR-generating event. The advertiser shat out another divertisement to fabricate the illusion of cultural competence and progressiveness. If DNA tests could measure deception and lies, Unilever would be revealed as a world-class offensively ignorant conglomerate. The Aeroméxico customer below perfectly summarizes everything.

Aeroméxico stuns Americans who don’t like Mexico with DNA results

The formerly reticent travelers all get flight discounts based on how Mexican they actually are

By I-Hsien Sherwood

Apparently there are people who refuse to travel to Mexico. Maybe they hate warm weather and good food?

Or maybe all the rhetoric about “bad hombres” has gotten to them. It’s ironic, because many of the people who’ve written off our southern neighbor live in U.S. states that used to be part of Mexico. And because genes don’t recognize political boundaries, people in those states are more likely to have Mexican heritage, whatever their political beliefs.

Aeroméxico, the national airline of Mexico, decided to prove that fact and drum up a little business at the same time. Traveling throughout the Southwest U.S., the airline and agency Ogilvy Mexico found people who insisted they’d never want to go to Mexico. Then they gave them DNA tests to reveal any Mexican ancestry and offered flights with discounts based on the results. The more Mexican DNA, the higher the discount.

In Wharton, Texas, Bill admits he likes tequila and burritos, but he doesn’t like Mexico. Still, he seems pleased to find that he’s 18 percent Mexican, which entitles him to an 18 percent discount. He’s also 3.6 percent more Mexican than his wife, a fact he can’t help but crow about.

Not everyone is happy about their results, at least not initially. “That’s bullshit!” exclaims one Texan, after finding out he’s 22 percent Mexican. But he’s quickly mollified by his whopping 22 percent discount. Poor Betsy only gets 3 percent off.

After Texas, the project continued through Colorado, Utah and Nevada. All told, 54 percent of the people tested showed some Mexican heritage. Remember, these were all people who said they’d never want to visit.

It’s not the first time Aeroméxico has tweaked anti-immigrant policies. In 2016, during the heat of the presidential campaign, the airline lampooned the very idea of borders. “On land, borders can maintain distances, but in the sky, we show you it’s different.”

14302: Papa Don’t Preach.

It’s been tough to keep up with the rash of reactive stunts involving Papa John’s in recent weeks. Here are highlights of the bitter ingredients, bitter pizza:

• Advertising Age reported executives at the pizza company underwent “unconscious bias” training, with plans to roll out the reprogramming initiative across the workforce. Um, shouldn’t it be anti-unconscious bias training? Otherwise, it sounds like employees are being trained to display unconsciousness in their biases—which would qualify former Papa John’s Chairman John Schnatter to serve as an expert instructor.

• Speaking of Schnatter, he refuses to go away, despite having resigned his leadership position. He launched a website to rally the troops by declaring “I Am Papa John.” Okay, but his image and likeness are being removed from Papa John’s advertising, promotions, in-store signage, POP, pizza boxes, etc. Hell, Peyton Manning probably isn’t returning his calls too. What’s more, a shareholder sued the company, charging “it misled investors by failing to disclose inappropriate behavior by its executives.” Will customers also request refunds upon learning the pizza maker was/is run by bad boys?

• New advertising agency Endeavor initially produced a lame video with typing text, which felt impersonal and lacking accountability. Endeavor CMO Bozoma Saint James tweeted that she would hold Papa John’s CEO Steve Ritchie accountable for improving the pizza company’s culture. This was a unique—and perhaps unprecedented—twist in reality, as an advertising agency urged a client to act inclusively.

• Endeavor followed through with another lame idea, producing a campaign starring diverse Papa John’s franchisees and employees. Sorry, but better inclusiveness does not lead to better pizza. Another rebranding move involved redesigning the logo and removing the apostrophe. So now there’s bad behavior and bad grammar.

• Still no word from Casey Wasserman, who pledged in July “to go on the record and refute” the charges of extortion and other gripes that Schnatter leveled at former AOR Laundry Service. The company that tried to counsel Schnatter on media relations continues to show a lack of expertise in the area.

In the end, is the erasure of Schnatter as mascot an overreaction? After all, it’s more common for racist mascots to simply get a new hairdo or C-suite office.

14229: Virtuous Versus Vicious.

Campaign published a divertsity drive-thru delivery from McDonald’s Vice-President Marketing and Food Development Emily Somers, who applied unconscious bias to the White women’s bandwagon. Somers closed by declaring:

Importantly, I don’t think there’s any contradiction between treating people with respect and being open and honest with feedback. Even when it’s hard. You have to call out both good and bad behaviour. If you see it, call it.

Hey, maybe someday Somers and her Mickey D’s teammates will “call it” and call out White advertising agencies for the bad behaviour of perpetuating exclusivity. Of course, Somers will consider it after she helps “create a virtuous circle of [White] women’s leadership.” It’s disturbing that people who prioritize divertsity over diversity view themselves as virtuous.

McDonald’s marketing boss: tackle unconscious bias to create a virtuous circle of women’s leadership

By Emily Somers

McDonald’s vice-president marketing and food development explains why technology is allowing the brand to be more human than ever.

It’s never been a more exciting time to be a populist brand

I’m excited by the emergence of new ways to deliver the populist campaigns which are crucial for an inclusive brand like McDonald’s, meaning that we can now create ideas that not only appeal to everyone, but also appeal to each one of us as individuals.

The broadcast reach and power of TV (or more broadly AV) is still unmatched to deliver emotional engagement en-masse. But there are also some fantastic opportunities offered by all traditional media as they digitise — meaning there are new and innovative ways to engage audiences with more timely, targeted, relevant messaging.

As we evolve our offering and enable customers to transact digitally with our brand, our broadcast media partners are also evolving, to unlock the power of addressable advertising at scale.

This is opening up new forms of creativity allowing brands to enjoy the best of both worlds — where populism meets personalisation.

Make sure you don’t make your brand so frictionless that it disappears

Technology is transforming our business, like so many others. Offering us valuable ways to make customer experiences simpler, slicker and more seamless — but it’s also important to create real and human experiences, which connect and engage with our audiences.

Some retailers may be tempted to strip out the human-element of their business as they chase cost savings.

For us, it is different — people are at the very heart of what we do. Yes, we are rolling out kiosk ordering points and remote ordering via an app to make life ever more convenient. But at the same time we are investing in enhancing the customer experience, and with that comes investing in our people and transforming roles — with restaurant teams that are focused on hospitality, and with table service.

It may surprise some people to learn that with our digitisation in restaurants we are now employing more people than ever, creating another 1,000 manager positions this year.

Let’s tackle unconscious bias to create a virtuous circle of women’s leadership

There’s a growing sense that gender equality in the workplace is the right thing. I’m keen businesses also recognise that it’s the smart thing.

Research shows that companies with 30% of women on their board fare better in periods of economic volatility than companies with only 10%. McKinsey reports that women outperform men on measures of motivating others, fostering communication and producing high-quality work. All important in the boardroom and beyond.

But unconscious bias can hold companies back. All too often businesses show insufficient belief in the potential of women. Even if they are unaware of what they are doing. They show unconscious bias in hiring, in promotions, in opportunities.

These working cultures then undermine women’s self-belief, creating a vicious circle. Now is the time for us to break this cycle and create a virtuous circle.

How? By disturbing complacency. By making the unconscious conscious. By challenging received wisdom. Let’s get the evidence out there. Let’s train men and women alike about unconscious bias. And let’s create a virtuous circle that could be a much-needed engine of dynamism in our creative industries.

Be yourself, but with skill

Happily enough, given what I’ve just written, one of the most encouraging voices in my career has been a man’s. When he hired me Paul (Pomroy, McDonald’s UK CEO) was keen to tell me that I must make sure I keep being me. It was liberating and empowering.

I’ve realised since that there’s an important addition to this imperative to be yourself. You need to do so with real thoughtfulness.

Recognise your limitations as well as your strengths. And recognise how you, or those around you, can mitigate those limitations (surrounding yourself with talented people is definitely key to success). Pause and reflect on which part of your personality you’ll play to in any given situation.

Yes you need to be yourself. But you need to be yourself with skill.

If you see it, call it

Culture matters. How people work matters. McDonald’s has a working culture of decency, respect and fun, which suits me down to the ground.

Importantly, I don’t think there’s any contradiction between treating people with respect and being open and honest with feedback. Even when it’s hard. You have to call out both good and bad behaviour. If you see it, call it.

Emily Somers is vice president marketing & food development at McDonald’s UK and a member of Campaign’s Power 100.