14108: Black Shogun, Afro Ninja.

In 2014, Atlanta Black Star published a report titled, “The World of Sakanouye No Tamuramaro: Black Shogun of Early Japan.” It’s a lengthy piece, but well worth reading. Wonder if modern-day descendants include the infamous Afro Ninja.

14107: Clean Up Woman.

Harvard Business Review published a report titled, “Women of Color Get Asked to Do More ‘Office Housework.’ Here’s How They Can Say No.” It’s more confirmation that the alleged drama White women face in the advertising industry is not nearly as bad as the indignities experienced by women—and men—of color.

14106: Dearth Of Talent Diversity…?

Adweek published a pinheaded perspective from System1 Agency President Paul Spriggs, who stresses the imperative to “rebuild an industry that reflects the diversity that it serves.” But Spriggs is not advocating for racial and ethnic diversity—or even for gender equality. Rather, he’s promoting “talent diversity” that embraces a harmonious blend of digitally savvy drones and big-idea brand builders, covering a range of veterans and newbies. Spriggs spouts about recruiting candidates via multi-generational and multi-faceted lenses, with no mention of multi-cultural factors that might, you know, actually “rebuild an industry that reflects the diversity that it serves.” For clarity on Spriggs’ definition of diversity, simply view the leaders at System1 Agency, which perfectly reflects the existing broken system in adland.

How a Fixation on Digital Led to a Lack of Talent Diversity in Agencies

Which also spurred a lull in creativity

By Paul Spriggs

The past decade brought us a digital revolution, and with it came a wide range of distinct concerns for the marketing and advertising industry: the question of transparency in the media supply chain, skepticism around accurate metrics, fake news, data privacy breaches, manipulated audiences and more.

Today, we’re at a turning point where the limitations of digital are being acknowledged and the pendulum may swing back and return to an equilibrium across the board, redistributing attention across digital, holistic strategy and creativity. The recent reduction in digital spending by P&G and Unilever is a sure sign that this type of market correction is taking place.

While this redistribution of the marketing matrix is healthy, there is one side effect of the digital takeover that still needs to be addressed: the unbalanced talent mix.

How did it become so unbalanced?

Over the last 10 years, the marketing industry built up an unhealthy reliance on data to lead strategy, creative ideas and media placement, thereby cultivating a false sense of security. This holy grail of the digital disruption led to the idolization of a particular talent mix made up of the young, tech-savvy, digital natives. It resulted in the usurping of human capital in the more interpretive, less data-driven areas like brand building strategy and creativity.

The desire for efficiency, reduced risk and immediate sales resulted in an over-reliance on technology and a complete focus on data-driven expertise. In return, agencies began overlooking those candidates with more experience in brand building, big creative ideas and brand strategy.

Over time, without a talent mix that included broader experience, big thinking and the gravitas to help proactively lead clients with solutions to complex problems, many marketing initiatives became shorter term, failing to build equity in enduring, emotionally resonating ideas. With agency talent increasingly skewing toward facilitators and execution specialists, marketers began to take more control over strategy and process, resulting in a kind of catch-22 situation.

More and more, they started to bring strategy and creative talent in-house, and simultaneously, those with broader and deeper advertising experience in strategy, creative and client management skills began to leave the industry voluntarily or through attrition.

All the while, many agencies, hit with slimmer margins, started placing greater workloads on less staff. Naturally, this took the shape of favoring young employees willing to put in extra hours to climb the ladder (many of whom were also more likely to be exploited), which became another pervasive talent problem within the industry.

In sum, the lack of balance in the talent mix is a contributing factor to the lack of balance that evolved between the agency and the brand client, with the brand client taking on more control

So where does this leave us?

Today the advertising industry is dominated by a digitally savvy workforce, yet there’s a lack of depth in the kind of creativity and strategy that leads to enduring, brand-building ideas, which is the reason brands sought agencies in the first place.

The marketing climate has evolved to favor smaller “activation” ideas, which may create a brief spark of awareness but later fizzle out, leaving the brand back at base level. Perceived as less costly, the myopic lure of digitally-induced eyeballs actually hides the missed opportunity of an enduring campaign idea, which builds cumulative synergistic equity for the brand, leading to better ROI over time. In continuously trying to automate and remove risk, the marketing environment has failed to attract and grow the right mix of talent in order to cultivate long-lasting value for brands.

Looking forward, the current market correction presents an opportunity for the industry to seek out a new, more balanced mix of agency talent to serve brands. Highly skilled digital natives will continue to be integral, but we must compliment this talent with deep expertise in holistic strategy across advertising, marketing and business and seek out those who are skilled in developing enduring and equity-building creative ideas. By approaching talent in a more holistic, multi-generational and multi-faceted way, we can rebuild an industry that reflects the diversity that it serves.

Paul Spriggs is president, Americas of System1 Agency.

14105: Peace Of Shit.

Campaign spotlighted the new Tommy John Women’s campaign from Preacher, including the advert depicted above, whose headline reflects cultural appropriation at its finest. The responsible creative director should have thrown the layout into the trashcan too.

14104: Diet Problems.

Full disclosure: Despite commenting twice about Diet Madison Avenue, as well as making references to it in recent posts, the MultiCultClassics staff had not bothered to actually peruse the anonymous Instagram account. Upon finally scanning the DMA content, it’s safe to say the first visit was the last.

Sorry, but Diet Madison Avenue doesn’t live up to the hype. Indeed, DMA exposes key problems with the divertsity movement, and it also suffers from key problems in general.

Key Problem 1: White women aren’t unified on the issue. Just as White females in adland have disagreed over things including the prevalence of a glass ceiling, reasons for not advancing and whether or not the business is tough for women, the ladies are unable to reach a consensus over the value, tactics and tone of Diet Madison Avenue.

Key Problem 2: White women are not very supportive of each other. This is common knowledge, and the dilemma is intensified in a field where agencies compete against each other and/or exist in silos within holding companies. Plus, in the advertising industry, White women have conspired with White men to perpetuate the exclusivity—so they are not very supportive of minorities too.

Key Problem 3: Tied to the previous problem, White women are not strong champions of true diversity. In regards to Diet Madison Avenue, the attempts to broaden the message to embrace racial and ethnic equality and other semi-related topics come off as uninformed, unconvincing and untrustworthy bullshit.

Key Problem 4: Vigilante justice is bad enough. Anonymous vigilante justice is pathetic—and potentially as illegal as the alleged misdeeds being exposed by Diet Madison Avenue. The DMA posse insists they have collaborated with lawyers, PhD students and professors. Um, PhD students and professors are useless—especially when they are unidentified. And any lawyer approving DMA’s tactics is a world-class idiot and professional hack.

Key Problem 5: Diet Madison Avenue is becoming increasingly unnecessary. Agencies are installing more measures to protect and support sexual harassment victims. And the TIME’S UP Advertising initiative replaces anonymity with accountability.

Key Problem 6: The DMA posse is as hateful as the alleged perpetrators. In scenarios where the term misogyny is often used, the anonymous Instagram account introduces misandry. And the misandry is delivered with meanness and immaturity, which heightens the ignorance. This becomes a key problem on two fronts. First, like it or not, sexual harassment in the advertising industry won’t be eliminated without the deliberate backing and participation of White men. So injecting misandry makes it difficult to woo White male advocates. Second, the mean and immature tone—which is also directed towards any critics of DMA efforts—runs counter to the methods of successful protestors throughout history. Love, poise and intelligence have proven to be the best weapons for progress against hateful actions. Snarky obscenities ultimately hurt the cause.

Key Problem 7: DMA is a branding fail. Its core message is too unfocused, partly due to the aforementioned broadening of its content, but mostly due to a sloppy strategy and mindless execution. The DMA posse clearly doesn’t have the cultural competency needed to tackle the subject matter. Hell, they don’t even appear to have a basic understanding of HR-related practices and legal perspectives. DMA is a poor (wo)man’s TIME’S UP. It’s ironic that many of the recently fired offenders were Chief Creative Officers, because DMA desperately needs a skilled creative director. Then again, The 3% Movement could probably recommend female creative directors.

Key Problem 8: Diet Madison Avenue is unoriginal, unenlightened and uninspired. This key problem dovetails with the previous key problem. The DMA self-description says it all: “Exposing sexual harassment & discrimination in ad agencies since Oct 2017, cuz HR won’t.” First, why did the DMA posse only launch the revolution six months ago? Sexual harassment and discrimination have plagued Madison Avenue for over 60 years, and discrimination has festered for longer than sexual harassment. Could it be that the DMA posse is actually comprised of opportunistic narcissists jumping on the #MeToo bandwagon? Wonder if they realize #MeToo was founded by a Black woman initially seeking “to help survivors of sexual violence, particularly young women of color from low wealth communities, find pathways to healing.” Sorry, but DMA appears to be most concerned with themselves, followed by White women—and everyone else is relegated to a distant third place. Second, to declare DMA actions are necessary “cuz HR won’t” meet their responsibilities displays more ignorance. Sadly, the majority of HR directors don’t have the political power to expel the perpetrators. DMA ought to target the advertising agency leaders who have shielded sexual harassers—including calling out the women who signed the TIME’S UP Advertising manifesto, as these female leaders should have wielded their power to address matters versus turning blind eyes and deaf ears for decades.

Diet Madison Avenue deserves additional criticism, but this post has already gone too long. Net conclusion: Diet Madison Avenue needs to gain weight in the areas of cultural competence, character and credibility.

14103: Divertsity At Holding Companies.

Adweek published a perspective from Brian Sheehan, former adman and current professor of advertising at Syracuse University, who presented common-knowledge views on the state of affairs at holding companies. Sheehan predicted that the transformations happening in recent years could lead to “less diverse portfolios” for the global corporations. Duh. Actually, it can be declared without hesitation or reservation that the changes will lead to less diverse workforces at the already-too-White holding companies—especially as shrinking budgets and assignments compel the existing exclusive staffers to hang on tightly to their privileged positions.

Holding Companies Are in Flux, Which May Lead to Less Diverse Portfolios

They are developing into core agencies as the ad industry transforms

By Brian Sheehan

What is a holding company, and where did they come from in the advertising space? I saw the development of holding companies firsthand as a young advertising executive working for Dancer Fitzgerald Sample (DFS) in New York in the mid-1980s.

At that time, DFS was New York’s largest agency and one of the most prestigious agencies in America, fresh off its Wendy’s “Where’s the Beef?” triumph and “Agency of the Year” honors. In 1986, DFS was bought by Saatchi & Saatchi. Saatchi had emerged as a new type of advertising agency, one bent on global domination like none before. Interestingly, their initial acquisition spree was undertaken by their dynamic group finance director, Martin Sorrell, who left the company just prior to the DFS purchase.

Saatchi & Saatchi’s strategy for global growth and dominance was underpinned by buying big, powerful agencies around the world (sometimes at inflated prices—think Ted Bates). Saatchi & Saatchi was, in essence, the proto-holding company.

The first modern advertising holding company was WPP, which was founded by Mr. Sorrell soon after he left Saatchi. He refined the idea of being a giant master branded agency. He morphed it into being a portfolio of brands and companies under one financial roof. This was investment and business school thinking, and it was being applied, for the first time, to the advertising world on a mass scale.

Holding companies were essentially “shell” companies. WPP, for example, stood for Wire and Plastic Products plc. It was a U.K. manufacturer of wire baskets. Its future purpose in life would be to hold within it a group of communications companies. It was a financial tool, pure and simple.

At this stage, the holding company had one main job: to serve as a repository for a diversified investment portfolio. Later, it would develop a second function: to look for efficiencies that would help cut costs in the back room while in no way undermining the integrity of the brands in the portfolio.

This was a classic investment approach of pulling together a diversified investment portfolio to avoid having all your eggs in one basket. This helps balance risk and reward. When some brands are up, others are down. The portfolio grows steadily with the market and the economy over time. You have good years and bad years, but you avoid disastrous years.

These portfolios, held by the big holding companies (e.g., WPP, Interpublic, Publicis, Omnicom, Dentsu), have been increasingly diversified since the late ‘80s with the inclusion of media agencies, digital agencies, research companies, PR agencies, data agencies, etc. In fact, the emergence of media agencies in the 1990s was in itself a holding company-driven strategy—and a good one at that (financially, anyway).

But the worm has turned. As exemplified by Arthur Sadoun’s emerging vision for Publicis, the portfolio approach is being diminished. The differences between brands like Saatchi & Saatchi and Leo Burnett, for example, or even between these brands and SapientRazorfish, are disappearing as those brands are subsumed into the Publicis master brand.

In other words, the holding company is emerging as the core agency itself. It is a big, powerful, integrated agency to be sure, but it is destroying the diversity of their portfolio. And it is not just a Publicis issue. All of the major holding companies are winning their biggest pieces of business by merging their brands together to create holding company-level teams (e.g., Nissan United and the McDonald’s-focused We Are Unlimited).

Now to be fair, the industry is changing rapidly; it is now up against powerful consultancies like Accenture. Procter & Gamble’s chief brand officer Marc Pritchard recently said, “What’s impressive is how quickly Publicis and its management team came together to change.” That’s a fine endorsement.

I just want to sound a note of caution. Holding companies should not forget what a holding company is and why it exists in the first place. Should holding companies continue wholesale merging of their brands and offerings, they may find in the next three to five years that all of their eggs are no longer in a diversified holding company basket but instead in a single branded-agency basket. And they may, as a result, have some very bad financial years, which may be impossible for some of them to withstand.

14102: Chinatown Colonization…?

Advertising Age spotlighted a startup agency—Chinatown Bureau—headquartered in New York’s Chinatown. Chief Strategy Officer Marie Berry said, “In New York’s Chinatown, there is this common belief that tomorrow is better than today. ... It’s more so a mindset than a location. We believe it’s really the combination of heritage and [a] forward-looking spirit.” Okay, but what’s with the agency founders’ portrait featuring an oh-so-urban background? It doesn’t seem to appropriately represent Chinatown or an agency offering forward-thinking digital products and consulting. Rather, it looks like another example of appropriating Black culture—as if the founders want to holler, “Hey, look! We’re cool!” Better hope the graffiti isn’t communicating something nasty or inappropriate too.

Chinatown Bureau offers new ‘operating system’ for agencies

By Megan Graham

A pair of WPP expats have their way, agencies and marketers of the future will use an “operating system” that’s as integral to the creative process as Snow Leopard is to a MacBook Pro.

Paul Miser and Marie Berry, who worked together at WPP’s Hudson Rouge on Lincoln Motor Co.’s connected consumer relationships business, are opening Chinatown Bureau, a combination digital product studio and consultancy based—you guessed it—in New York’s Chinatown.

Chief Strategy Officer Berry says Chinatown Bureau is eyeing a five-year timeline to build products that tackle inefficiencies she and CEO Miser struggled with while working in the ad business. “We have a ton of problems that we’ve experienced,” Berry says, in areas including resourcing and talent management, “uninspired” briefings and overall workflow management.

The first tool they’re building is a martech product they say will help companies ensure consistent branding. Companies would be able to run assets through the automated system to ensure that brand imagery follows guidelines for logo, font, colors and style of photograph. Chinatown Bureau says it’s working with audio brand Beats by Dr. Dre on the product and plans a pilot with the marketer in the fourth quarter. The marketer wouldn’t comment on the relationship.

Miser says he expects to have enterprise-type solutions for larger clients, as well as a way to open up application programming interfaces so other agencies or other developers can build on top of the products. The company also wants to have a self-service model for companies that need a more affordable option.

“Having worked in the largest networks of communication agencies, we see the barriers for small and midsized companies,” Berry says.

In the meantime, Miser is leading the consultancy side of the business, which offers everything from user experience and design to revenue modeling. Clients on that side include OpenFin, a fintech startup.

“In New York’s Chinatown,” says Berry, “there is this common belief that tomorrow is better than today. ... It’s more so a mindset than a location. We believe it’s really the combination of heritage and [a] forward-looking spirit.”

14101: Ad Council Clutter.

Does the Ad Council even give a damn about media placement? Sharing column space with an advertisement for a phone line to meet hot, urban singles are two Ad Council messages—one proclaiming, “love has no gender,” and the other depicting a threesome with Smokey Bear. Love has no gender and bestiality involving cartoon characters is cool too.

14100: ANA CMO BS.

Adweek reported on the latest common-knowledge findings of an ANA survey that showed a lack of diversity (gasp!) among Chief Marketing Officers. However, White women are making progress (gasp!) in the category. Racial and ethnic minorities, on the other hand, continue to be grossly underrepresented (gasp!). The ANA has been conducting surveys for over a decade, consistently uncovering the obvious. Which then leads to patronizing programs and initiatives that rarely spark change. If the ANA took a survey of its surveys, the results would expose the true uselessness of the polling exercises—although no one would be surprised. Or give a shit.

Brands Fail to Meet the ANA’s Diversity Goals, Too

The group’s inaugural ‘CMO Scorecard’ shows a lack of minorities among chief marketers

By Erik Oster

Agencies aren’t the only one struggling with diversity issues.

The Association of National Advertisers (ANA) announced the finding of its inaugural “Scorecard” evaluating diversity among chief marketing officers of its client-side members at its Brand Masters Conference in Dana Point, Calif. today and while the findings suggest some progress with gender diversity, ethnic diversity lags behind.

The ANA survey tallied chief marketing officer roles and equivalent positions among the group’s 747 client-side marketer company members. 45 percent of the chief marketers surveyed were female, 55 percent male, a figure that seems to show signs of recent progress.

Still, certain categories fared better than others. While 47 of 88 banking and financial services CMOs in the survey were female, only 25 of 77 CMOs in the food and beverage category were.

The ethnic diversity numbers were more disheartening. Of those chief marketers surveyed, 87 percent were white and only 3 percent identified as Black/African American. Around 5 percent of the chief marketers identified as Asian and Hispanic/Latin, respectively.

Only three of the 45 sports and entertainment chief marketers surveyed were people of color, while the ANA doesn’t count a single Black/African American tech chief marketer or a Hispanic/Latin chief marketer in the banking/financial sector among its member organizations.

The consumer packaged goods categories fared relatively well in both gender and ethnic diversity, with an even split among male and female chief marketers and 9 of 42 chief marketers, or around 21 percent, people of color.

“Industry progress begins with understanding the facts about our marketplace,” ANA CEO Bob Liodice said in a statement. “For too long, we’ve relied on inference and innuendo rather than hard facts and data. We’ve now planted a ‘stake in the ground’ against which we can begin to track our progress annually. But knowing these results is just the first step. We need complete commitment throughout our industry to create lasting change.”

In addition to launching the CMO “Scorecard” as a way of measuring progress, the ANA is promoting a pair of initiatives to foster change.

The ANA’s Alliance for Inclusive and Multicultural Marketing (AIMM) is teaming up with almost 70 companies across the industry to promote diversity and multicultural marketing and bring together industry thought leaders from different minority communities.

“We want to engage senior marketing executives throughout the country in this conversation,” Liodice added about AIMM. “That is why it is so important to have diverse leadership at the top of marketer companies.”

The ANA’s Alliance for Family Entertainment (AFE), meanwhile, is championing a “#SeeHer” campaign to promote more accurate portrayals of women and girls in advertising, which still has room for improvement. One goal of #SeeHer movement, which counts over 60 companies among its members, is to “achieve a 20 percent improvement in women’s portrayal by 2020.”

14099: Admen In Uniform.

Adweek reported on the continuing soap-opera-like events involving the U.S. Army account review, with a marketing executive retiring from the military service—probably resulting from his romantic conspiring with a former account person from McCann, the White advertising agency currently serving the account and pitching to retain it. The stock photograph illustrating the story—along with the caption—makes it look like the retired marketing director is returning to his family after a tour of duty.

U.S. Army Marketing Executive Involved in McCann Conflict of Interest Controversy Retires

The investigation into the case continues

By Patrick Coffee

James Ortiz, a marketing director at the U.S. Army’s Army Marketing and Research Group (AMRG), has retired less than four months after Adweek broke news of an allegedly improper relationship between himself and an account executive at McCann Worldgroup, the Army’s agency of record.

The relationship occurred while McCann pitched to retain the Army’s marketing contract, which could be worth up to $4 billion over 10 years, according to the organization’s own estimates. The review is ongoing.

In October 2017, Department of Defense sources provided photographs and video of Ortiz, a 20-year veteran of the Army’s marketing department, and the aforementioned executive together at a club in Virginia following a strategy meeting between McCann and Army representatives.

The McCann executive reportedly resigned soon after the footage was taken in October. At the time the story first broke, the Army confirmed it had launched an internal investigation and that Ortiz had been “removed from all duties associated with the contract and temporarily reassigned within the organization.”

He officially retired last Friday.

“James Ortiz retired as of March 31, 2018,” said an Army spokesperson today. “The investigation is ongoing.”

The representative declined to elaborate on the nature of his resignation, the ongoing investigation or the status of the Army’s marketing review. A McCann spokesperson referred to the Army.

Adweek has been unable to reach Ortiz for comment.

At the same time the controversy made news, the Army was undergoing a formal review of its advertising and marketing budget. This review, launched in mid-2016 by the Army Auditing Agency, questioned the efficiency of several multi-million dollar programs and claimed that they “didn’t demonstrate a positive return.”

The AMRG subsequently defended its practices, writing that the AAA’s conclusions demonstrated a “lack of marketing understanding or criteria for performance assessment.”

Staffers at the U.S. Senate and House Armed Services Committees later called upon Elizabeth Wilson—who assumed the roles of deputy assistant secretary of the Army for marketing and director of the Army Marketing and Research Group last November—to brief them on both the audit and “approaches the Army is considering to improve Army marketing.”

“The meetings were consistent with our relationship with Congress in their oversight role and the Army’s long-standing practice of engaging with congressional stakeholders to provide program updates and exchange ideas for pathways forward,” said an Army spokesperson.

At this time, it is unclear whether Wilson will be called for additional briefings.

14098: McHaters Playing Chicken.

The Sad Truth: Mickey D’s haters continue to produce better campaigns than the fast feeder’s exclusive White advertising agency.

14097: Set Off By Settlement.

Adweek presented the obligatory “agency insiders” commentary on the settlement between Erin Johnson and JWT/WPP. At this point, speculation is useless, as the agreement prohibits all involved parties from disclosing details. In other words, JWT/WPP is not admitting to any wrongdoing, and Johnson is not able to claim victimhood or even victory. Of course, that isn’t stopping the always self-promotional Kat Gordon from offering unsolicited critiques. Calling the outcome “a bummer,” Gordon whined, “Once again, the whistle blower is gone and the perpetrator is still employed and it’s all hush hush.” Um, what the hell does she mean with the “once again” remark? The perpetrators are losing their employment status in adland—just ask Joe Alexander and Ted Royer. Like it or not, Gordon is out of line to label Gustavo Martinez a perpetrator, as the confidential settlement makes such a conclusion impossible. Adweek also shared opinions from an anonymous executive who allegedly knows Johnson. So clearly, little progress has resulted from the two-year-old lawsuit if people are unwilling and/or unable to publicly express their viewpoints.

Agency Insiders Debate Whether the Erin Johnson Harassment Settlement Will Inspire Real Change

Some hold out hope while others are unsatisfied

By Lindsay Rittenhouse

The two-year legal battle former J. Walter Thompson global chief communications officer Erin Johnson waged against her employer and its onetime CEO Gustavo Martinez came to an end earlier this week, with the world’s oldest ad agency agreeing to a settlement over sexual harassment and discrimination claims.

But some in the industry are left feeling a bit unsatisfied.

“What made this case unusual was that it was filed in federal court; the entire complaint was public,” said Kat Gordon, founder and CEO of The 3% Conference. “I was hoping for more of a conclusion where the public would know the precise outcome. It’s like watching a movie and not being able to see the last 20 minutes.”

Summing up the public facts—that JWT entered into a “confidential agreement” with Johnson, who stepped down from her position while Martinez continues to work for WPP—Gordon said it’s “a bummer.” (WPP has repeatedly denied claims that Martinez leads its operations in Spain, though he currently describes himself as “country representative.”)

“Once again, the whistle blower is gone and the perpetrator is still employed and it’s all hush hush,” Gordon said. “It’s not progress.”

An industry executive who knows Johnson and spoke on condition of anonymity expressed disappointment over the fact that the matter was “dragged on so long,” and described what Johnson went through as “horrendous.”

“I was sorry to see what happened and I’m glad it’s over,” the person said. “I think Erin is a very skilled communications professional who did something very courageous that put her career and family at risk. I hope that it was a substantial settlement and that a company will give her an opportunity to come back if she wishes to do so because she is very gifted and talented.”

JWT and its parent company WPP were initially supportive of Martinez, who denied the allegations in the suit. But they soon announced his resignation and promoted WPP chief client team officer Tamara Ingram to replace him. After Johnson returned to work, her lawyers claimed she was stripped of her responsibilities and treated as “a pariah” by agency leadership, which had hired Christine O’Donnell to fill the global director of communications role in her absence. (O’Donnell later resigned.)

Both Gordon and the aforementioned executive said they hope Johnson’s case will be the last of its kind and that real change is on the horizon thanks to the rise of the #MeToo and Time’s Up Advertising movements. Ingram herself signed the latter group’s mission statement, released last month.

“I think other agencies who are running into this issue are dealing with it in a much more constructive way in terms of removing the parties creating the problems,” the executive said.

Christine Stack, founder and CEO of talent advisory firm Moral Compass Talent who formerly led human resources at UM and MediaVest, said she too has hope, given the amount of support Johnson has received from people inside and outside the industry.

“I try not to dwell on the negative,” Stack said. “What is important is that people look at this situation and learn from it.” One female agency veteran described Johnson’s “bravery and strength” as “awe inspiring,” adding, “Much respect.”

“Like most women—especially women who run an agency—we immediately recognized the situation and believed Erin Johnson,” wrote Cat Lincoln, CEO and co-founder of influencer marketing agency Clever. “This settlement sends a message to women that they deserve a safe and fair work environment. This will only happen consistently when there are more women in agency leadership positions, and leadership positions in general.”

Stack added: “I’m proud of her for what she endured.”

Describing the first conversation she had with an unnamed reporter after news of the lawsuit went public, Gordon said, “I remember the reporter saying, ‘Who’s ever going to employ Erin Johnson again after this?’ And I said, ‘Why is she the pariah? She’s the hero.’ The first instinct of one journalist two years ago was that this wouldn’t bode well for her. That to me is victim blaming.”

After the settlement went public, Johnson issued a statement thanking the law firm that represented her and expressing gratitude for “those of you in the industry who spoke up and offered support.” Her response ended with the line, “Moving forward, I wish Tam and the JWT team success.”

“My perception is that the culture [at WPP, not necessarily JWT] is a little hostile and defensive and protective of certain people,” said the executive, who noted that Johnson’s comments included “no ill will toward Tamara.”

“Perhaps she viewed her as a change agent,” the person said.

14096: Colorful Cannes Contest.

Adweek reported on the latest divertsity deal from HP—#MoreLikeMe—which will pluck 15 “diverse” creatives from a stable of five predominately White advertising agencies and send the group to Cannes. Gee, that’s mighty White of the technology company, although it begs the question of why the damned agencies don’t send diverse staffers to the soiree on their own dime. But wait, it gets crazier. The “winners” will ultimately be charged with creating a plan to “inspire change and champion diversity within the industry.” In other words, now clients like HP are delegating diversity to minorities. But wait, the craziness continues. The program features ambassadors—ADCOLOR® Inventor Tiffany R. Warren and Free The Bid Representative Faride Schroeder—who will also help choose the #MoreLikeMe travelers. It’s a wonder Kat Gordon and Cindy Gallop weren’t included in the patronizing promotion. If the selection process is rooted in divertsity, the fifteen participants should display representation from categories such as White women, LGBT community, elderly folks, plus-sized people and individuals with neurodivergent conditions and intellectual and developmental disabilities. Oh, and a couple of racial and ethnic minorities too. But wait, the craziest part is that a diverse crew will finally arrive at Cannes—in the year that the gala event gets downsized per the demands of White holding companies.

HP’s New Program Will Help Develop Talent and Send More Diverse Creatives to Cannes

#MoreLikeMe will send 15 creatives to the festival this summer

By Katie Richards

HP is taking 15 diverse creatives to the Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity this year as part of the company’s ongoing push to promote diversity in the advertising industry.

The #MoreLikeMe diversity initiative will invite 15 creatives from the U.S., U.K. and Mexico to attend the festival this summer and participate in a number of mentoring and networking events during Cannes.

Outside of simply taking these creatives to the festival and providing them with opportunities to learn and connect with others in the industry, HP is taking things a step further, developing a post-festival plan for each participant. The idea is that each person will go on to inspire change and champion diversity within the industry.

“#MoreLikeMe complements our ongoing work to drive diversity and inclusion across the industry. We’re excited to be partnering with HP to support diverse talent in three of our key markets,” Louise Benson, executive festival director of Cannes Lions, said in a statement. “I hope the inaugural #MoreLikeMe program will inspire the industry at large, as well as provide role models and inspiration for the next generation of creatives from around the world.”

HP will work closely with its roster of agencies—BBDO, Edelman, Fred & Farid, Giant Spoon and PHD—to select the 15 rising stars who will go on to participate in the program. For its pilot year the program will only be open to candidates from those five agencies, but HP plans to extend the program in future years.

“Business powered by diversity can deliver transformative results. By partnering with our agencies to identify and elevate today’s diverse rising stars, we can continue to reinvent the creative industry to better reflect the communities we serve,” Antonio Lucio, chief marketing and communications officer at HP, said in a statement. “We are on a mission to demonstrate that diversity is a business imperative—financially, creatively and culturally—and that all businesses in our industry can and must play a role in driving systemic change.”

#MoreLikeMe ties closely to an ongoing effort from HP and its CMO to ensure that each agency it works with consistently focuses on improving the number of women and people of color working on the HP business, in senior leadership and creative leadership roles.

Last year HP released diversity scorecards from each of its agencies. The scorecards laid out the percentage of women and people of color working at each agency before and after the diversity mandate was set. The goal is that each year, the agencies will improve upon those numbers.

Tiffany Warren, president and founder of ADCOLOR and chief diversity officer at Omnicom, and Faride Schroeder, writer, director and Free The Bid ambassador for Mexico, will serve as ambassadors for the #MoreLikeMe program. The duo will help HP’s five agencies select the 15 winners.

The 15 lucky members of this pilot program will be announced in late May.

14095: Unsettling Settlement News.

Adweek, Advertising Age and Campaign reported the discrimination lawsuit starring Erin Johnson and Gustavo Martinez has ended with a settlement, which means that no more details will be provided or publicized—unless Campaign manages to get extra gossipy rants from insiders. However, it’s a sure bet that Kat Gordon, Cindy Gallop and Diet Madison Avenue will take credit for something, or at least seize the opportunity to deliver unsolicited commentary. Johnson has resigned her position with JWT, although it hasn’t been clear exactly what her position was after returning to the company while the lawsuit was still happening. So technically, the legal affair resulted in resignations for Johnson and Martinez. Wonder if Johnson will resurface as Chief Communications Officer for WPP in Spain. Campaign claimed the settlement had been signed weeks ago. Gee, it would have been nice if the case had concluded during Women’s History Month. Actually, the only semi-news came from a WPP spokesperson, confirming that Martinez is working for the holding company in Spain, but contrary to speculation, he’s not the country lead. Maybe Sir Martin Sorrell will be demoted to country lead in Spain, where he’ll oversee Martinez, Duan Evans and Neil French.

JWT and WPP Reach Settlement in Erin Johnson, Gustavo Martinez Sexual Harassment Suit

Case has riveted the ad industry for 2 years

By Patrick Coffee

The sexual harassment lawsuit pitting J. Walter Thompson global chief communications officer Erin Johnson against her employer and its former CEO Gustavo Martinez has come to an end almost exactly two years after it was filed, with the parties agreeing to settle for an undisclosed sum.

Agency leadership announced the decision today after the legal teams agreed to the terms of the settlement.

The J. Walter Thompson company has “reached an amicable settlement agreement with Erin Johnson, chief communications officer of the J. Walter Thompson company, in the Johnson vs. J. Walter Thompson lawsuit,” an agency spokesperson said. “The terms of the agreement are confidential and will not be disclosed. Additionally, Johnson has resigned from the role of chief communications officer.”

Johnson’s resignation is effective immediately. The spokesperson declined to state whether JWT is actively seeking a replacement.

UPDATE: Erin Johnson provided a personal statement on the news.

“The past few years have been challenging to say the least, and I am grateful for the love and encouragement from family, friends and those of you in the industry who spoke up and offered support. Thank you,” she wrote. “Most importantly, I would like to thank Anne Vladeck, Debra Raskin and Jeremiah Iadevaia at Vladeck, Raskin & Clark—a brilliant legal team and force to be reckoned with. I hope that my personal experience will encourage others to speak up and follow their convictions. Moving forward, I wish Tam and the JWT team success.”

An internal memo obtained by Adweek, sent to all JWT staff by CEO Tamara Ingram, read, “Please join me in offering Erin our best wishes in her future endeavors. I know this has been a challenging time for everyone. We now need to look forward and focus our efforts on reimagining the future for J. Walter Thompson and our clients.”

Adweek has reached out to the law firms representing Martinez and J. Walter Thompson but had not received a response at the time this story went live.

Johnson’s case became the talk of the agency world upon its filing in March 2016, but faded from memory before returning to the spotlight in recent months as the #MeToo movement led to an increased focus on sexual harassment allegations against major industry players.

This news also arrives one day after JWT’s parent company, WPP, acknowledged that its board of directors has launched an investigation into allegations of “personal misconduct” on behalf of CEO Martin Sorrell, who “unreservedly” denied the claims.

“Martinez has made it impossible for [Johnson] to do her job,” read the suit filed by the law firm of Vladeck, Raskin & Clark in the Court of the Southern District of New York on March 10, 2016. He allegedly did so by harassing and undermining Johnson while making racist, sexist and anti-semitic comments in the presence of her and other staff members.

After initially standing by the CEO, who was widely seen as a rising star within the holding group, WPP announced Martinez’s resignation a week after news of the suit went public and promoted WPP chief client team officer Ingram to replace him. Johnson’s legal team later released video of Martinez joking about rape at an agency meeting.

The former CEO retreated to his native Spain, where he remained employed by WPP.

Johnson returned to work eight months after news of the suit broke, but her lawyers almost immediately accused the JWT organization of retaliating against her by treating her as “a pariah” and pressuring her to resign.

Over the next year, the case devolved into a back-and-forth over legal minutiae, including claims that WPP had withheld documents and intentionally failed to make Sorrell available for deposition, after the law firm of Davis & Gilbert unsuccessfully attempted to have the suit dismissed. The most recent filing came in mid-March, when Johnson’s firm introduced as evidence documents supporting rumors that Martinez had been appointed WPP’s country lead for all of Spain.

Their filing read, “This letter is submitted today because the Court stated that a decision was imminent. … These documents reflect defendants’ continuing misrepresentations concerning their decision to reward Martinez with a high-level position despite his unlawful discriminatory conduct.”

Martinez’s employment will not be affected by the settlement, according to a holding group spokesperson.

“He is and continues to be working on assignments for WPP in Spain but is not the country lead,” the representative said.

14094: WPP WSJ WTF.

The Wall Street Journal reported on the latest WPP scandal and made a statement that demands examination. In reference to Sir Martin Sorrell, the news source wrote, “Long-regarded as an oracle of the ad industry…” Huh? Perhaps the WSJ proofreaders didn’t catch the typo, and the writers actually intended one of the following:

“Long-regarded as an odious little jerk of the ad industry…”

“Long-regarded as an orangutan of the ad industry…”

“Long-regarded as an Orc of the ad industry…”

“Long-regarded as an Orca the Killer Whale of the ad industry…”

“Long-regarded as an organ grinder’s monkey of the ad industry…”

“Long-regarded as an orgy voyeur of the ad industry…”

“Long-regarded as an orifice of the ad industry…”

“Long-regarded as an Orkin Man of the ad industry…”

“Long-regarded as an ornery ogre of the ad industry…”

“Long-regarded as an Orwellian oaf of the ad industry…”

Clearly, the WSJ editorial board must review and revise the published story pronto.

WPP Is Looking at CEO Martin Sorrell’s Possible Misuse of Assets and Allegations of Improper Behavior

Questions come as advertising giant is facing cost-cutting pressures from clients and stepped-up competition from Google, Facebook

By Suzanne Vranica and Nick Kostov

The board of advertising giant WPP WPP 0.36% PLC is looking into whether longtime Chief Executive Martin Sorrell misused company assets, according to people familiar with the matter.

In addition, the board is also looking into allegations of improper personal behavior by Mr. Sorrell, one of the people said.

A WPP spokesman on Tuesday confirmed in a statement that it has appointed an independent counsel to probe “an allegation of personal misconduct” against Mr. Sorrell. He said the amounts involved weren’t material to the company.

In an internal memo to top WPP executives, the company said it isn’t in a position to share further details about the ongoing probe. “The message for our people and clients is one of business as usual within our operating companies and client teams. Our work for clients is unaffected and continues uninterrupted,” the memo said.

The questions come at a difficult moment for WPP, the world’s largest advertising company. Increased competition from new rivals and pressure from big marketing clients to cut costs have taken a toll on financial results. The company’s recent lackluster performance has contributed to tensions between Mr. Sorrell—a towering figure at WPP—and the board, people familiar with the matter said.

Mr. Sorrell didn’t respond to multiple emails and text messages seeking comment.

Mr. Sorrell, 73 years old, has been at the helm of WPP since 1986, helping to transform a little-known U.K. manufacturer of wire shopping carts called Wire & Plastic Products that he had acquired into a global advertising empire.

Today, WPP is a massive advertising holding company whose units include blue-chip creative agencies like J. Walter Thompson and Young & Rubicam as well as powerhouse media-buyer GroupM. WPP, based in London, works for some of the world’s biggest marketers, from Ford Motor Co. to Unilever NV.

Long-regarded as an oracle of the ad industry, Mr. Sorrell, a graduate of Cambridge University and Harvard Business School, used his finance background to build scale and centralize key functions like ad buying—a winning strategy that was emulated by others in the business.

In recent years, though, traditional ad-industry players have come under considerable pressure from companies such as Alphabet Inc.’s Google and Facebook Inc., which dominate the roughly $230 billion global digital advertising market. The tech giants have the ability to work directly with advertisers, cutting out agencies. And they have tightly guarded their data on performance of ad campaigns, frustrating agency executives who aren’t able to follow through in the way their marketing clients demand.

WPP has tried to address its problems by streamlining its complicated organization and coming up with ways for clients to work more efficiently with agency staffers. The going has been tough. In its most recent quarter, WPP logged its worst performance since the financial crisis, as net sales fell slightly compared with a year earlier, spooking investors who had been expecting signs of a recovery. The firm said it is setting budgets for 2018 on the assumption of no growth in revenue and net sales. As a result, WPP’s stock has been underperforming. It has fallen about 35% over the past 12 months.

Mr. Sorrell’s pay too has been a flashpoint, putting pressure on the board to reduce his compensation after a series of pay revolts by shareholders. Mr. Sorrell received a long-term bonus of £10 million ($14 million) in company shares for 2017, a significant drop from the £41.6 million in shares that he was awarded a year before. The share award makes up most of Mr. Sorrell’s compensation, but his total pay will also include his salary, a short-term bonus, pension payments and other benefits.

WPP has never publicly disclosed succession plans, leading investors to demand more clarity on who would lead the company if Mr. Sorrell were to leave. Analysts have speculated that internal contenders for the role include Wunderman’s global CEO Mark Read, Kantar boss Eric Salama and WPP chief transformation officer Lindsay Pattison.

Alexandra Bruell contributed to this article

14093: WPP Crash And Burn.

(Believe it or not, this post was written before The Wall Street Journal and other news sources reported Sir Martin Sorrell is being investigated for “possible misuse of assets and allegations of improper behavior.”)

Does the WPP crash indicate greater issues than bad financial management, escalating competitive challenges and shifting revenue problems? That is, how do a corporation’s ethics and integrity affect the bottom line? The biggest White holding company has certainly displayed its ugly sides in recent times.

First and foremost, WPP Overlord Sir Martin Sorrell—who is essentially a glorified accountant running an enterprise historically rooted in creativity and innovation—appears to be much worse than an “odious little jerk,” a label bestowed upon him by the late David Ogilvy. Sorry, but the man embodies the complete set of Seven Deadly Sins, most notably greed. After all, Sorrell’s compensation has been recorded as 780 times more than the average WPP employee’s paycheck. Pride, lust, envy, gluttony and wrath play leading roles in Sorrell’s character, as evidenced by his obsessive and compulsive urge to acquire. And sloth is the final recipe ingredient, appearing via his admission that he doesn’t know the exact number of companies he’s gobbled up through the years; that is, the man has grown mentally lazy.

Sorrell displayed his out-of-touch persona perfectly when discussing the notion of hostile takeovers. “We’ve done what are euphemistically called hostile situations,” said Sorrell. “It is very interesting. Was it Jimmy Goldsmith [the late financier] who said there is no such thing as a hostile takeover? There isn’t really. It is hostile to one person, the chief executive of the target company. It is not hostile to the share owners, it is not hostile to the clients, it is not hostile to the people who work there, so it becomes more personal in that sense.” Um, takeovers are absolutely hostile situations for the workers, who soon find themselves subjected to increased financial restrictions that decrease salaries, redundancies that inspire layoffs and bureaucracies that ignite chaos as senior executives wage ego wars in the hybrid enterprises.

Alas, Sorrell isn’t the only odious little jerk on the global org chart. Gustavo Martinez, Duan Evans and Neil French represent a pattern of disturbing behavior.

Additionally, professional relationships with Cambridge Analytica, Presidents Club Charity Dinner and Harvey Weinstein further taint the company.

And of course, there’s the JWT lawsuit that seemingly symbolizes the sexual harassment epidemic sickening the industry.

The late Jay Chiat asked, “How big can you get before you get bad?” WPP and Sorrell continue to push the question to new dimensions, making one wonder how big the next crash might be.

“There’s A Sense Of Shock”: World’s Largest Ad Agency Suffers Biggest Crash In 19 Years

By Tyler Durden

In a world in which a handful of tech companies which derive the bulk of their revenues from advertising are the market leaders, what happened to WPP Plc — the world’s largest ad agency — this morning is particularly relevant: the company suffered its biggest one day crash since 1999, tumbling as much as 15%, after CEO Martin Sorrell again slashed the company’s profit outlook and predicted another year of no growth, in what Bloomberg dubbed a jarring reminder to investors “that the advertising industry is undergoing its most dramatic upheaval in decades.”

To be sure, WPP’s woes are hardly new, with the company tumbling almost as much back in August when it reported dismal earnings and unveiled “terrible” guidance. This time it was even worse.

WPP unveiled that its long-term earnings growth will be as little as 5% and twice that at best, slashing its previous guidance of as much as 15%. The year got off to a “slow start,” WPP said, continuing a trend from 2017 that saw flat margins and sales. Investors responded by sending shares down by the most in 19 years, resulting in a brief trading halt. In sympathy, Publicis Groupe SA, WPP’s French rival, dropped as much as 6.1%.

“There’s a real sense of shock and awe at what’s happened to his business model,” media analyst Alex DeGroote told Bloomberg. “This is a stark reminder of the significant challenges WPP faces.”

On one hand, the WPP crash may seem good news for its digital competitors as the steep slump of the industry leader is the most dramatic sign yet of the deepening crisis facing Sorrell as companies like Google and Facebook “hollow out his core business.”

On the other hand, and more ominous to the tech vanguards, WPP’s collapse may be a harbinger of broad weakness coming to the advertising market, which in turn could wreak havoc on tech valuations: after all major customers such as Unilever Plc have announced they are holding back ad spending to cut costs, a rallying cry which has been joined by many other companies.

There is another red flag: as Bloomberg notes, WPP’s advertising sales have long been seen as a bellwether of strength in the global economy, as companies tend to expand or cut their marketing budgets depending on how well their businesses are performing.

As such, today’s historic crash suggests that ad spending in tumbling, a clear indicator of a global economic slowdown.

Thursday’s stock slump deepens an already poor performance of WPP, which lost more than a quarter of its value over the course of last year, as discussed previously.

Having founded the company in the 1980s, Sorrell is the biggest individual shareholder at WPP, with a stake of about 1.4 percent.

The ad giant said it’s responding by trying to break down silos among its various creative, ad buying, strategy and public relations businesses to draw on top talent and seamlessly serve clients. After “not a pretty year” in 2017, WPP is “upping the pace” of its effort to combine its global team, Sorrell said.

“In this environment, the most successful agency groups will be those who offer simplicity and flexibility of structure to deliver efficient, effective solutions — and therefore growth — for their clients,” he said.

For now, the WPP weakness has yet to spread to the ad-funded FANGS, as traders give the market leaders the benefit of the doubt for now.

14092: Still Google Lies.

Today’s Google Doodle celebrates the birthday of Dr. Maya Angelou with an animated rendition of Still I Rise. Still not rising: minority representation in Google’s workforce.

14091: Acting Like Two-Year-Olds.

Campaign published an update on the infamous lawsuit starring Gustavo Martinez and Erin Johnson—and the piece ultimately reads like the journalistic mutant offspring of an AgencySpy-Diet Madison Avenue-The Onion threesome.

The opening paragraph delivers a sweeping condemnation by declaring, “Men in advertising have always behaved badly.” Really? Surely the statement demands a qualifier versus tainting every male in the industry including John Wanamaker, Albert Lasker, Claude Hopkins, John Caples, Bill Bernbach, David Ogilvy, James Webb Young, Leo Burnett, Jay Chiat, Rosser Reeves, Mike Hughes and Hal Riney. Hell, MultiCultClassics even wants to believe contemporary icons like Lee Clow, Dan Wieden, Jeff Goodby, Rich Silverstein and Alex Bogusky are men of honor—despite being culturally clueless.

Campaign made extensive use of an unidentified “former staff member at JWT” for biased perspectives on the proceedings. Sorry, but the quotes sound like gossipy rants from an ex-administrative assistant. If the source has legitimate executive experience, Johnson’s legal team should subpoena the insider pronto.

The 3% Movement Mouthpiece Kat Gordon was tapped for her two cents—and she coughed up about $1.50 of ridiculous rhetoric. When discussing “the recent outbreak of accountability at some agencies,” Gordon opined, “I actually think that what happened is more a result of the Instagram account Diet Madison Avenue and their ‘take no prisoners’ approach. I’m not necessarily condoning that. I’m just saying I think that that has been a bigger driver of change.” Hmmm. Diet Madison Avenue has been more effective than entities like The 3% Movement? That’s not hard to believe, although it says more about Gordon’s pep-rally organization than the anonymous Instagram account. Plus, does anyone not believe Gordon is a covert contributor at DMA?

Of course, Divertsity Diva and pseudo-provocateur Cindy Gallop cursed her way into the conversation. “It is absolute madness for WPP to persist with the case,” raged Gallop. “They should have dropped it, settled, begged Erin Johnson to take up the post of global equality/diversity/inclusion officer and paid her a shit-ton of money to completely change the culture of WPP and JWT Worldwide, because she’s been the only person with guts enough to do the right thing.” Huh? First, Gallop’s insane reasoning kinda disses Chief Diversity Officers and Worldwide Chief Diversity, Inclusion and Ethics Officers by arguing Johnson is qualified for the role. Alleged victims don’t instantly transform into professional crusaders. Besides, has Johnson ever expressed an interest in such a career shift? It’s a safe bet that Global Chief Communications Officers (Johnson’s original title) earn bigger paychecks—and receive greater respect—than D&I wonks. Second, to imply that WPP and JWT Worldwide need a total cultural overhaul definitely disses over 200,000 employees, confirming that Gallop is a loose cannon with even looser screws.

In the end, the saddest result of the two-year-old lawsuit is that hacks like Gordon, Gallop and Campaign have assumed expert status. At least in their own minds.

At JWT, the Gustavo Martinez lawsuit passes the two year mark, with no end in sight

By I-Hsien Sherwood

The #MeToo movement is bringing accountability to the ad industry, but it came too late to help Erin Johnson.

At the time, it all seemed so shocking: the charismatic CEO of the world’s oldest ad agency, sued by his own chief communications officer over racial slurs and rape jokes. Of course, the shock came not from the alleged conduct, but from the publicity it generated. Men in advertising have always behaved badly.

But two years later, mentioning Erin Johnson’s sexual harassment suit against J. Walter Thompson and WPP invites incredulous whispers. I can’t believe it’s still going on. What are they doing? What’s taking so long?

“There’s no way that anyone looks at what’s happening at J. Walter Thompson and thinks that’s a successful handling of this issue,” said Kat Gordon, founder of the 3% Conference.

In a post-#MeToo world, we expect a different story. An agency leader faces charges of misconduct levied by a woman (or women) in their employ. He denies any wrongdoing but is eventually fired. The agency issues perfunctory mea culpas, donates some money to Time’s Up and promises to do better next time. Johnson might have had better luck if she had filed her suit two months ago rather than two years ago.

Once Joe Alexander, Ted Royer and Eric Springer were let go, we didn’t hear from them, nor did we need to. But Gustavo Martinez is still working for WPP, and his side of the story is thoroughly detailed in documents entered into the judicial record by the holding company’s lawyers. (Both WPP and JWT declined to comment for this article.) Johnson, meanwhile, still goes into work every day at an agency that is battling her in court. “We did everything wrong,” said a former staff member at JWT who was working in the New York office at the time the suit was filed. “We staunchly defended a man who was likely guilty.”

Taking sides

The agency’s dedication to fighting the suit every step of the way may be rooted in the reasons the company decided to litigate in the first place: their man was a star. “From the very beginning, in New York the feeling was Gustavo was the victim,” said a former executive at JWT New York. By most accounts, he was gregarious and likeable, a leader with a good head for business, who placed more emphasis on people’s ideas than their rank within the agency hierarchy.

Those qualities also endeared him to WPP CEO Martin Sorrell, said the executive. “Gustavo was one of Martin’s prodigies. He was grooming him, maybe even moving him up to be his successor.” So when the suit was filed, the agency naturally stepped up to defend him. Johnson wasn’t as fortunate. “Where is the second part, where we also say we believe Erin? She is entitled to as much of our trust and attention as he is.”

The public backlash, however, was swift and harsh, spreading well outside the industry bubble. Within a week, Martinez was forced to resign and was replaced by WPP’s Chief Client Team Officer Tamara Ingram, and Martinez fell off the radar for a time. The legal team assembled by WPP sought to minimize his transgressions, first denying the allegations of racist and sexist comments, despite witnesses including the editor-in-chief of Campaign US at the time. Then came the moving goalposts. “I distinctly remember reading [the argument] that evidence of some racist remarks and anti-Semitic remarks did not cause a hostile work environment for Erin Johnson because she was neither black nor Jewish, which completely misses the point about toxic work culture,” Gordon said.

After eight months on leave, Johnson returned to the agency as chief comms officer, where, according to court filings, she was seated “in a box” so human resources could monitor her activities. “Tam[ara Ingram] could have said, ‘You know what? This is not my battle. You’re a communications professional, and we’re going to use you,” the executive said. “But she didn’t. Erin sat watching the news on her laptop for a year and a half. I’m sure they gave her enough so they couldn’t be accused of not giving her anything, but she wasn’t part of the day-to-day communications team.”

Instead, “Erin’s seat was directly in front of [JWT Chief Talent Officer] Laura Agostini’s office,” said the staff member. “That’s bizarre, and really unnecessary given the layout of the office. There were plenty of free, open seats.”

For over a year, there were rumors that Martinez was still working on projects for WPP. Last fall, a Spanish trade journal indicated he was in a leadership position in Spain. Three weeks ago, a New York District Court ruled that WPP does not need to provide Johnson’s lawyers with specifics about what kind of work Martinez is doing, but several sources indicate he is head of the holding company’s operations in that country. “The fact that Gustavo is still employed somewhere in the network suggests someone higher up is looking out for him,” Gordon said. “What an unbelievable miscalculation if that is true.”

Johnson, meanwhile, has watched her team dwindle as people have left the agency or been laid off, even as it remains difficult for her to pick up the slack. “There were 10 people across New York and global [comms],” the executive said. “Now it’s Erin and a coordinator. She can’t talk to the press, but she is the contact for the whole agency.” Indeed, Johnson referred questions for this article directly to Ingram, who declined to comment.

Collateral damage

If Johnson is stuck in place, then so is JWT. A month ago, the agency announced a new leadership roster, as NY CEO Lynn Power and Global Chief Creative Officer Matt Eastwood exit and Brent Choi, chief creative officer for New York and Canada returns to Toronto. “Lynn and Brent worked their asses off to try and make it still a great place in the midst of everything. They still made great creative work and tried to maintain as many clients as they possibly could, but ultimately this lawsuit swallowed them,” the staff member said. “It just cripples that entire office.”

But reforms are difficult to enact, since admission of any problem could look like an admission of guilt. “We can’t do anything truly meaningful, because if we did, people would just jump on it,” the executive said. For example, the agency plans to implement salary parity by 2020, but it can’t hire an outside firm to collect data for fear that it could be used in the lawsuit. Those numbers would have been useful earlier this month, when JWT UK revealed it has a pay gap of 45 percent between men and women. (US agencies aren’t required to release that data.)

“We got an email from Tam at 3:03 saying to meet at 3:00 with no prep to the building and no microphone, where people were asked to sit on the floor in front of her to hear her tell us there was no panic and clearly no issue,” said another JWT New York employee who was present for that meeting.

A warning to others

In late 2016, Power said the scandal’s “silver lining” was the conversation it sparked in the industry. But its lasting legacy may be as a primer for what an agency shouldn’t do when confronted with sexual harassment. “It seems like the lawsuit was Exhibit A for not believing the woman, to put her on leave, to keep the guy working,” Gordon said. As for the recent outbreak of accountability at some agencies, “I actually think that what happened is more a result of the Instagram account Diet Madison Avenue and their ‘take no prisoners’ approach. I’m not necessarily condoning that. I’m just saying I think that that has been a bigger driver of change,” she added.

The longer it drags on, though, the worse it looks. “It is absolute madness for WPP to persist with the case,” Cindy Gallop, diversity advocate and former chair of BBH, told Campaign US. “They should have dropped it, settled, begged Erin Johnson to take up the post of global equality/diversity/inclusion officer and paid her a shit-ton of money to completely change the culture of WPP and JWT Worldwide, because she’s been the only person with guts enough to do the right thing.”

So perhaps the scandal serves best not as a lesson, but a warning. Do the right thing: Support your workers, listen to their grievances and weed out toxic personalities, or this could be you. Watching the lawsuit unfold “was kind of ironic, because you were thinking JWT needed a good PR person,” Gordon said. “And that was Erin Johnson.”

14090: WPP Asks A Dumb Question.

Advertising Age reported on a preposterously patronizing ploy produced by Grey (a White advertising agency) and The 3% Movement (a White women’s club), whereby creative briefs will include the following question: “How can we make the idea reflect and respect the world’s diversity?” Um, make certain there is real diversity on the team assigned to the project…? The insipid inquiry is part of a new WPP initiative called “The Progress Brief”—an effort allegedly designed to ensure “all client work at the agency meets standards of respect for all people.” Hey, it would be great to review the specific “standards” that must be met. Plus, such an action seems unnecessary at the holding company that boasts being “perhaps the most diverse example of diversity of any single organisation.” Kat Gordon explained the question was written to be “brief and open-ended,” and she added, “If it was just a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question, then people would rush over it, but Grey settled on the ‘how’ question because then people have to defend it and put thought around it.” Sorry, but it feels like the infamous “What’s Black about it?” that handicaps staffers at Black advertising agencies. The goal should not be to force diversity into the work, but rather, into the workplace.

Grey adds a question to every creative brief: How can this work reflect diversity?

By Lindsay Stein

From here on out, all Grey staffers who work on creative for a client must answer this question: How can we make the idea reflect and respect the world’s diversity?

The question is part of the WPP’s new program called “The Progress Brief,” which focuses on making sure all client work at the agency meets standards of respect for all people. Grey partnered with The 3% Movement to help figure out the language for its creative brief.

“I worked with the team at Grey, but they took the lead on the language and made sure it was brief and open-ended,” says Kat Gordon, founder of The 3% Movement, which advocates for diversity in the marketing industry. “If it was just a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question, then people would rush over it, but Grey settled on the ‘how’ question because then people have to defend it and put thought around it.”

While it may look simple, Gordon says the team at Grey worked on the creative brief question for several months. (The 3% Movement did not collect a fee.)

Grey Worldwide Chief Creative Officer John Patroulis says the brief will ensure that agency staffers—as well as clients collaborating on creative—discuss diversity and fairness at the beginning of an idea, which will help the work better reflect the world and its consumers.

The brief will have an impact on all work because it is the basis of every client discussion, says Patroulis, adding that other agencies can adopt it and change it to make it their own.

Far too often, Gordon says she sees brands and agencies getting backlash for work that misses the mark in some way, which made her think: “Why is there no mechanism at the birth of an idea?”

“This isn’t a policing mechanism though,” she says. “It’s an invitation to dimensional thinking and to be more inclusive and go into a direction that’s unexplored, rich and culturally relevant.”

Gordon also hopes that other agencies follow suit. “This is a small act that can have wide-reaching impact,” adds Gordon.

14089: No Chance For Heineken.

Advertising Age reported Chance the Rapper was offered a Global Brand Ambassador-Creative Director position with Heineken—and the artist graciously declined, bucking the trend of Black recording artists landing advertising roles.

“I think some companies are purposely hiring Black artists so they can get more street cred. And that shit is racist/bogus, so I guess I shouldn’t help by playing along,” tweeted the rapper. “But I gotta just say tho. Heineken is terribly racist omg.”

Heineken responded to the rejection quickly, offering the same position to MC Hammer, although for considerably less money.

Meanwhile, White advertising agency Publicis has pledged to continue looking for Blacks to hire too.

14088: #MeToo #ThreeToo.

The 3% Movement announced an exciting extension to its popular 3% Certified program: 3% Sexual Harassment Certified. “Given all the sexual harassment and predatory behavior being exposed in recent months, it seemed natural that we offer expert help and guidance to advertising agencies,” explained The 3% Movement Founder Kat Gordon. “Plus, I’m always seeking opportunities for shameless self-promotion and unsolicited pontification.” The sister certification also features two outcomes:

• 3% Sexual Harassment Certified Platinum is the level of certification reserved for agencies where less than 3% of C-suite positions are held by convicted sex offenders.

• 3% Sexual Harassment Certified Aluminum is the level of certification given to all other agencies who enroll in the program and pay the obligatory registration fee (a tax-deductible contribution, of course!).

Other perks for participating agencies include FREE guest passes to The 3% Movement events and positive mentions at Diet Madison Avenue.

“The 3% Sexual Harassment Certified program is fucking awesome!” gushed Divertsity Diva and pseudo-provocateur Cindy Gallop. “It’s about fucking time someone fucking took action on this fucking subject!” Then Gallop went back to openly sharing her penchant for dating twenty-something men and encouraging the industry to inject more sex into campaigns.

Joe Alexander, Ted Royer, Adam Grohs, Duan Evans, Gustavo Martinez, Ralph Watson, Eric Springer and Paul Colman declined comment.