TBWA in Spain claims you can count on Mickey D’s to “teach your little carnivores” to enjoy fruits and vegetables. Okay, but the lesson is just a teeny-tiny part of a larger curriculum teaching kids to enjoy overconsumption, commercialization, environmental destruction and unhealthy fast food.
Adweek published a lengthy report on “Toxic Clients” recently, spotlighting Papa John’s Founder John Schnatter and other allegedly awful client-side cretins. Yet it seems White advertising agencies are displaying bad behavior at much higher levels than clients. Indeed, trade journals have exposed advertising executives who make Schnatter look like a choirboy. Don’t recall Diet Madison Avenue calling out clients too. The Adweek story even presented agencies appeasing nasty clients with unprofessional responses. On Madison Avenue, lines are drawn well outside the standards of integrity, ethics and dignity. And in the rare cases when a shop dumps a “toxic client,” what’s the end result? Other White advertising agencies line up to replace the offended firm. Or the holding company offers a surrogate from its network.
Toxic Clients + Toxic Agencies = Business As Usual In Adland.
Learning Where to Draw the Line: How Agencies Can Deal With Toxic Clients
Papa John’s is the latest high-profile example
By Patrick Coffee
Last October, a pizza chain with a familiar face hired a new chief marketer and a red-hot, digital-first agency to shake up its brand after several disappointing quarters and PR snafus. It all seemed so promising.
But things didn’t quite work out for Papa John’s and now-former AOR Laundry Service after Forbes reported that chairman and founder John Schnatter had used the N-word on a May media training call and later published a lengthy expose outlining the company’s “toxic culture.” According to reports, the agency resigned the account—as did its other agencies, which included Fallon, Initiative and Olson Engage.
While the uproar led to allegations of racism, extortion and defamation, it’s also a tale as old as time—or at least as old as contractual agreements between clients and service providers.
And none of it has come as a surprise to Carol H. Williams.
Williams, who became only the second black woman in the Advertising Hall of Fame last year, is hardly a stranger to the kind of behavior that allegedly occurred on the call. In the early 1970s, she said executives at Leo Burnett Chicago were so worried about how a “major chicken brand” would react upon learning that “a black kid wrote the copy” for its newest campaign that they forbade her from presenting her own work to the client. A few years later, colleagues tried to minimize the offensive comments a cosmetics executive said to her by using his Virginia heritage as an excuse.
Of course, no relationship is perfect. “The day after you win the business, things start to erode; it’s human nature,” explained the CEO of an Omnicom agency who cited the transition from commissions to fees and the increasing power of procurement as “touchstone moments” on the road to commoditization.
Recent reports of improper conduct have also fallen disproportionately on the agency side. But One Main Financial CMO Kim Wijkstrom, who formerly worked at CP+B and BBDO, said he had experienced “some egregious behavior both internally and with clients toward agencies” during his 25 years in the business.
The instances are numerous. One agency principal recalled a party where a client executive called a supplier “a dirty Jew,” and a creative director said he recently threatened to drop a client altogether after its CMO “grossly hit on” a female colleague while drunk.
Some agency leaders reported their concerns directly to client leadership. Others resolved them internally—a fact that reflects the challenges of running a business that must balance defending its employees against the potential costs of alienating an important client.
As one former CEO put it, “What if the person on your team is not necessarily OK with the behavior but is willing to put up with it?”
“We sent the youngest, most attractive account supervisor over to get an estimate signed simply because she could lean over the [CMO’s] desk and distract him long enough to sign when we were under pressure to get moving on a production,” said another executive regarding a company his agency worked with in the mid-2000s. The agency condoned this behavior, and the woman in question reportedly agreed to “open my blouse a bit and go over there.”
“[It was] a matter-of-fact part of doing business,” the man said.
Burghardt Tenderich, co-director of the Public Relations Studies Program at USC’s Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism who previously led several agencies, once had to set up a meeting with a large client’s CMO and head of PR to discuss its “bro culture” after several women on his team experienced “inappropriate behavior.” They apologized and acknowledged their jokes were “not funny to those affected.”
Williams also added that an employee at one of her past clients lost his job after he “said something out of line.”
Abusive relationships don’t always involve sexism or racial insensitivity. According to an agency founder, the CEO of a Fortune 100 financial services client based in New York insisted that his team show up to work the day after 9/11.
Many executives don’t have the option of dropping a large account, especially if they’re owned by holding groups subject to shareholder pressures. So how and when does a shop make the decision to cut all ties with a client?
“I put toxic clients into two categories: those where there is hope you can work with them and turn them around, and those where there isn’t,” said Tenderich. “Pragmatically speaking, you need to get rid of [the latter] to save your organization.”
An executive who worked with Papa John’s in the past said his agency only considers resigning an account when work has clearly begun to affect individual employees, adding, “Telltale signs are people quitting without another job or crying at the office.”
Sometimes, the business simply has to take the financial hit even if it means laying off dozens of staffers, as Laundry Service did. And if an agency truly cannot afford to lose a client, Tenderich suggested it begin covertly courting a competitor in hopes of switching when the time is right.
Despite increased scrutiny of corporate missteps, several sources argued that client behavior has actually improved in recent years due to the social media megaphones that fuel negative headlines in the first place.
Papa John’s recent struggles, however, remind us that advertising is ultimately a business built on relationships between people.
“At some point, we have to be brave enough to say stop,” noted Williams. “We’re smart enough and powerful enough that if you don’t make your dollar here, you can make your dollar over there.”
Google celebrates Roberto Clemente, despite striking out in the diversity game.
Campaign reported WPP UK Country Manager and MediaCom UK & Ireland Chairwoman Karen Blackett was appointed Race Equality Business Champion by UK Prime Minister Theresa May. Great, now even governmental leaders are delegating diversity in adland and beyond. Plus, it was recently revealed that the U.S. advertising industry employs fewer than 100 Black female executives. How do UK figures compare? How rare is the new Race Equality Business Champion?
PM appoints Karen Blackett as race equality business champion
Karen Blackett OBE, WPP UK country manager and chairwoman of MediaCom UK & Ireland, has been appointed race equality business champion by the Prime Minister as part of a Race at Work Charter launched at a roundtable hosted by WPP today.
The charter, which sets out five practical steps for businesses to drive forward race equality in the workplace, has also been signed by companies including Shell, Norton Rose Fulbright and the Royal Bank of Scotland.
It is run by the Prince of Wales’s responsible business network Business in the Community and calls on organisations to help ethnic minority staff progress at senior levels by removing barriers and embedding initiatives such as mentoring and sponsorship programmes.
Prime Minister Theresa May said: “Every employee deserves the opportunity to progress and fulfill their potential in their chosen field, regardless of which background they are from, but too often ethnic minority employees feel they’re hitting a brick wall when it comes to career progression.”
At WPP, Blackett has established an Inclusion Board to look at how apprenticeships and programmes focused on reverse mentoring can encourage a more diverse and reflective workforce.
She said: “Embracing diversity and inclusion is not a choice, it’s a business necessity. As the Race at Work champion, I’m committed to helping businesses address inequality at all levels by taking practical steps such as introducing apprenticeships, offering mentorships and capturing ethnicity data to create a more inclusive and representative workforce.”
Advertising Age published more meandering, murky musings from 3% Movement Founder and CEO Kat Gordon, who wishes women would stop telling other women to be more confident. After all, Gordon cited from an HBR article, confidence doesn’t trump competence—and a high level of the former is often concealing a low level of the latter. Not sure where Gordon was heading with the point, but pretty sure she’d take issue with Zambezi CEO Jean Freeman’s contention that women in the advertising field need to learn business fundamentals. Whatever. Gordon then made a sloppy segue to women and anger, going off on a misguided rant over the contrasting reactions to emotional outbursts. Once again, Gordon displayed cultural cluelessness by dumbing things down to a male versus female issue. She did acknowledge, “Women of color face a double bind around anger.” Yet Gordon doesn’t seem to realize the bind is waaaaay more than double, especially for Black women. Additionally, angry Black men are viewed as unacceptable minimally and dangerous to the max. There is plenty of evidence to corroborate the realities in adland and society at large.
To mirror Gordon’s sloppy segue style, it’s worth noting that even pop psychologists attest there’s nothing wrong with anger itself. Rather, how one responds to feeling angry is the key. Anger can inspire people to advocate for causes with greater passion. Or it can lead to stupid behavior, as demonstrated by Diet Madison Avenue. In the end, everyone can benefit from finding healthy ways to deal with anger.
Gordon might consider how confidence, competence and anger are not necessarily mutually exclusive—and how things become further complicated by adding race and ethnicity. Plus, she might consider hiring a confident and competent editor to review her Op-Eds before publication—a suggestion that will likely make her angry. Sorry, but Gordon’s exposition is a poor woman’s version of Rebecca Traister’s work.
The advertising industry needs fewer thought leaders and more thoughtful leaders.
Kat Gordon: Stop telling women to be confident. Tell them to get angry
By Kat Gordon
At a recent ad agency event in Los Angeles. I was in the audience, watching panel after panel of female leaders. Finally, during the Q&A I raised my hand and spoke these words:
“I’ve heard the word ‘confidence’ so many times tonight. Why don’t women have more confidence? How can we help women be more confident? Yet research shows that confidence doesn’t equal competence. There is no correlation between acting like you know what you’re doing and actually knowing what you’re doing.”
At this point, you could have heard a pin drop. It was like I had announced that crying at work was the new power move.
I’ll spare you the academic research (but I brought receipts, including this HBR article aptly named “The Dangers of Confidence”) and net it out this way: we have mistakenly assumed that charismatic people are confident because of skill, when in reality confidence is often a compensation.
And this blind spot doesn’t stop there. We then target women’s lack of confidence as problematic — something that needs to be fixed. We cling to the belief that women are just one confidence-booster shot away from the C-suite. And in focusing on that c-word, we miss the more important one: competence.
Women are already competent, but oftentimes not confident. Every woman on that stage in LA knew that. They know they’re doing a good job and leaning in like the guidebook told them. Yet somehow they had internalized that confidence was the missing ingredient to full acceptance into The Club.
Why must women change in a way that doesn’t correlate to performance in order to make corporate America believe we know what we’re doing? Why do we ask women to mimic behaviors disproportionately demonstrated by men — that are proven to be a smokescreen — rather than rewriting the whole paradigm?
(Related: why is Imposter Syndrome training never, ever taught to true imposters? The only people feeling unworthy are those whose worthiness isn’t being measured accurately. But I’ll save that for another column.)
In an era where everyone is encouraged to “bring their whole selves to work,” women are being asked to manufacture or amplify a trait many do not possess naturally. Imagine, if you will, if we took confidence off the table and found more honest ways to measure skill? How much mind space would this free up for women?
That alone would be revelatory. But wait, there’s more.
If women are being invited to bring their whole selves to work, there’s one emotion we’re routinely asked to check at the door. Anger.
Women’s anger is not sanctioned anywhere in society. We’re unhinged/emotional/crazy when we’re mad. Women of color face a double bind around anger. Ironically, anger is the central emotion men are given free rein to express, at the expense of the whole gamut of feelings. Contrast Serena at the US Open versus Kavanaugh at his confirmation hearing.
Demonstrations of female anger are so rare and misunderstood that most workplaces think crying is an expression of sadness. Know why women cry at work? Because we’re furious and frustrated and there’s no sanctioned way to release it. Our tear ducts take the hit that our fists and voiceboxes cannot.
If creativity spikes when people draw upon every life experience and emotion they’ve ever had (and I believe it does), then why do ad agencies disallow certain feelings and behaviors while trying to workshop alive others that aren’t natural or needed?
I invite you to consider the radical notion that the agency of the future will unleash a tsunami of creativity not by asking people to be better. But just by letting them be.
Kat Gordon is the founder and CEO of the the 3% Movement
Adweek spotlighted a study showing 40% of marketers don’t trust their media agency, an 11% drop since the publication of a 2016 ANA report exposing shenanigans in the field. Expect media wonks to spin the figure, boasting their approval ratings still far exceed those of President Donald Trump. But it will be difficult to decisively determine which entity—the media field or the Trump administration—is generating the most lies.
New Study Reveals That 40% of Marketers Distrust Their Media Agency Partners
Confidence in partnerships declined 11% in two years
By Lindsay Rittenhouse
Two years after the Association of National Advertisers dropped a report revealing pervasive transparency issues among media agencies and their clients, the level of trust marketers have in their relationships with media partners dropped 11 percent, according to a biyearly ID Comms 2018 Global Media Transparency Report.
In 2018, 40 percent of the survey respondents (from marketing, media and procurement) rated their client-agency trust level as low, compared to 29 percent of those surveyed in 2016. Only 37 percent of this year’s agency participants in particular placed the level of trust at average and 38 percent, low. That’s a sharp decline from 2016 when 85 percent of agency respondents rated the trust level average.
Only 9 percent of respondents in 2018 placed the level of trust at above average, versus 12 percent in 2016.
“Numerous respondents noted that many relationships are fundamentally transactional, where agencies act as suppliers rather than strategic partners,” ID Comms noted in the study.
Still, there’s hope amongst those in the industry that trust will build.
In 2018, 46.3 percent of brand participants surveyed said they believe transparency and trust will improve in the coming few years, while 56 percent of agency respondents noted the same. That’s an improvement from 2016 when only 38 percent of all respondents projected stronger relationships by this year.
“I think agencies are much more focused on transparency issues with vendors than they previously have been and there feels to have been a shift to protecting clients more recently,” one marketer wrote in a survey response.
The 2016 58-page report by the ANA, K2 Intelligence and analytics company Ebiquity unquestionably forced media agencies to take a hard look at their business practices. Most have since adopted a suggested set of guidelines from the ANA to improve transparency and gain back trust with clients including disclosing all transactions with parent companies, subsidiaries, affiliates and third parties. One of the more serious offenses revealed in the 2016 report focused on cash rebates media agencies were collecting from publishers without their clients’ knowledge.
Since 2016, advertisers’ trust issues with their media partners largely remain concentrated in the same areas: how the agency manages rebates, how it makes money, how it trades with media vendors and how agency groups’ buying and sharing deals work, according to the ID Comms study.
The report shows that the only point of difference this year compared to 2016 is that clients are now more concerned with how their media agencies manage and use their consumer data and less concerned with how much access they’re provided to innovation and thought leadership.
One thing brands and agencies seemingly agree on is that transparency is a must to building trust—and the burden lies on both sides. Survey respondents from agencies noted that clients often don’t use transparent models to fairly compensate them for work.
“Remember trust works two ways and both parties have equal responsibility,” one agency executive wrote in a survey response.
The survey shows 80 percent of marketers and 75 percent of agency respondents rated transparency as “having high or very high influence over trust issues of advertiser-agency relationships.” Only 12 percent of agency respondents “strongly disagreed” with that tenet in 2018, compared to none in 2016.
From June to July, ID Comms gathered 232 responses for its transparency research from executives in marketing, media and procurement based primarily out of Europe (62 percent) and the U.S. and Canada (16 percent), with the remainder of respondents from other unspecified parts of the world.
Adweek reported Ford created a “new agency model” by handing its creative business to fresh White advertising agencies—BBDO and Wieden + Kennedy—and even leaving a few marketing morsels with GTB, the WPP enterprise originally erected to exclusively service the automaker. Wonder if the monumental loss for WPP will be blamed on CEO Mark Read or Sir Martin Sorrell. Of course, neither one will be as adversely affected by the move as soon-to-be-fired GTB and WPP employees. Double of course, the Adweek report made zero mentions of minority advertising agencies. Did Mark LaNeve participate in the pitch? In short, the losing White advertising agency still benefited more from the reassignment than any non-White advertising agency. All of which makes Ford’s “new agency model” extremely similar to the old agency model—and as outdated as the Ford Model T.
Ford Introduces New Agency Model, Names BBDO as Creative Lead After 75 Years With WPP
W+K also selected as an innovation partner
By Erik Oster, Patrick Coffee
Ford has selected BBDO as its new lead creative agency, concluding a global review launched in April. The move marks a major defeat for WPP, which has been Ford’s lead advertising partner for more than seven decades and counts the automaker as its largest global client.
BBDO begins transitioning to the new role on Nov. 1, working closely with the rest of Ford’s agency roster and its internal marketing team. Omnicom-owned digital experience agency Organic and TLGG Consulting will be part of the team handling the business.
The automotive giant also selected Wieden+Kennedy as an innovation partner for selected projects and introduced a new agency model. The independent agency will manage the account out of its New York office.
WPP’s dedicated network GTB will remain part of Ford’s team, leading activation, media buying and planning around the world in addition to shopper and performance marketing, website development, customer relationship marketing, multicultural and Tier 2 dealer advertising.
London-based consultancy Flock Associates managed the review.
“Ford already is one of the most recognized and respected brands in the world,” Ford group vice president, chief marketing officer Joy Falotico said in a statement. “In this pivotal moment of reinvention and transformation, we’re excited to partner with world-class creative agencies to unlock the full potential of the iconic Blue Oval.”
“Today is a big, big day. We have a wonderful new brand to help build. I could not be more proud of the hundreds of people around the world who made this happen, or more grateful to Ford for their confidence in us,” added BBDO Worldwide president and CEO Andrew Robertson.
Neal Arthur, managing director of W+K New York, said, “Working together to help build the future of the Ford Motor Company is as big, as interesting and as exciting as it gets. They have the people, the brand and the vision to lead the industry and we’re humbled to be able to play a role at this moment in their history.”
As part of its new agency model, Ford is also investing in over 100 new in-house marketing positions across areas including brand design, digital labs and media tools and partnerships. According to a statement, the new marketing approach is expected to save $150 million in efficiencies for Ford annually. The new strategy also includes an increased focus on emerging advertising tools and technology to create more personalized brand marketing.
A spokesperson for GTB referred to WPP.
“As you all know, we gave this review everything we had: it was an extraordinary effort by the entire global team over many, many months,” wrote GTB CEO Satish Korde in an internal memo sent to employees this afternoon and acquired by Adweek. “We accept this difficult decision with our heads held high and thank everyone for their contributions.”
He continued, “GTB has been Ford’s trusted partner for decades, having stood with it in both good times and crisis. We have conducted ourselves with loyalty, pride, honor and above all, outstanding work. We are by no means done as we continue to deliver on multiple fronts.”
In another all-staff memo published by Adweek’s AgencySpy last month, Korde disputed an earlier Forbes story asserting that the client had raised concerns regarding agency culture.
WPP also released an official statement.
“Over the past five months, WPP has been working with Ford Motor Company on its future marketing and advertising relationships,” it read. “At the conclusion of the review, WPP will be responsible for activating the Ford brand through key channels and regions, through its global Ford agency GTB as well as other WPP agencies, while Ford has appointed another agency as its lead creative agency.”
The note went on to summarize the scope of work retained by the holding group, which includes public relations, all Lincoln advertising and all marketing in China in addition to the list atop this story, before concluding, “WPP will work closely with Ford on the shape of its future relationship and the impact on its people.”
Ford spent more than $1.2 billion on measured marketing in the U.S last year, according to Kantar Media, and R3 estimates its global spend at approximately $3 billion.
Ford is planning to launch a new U.S. campaign promoting an unspecified series of Ford vehicles later this month. The news also comes as the company plans to launch a variety of new products in the U.S. and globally that will reshape its lineup.
Advertising Age reported on the latest publicity stunt from Havas Chicago, a White advertising agency that seems to generate more press from self-promotion than client promotion. Apparently, agency leadership doesn’t appreciate anonymous online criticism from staffers, inspiring a campaign declaring, “All of us work here some of us fucking love it.” Oddly enough, the campaign references members of the HR department, who likely approved offensive language that could warrant a legitimate complaint to HR. Contrary to anything Havas leaders might say about encouraging constructive companywide dialogue, the campaign appears to tell haters to fuck off and find another job. It’s fighting bullying with bullying—and bullshit. According to Adweek, the campaign collateral “also lists contacts for recruiters from Chicago agencies like FCB, Digitas, Upshot and mcgarrybowen.” You know, the shitty agencies that don’t compete with Havas. The shitty agencies, incidentally, generate more press from paying clients than pissy coworkers. Oh, and Havas honchos are cordially invited to read this 2007 post on the global topic.
Havas Chicago confronts anonymous employee bullying with art installation
By Megan Graham
Havas Chicago is responding to negative comments made about the agency and its employees on anonymous industry app Fishbowl with an anti-bullying-themed art installation and a brochure that encourages disgruntled employees to look elsewhere.
The installation, which opened on Friday, was showcased on Chief Creative Officer and Chairman Jason Peterson’s Instagram account. His posts show a photo of a wall with the words “All of us work here some of us fucking love it,” and another of a wall with the words “Employee of the month” above a collection of framed anonymous Fishbowl comments saying things like “The laughing stock in charge is obssesed (sic) with his 1M fake followers” or “I’m embarrassed to work at havas (sic) as well.” (Peterson has 1.1 million followers on Instagram.)
There is also Instagram video of the wall on his Instagram captioned, “Your hate is my anthem.”
Peterson’s posts from Friday evening also include images from a brochure, available in the agency, with the same “All of us work here some of us fucking love it” message. The inside has a section introduced as “Conscious Uncoupling.”
The brochure reads: “We assume you love working at Havas but if you are not happy in your role, you don’t have to continue feeling that way. Conversely, if we see that this is not your jam, we are going to raise this with you. We want you to be happy. We won’t hold this against you, we’ve got your back … Talk to your Manager or your Talent Management Partner to get the conversation started.”
That document lists three HR people at the company. It also lists contacts for recruiters from Chicago agencies like FCB, Digitas, Upshot and McGarryBowen.
Tatia Torrey, president and chief client officer at Havas Chicago, said in a statement that “A group of our employees brought this idea to us, they wanted to address some of the hateful online commentary and bullying that exists around some of our employees and our greater industry and expose the damage that it does to people who love their work and this business.” Her statement noted that the agency uses its office as an installation space to express what’s happening culturally, and has addressed “tough, but real” topics like suicide awareness, immigration, gender equality and racism in the workplace.
“We took it a step further and sent out material that encouraged our staff to talk to us openly if they have real issues, and quite frankly, to consider their choices in their work,” she said. “Bullying is something that we simply won’t tolerate. If there are issues amongst our business, we would rather address them openly, ultimately with the goal of making this the best possible place to work for our amazing staff that work so hard.”
The shop said multiple people in the agency, including Peterson, stepped forward to share comments made about them personally.
The Peterson posts come a month and a half after an internal video popped up on Fishbowl and prompted some negative industry commentary. In the video, which featured Peterson and Havas Creative North America CEO and Chairman Paul Marobella, Peterson said shops like Leo Burnett, FCB and BBDO or other “shitty agencies” aren’t Havas’ competition, but instead its competition is “kids with iPhones and millions of YouTube followers.”
Asked at the time to respond to criticisms that he had called other agencies “shitty,” Peterson said the video was internal, so if any Havas employees “want to go work at these other agencies please by all means go and do it.”
In a statement regarding the art installation, Peterson said, “Havas Chicago is a unique creative company that requires unique creative people with the right level of commitment, courage and contribution to what that means. In the case where there is not a mutual fit, we’d rather know and address it now and encourage those employees to pursue what’s best for them in their careers, while we maintain an amazing creative team here who share a vision and point of view. Constructive discussion and criticism is just that—constructive,” his statement reads. “What we simply will not tolerate is hate or bullying while hiding behind anonymous sources within our business.”
The agency says since Peterson posted about the installation on his Instagram, he has received more than 350 direct messages from people interested in working for Havas (many of which he posted on his personal Instagram account stories).
In an emailed message to employees, Torrey said the agency is “not a typical agency.”
“We are loud and proud and we are not for everyone,” she wrote in part. “...We value and promote social media. Yet, the anonymity with some platforms allows for pointed and painful comments at times. Recently many of those comments have been directed at our agency, our environment and the people who work here. We are not O.K. with that. In a manner that is truly Havas CHI, we are bringing this to the forefront. We created a lobby installation to address it head on. We want to talk about it.”
The agency says the installation coincided with the launch of Monica Lewinsky’s anti-bullying campaign and will likely last until mid-month when it will make way for a breast cancer awareness installation.
When asked for comment, Fishbowl chief operating officer and co-founder Loren Appin said in a statement that the app’s community guidelines are thorough and are “not only explicitly against bullying, but also against unconstructive, excessive negativity.”
“We have no opinion on how [Havas has] chosen to interact with their own employees, but do believe the representation of Fishbowl as a place for professionals to bully one another is entirely false,” he said.
Adweek published a ponderous propaganda piece promoting Papa John’s titled, “Inside Papa John’s Transformation: How Diversity and Marketing Leaders Are Changing the Brand.” Um, it’s a little early to declare the brand has experienced a transformation, especially while ousted Founder John Schnatter is still in courtrooms conspiring for a comeback and confessing about NDAs. The pizza maker has allegedly embraced diversity and inclusion in its campaign and company, but has cultural competence ever turned around sales for any brand? Keep in mind that Papa John’s profits were dropping long before Schnatter dropped the N-word. Domino’s staged a revolution by improving its product. Papa John’s is praying for renewed earnings by spotlighting the underrepresented and partnering with a delivery app. According to Adweek, Endeavor CMO Bozoma Saint John stated “there would have been no way to have a productive conversation about the future of the brand without [Chief of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Victoria Russell] in the room.” Great, now folks are delegating diversity and revenue rejuvenation to the people of color.
Inside Papa John’s Transformation: How Diversity and Marketing Leaders Are Changing the Brand
A new campaign and a focus on diversity and inclusion
By Katie Richards
Papa John’s is ready to embark on a new chapter—one without former founder John Schnatter, who was publicly ousted from the brand (and all of Papa John’s marketing) following his use of the N-word and other racially insensitive comments on a conference call back in May. Since then Papa John’s has moved quickly to show the world that the brand is not defined by one man’s actions—from rolling out a new marketing campaign without Schnatter to making plans to drop the apostrophe from the company’s name and branding.
Adweek caught up with the brand’s chief of diversity, equity and inclusion, Victoria Russell, at the inaugural Brandweek event in Palm Springs, Calif. Papa John’s was a hot topic at the event, as Brandweek keynote speaker and Endeavor CMO Bozoma Saint John gave a shoutout to Russell during her session, saying there would have been no way to have a productive conversation about the future of the brand without Russell in the room. Endeavor Global Marketing took on the role of agency of record for Papa John’s in early August.
In the week following Brandweek, Adweek spoke with three leaders from the brand, including Russell, to understand what went on internally following Schnatter’s comments and how the brand will—hopefully—bounce back.
“Ultimately, when a brand has an experience like ours has, there’s a real desire to put a stake in the ground for who we are. Who we are as people and who we are as a brand and what we believe in,” explained Melissa Richards-Person, vp of global brand strategy for Papa John’s. “This is a brand of the many and for the many. Not of one.”
That manifested with the rollout of the brand’s “Voices” campaign in mid-September. Papa John’s agency, Endeavor Global Marketing, presented the idea of focusing on the real people behind the brand as a stark contrast to previous campaigns that put former founder Schnatter at the center of everything. “Voices” would focus on pizza makers, delivery drivers and store managers, instead of the infamous Schnatter.
Papa John’s and team took advantage of the fact that it had nearly 2,000 of its franchisees, franchise owners and managers from across the country at its annual operations conference a few weeks prior to the campaign’s release. The brand worked with Endeavor to interview nearly 70 people at that conference about what they love about the brand.
There was no script given to those 70 or so people, although a few lines were scripted here and there. “What was so much more effective and honestly makes up the bulk of the spot, is the natural and authentic reactions that people had when we were just interviewing them,” Richards-Person added. Papa John’s says so far the campaign has been a success and plans to use more of these stories in the future to continue to rebuild the brand’s image.
“We aren’t naïve. We don’t believe that you air one message like this and everything is all of a sudden better. What we are encouraged by though is that people are recognizing that we are making the effort,” Richards-Person added. “If this at least gets people to open up a dialogue with Papa John’s and to give us another look, see what we are doing and see the actions behind the stake in the ground that this represents for the brand, then for us that’s a huge success.”
The campaign also gave those closely associated with the brand a voice following the media frenzy around Schnatter. It helps humanize the brand and the people behind it.
Russell noted in the days and weeks following news reports of Schnatter’s comments that the mood in the office was visibly bleak. “A lot of people struggled with representing the brand outside of the building, what that felt like, what it felt like to wear the logo at that point and defend the brand,” she said.
Russell herself, who has worked for Papa John’s for 12 years, even considered walking away from it for a brief period of time. “The company I had grown to know in 12 years was not representative in the remarks that were made,” she said. Russell soon realized that one man’s actions didn’t reflect the entire organization.
Prior to the comments being made, Russell had been hard at work making sure that Papa John’s thought about diversity and inclusion every single day. A few months before all of this unfolded, Russell started a diversity and inclusion committee—a committee of roughly 30 team members that met repeatedly after the comments became public to discuss how everyone was feeling, a place to air their grievances. But not for long.
“At some point, instead of just continuing to complain about the way things are, we had to think about what the path forward looks like and how can we all be part of that?” Russell added. Some of that will show up in more diversity and inclusion training, unconscious bias training for all team members and an increased focus on recruiting and retention within the company and so on.
“It’s important to know that this is not a reaction to what happened. This is not a PR stunt, this has been a long-term objective for the company and it’s going to take a while for some of it to get set up but we are trying to get some rolling here in the short term,” she added.
So what else comes next for the brand?
For one, Papa John’s has plans to make a major (but also minor) change to its logo. In August, the brand filed a trademark that would drop the apostrophe from the brand name, turning Papa John’s into Papa Johns. While it seems evident that this is a move to make people forget about John Schnatter and his ties to the company, the brand suggests it’s more than that.
The potential new logo design is a bit more contemporary and helps move the brand into the future, according to Richards-Person. While Papa John’s has filed this trademark, the brand does not currently have any plans to incorporate the new imagery into its marketing just yet.
“It was important for us that this truly demonstrated that we are changing as a brand but that the things people love about us, like better ingredients, better pizza, are still at the core of what we do,” Richards-Person said.
Some of the change for the brand will also come in how it thinks about the customer experience, technology and innovation. Anne Fischer, vp of product innovation at Papa John’s, noted that the company recently invested in ordering a new API to bulk up the brand’s delivery business and unlock new channels for people to order pizza, since 65 percent of all orders come through digital channels (and 70 percent of those orders are on mobile). The brand also just announced a major partnership with technology company DoorDash, so consumers can order pizzas through the DoorDash app.
“It’s a very customer-centric strategy so we are taking our cue from them and planning accordingly, but through these investments in technology we are able to move at a much faster pace,” Fischer said.
At the end of the day, a lot of the brand’s success may be determined by its leadership and the company’s ability to convince people to give Papa John’s another chance.
Added Russell: “Yes we’ve faced some challenges and adversity, but through that we could have an amazing turnaround story for this brand and our team members, because as long as we put our people first, our customers first, our suppliers, our franchisees, we will embrace the global nature of inclusion.”
Advertising Age spotlighted a diversity and inclusion campaign from OBERLAND that is perplexing at best and pathetic at least. The New York-based shop explained the concept as follows:
The videos present a culturally clueless casting call and ageist job interview, replete with stereotypical depictions of White people. The exaggerations are disturbing on a few levels. First, such over-the-top performances make the executions feel hackneyed. Second, microaggressions and unconscious bias work in much more subtle and sinister ways, so the cartoonish characters fail to communicate the seriousness—or the reality—of the global problems. Third, if the videos do indeed display activities OBERLAND staffers “have witnessed, seen and heard of” taking place in adland, why didn’t the witnesses speak out when the offenses actually occurred versus waiting to produce not-so-clever commercials?
OBERLAND also announced the following:
Hiring outside auditors? Heaven forbid an advertising agency might consider simply hiring more minorities instead of hiring outside auditors to tell them to start hiring more minorities. It will be interesting to learn the identity of the outside auditors. Or maybe not, especially if it turns out to be an entity offering certifications and awards for doing the right thing. Additionally, given the laundry list of procedures and policies to be audited, it’s clear that OBERLAND is examining divertsity versus diversity. Finally, why bother auditing for diversity when it’s easier to just scan the roster of agency employees?Most of us in the ad industry are not racist, sexist, homophobic, bigoted or ageist. But there are times when our intent and our actions are misaligned. That’s why we created a series of short videos that address microaggressions and unconscious bias that we have witnessed, seen and heard of in the industry.
In 2019, we’re hiring outside auditors to examine our diversity and inclusion procedures, our mental health support, parity and harassment policies and our environmental footprint. We plan to publicly post the results and solutions.
Hey, agencies: Your owners are biased
By I-Hsien Sherwood
Two casting directors, both white, coax increasingly uncomfortable takes from an African-American actor.
“I’m wondering if we could get one that’s a little more … street?” one director asks him, wincing a bit at the racially charged euphemism she’s just used. After a long pause, he obliges.Is this interaction racist? What about racist-ish? That’s the question posed by a pair of short videos, “Nothing Changes If We Don’t,” from New York agency Oberland that tackle issues of discrimination and diversity in the ad industry, particularly in scenarios that some might consider not quite, well, black or white.
The other video, on ageism, pits a 43-year-old job applicant against a dismissive 20-something interviewer. “The grandkids gave you some pointers?” the younger man chides, when the topic of social media comes up.
The films are part of a yearlong effort that the founders of Oberland say they’re undertaking in the hope it will spark other agencies to make changes in the ways they hire and operate.
“A lot of the organizations that are trying to promote and drive change are started by people who have borne the cost of racism and sexism and institutional preferences for straight, white guys,” says Drew Train, president of Oberland. “But a lot of agency owners are white guys.” (Train runs the agency with Executive Creative Director Bill Oberlander, and, yes, both are white.) “Nothing is going to change if the agency owners don’t change [their behavior] first.”
Oberland is defining change beyond bias. Over the next year, it says, it’s hiring outside auditors to examine its environmental footprint, mental health support, diversity and inclusion procedures, wage parity and harassment policies, and it plans to publicly post the results and any remedies. Oberland is a benefit corporation, a legal status granted by 33 states to for-profit companies that have a positive social impact, and was recently certified as a B Corporation, a designation issued by the nonprofit B Lab indicating that a company has exceeded high standards for sustainability, accountability and transparency.
More videos on topics like sex discrimination and harassment are in the works. Like the first two, they’ll each include an influencer. The racism spot, for example, ends with a message from Keni Thacker, diversity advocate and event technology specialist at J. Walter Thompson. Cindy Gallop, former BBH chair and founder of IfWeRanTheWorld, appears at the end of the spot on ageism.
“As a 58-year-old woman, this is especially dear to my heart,” says Gallop. “It’s holding a mirror up to the behavior that happens in a way that absolutely forces recognition of it. Hopefully, it will make people think twice when they feel themselves falling into that standard response.”
The vignettes are based on real-life interactions experienced or observed by Oberland creatives. “We have a creative team of 10, so it was like sitting down at a family dinner,” says Oberlander of the process. Team members wrote down memories of discrimination, and a table read of those interactions followed, much like on a film set.
There was also a discussion about how to include proper representation in a video series where many of the roles are for discriminatory characters.
“There was a lot of conversation about whether the casting directors in the racism spot should both be white,” says Oberlander. “Or maybe they should be men, or a man and a woman.” In the end, they settled on two white women, as many casting directors are women, and the ageism spot stars two men.
The two videos are available on Oberland’s YouTube channel, and the agency plans to release an additional video each quarter.
“Everybody understands when the Papa John’s founder makes a slur on a phone call, that’s racism,” says Train. “That’s an easy one. But the conversation in the racism spot, that’s slightly less obvious. In the ageism spot, the biases are subtle. The goal is to tease out these everyday situations so people can self-reflect.”
AgencySpy posted on the latest military maneuvers at McCann, where the White advertising agency saw its U.S. Army contract extended for up to six months, despite being eliminated from the lengthy account review. According to AgencySpy, McCann could even rejoin the pitch and retain the business, pending a final decision on the complaint filed by the IPG shop. At this point, the shootout competitors are Omnicom and WPP. Why would the U.S. Army consider a holding company headquartered in the U.K.? Additionally, given the U.S. Army’s alleged commitment to diversity, why would the military branch ally with White advertising agencies where diversity is a dream deferred, delegated, diverted and denied?
U.S. Army Extends McCann’s Contract By Up to 6 Months as Review Rolls On
By Patrick Coffee
The long-running saga surrounding the U.S. Army’s advertising business continues apace.
Its latest developments concerned longtime agency McCann’s last-minute elimination from the review and subsequent filing of an official protest with the Government Accountability Office. In another parallel announcement, U.S. Congress strictly limited the Army’s marketing budget for fiscal year 2019 as part of President Trump’s $700 billion-plus defense spending bill until it can prove the efficiency of those efforts.
Specifically, 50 percent of that total will be withheld, contingent on Secretary of the Army Dr. Mark T. Esper’s report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives regarding the recommendations made by the Army Audit Agency (AAA) as part of a nearly two-year audit broken by Adweek this year.
McCann’s protest already ensured that the review, which initially launched way back in 2015, would not be finished before its contract expired on September 30. Now the Army has allowed for yet another extension on that contract that could last until next March, in case the review and its various moving parts take that long to settle.
“A modification to the existing contract was executed on Sept. 25, 2018, to extend the ordering period for up to six months to ensure that there is no break in service to the Army until a new contract is awarded,” wrote a representative in the public affairs office of Mission and Installation Contracting Command (MICC).
“The monthly payment to McCann for handling the Army advertising account will remain the same,” he continued. This implies that the 50 percent reduction included in the 2019 budget will apply only to the winner of the review, not to whatever work McCann does in the meantime.
An Army spokesperson has not yet responded to a request for clarification on that issue. A McCann spokesperson declined to comment, referring to the client. The consultancy running the review has not responded to a related email.
According to parties with knowledge of the matter, the dispute between McCann and the Army concerns one major, unspecified element of the final pitch package required from all competing shops. The fact that it was missing from IPG’s submission led to the incumbent being kicked out of the review, thereby leaving Omnicom and WPP as the finalists.
The complaint’s “grace period” is 90 days, though the due date for a decision on the bid protest itself is November 16. In other words, the contract extension leaves open the possibility that McCann could retain the business after the protest has been resolved. The last time such a protest was filed, just over a year ago, the two parties settled their dispute at the very end of that period as McCann was allowed back into the pitch.
McCann won four Effies for its “White Hats Wanted” campaign at this summer’s awards show, and at least one party thinks the agency’s work has been good enough to help it keep the business, which is very important to IPG given the size of that budget. But the ultimate goal of Army marketing is recruitment, and the organization missed its 76,500 goal for 2018 by an estimated 6,500 despite spending an additional $200 million on bonuses and granting waivers over matters like “bad conduct or health issues,” according to the Associated Press.
That shortcoming can be attributed to a host of factors from low unemployment rates to “a failure of recruits to qualify due to factors such as obesity.”
This HelloFresh commercial is not very fresh with its interracial couple. And the decision to not give Rich a single line of copy makes him come off like, well, a vegetable.
Partners Andrews Aldridge is responsible for this Current Account Switch Service commercial using the theme song from Shaft. How did things go from “…the Black private dick that’s a sex machine to all the chicks…” to gleefully dancing in the street and handing out ice cream cones?
Advertising Age reported on CP+B Chief Creative Engineer Alex Bogusky “appearing” at Advertising Week. In reference to the state of the industry, Bogusky said, “All our wounds are self-inflicted.” He also remarked, “Even a great day in advertising includes three swift kicks to the groin.” Hey, former CP+B CCO Ralph Watson would probably agree—and his alleged victims would likely be happy to deliver the blows. But Bogusky’s groin comment makes one wonder if he really is ready to return to Adland 2018. As White women, sexual harassment and divertsity grab so many headlines, Bogusky should be more careful with his genitalia gender-specific perspectives. In the advertising world, all the cultural cluelessness is self-inflicted too.
Alex Bogusky at Advertising Week: ‘All our wounds are self inflicted’
By Judann Pollack
Alex Bogusky’s coming out since returning to CP&B was typically atypical.
Bogusky appeared at an Advertising Week panel in the form of mannequin wearing a “Good enough sucks” t-shirt and with a TV for a head. The TV streamed video of Bogusky, who was named CP&B’s chief creative engineer in August after an eight-year absence.
“I left the building eight years ago and it was like going into a coma and waking up eight years later,” Bogusky said through the TV. “I walked out and walked into a completely different place.”
He appeared, so to speak, in a Q&A with CP&B President Danielle Aldrich, and introduced by co-founder Chuck Porter, who was frank about the impetus for bringing Bogusky back. (They did not explain why Bogusky didn’t take the stage in person.) Principal Chuck Porter said CP&B had become more conservative in the years since and lost the mojo that led it to be named Ad Age’s Agency of the Decade in 2008.
“We weren’t a leader anymore,” said Porter. He made an exception for Brazil, where a CP&B outpost is doing standout creative work. “It was so clear, they were doing what we used to do,” he said, “except in Portugese.”
Bogusky, he said, is charged with restoring “the DNA” that made it CP&B in the first place.
Bogusky said CP&B has taken on more of a New York agency culture, at the expense of the maverick feel it got in part from its nonconformist beginnings in Miami. (It is now headquartered in Boulder, Colorado.) “You can get homogenized if you don’t cook in your own juices.”
The agency industry has meanwhile become commoditized and squeezed, suffering incursions by consulting companies and the pressure to help agency holding companies impress investors every quarter. He later said the industry’s wounds “have been self-inflicted.”
“Even a great day in advertising includes three swift kicks to the groin,” Bogusky said.
CP&B’s earlier maker culture was what drew great talent to it, Bogusky said. Now, the people he wants are the type who join an agency less to be part of it than to change it, he said.
Bogusky also said he is frustrated by creatives who complain that budgets are too small: “I tell them with $150,000 in many parts of the country you can build a house.” Much of that is immaterial anyway, because with today’s realities, lavishly produced TV extravaganzas are less of a factor and the best work is often highly creative and less expensive to produce, he said.
Bogusky noted that in the eight years after he left CP&B, he had not kept up with award winners. But as he prepared to return, he looked at recent Cannes winners only to discover that he, as a consumer, had seen few to none of the decorated campaigns in his daily life. That proves that creatives should not be “focus groups” for one another and should remember they are writing for the consumer, not themselves, he said.
And then there was the ping pong table. Bogusky said that during his tenure, the agency used to laugh at shops with that played basketball or ping pong at work, because, he said, none of that was nearly as fun as creating advertising. So he was dismayed on his return to find a ping pong table stashed in a closet. Bogusky said he considered burning it, but is giving it away to avoid being wasteful.
But whether Bogusky, sometimes hailed as a creative savior, is making an impact inside or outside of the agency is yet to be seen. The theater where CP&B was presenting was under three quarters full. And one marketing consultant, when asked whether the return of Bogusky would give the industry a jolt, said, “A lot of young creatives don’t even know who he is.”
Advertising Age published an empty-headed Op-Ed from McCann Paris Art Director Lauren Haberfield, who unwittingly underscored how divertsity trumps diversity—and White women are totally unqualified to advocate for legitimate inclusion in adland. Haberfield opened her offensive perspective by typing, “It’s Advertising Week. Another opportunity to get together, collectively pat ourselves on the back and talk about how dedicated we are to fixing this whole ‘diversity issue.’” Of course, Haberfield is really focused on promoting herself and White women, as the sarcastic rant exclusively highlighted her Caucasian sisters, only making brief and insincere mentions of racial and ethnic minorities. Haberfield whined about the oh-so-torturous time that she and White women must wait for fair representation, completely oblivious to the fact that her progress waaaaay exceeds the baby steps—and moonwalking—endured by people of color. It’s more than a little ironic that Advertising Week served as a stage for investigating the industry’s dearth of diversity—back in 2006. Twelve years later, White women have seized the spotlight and kicked minorities to the curb. Haberfield sobbed about the alleged lack of lady leaders, totally ignorant to the reality that the entire U.S. advertising industry features fewer than 100 Black women in power positions. That averages to under two Black women per state. Haberfield took a couple of swipes at White men, failing to acknowledge that White women have been active co-conspirators in denying agency access to racial and ethnic minorities. Sorry, but White women in the advertising industry don’t deserve sympathy. Rather, they need to be held accountable for the exclusivity during Advertising Week—and the remaining 51 weeks in the year.
This Advertising Week, don’t pat yourself on the back for solving the diversity problem
By Lauren Haberfield
It’s Advertising Week. Another opportunity to get together, collectively pat ourselves on the back and talk about how dedicated we are to fixing this whole “diversity issue.”
Thanks to a huge amount of effort from specially formed organizations (that we will all take credit for), progress has been made. According to the 3% Movement, 29 percent of creative directors in the U.S. today are now women. The industry has realized that representation matters, and many businesses are finally taking real action and committing to a more diverse workplace, not just adding a few token women to an agency’s creative leadership.
We’ve actively made an effort to promote women into leadership roles. We’ve leveled the playing field, and women finally have access to the opportunities and recognition they deserve. Problem solved! Now all we have to do as women is work hard and show everyone what we are made of, and we will all rise to the top … right?
Sadly, not even close. We may look up and see more women above us, but for any person who isn’t a cisgender white male, thriving in our industry has little to do with how good our work is or how talented we are. If I’ve learned anything during my time in this industry, it’s that every single creative woman, no matter her level, has to deal with a whole lot of completely unnecessary bullshit and, on top of that, make bad-ass, awe-inspiring work.
Earlier this year, I was one of 20 women from around the world identified as the next creative leaders in the industry as part of See It Be It, run by the Cannes Lions Festival. It was a life-changing week that included exclusive mentoring, training, networking and development. I left the festival bursting with motivation, game-changing ideas and genuine optimism convinced that, in the words of Oprah, “A new day is on the horizon!”
Four months later, I’m still waiting for that day to dawn.
So how can we stop the endless talk about this issue and start to overcome it? For starters, we have to remember that diversity is not just about percentages and statistics; it’s about actively embracing the differences of others and opening up our minds to a new way of thinking. To paraphrase Olympic gold medalist, activist and all-round legend Abby Wambach, diversity is inviting minority groups to the table, inclusion is letting them speak.
We can keep inviting more and more women, people of color and of different ages to the table, but if we aren’t embracing the differences their points of view bring, why bother? To back up an empty statement that your CEO made about diversity at the last Advertising Week?
We all need to start taking responsibility for the inequalities in our industry. Calling yourself a feminist doesn’t count. Just because you’re not the person actively displaying sexist, ageist or racist behaviors does not mean you’re not accountable. You have to do something about it. Here are some ways to start:
Putting women in charge of a project? Mix it up. Make it something other than a beauty or femvertising campaign.
Asking women to talk on a panel? Let them talk about their creativity and not just about the fact that they’re women.
Organizing a team-bonding activity? Make it at lunch time so that moms (and dads) can get home to their kids.
Inclusion needs to be at the heart of every action, of every decision, every single day and it needs to start now. We are already losing the race. If we do not adapt, agencies, already threatened by consultants, tech giants and marketers going in-house, will no longer be invited to compete. We need to open up our minds and see that embracing difference is the only way to create something truly new that actually connects to the world we live in.
Take women in leadership positions: Throughout history, successful leaders have been portrayed as asserting masculine qualities—they need to be strong, dominating and sometimes bullying to earn respect. But how is a female creative leader meant to come up with authentic ideas when faced with this false “ideal” every day?
We need to embrace the feminine qualities that create great leaders and allow women and men to benefit from them. Leaders should be empathetic, transparent, able to connect with those around them and should not have to hide their emotions.
When women lead, companies thrive. It’s good business. And most importantly, it’s good for the work.
Imagine for a second that we actually “fixed” the gender disparity problem, and all the incredible, talented women on the sidelines of our industry could stop carefully tiptoeing around fragile egos, stop lying about their childcare needs, stop pretending to laugh at that joke-that-was-sexist-but-was-just-a-joke, stop trying not to appear intimidating and could just … focus on the work.
There would be a lot more bad-ass, awe-inspiring campaigns, and we would all be better off for it.
Lauren Haberfield is an art director at McCann Paris
Advertising Age published a Bloomberg News report on the latest legal lunacy involving Papa John’s Founder John Schnatter, who had to admit in court that he has NDAs with at least two women. So now Schnatter is being tagged with the N-word and an N-acronym, neither of which will help the man’s efforts to regain his role as pizza company mascot. Maybe Schnatter needs to give up and go away, as every move forward leads to him stepping in another pile of dog shit. At this point, he’s coming off like the late Al Campanis, digging himself into a deeper hole while others are providing opportunities and begging for him to bail out. That said, where’s the promised “go on record and refute” response from Casey Wasserman?
Papa John’s founder tells court he has NDAs with two women
Papa John’s International founder John Schnatter acknowledged in court Monday he has confidentiality agreements with at least two women but didn’t say what those pacts cover.
Schnatter, testifying in a case over his request for files related to his ouster as the pizza chain’s board chairman, said one of the agreements involves a 24-year-old female employee of a firm that worked on Papa John’s advertising.
“Do you have settlements with some women?” Blake Rohrbacher, a lawyer for Papa John’s, asked Schnatter in Delaware Chancery Court. The businessman said he didn’t know if the agreements amounted to settlements.
The use of non-disclosure agreements has come under increased scrutiny in the #MeToo era. NDAs require parties not to discuss particular issues and are commonly used by companies to protect trade secrets. But their use by powerful men in business, the media and politics to buy the silence of victims of sexual harassment has sparked criticism, lawsuits and firings.
Schnatter declined to comment on the agreements outside the courtroom. Terry Fahn, Schnatter’s spokesman, said he had no information about the agreements.
The pizza chain’s founder has previously faced sexual harassment allegations. One woman, Lesli Workman, sued Schnatter and the company in 1999, alleging that he’d sexually harassed her for months, repeatedly visited her house and kissed and groped her, according to court filings. Schnatter denied the allegations. He testified Monday he had a confidentiality agreement with Workman about which he couldn’t comment.
Garland Kelley, one of Schnatter’s lawyers, confirmed outside the courtroom the businessman does have a confidentiality agreement with Workman, but wouldn’t specify what it covers. He said company officials, rather than Schnatter, are in possession of that pact and the businessman is requesting they turn it over as part of the Delaware case.
Kelley said the other NDA involves allegations that a woman misappropriated money from Papa John’s. He wouldn’t say what Schnatter’s connection to that situation might be.
Schnatter is trying to return to power at the embattled pizza chain, which is struggling with declining sales and controversies related to the founder’s alleged miscues. He sued to force current Papa John’s executives to hand over documents related to their moves to force him out of the company. The company also stopped using Schnatter in its advertising.
Schnatter acknowledged using a racial slur on a media-agency call in July but says it was taken out of context. He testified Monday that he used the slur while discussing the addition of singer Kanye West in Papa John’s advertising. “I was pushed to use that exact word and I also said I was not a racist,” Schnatter told the judge.
Schnatter filed a separate suit in Delaware accusing current CEO Steve Ritchie of plotting to paint him as a racist so he could be pushed out of the company.
He said a Forbes story about his use of the racial slur failed to note that it was in the context of discussing other people’s use of the term.
The businessman said he sued the company in Delaware because he has inklings that “something wasn’t right” in the chain’s C-suite and there were many things “that didn’t add up.”
The company said in a statement that it would not give Schnatter the documents he is seeking. “We have already provided John Schnatter all of the materials he is entitled to as a director and will not be distracted by his misstatements, words and actions,” it said. “There is nothing he’s entitled to that he hasn’t already received. This is being dealt with through the appropriate legal channels.”
—Bloomberg News
Advertising Age reported on the WPP move to merge VML and Y&R, demonstrating quite clearly that WPP CEO Mark Read is as big an asshole as Sir Martin Sorrell. With one decision, two companies are being hurled into chaos, rendering employees helpless and hopeless over their immediate fates. Firings have already happened, and more ruthless reorganizations, rejiggering and releases are guaranteed. Sorrell routinely argued there’s no such thing as a hostile takeover, insisting that people are not adversely affected by mergers. Sorry, but thanks to Sorrell, hostile takeovers and friendly integrations lead to downright damnation. Additionally, more unemployed White people increase the difficulty for racial and ethnic minorities to land jobs—meaning Y&R is indirectly water-bombing people of color again.
WPP is merging Y&R with VML, forming VMLY&R
By Megan Graham
WPP’s new CEO Mark Read didn’t take long to make his first big move: The holding company is officially merging Y&R with VML.
VML global chief executive officer Jon Cook will lead the new agency, which will be called by an alphabet soup of letters: VMLY&R. WPP says the shop will be a “contemporary, fully integrated digital and creative offering to clients on a global scale.” David Sable, former global CEO of Y&R, will continue as non-executive chairman and transition into a new role within WPP.
In a statement, Read said the new shop “will be a powerful brand experience offering and a core agency brand for WPP. VML and Y&R have distinct and complementary strengths spanning creative, technology and data services that make them a perfect match.”
He added: “This is an important step as we build a new, simpler WPP that provides clients with a fully integrated offering and easy access to our wealth of talent and resources.”
The combined agency will include more than 7,000 people, WPP says, and should be operating by early 2019.
Cook tells Ad Age that the merger makes sense because the agencies have been related at WPP—the holding company’s structure had VML sitting within a Y&R network—and worked together for years, often sharing clients and geographies. He said the shops had complementary skills, and that leadership saw the combination of brand experience and brand advertising as a powerful one.
The move puts Y&R—a legacy shop which saw worldwide revenue drop 3 percent from $1.16 billion in 2016 to $1.13 billion in 2017, according to Ad Age Datacenter estimates—with VML, which has been a consistent star performer in the network.
Big legacy shops often get flack for being multi-layered and slow. Asked how the combined agency would stay agile, Cook said “VML is probably a lot bigger than people think” but has been able to maintain its company culture as it grew.
“We’ve taken a company that started in Kansas City, Missouri 25 years ago and scaled that to a global company,” he says. “That gives me a ton of confidence about what it takes to scale culture and personality and agility and a client-first mindset.”
“I think the world needs agencies with personality,” he adds.
The tasks at hand include bringing the expanded offerings to its clients and taking the coming months to get input and figure out what’s next, according to Cook. “Take our time, think through what’s right, be careful, be thorough … I have really appreciated how Mark [Read] is doing that at WPP.”
VML’s global chief creative, Debbi Vandeven, will take on the role of global chief creative at the combined agency. VML President Eric Campbell will be the combined agency’s global president. Jason Xenopoulos, who ran VML in South Africa, will lead the combined office in New York.
VMLY&R will not have a single headquarters, according to Cook, but major offices in cities like New York, London, Sao Paolo, Sydney and Kansas City. “I love the idea of VMLY&R being a mindset, not a physical building somewhere,” he says.
In WPP’s second quarter earnings call earlier this month, Read — who was named CEO of the holding company earlier this month, replacing Martin Sorrell — spoke about strengthening the holding company’s creative agencies, saying, “We need to have stronger businesses with better work, better strategy, better reputations as well as ensure that those companies have the capabilities that they need to grow.”
Kansas City, Missouri-based VML, which was founded in 1992 by John Valentine, Scott McCormick and Craig Ligibel (hence the letters), joined WPP in 2001. The shop, known for strong digital chops, saw worldwide revenue grow 3.6 percent from $390 million in 2016 to $404 million in 2017, according to Ad Age Datacenter estimates. At the Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity last year, VML’s “#NuggsForCarter” work for Wendy’s scored three Lions. In addition to Wendy’s, VML’s clients include Kraft Heinz and the United Nations.
A year ago, VML absorbed sibling WPP agency Rockfish, a digital innovation shop with e-commerce expertise that generated $70 million in revenue in 2016, according to the Ad Age Datacenter. VML told Ad Age earlier this year it planned to put more of an emphasis on artificial intelligence, virtual reality and augmented reality in 2018.
Y&R, a stalwart among WPP’s creative agencies, was founded in 1923 by John Orr Young and Raymond Rubicam, who left N.W. Ayer & Son, Philadelphia, to open their own shop. In 1980, Y&R was the world’s largest agency, then went public in 1998. The agency was acquired by WPP in 2000. Among its clients are Amtrak, which was announced last week, Office Depot and computer technology company Dell.
The agencies being combined have markedly different pedigrees, says Avi Dan, founder of Avidan Strategies.
“VML’s culture is midwestern and youthful—energetic, no-nonsense and friendly. Y&R is more of a gray-haired aristocrat a bit past his prime,” Dan says. “By putting the two together they’re hoping that the result will be like in the movie ‘The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button,’” he says, referring to the film in which a man ages in reverse.
Dan, who worked at Y&R in the late 80’s and early 90s, says the agency was once a shining star, with a storied history that includes bringing on George Gallup from Northwestern University to start the first advertising agency research department in 1932. “It really was a special place for a lot of us that worked there,” he says.
DDB Georgia is responsible for this ad, which states that insomnia is not a cross you must bear…? Jesus.
Campaign reported IPG Chairman and CEO Michael Roth shared his thoughts on potential successors with the IPG board of directors. Despite the contention that adland is unfriendly to seniors, the businesses are typically run by Old White Guys like Roth, Sir Martin Sorrell and John Wren (Arthur Sadoun is only 47 years old, but he had to wait for predecessor-dinosaur Maurice Lévy to exceed retirement age; and Yannick Bolloré is a mere 38 years old, but he won his role via nepotism). Plus, despite IPG’s boasts of being recognized for leadership in diversity and inclusion, the Campaign article identified Roth’s potential successors as two Old White Guys. Perfect.
Michael Roth talks to IPG board about potential CEO successors
By Lindsay Stein and Gideon Spanier
An industry executive with direct knowledge of the matter told Campaign that Michael Roth has offered his perspectives on a few potential successor candidates to the Interpublic Group board of directors.
Roth, 72, has run Interpublic, the fourth largest ad group, for 13 years since 2005.
Interpublic’s board has a guideline in place for the CEO to retire by the age of 75.
Multiple sources say Philippe Krakowsky, 56, the long-serving chief strategy and talent officer and the architect of July’s $2.3 billion acquisition of data business Acxiom deal, is the front-runner, although Harris Diamond, global chief executive and chairman of McCann Worldgroup, is also seen as a strong contender.
Krakowsky’s current responsibilities include the media operation, IPG Media Brands.
“It was notable when Interpublic made the Acxiom announcement that Philippe was on the call because most investors are unfamiliar with him and often companies are communicating something when they’re introducing executives to investors in a conference call or event like that,” said Pivotal Research Senior Analyst Brian Wieser.
“That doesn’t mean necessarily that these people are successors but it certainly sparks some speculation among people who watch these companies closely,” he added.
Wieser also told Campaign that if the Acxiom transaction goes well, then Krakowsky “could very well be the successor to Michael Roth.”
The Acxiom deal is expected to close by the end of 2018.
Diamond could be a good alternative to Krakowsky, according to an industry insider, who said: “The beauty of Harris Diamond is that he’s worked across disciplines and he’s running a huge piece of revenue globally.”
Wieser said Diamond is “perfectly capable” to run Interpublic but his current position as a business unit CEO is different — and more client-facing — than a holding company leader who deals with Wall Street.
Most groups would “want to think of someone 50s or younger” for the role, Wieser added, noting Diamond is over 60.
“If you know your industry and your company is going through a significant transformation, then you want someone to see it through and it could be a five or 10-year or even longer process,” added Wieser.
One industry insider expects that Interpublic will name Roth’s successor within this fiscal year.
But another source believes no boardroom change is imminent and, points out that, hypothetically, the company could extend the retirement age for Roth.
Wieser said “it wouldn’t be the worst thing for Roth to go out on a high note” after a decent first-half performance this year.
“He’s having fun and enjoying it,” added Wieser, “but this is a great time for him to step aside and be remembered favorably.”
The group is set to hold an annual strategy meeting with senior management in the autumn.
Representatives from Interpublic Group declined to comment.
Speculation comes as the group’s UM shop wins the $300 million Quicken Loans media account.
WPP’s recent appointment of Mark Read, 51 as the new CEO, succeeding Sir Martin Sorrell, and the promotion of Arthur Sadoun, 47, as CEO of Publicis Groupe last year has put attention on both IPG and Omnicom’s future plans.
Omnicom has already taken one step towards succession planning.
CEO John Wren added the title of chairman in April in what looks like a precursor to him relinquishing the role of chief executive. Wren, 66, has headed Omnicom for 21 years since 1997.
Despite speculation around Wren’s succession plans, a source close to Omnicom “vigorously” dismissed any suggestion that the CEO is planning his exit.
