14062: Adland, U Are Screwed.

Adweek reported Unilever cut marketing expenses by roughly 30 percent through increased in-house production, which also cut the marketer’s need for outhouse advertising agencies. A report claimed, “In marketing, we are creating more of our own content in house while making existing assets go further. Our 17 U-Studios in 12 countries are creating content for brand teams faster and around 30 percent cheaper than external agencies.” Bet the quality is not significantly worse than the dookie shat out by White advertising agencies too. Adweek closed by warning, “Still, brands should be cautious about taking creative work away from trained advertising professionals. Pepsi and Dove learned this lesson the hard way, releasing respectively the now-infamous tone-deaf Kendall Jenner ad and a Dove soap spot that was deemed racially insensitive from their in-house studios.” Sorry, but White advertising agencies generate way more culturally-clueless crap than in-house enterprises.

Unilever Claims to Cut Marketing Spend by 30% After Taking Production Work In-House

Continues trend among America’s biggest spenders

By Lindsay Rittenhouse

Unilever, which has taken repeated steps to combat increasing pressure on the consumer-products space, announced in its 2017 annual report last month that it had cut marketing expenses by about 30 percent after taking more of its ad work in-house and reducing the roles of its external agencies.

“In marketing, we are creating more of our own content in house while making existing assets go further,” the report read. “Our 17 U-Studios in 12 countries are creating content for brand teams faster and around 30 percent cheaper than external agencies.”

Unilever unveiled its in-house content unit, U-Studios, in 2016, saying at the time it would use it to find new ways to engage with digitally focused consumers while simultaneously countering the rise of ad-blocking software.

It is not clear what duties U-Studios took from Unilever’s external agencies or how the company is going about managing them. The company did not return a request for comment.

However, Unilever’s revelation plays into a larger trend of budget-cutting among America’s biggest spenders—a trend agencies have been increasingly wary of. Procter & Gamble, another CPG giant, said on its fourth-quarter earnings call in July that it had cut approximately $100 million to $140 million in digital advertising spend due to brand-safety concerns and also reduced its agency and production spend by an unspecified amount.

Apple’s Beats Electronics, the brand formerly known as Beats by Dre, also has been making moves to take its creative account in-house, sources told Adweek in January. Carl Johnson, CEO of the brand’s lead global creative agency, Anomaly, confirmed that his agency no longer handled as many creative duties as it once did, saying it “decided to take a breather from executing work with Beats.”

In October, international consultancy R3 released a report showing that the size of the average U.S. creative account win shrunk 38 percent last year compared with 2016 due to in-house studios taking on more work. Following that report, Pivotal Research senior analyst Brian Wieser told Adweek that he does not expect brands to stop shifting marketing efforts in-house anytime soon.

Unilever itself revealed last year it would put a cost-cutting plan in place, removing half of the creative agencies and 40 percent of the consultancies from its roster. After the announcement, WPP, the largest global advertising holding company and a major Unilever partner, saw its stock plummet.

A week ago, WPP suffered its steepest stock drop in nearly two decades (14 percent) after reporting weaker-than-expected 2017 financial results. On an earnings call, WPP CEO Martin Sorrell admitted 2017 was “not a pretty year” and attributed his company’s woes to cuts by historically big spenders like P&G and Unilever.

WPP did not return a request for comment on how Unilever’s most recent cost cuts have affected it.

Still, brands should be cautious about taking creative work away from trained advertising professionals. Pepsi and Dove learned this lesson the hard way, releasing respectively the now-infamous tone-deaf Kendall Jenner ad and a Dove soap spot that was deemed racially insensitive from their in-house studios.

14061: Secret Crusading Is A Bitch.

Fast Company, Adweek and Advertising Age reported Diet Madison Avenue was temporarily shut down, but quickly reappeared—probably because it would have been too sad for the divertsity-driven Instagram account to be eliminated during Women’s History Month. However, the anonymous whistleblowers are facing opponents, including a group of female advertising executives publicly stating concerns and critiques. What’s most disturbing is Diet Madison Avenue’s response to anyone questioning the secret crusaders. That is, challengers to the cause are blasted as badly as the alleged sexual harassers. The DMA crew makes Mean Girls look like Mother Teresa. On the one hand, Erin Johnson’s trials and tribulations probably deter most legitimate victims from filing official accusations. At the same time, agencies are increasingly offering anonymous hotlines for employees, which diminishes the need for DMA. So in many respects, Diet Madison Avenue should die. Then again, if the DMA crew is comprised of actual advertising executives, the oh-so-provocative creators are undoubtedly reluctant to miss out on their shot at a Glass Lion.

14060: IWD & BHM.

As predicted here, Adweek displayed just a few of the many pricey tributes created for International Women’s Day—which far exceed the crumby efforts for Black History Month.

14059: Colorless Commentary.

Ironically, this Benjamin Moore advertisement was created by The Martin Agency, where they’re really not very obsessed with color at all—and seem quite content to remain predominately White with minimal Blacks.

14058: AICP BS.

The AICP’s Call for Entries film is offensive on a host of levels, the least of which is the absolute lameness of the concept and execution. Why is it so difficult to do award-caliber work for award shows? The credits for the video are amazing—did it really require that many people to birth this turd? Honestly, Pete Favat, Keith Cartwright and Susan Credle make Tommy Wiseau look like Martin Scorsese. The diversity feels forced too, although the security guard scene is an accurate illustration of our industry’s inclusiveness. Finally, did anyone secure the rights to depict the artists? It would be hilarious to learn that the AICP failed to cover the legal issues. This is not artistic expression; rather, it’s a promotional advertisement from a sponsor seeking to generate profit for its event. Here’s hoping the estates of Andy Warhol, Jean-Michel Basquiat and Frida Kahlo file lawsuits pronto.

14057: Frida Anglo.

To celebrate International Women’s Day, FCB Global CCO Susan Credle dons Brownface…? Interestingly enough, the IWD theme for 2018 is #PressForProgress. In the advertising industry, pressing for progress with diversity pales in comparison to divertsity.

14056: Diverse Opinions Are Scary…?

Campaign published peculiar posturing on diversity that was probably planned to be powerfully provocative, but comes off as patently poopy. Veteran adman Paul Burke proclaimed that embracing diversity demands embracing diversity of opinion, and an influx of non-Whites could lead to a tsunami of conflicting viewpoints. Burke believes White advertising agencies that integrate “more women, more people from poorer backgrounds and from ethnic and LGBT communities” must be prepared for more politically-incorrect perspectives. Huh? While Burke likely sought to advocate for inclusion, the essay seems to subliminally play into the fears associated with a diverse workforce—that is, ad shops will have to undergo extreme, fundamental transformations in order for diversity to succeed. Heaven forbid positive change might occur without dramatic disruption. Sorry, but equality is only a threat to racism.

You say you want diversity, but what about diversity of thought?

By Paul Burke

Imagine that you’re an “industry leader” and a prominent proponent of diversity. Imagine you have the standard-issue box set of establishment-approved liberal values, which you frequently espouse in Campaign and on social media. (Some of you won’t have to imagine too hard.)

Obviously you despise Donald Trump, and have tweeted your hilarious observations, comparing his hair to candyfloss and his face to a tangerine. You’ve earnestly re-posted Guardian articles attacking Brexit or, let’s be honest, attacking the people who voted for it. And you’ve nobly supported #MeToo, even though the list of miscreants who’ve behaved inappropriately towards colleagues might well include #YouToo.

That said, you now have a sincere and genuine desire to see a more diverse cross-section of people employed in advertising.

Just one thing—are you absolutely sure about this? Because if you’re going to embrace a more diverse cross-section of people, you may also have to embrace a more diverse cross-section of opinions. And those opinions could be quite contrary to the ones you’ve been so careful to cultivate.

For example, how will you react to members of staff who think the EU is corrupt and old-fashioned and its blatant protectionism prevents economic growth in Africa?

Or those who think Donald Trump is the ultimate ad man and his use of Tweets and sound bites quite brilliant. His “comms” strategy made him the most powerful man on the planet, they say, so surely we have something to learn from this.

Will you approve of the ardent feminist whose role models are Margaret Thatcher and Theresa May?

Or the female team who don’t want their commercials to routinely portray women as smarter and sassier than their hapless male counterparts? They have boyfriends, brothers and fathers whom they adore, and they’re not comfortable with seeing them represented like this.

Meanwhile, how will you defend that much-lauded new Nike ad to an Asian kid from Tower Hamlets who sees his own community seemingly air-brushed out of it? He thinks it fails to reflect the “diversity” of young Londoners. In fact, he says, it does the very opposite.

And will you hire that proudly right-wing graduate who wants to work in advertising because she admires its clarity of purpose: to make as much money as possible by actively capitalising on capitalism?

I’m not saying these particular views are right or wrong, but they would certainly now fall on the “wrong” side of a political and cultural paradigm. They’re rarely expressed in agencies, even though they’re undoubtedly held by a fair proportion of the people whom advertising is supposed to reach, reflect and represent. Agencies may claim they want diversity of talent, but they no longer seem so keen on diversity of thought.

Yet isn’t that the very essence of advertising? The different ways of looking at the world, looking at problems and looking at briefs? What first attracted me to agency life was its random selection process, which always seemed to throw up a varied cast of unusual and original thinkers, who were then allowed the freedom to express their thoughts without fear of censure. It was their disparate opinions that inspired the crucibles of creativity that powered the whole industry.

Take that away by enforcing just one predictable brand of “virtuous” views and values, and what do you think is going to happen? All those diverse and interesting people may decide that working in advertising will be like living in a never-ending episode of W1A and they’ll take their talents elsewhere. So ironically, those who so volubly championed diversity might be the very people who destroy it.

As an industry, we need to make our work interesting, relevant and original. This looks under threat from senior people more interested in signalling their glistering virtue than in fostering unconventional ideas. What we need now are people who’ll provide a more vibrant variety of viewpoints. More women, more people from poorer backgrounds and from ethnic and LGBT communities, but not if we’re going to try to tell them how to think.

Because unless we have diversity of opinion, we don’t have diversity at all.

Paul Burke is an award-winning copywriter and novelist.

14055: 13 Years A Slave.

MultiCultClassics celebrates 13 years of witnessing the advertising industry deliberately delegate, divert, detain and deny diversity.

Thanks for stopping by.

14054: Bored? Get On Board.

Campaign published a perspective by Riaz Meer—a member of broadcast union BECTU’s Black Members Committee—who believes Blacks are growing bored of White men expressing boredom with diversity, as well as the bores claiming to be diversity advocates despite having no evidence to back their alleged commitment. Meer’s solution is simple: If you’re bored, a bore, a boar or just plain boring, get on board—join with minorities and actually do something about the situation. Sadly, the obvious action has been historically ignored by the bored, bores, boars and boring, which is increasingly difficult to bear.

Why black creative workers are shifting towards being bored of the diversity debate

By Riaz Meer

Riaz Meer, a member of broadcast union BECTU’s Black Members Committee, challenges Channel 4 and the ad industry to take meaningful action to combat institutional racism.

The recent spat between two white middle-aged male business leaders of the creative and cultural industries illuminates quite well the problems faced by those of us seeking change in the industry.

[M&C Saatchi’s group chief creative officer] Justin Tindall’s facile comment on diversity, and [Channel 4 chief marketing and communications officer] Dan Brooke’s critical response appears to place both men on different sides of the diversity debate. But there is surely much more to Tindall’s being “bored with diversity” comment, than merely that of a lost business opportunity, as claimed by Brooke.

The problem for Brooke is that despite his claim that Channel 4 is “one of the very best companies for diversity in the land”, the situation for BAME workers in his industry remains at crisis point. As Ofcom and the Office of National Statistics have shown, the percentage of BAME workers who make up the freelance crews producing television in the UK is a pitiful 4%.

As a publisher broadcaster, Channel 4 does not make its own programmes but outsources this to independent production companies who in turn hire freelance crew. The record of staffing at Horseferry Road might be excellent, but Brooke closes his eyes once the programmes are commissioned. For all his grand claims about the company’s diversity, the fact remains that the people making programmes for Channel 4 are hideously white.

It is in this context that Tindall’s cry of being “bored with diversity” carries with it, however inadvertently, some resonance with black workers. Despite the well-meaning schemes and pronouncements, the fact is that the lot of black freelance workers in the cultural industries is as precarious as ever.

Black freelance workers see diversity initiatives come and go, but at the same time we witness our prospects in the cultural industries diminish still further. We might not go so far as to claim to be “bored” by the diversity debate, but we are by now suspicious of any scheme that does not address the structural problems that bar BAME and other marginalised groups from the workforce.

Indeed, given our own experiences, it is quite possible for us to be wary of industry claims about a commitment to diversity, whilst at the same time continuing our struggle to overturn the institutional racism prevalent in both advertising and broadcasting. When will the “diversity debate” be over? When industry leaders like Tindall and Brooke join with BAME workers (and others) in introducing effective change.

14053: JWT Sails On.

AgencySpy posted a lengthy look at the latest lawyer lollygagging in the JWT lawsuit starring Gustavo Martinez and Erin Johnson. Given the apparent trend of internal investigations and/or social media crusaders yielding quick decisions, it’s baffling how the case drags on. At this rate, Johnson might retire from JWT—and Martinez from WPP—before the rendering of a legal conclusion. Just as the disintegration of legal actions like the Madison Avenue Project send subliminal messages that fighting discrimination is a pointless endeavor, it will be interesting to see how the Martinez-Johnson affair ultimately affects the divertsity movement.

Erin Johnson’s Lawyers Accuse WPP of Withholding Documents in Latest JWT, Gustavo Martinez Case Filings

JWT announced some big changes today, most prominent among them the hiring of mcgarrybowen’s Simon Pearce as its new North American CEO and the departure of his predecessor Lynn Power, who is leaving “to pursue an entrepreneurial opportunity.”

A little further downtown at the Southern District Court of New York, last week saw the latest set of filings in the ongoing lawsuit filed by the agency’s still-current global chief communications officer, Erin Johnson.

In short, Johnson’s lawyers have accused the WPP team of stalling by refusing to release documents related to the resignation of another top JWT PR executive, director of global comms Christine O’Donnell—as well as the attempted cultural training of former global CEO Gustavo Martinez, the man she sued for harassment and discrimination.

Last Wednesday, the law firm of Vladeck, Raskin & Clark requested a meeting with Judge Robert Lehrburger to discuss why the parties have “reached an impasse” in their efforts to resolve “certain discovery disputes.”

Repeated claims of “pariah” treatment

The letter recalls 2016 claims that agency leadership began retaliating against Johnson as soon as she returned to work after filing suit against the holding company, the agency and now-former CEO Martinez by subjecting her to “humiliating treatment,” pressuring her to resign and turning her into a “pariah” by assigning most of her previous duties to O’Donnell. The latter employee joined the agency several months after news of the suit went live.

According to the latest filing, O’Donnell told CEO Tamara Ingraham and others last November that she planned to resign … but they withheld that information from Johnson.

WPP has in turn refused to share related documents, arguing that “they are not obligated to produce information” beyond a cutoff date that Johnson’s lawyers say is irrelevant to this particular set of communications.

The legal team says it’s only interested in “documents concerning a single recent development: O’Donnell’s departure and defendants’ efforts to find someone to perform some or all of her duties.” Why? Because “such materials could reflect further retaliation; documents may show that defendants failed to consider plaintiff to assume what previously had been her duties.”

The letter goes on to claim that, in December 2017, Johnson received a “handbook” outlining JWT’s communications department and its responsibilities. She had reportedly never seen this book at the time even though it was more than a year old—and while it listed O’Donnell as head of communications, it did not include Johnson’s name or position.

“The failure to identify plaintiff is evidence that defendants retaliated by removing her from her job,” the letter reads. JWT has claimed that it never produced any such memo because no draft can be located in its electronic records. But Johnson’s lawyers argue that this is simply a delay tactic, writing, “Defendants’ production obligations, however, are not limited to electronic searches.”

Additionally, Johnson’s lawyers demand notes from sessions that resulted from WPP hiring lawyer Merrick Rossein to provide Gustavo Martinez with “equal employment training” after the lawsuit was filed. While they’ve provided Rossein’s conclusions, they argue the notes themselves are privileged.

“That argument is nonsensical,” the letter reads, asserting that these training sessions were largely intended to bolster WPP’s argument that Martinez cannot be held accountable for his own confirmed or alleged harassment and discriminatory behavior due to “purported language problems and cultural differences.” Their argument holds that the defendants must, as such, be required to produce all relevant notes.

Seeking more info on Martinez’s role

Finally, the lawyers state that WPP is trying to minimize the fact that Martinez still works for the company in an executive role by “improperly refus[ing] to run searches using approximately 11 terms intended to locate documents regarding Martinez’s current work for WPP.” WPP claims that this information is irrelevant to the case at hand.

“Documents concerning Martinez’s current work for WPP may show that corporate defendants treated Martinez more favorably even though he harassed plaintiff,” the letter reads in countering their position. “Indeed, corporate defendants may have appointed Martinez head of Spain for WPP.”

It is undeniably true that the holding group has repeatedly refused to discuss Martinez’s current role.

Last October, he made a public appearance at a Barcelona WPP-sponsored event and stated that he would be managing efforts to reorganize the company’s presence in Spain. At the time, this news seemed to contradict his lawyers’ claims that he had only been working for WPP on an “ad hoc” basis thanks to a deal negotiated with Martin Sorrell when the lawsuit was first filed.

The letter written last week notes that Martinez “has received and/or sent 47,000 emails since moving to WPP around the Fall 2016” and that “there have been several articles reporting that Martinez is Country Head of Spain.”

Sounds like a pretty sweet gig.

14052: Job Insecurity In Adland.

The recent AgencySpy postings depicted above show the state of job security in adland. At 3:31 pm, the blog noted TBWA\Chiat\Day New York welcomed a new Head of Integrated Production. About two hours later, it was announced that the White advertising agency cut staffers. These days, updating agency org charts and employee directories warrants a full-time employee.

14051: Holi Shit.

Ogilvy in India celebrates Holi with color commentary on sexual harassment and sexual assault…?

14050: 180LA 360BS.

Adweek reported 180LA is undergoing a 360° internal investigation on “workplace conduct and the company culture.” It’s probably a divertsity witch hunt, rooting out more bad behavior directed at White women—versus exposing any cultural cluelessness that results in racist advertising. Gee, it’s so shocking to imagine inappropriate and offensive misdeeds might be happening at Omnicom, a corporation led by a Pioneer of Diversity and SVP Chief Diversity Officer.

Agency 180LA Launches an Officewide ‘Workplace Conduct’ Investigation

Omnicom shop says it is reviewing its company culture

By Patrick Coffee

A spokesperson for the Omnicom-owned agency network 180 confirmed today that the company recently launched an internal investigation into employee behavior at its Los Angeles office.

“180 is conducting an investigation into workplace conduct and the company culture,” the representative told Adweek. “It is ongoing, and we will act accordingly once we have concluded the investigation.”

The statement continued: “We are committed to ensuring a working environment that is inclusive, safe and respectful, and where we treat each other, clients and suppliers with dignity and respect. At this time we are unable to comment further.”

This comes during a transitional period for 180LA, which has been through a series of leadership changes and major account losses over the past 18 months. The agency was forced to downsize after clients such as Asics, Mitsubishi, Miller Lite and Expedia moved their business elsewhere, but multiple parties with direct knowledge of the situation told Adweek the investigation is a separate matter.

180LA won several Cannes Lions last summer for its Boost Mobile work, and it continues to pitch new business and produce campaigns for clients like University of Phoenix, Lululemon and Postmates.

Earlier this month, 180 confirmed that it would soon part ways with global CEO Mike Allen. He will be replaced by Al Moseley, who managed 180 Amsterdam before moving to Los Angeles and being promoted to global president late last year.

Allen’s exit follows those of global chief strategy officer and managing partner Mike Harris, chief creative officer William Gelner and co-executive creative director Rafael Rizuto, an exodus that began in late 2016 when the global Asics account went into review.

And this month, 180LA laid off a small number of employees including its head of creative services. A representative said the layoffs were tied to Expedia’s decision to consolidate global advertising work with Saatchi & Saatchi after a review.

14049: Annie’s Time Of The Month.

Two new commercials starring Annie the Chicken Queen perfectly bridge Black History Month and Women’s History Month.

14048: Declaring Divertsity.

Adweek reported The Martin Agency presented its new executive committee, adding more White women to the group. How appropriate that the White advertising agency waited until Women’s History Month—and after Black History Month—to announce the divertsity revolution. “I’m proud of this news,” gushed CEO Kristen Cavallo. “But we’re not done. Not by a long shot. We’re not diverse enough. We see it. We’re on it.” Um, anyone who views the fresh committee (pictured above) can see it. And given that the late Mike Hughes already admitted, “We’ve done a pretty poor job on diversity as an industry and we’ve got to do better,” Cavallo’s comment about being “on it” is complete bullshit. At this point, Cavallo displays less believability than Joe Isuzu and less integrity than Joe Alexander.

The Martin Agency Doubles Number of Women on Its Executive Committee as President Departs

Beth Rilee-Kelley spent 35 years with the agency

By Lindsay Rittenhouse

Today The Martin Agency unveiled a new, more inclusive executive committee with twice as many female representatives as before. Four out of the nine members on the committee are women, and the agency also boasts a 50/50 male-to-female officer ratio.

A spokesperson also confirmed that president and 35-year veteran Beth Rilee-Kelley has left the agency but declined to elaborate.

“Gender discrimination isn’t an HR issue. It’s a cultural issue,” said CEO Kristen Cavallo in a statement. “And the fastest way to change a culture is to level the playing field in leadership.”

Cavallo became the agency’s first female CEO in December, just two weeks after longtime CCO Joe Alexander departed amid reports of sexual harassment allegations made against him.

At the time, Cavallo said, “obviously, there is a need for a new direction,” and promised to increase diversity and improve culture at the creative shop best known for its Geico ads.

“I’m proud of this news,” Cavallo noted today, “but we’re not done. Not by a long shot. We’re not diverse enough. We see it. We’re on it.”

Chief among the promotions announced today is the elevation of Carmina Drummond, previously senior vice president and managing director of Agency Operations. Drummond will now assume the new role of chief culture officer, responsible for leading diversity and inclusion, learning and development and employee satisfaction initiatives.

Drummond joins the executive committee as its fourth female leader alongside Cavallo, CCO Karen Costello (who replaced Alexander in January) and CFO Janet White. The other five executives sitting on the nine-member committee are men.

The Martin Agency also announced the promotion of managing director Chris Mumford to the role of president. His main focus in the role will be to coordinate IPG integrated service offerings for clients, like Geico, accessing disciplines across the agency network.

Specifics regarding the departure of Rilee-Kelley, who ran the agency’s human resources department before being promoted, are unclear at this time.

Additionally, Steve Humble was elevated to COO from managing director of integrated content production and development, and Jerry Hoak was promoted to executive creative director and managing director.

Chief strategy officer Michael Chapman and CMO Chris Shumaker fill out the committee.

In early December, the week after The Martin Agency parted ways with Alexander, Adweek published a story featuring testimony from 11 individuals who previously worked directly with the ousted CCO. They summarized a pattern of alleged misbehavior, spanning nearly two decades and also shed light on a monetary settlement reached with a former employee who accused Alexander of sexual harassment in 2013.

14047: Droga5% Reduction.

Advertising Age reported Droga5 dumped 5% of its New York workforce, including several HR staffers. Wonder if the HR wonks were quietly released as a result of the internal investigation by an outside firm versus reductions in billings. The scenario also shows why the advertising industry struggles to recruit and retain talent. After all, even at the allegedly successful White advertising agencies, you can witness someone get fired after an internal investigation or when a mattress company cuts its marketing budget—and the innocent usually lose their jobs quicker than the sexual predators.

Droga5 Lays Off 5 Percent of New York Staff

By Lindsay Stein

Droga5 has laid off about 5 percent, which is approximately 40 people, in its New York office.

The layoffs were across all major departments at the agency, including several people in HR. Droga5 declined to comment on specifics around the job cuts.

“Droga5 has made the difficult decision to reduce its workforce in New York by approximately 5 percent in order to reshape the business in line with current business demands,” an agency spokeswoman said in a statement. “We express our gratitude to the affected employees for their many contributions to Droga5.”

According to people with knowledge of the matter, two Droga5 clients — Tencent and Mattress Firm — have significantly reduced their scope of work with the agency recently. Droga began working with both companies in the middle of last year.

Mattress Firm did not respond to calls for comment. Tencent was not immediately available for comment.

The staff reduction also follows Droga5 parting ways with Chief Creative Officer Ted Royer after putting him on leave and hiring an outside firm to handle an internal investigation in the shop’s HR processes earlier this month. In late January, Droga held meetings throughout the agency to discuss HR matters.

14046: BHM Fades To Black.

As another Black History Month draws to a close, it’s hard to ignore how the event underscores and symbolizes divertsity in the advertising industry. That is, the majority of work displayed over the past 28 days was contrived, clichéd and created with crumbs. On the flip side, March is Women’s History Month, and it’s a safe bet that advertisers and White advertising agencies will go all out to celebrate—even while battling sexual harassment charges.

14045: BHM 2018—Omnicom.

Omnicom—yes, Omnicom—celebrates BHM by saluting its SVP CDO for making the Ebony Power 100. The advertisement looks like less than 100 minutes of work from the mount room crew.

14044: Divertsity Diet.

Advertising Age reported on Diet Madison Avenue, an anonymous Instagram account attacking men in advertising who allegedly engage in sexual harassment. It appears to be another example of the power of divertsity, showing how the gender equality movement in adland has gone from revolutionary to radical. The White women’s bandwagon is now a stealth bomber. Why, even Ad Age relaxed its journalistic standards—which used to oppose anonymity from sources—by “interviewing” Diet Madison Avenue creators and accepting anonymous comments from industry executives. Plus, while advertising citizens vehemently protested entities like the original AgencySpy, the critiques for Diet Madison Avenue are posed more as concerns versus complaints. The always self-promotional Kat Gordon declared, “One of two things is happening. Either Diet Madison Avenue knows who the offenders are before agencies do, suggesting a culture-of-fear problem, or agencies know before Diet Madison Avenue and do nothing.” Such black-and-white thinking displays ignorance about sexual harassment and discrimination. After all, the JWT lawsuit starring Gustavo Martinez and Erin Johnson proves it ain’t easy to prove bad behavior has occurred. Playing judge, jury and executioner via social media can be fun and entertaining, but knowing it’s coming from advertising wonks that probably have plenty of skeletons in their own culturally-clueless closets is disturbing.

Inside ‘Diet Madison Avenue’: The Anonymous Instagrammers Who Get Nasty in the Fight Against Alleged Predators

By Lindsay Stein

“Next up…”

With those words, the anonymous Instagram account that’s been taking deadly aim at prominent men in the ad industry announces its next intended target. Since January, the account, “Diet Madison Avenue,” has been naming and shaming industry execs it says have engaged in sexual harassment. In the past month, it’s become a twisted parlor game within the industry: Who’s next?

Well, we know who was last: Droga5 chief creative officer Ted Royer, who was let go Thursday, and who was one of three executives named in the account who became the subjects of internal investigations within those agencies, and have since left their jobs.

The others: Martin Agency Chief Creative Officer Joe Alexander and former Wieden & Kennedy London chief strategy officer Paul Colman.

Diet Madison Avenue’s tactics can come off as threatening and crude: It uses graphic language (calling some people “pricks”) and even addressed the wife of one target directly. But the people behind the site, who communicated with Ad Age via Instagram Messenger to keep their anonymity, point out the page is private. And they have posted several times in Stories that it’s not a gossip page—it researches everything it publishes with multiple sources, they say. They also say they collaborate with lawyers, PhD students and professors.

As for the tone of the account, “advertising is snarky and not always palatable” and “plenty of snark and cursing goes on at work,” the people behind it said by Messenger. “We understand that some support us and some don’t. We have always understood that we are one small spoke in a larger wheel of this broader movement.”

The account isn’t afraid to get rough: It called Alexander an “asshole”; it has tweeted at senior leaders asking why they are hiring and promoting sexual predators; it wrote “GTFO” when Colman was let go and tacked on hashtags including #fired #serialpredator. It address agencies by name with “we’re watching you”; it posts emails by victims detailing alleged harassment with names blanked out.

The group is run by a “collective” of 17 men and women who all have various day jobs in advertising, with additional assistance from 42 people on content creation, copy-writing design strategy and website and community management, according to the account. It now has 7,500 followers and counting, they say.

It has also generated a great deal of conflicting emotions in the industry, with many critical of its tactics but appreciative of its mission. If nothing else, it has everybody talking.

Many of those outside of Diet Madison Avenue interviewed for this story asked not to be identified for one of two reasons: They don’t want their words to be taken out of context, or they fear retaliation from the group, which regularly updates its Instagram stories and names not only alleged sexual harassers but people they believe to be complicit, such as HR professionals and other agency executives.

“It’s hard to ignore, but it’s also been hard to embrace,” says one female agency executive of the site. “It’s true that Diet Madison Avenue is creating important dialog around putting an end to sexual harassment and inequality in the workplace. But unfortunately many of us have felt that its tone doesn’t match the sobriety of this topic.”

The group says it gets its information from women who have been harassed in the industry and that the stories it publishes have been “diligently” vetted. They told Ad Age that they make sure to “corroborate and verify the stories of individuals coming forward.”

And they argue that they must operate covertly to protect informants: “Many of them have shared their story with us because we are anonymous and they are trusting us, and we are safeguarding them and their story.”

Attackers anonymous

It’s that anonymity that some feel is doing more harm than good, keeping the accused from confronting their accusers. And then there are those who say their biggest fear is seeing the name of a colleague, friend, boss or mentor pop up in one of the posts for alleged inappropriate behavior.

One agency CEO told Ad Age that the “mere existence of Diet Madison Avenue speaks to the very real issue of sexual harassment. But anonymous attacks with unknown evidence can yield stray bullets that hit innocent people. And once an accusation is launched, no matter what a court may or may not find, it’s game over for that person’s reputation.”

“One of two things is happening,” says Kat Gordon, CEO of The 3% Movement, which aims to bring more diversity to the creativity ranks. “Either Diet Madison Avenue knows who the offenders are before agencies do, suggesting a culture-of-fear problem, or agencies know before Diet Madison Avenue and do nothing.”

All of the agencies the organization has surveyed in its benchmarking survey, says Gordon, had zero-tolerance sexual harassment policies. Clearly, safe reporting and clear consequences are lacking in the industry, she says, and the bigger culture problem needs to be fixed.

“It’s getting people to talk and I think that’s great,” a consultant who wished to remain anonymous tells Ad Age. “They’ve obviously put a lot of pressure on the industry. I don’t think the situation at Droga would’ve happened without them.”

Badger & Winters Chief Creative Officer Madonna Badger, who launched the #WomenNotObjects initiative in 2016, says she believes Diet Madison Avenue is harnessing the power of social media to create change.

“Transparency and candor are crucial pillars of a free and equal world, so no one who is innocent has anything to fear,” she says. “The people who are harassing women and men must be called out in a public forum. Otherwise, how will this behavior end?”

However, Badger does question the lack of transparency on Diet Madison Avenue: “They provide no link to their process. I would like to know their standards.”

Another industry leader who, asking without irony to also remain anonymous, says “the kitschy branding, heavy reliance on anonymous sources, and of course its medium of choice, Instagram Stories, makes this effort feel a lot more In Touch than Washington Post. [There’s] an integrity and a code of ethics lacking that people need in the news now more than ever.”

Another female agency leader called Diet Madison Avenue a “slippery slope,” saying just because someone’s name turns up on the list doesn’t automatically mean they’re guilty. “There’s the risk of witch-hunting,” she says.

Diet Madison Avenue resists that narrative, saying it doesn’t see itself as any different than anonymous advertising networking app Fishbowl, or Twitter or YouTube, where people write comments without using their names.

“When we push against that status quo, we recognize that the status quo will push back,” they said, adding that the industry should make it so that the need for Diet Madison Avenue is irrelevant.

“Create better industry standards, get every agency to sign on to it, put money into it and enforce it.”

Jesse Brody, a partner at Manatt, Phelps and Phillips in the advertising, marketing and media practice, tells Ad Age that it’s not easy for someone to sue for defamation, libel or slander, especially if he or she is a limited-issue public figure such as a known name in advertising. However, Brody says a defamation suit could still be filed against the account if the facts turn out not to be true.

Representatives from Instagram were not immediately available for comment about whether the account is breaking any of its rules.

In the meantime, the account runs on. One female agency exec who has been leery of the site says she doesn’t think anyone wants the account to be shut down, and says she knows people are rooting for it to find its way.

“That just might mean hitting reset, focusing and being even more clear about its methods and intentions,” she says.

Controversy aside, says the group, “disagree with us, be annoyed with us, but talk to each other. … The awareness it’s bringing to this issue is the most important [part].”

14043: BHM 2018—AT&T, Part 2.

Came across the promotional message above, apparently sponsored by AT&T as part of its 28 Days extravaganza. What’s next, Milana Vayntrub leading a Black Lives Matter rally?