This actual job listing seeks a partner for an executive search firm specializing in DEIBA+ candidates.
The base salary is $175k; plus, incentives could escalate income to greater than $750k annually.
Given the current anti-DEIBA+ vibe—especially in the US—it seems like a dead-end role. Yet the posting quickly lured over 100 Human Heat Shield applicants.
Probably lots of former Chief Diversity Officers from White advertising agencies.
Advertising Age published a perspective on pitch decision-makers that opined CMOs are no longer running the review.
The person with the final vote includes Chief Financial Officer, Chief Technology Officer, and/or AI Chief. That’s too many chiefs with not enough Indigenous people, to twist an outdated phrase. Or too many kooks in the kitchen, to twist another phrase.
The author’s closing thought: “The agencies that win the next generation of AOR relationships won’t necessarily have the flashiest creative reel. They’ll be the ones who understood how the buying committee changed and showed up ready to meet every person in that room on their own terms.”
That’s a lot of asses to kiss—an exclusive club of clients to wine, dine, and pine over.
Not a stakeholder with hiring authority: Chief Diversity Officer.
The AOR review has left the CMO’s office
By Robyn Freye
In our last four pitches, the person truly running the room wasn’t a chief marketing officer. That’s new.
Throughout my career, I’ve had a front row seat to hundreds of agency pitches—from the vantage point of an agency leader, holding company chief growth officer and as a search consultant. For years, the participant list looked the same: a brand’s CMO, VPs of marketing, and a procurement lead who showed up at the end to negotiate terms.
As AI accelerates, that list has gotten a lot longer. The C-suite decision tree is rapidly expanding, to the point where marketing leaders are often not even the stakeholders leading the review.
In our pitches, we’ve engaged with chief financial officers asking about ROI and unit economics; chief technology officers asking about data architecture and model access; chief experience officers asking about loyalty and CRM; and increasingly, AI chiefs or center of excellence leaders asking questions no one on the agency side has a slide for. The marketing brief hasn’t disappeared, but it’s no longer the only scorecard agencies are being vetted against.
Tech and finance leaders are increasingly guiding the conversation
We are seeing three things converge at once.
Budgets tightened, and every function attached to spend now answers to finance earlier in the process, not after a recommendation is made. CFOs are piling into budget conversations sooner, rapidly followed by procurement and ops leads.
Agencies used to negotiate with marketing and settle commercial terms with procurement afterward. Now those conversations run in parallel, often before there’s even a brief to respond to.
AI turned the agency relationship into a technical one. Clients aren’t just asking: Can you build the campaign? They’re asking what happens to their data inside an agency’s stack, which models are being used, and who owns the output?
In one recent review, a CTO stopped the pitch mid-presentation to ask exactly where client data goes once it enters our AI workflows. Not as a gotcha, but because it was a genuine gap in what had been disclosed. That’s not a CMO’s question, and it’s not going away as AI gets more embedded into agency work.
Growth and marketing are board-level language now. Accountability for ROI is climbing every rung of the corporate ladder, which means more of the C-suite is getting in the room for the pitch, not reviewing it after the fact.
Agencies must put more skin in the game
Most agencies still build their pitch teams for a CMO audience. But a brilliant strategic idea, delivered by a strategist, a creative and a media lead, doesn’t answer a CFO’s question about cost-to-serve, and it definitely doesn’t answer a CTO’s question about where client data lives once it enters your systems. If those questions get asked and nobody credible in the room can respond, the review stalls right there, no matter how strong the campaign idea is.
This isn’t about padding the pitch team for theater. It’s about building literacy in margin, resourcing models, and ROI methodology, and bringing in technical experts who can speak plainly about security, data governance and how AI is actually being used inside your workflows.
Clients aren’t asking for a bigger show or another slide. They’re asking for someone in the room who can answer their actual business challenges.
The next generation of agency leaders won’t just be strategists and creatives who learned to talk numbers. Pitch teams will become commercially and technically fluent by design, as comfortable defending a margin structure or a data architecture as they are defending a creative concept. Agencies that are still hiring and promoting for one skill set are going to find themselves outnumbered in their own pitch room.
The modern AOR relationship is evolving
The buying committee has changed, and the agency model has to change with it. That’s why independent agencies are punching above their weight to win bigger assignments and credibly competing with holding companies and management consultancies.
They were built to adapt to this moment. When media, data, commerce, and creative sit inside one collective, there’s someone at the table who can actually own the answer when the CFO asks how spend maps to outcomes, or when the CTO asks how the data model works across disciplines. The answer can’t be “let me get back to you.”
There’s a harder version of this problem that nobody in the room is talking about yet: procurement processes move at the speed of contracts, and AI capability moves at the speed of deployment. The agency a brand selects today based on their current AI stack may look materially different in 12 months— tools change, models change, governance practices are still being written. Brands that are serious about this should be building flexibility into AOR agreements, like capability review triggers, structured check-ins tied to AI roadmap updates, and commercial terms that can flex as the relationship evolves.
The agencies that offer that language proactively will stand out. The ones that don’t will find it asked of them anyway.
The real shift isn’t that reviews got more crowded. It’s that the questions being asked have outgrown what a typical pitch team can credibly answer, and clients know it. They’re adding seats at the table because the risk of getting marketing, technology, and cost wrong is now something every member of the C-suite is personally accountable for. When a brand picks the wrong agency, it’s no longer just a marketing problem. It’s a balance sheet problem. It’s a Board conversation.
The agencies that win the next generation of AOR relationships won’t necessarily have the flashiest creative reel. They’ll be the ones who understood how the buying committee changed and showed up ready to meet every person in that room on their own terms.
Advertising Age reported Gilead Sciences awarded its US media account to White holding company Publicis Groupe following a review that featured incumbent White holding company Omnicom—which had acquired the business along with now erased White holding company IPG.
The Big Pharma deal should include disclaimers about serious side effects—as dedicated-yet-dispensable drones at multiple White holding companies, White advertising agencies, and White media firms likely lost their livelihoods.
Publicis wins Gilead Sciences US media account
By Brian Bonilla
Pharma giant Gilead Sciences has awarded Publicis its U.S. media account following a review that began earlier this year, according to multiple people close to the situation. The account had been with Interpublic Group of Cos. before Omnicom acquired the holding company.
Publicis and Omnicom declined to comment.
“We regularly review and evolve our external agency partnerships as part of our regular business practices,” a Gilead spokesperson wrote in a statement to Ad Age.
Gilead’s worldwide advertising and promotional costs totaled $1 billion in 2025, up from $869 million in 2024 and $826 million in 2023, according to its most recent annual filing. The company does not break out U.S. spending. Gilead’s U.S. media spending increased to $344 million in 2025 from $285 million in 2024, according to COMvergence.
Gilead Sciences’ second-quarter revenue rose 10% to $7.8 billion, the company reported earlier this month, driven largely by continued growth in its HIV portfolio. One of its fastest-growing products is its twice-yearly HIV-prevention injection called Yeztugo. Launched last year, its sales grew 40% in the second quarter versus the first quarter; Gilead expects the drug to reach $1 billion in full-year sales by the end of 2026.
The Gilead Sciences win concludes one of several large pharmaceutical media reviews undertaken this year. Novo Nordisk recently appointed Omnicom to its U.S. media business, while Bristol Myers Squibb is still in review.
Advertising Age reported PepsiCo is staging a global review for AI marketing transformation with competitors including Omnicom, Publicis Groupe, Accenture, and Deloitte.
Given Publicis Groupe is pitching for Coca-Cola business, why are they in the review? Back in the day of Cola Wars, The Coca-Cola Company would’ve axed the France-based enterprise upon hearing the White holding company was even thinking about drinking a Pepsi, let alone angling for the rival’s business.
Given Omnicom enjoys a long history with PepsiCo—often nabbing more beverage business via Corporate Cultural Collusion—it’s a wonder the White holding company hasn’t already declared victory.
And WTF does “AI marketing transformation” mean? In this case, probably Anglo Insular marketing transformation.
PepsiCo is conducting an AI marketing transformation review
By Ewan Larkin, Brian Bonilla, and Jon Springer
PepsiCo is running a global review focused on AI marketing transformation, with a mix of high-profile agency groups and consultancies pitching for the assignment, Ad Age has learned.
The review, described by people with knowledge of the technology and platform pitch, focuses on building PepsiCo’s AI capabilities and using technology to make its internal and external marketing operations more effective and efficient.
Among those invited to pitch were Omnicom, which has a long history with PepsiCo; Accenture; Deloitte; and Publicis Groupe, whose Sapient unit is said to be competing for the business, according to people familiar with the matter.
Publicis is currently pitching for Coca-Cola Co.’s global media, data and technology business against fellow incumbent WPP, with a decision expected in the fall.
PepsiCo declined to comment on the review and the participating agencies. Omnicom and Accenture also declined to comment. Publicis and Deloitte could not be immediately reached for comment.
PepsiCo’s tech ambitions
PepsiCo has been laying the groundwork to accelerate use of technology across its business, telling investors that years of investment in data, cloud and other systems had positioned it to step up those efforts.
“We’ve been investing for five years. Our data is in the place that it needs to be. We have the backbone. We have cloud,” Ramon Laguarta, PepsiCo’s CEO, told analysts at the Consumer Analyst Group of New York conference in February.
Among the company’s priorities are automating customer ordering and demand forecasting and using virtual models to improve factories and supply-chain operations, Laguarta said. On the marketing side, Laguarta said PepsiCo is using technology to improve consumer insights, create content and personalize communications.
PepsiCo reported mixed fiscal second-quarter results in July, with international strength offset by weaker-than-expected performance in North America.
Mediapost also reported on a new filing in the WPP whistleblower lawsuit.
The Mediapost report includes a standard vehement denial from WPP that states: “This amended complaint, filed just prior to the hearing, is an attempt to avoid its dismissal. Both complaints are baseless and without merit, and WPP will be re-filing an updated motion to dismiss. We have confidence that this matter will be resolved through due legal process.”
Can’t help but wonder how the outcome might impact Eviscerate 28. The Roserrection continues to constantly evolve—maybe WPP should be renamed WIP (Worsening In Progress).
WPP Whistleblower Amends Complaint, Says Sony Probe Backs His Claims
By Steve McClellan
Last November former GroupM executive Richard Foster filed suit against the company, alleging he had been wrongfully terminated for exposing what he said was an unlawful rebate scheme whereby the company was secretly pocketing millions in rebates that belonged to clients.
Now Foster has filed an amended complaint that details a separate investigation by one of those clients—Sony Pictures. According to Foster that probe found that in 2023 in China and likely elsewhere, GroupM (now known as WPP Media) illicitly pocketed rebates belonging to clients. In the case of China, approximately $110 million was passed to the Clients, while $350 million was wrongfully retained by WPP.
That probe followed an investigation by Chinese authorities that began in 2023 that alleged “rebate mismanagement” by several GroupM China employees.
That Chinese government probe culminated last month when Di Fei, the former chief investment officer at the China operations of WPP Media received a life sentence after being convicted earlier this year for his part in a bribery/kickback scandal stemming from that probe. Several other employees were also convicted and received lighter sentences. Fei is said to be appealing and WPP stressed that the company itself was not a party to the investigation and had cooperated fully throughout it.
The separate probe by Sony as detailed in the amended Foster complaint alleges that the rebates pocketed by WPP were hidden as part of an elaborate scheme that mixed principal trading funds with a rebate pool which were then sold back to clients.
“Sony representatives identified Proprietary Media (referred to as “PM/Programmatic”) as a primary mechanism for Rebate distribution, wherein the purported ‘discount’ WPP offers Clients on Inventory is manipulated: WPP pays a fraction of the out-of-pocket cost to acquire the Inventory, subsidizes the remaining balance using funds from the Rebate pool, and pockets the resulting margin as near pure profit shielded from audits,” states Foster’s amended complaint.
The complaint adds, “Although deployed in China, the scheme proliferated across other markets, serving as a lever to artificially inflate earnings at WPP.”
According to Foster, “Sony supported its findings with contractual language regarding Rebate policies, transaction-level financial reporting, internal emails regarding Rebate amounts, and documentation of WPP tracking systems. This evidence demonstrates how WPP was able to retain the Rebate pool funds and distribute to WPP through these various mechanisms.”
Foster’s complaint also asserts that “When Sony presented evidence that the 80% discounts offered on media are funded with the money from unpublished, ‘black box’ Rebates, the WPP representatives said they had no answer to give them, because they did not want to ‘know the answer.’”
The complaint alleges that executives within the company agreed with Foster that GroupM/WPP Media’s rebate policies were in some cases illegal and unsustainable. Those executives, per the complaint included Nicola McCormick, general counsel at WPP who previously was general counsel at GroupM. “When Foster asked McCormick directly about the risk posed by GroupM Trading’s Rebate practices, she characterized it as ‘existential,’ Foster’s amended complaint states.
The amended complaint in New York State Supreme Court, comes shortly before a hearing is scheduled on WPP's motion to dismiss the case. Foster is seeking $100 million in damages.
A WPP spokesperson issued a statement: “This amended complaint, filed just prior to the hearing, is an attempt to avoid its dismissal. Both complaints are baseless and without merit, and WPP will be re-filing an updated motion to dismiss. We have confidence that this matter will be resolved through due legal process.”
Business Insider and Adweek reported on a new filing in the WPP whistleblower lawsuit.
The filing alleges Sony—a major client of the single White operating company—conducted an independent investigation and presented the findings to WPP in 2025.
The analysis from Sony stated WPP operated a “global crime scheme” across numerous markets, including China—where the former head of WPP’s media operation in the country received a life imprisonment sentence for media-related improprieties, and two other executives were also hit with stiff sentences.
Such allegations continue to counter WPP CEO Cindy Rose’s proclamations of the corporation being a trusted growth partner for brands.
Busted growth partner appears to be a more appropriate term.
Mediapsssst reported a Louisiana-based White advertising agency created a $50k scholarship, supplemented by additional financial assistance, for students at the LSU Manship School of Mass Communications.
It’s another sign that DEIBA+ is DOA in Adland when White ad agencies deliver performative PR hyping scholarships for White students.
By Richard Whitman
Baton Rouge, LA-based full-service marketing agency DAA Media + Marketing is marking its 50th anniversary in 2026 and as part of a year-long celebration has announced it is underwriting a $50,000 advertising scholarship to the Louisiana State University Manship School of Mass Communication.
Scholarships will be distributed by LSU in $10,000 yearly increments over five years.
The first selected students will be awarded this fall. Criteria for selected students will be determined by the university.
“DAA has been a valued partner of the Manship School for many years, and this generous investment reflects our shared commitment to preparing the next generation of communication leaders,” said Manship School Dean Kim Bissell.
The scholarship commitment to LSU builds on DAA’s yearlong 50th Anniversary initiative to give back to the organizations and communities that have helped shape the agency’s success over the past five decades.
The agency has pledged an additional $50,000 throughout 2026 through a combination of financial and in-kind contributions. It is also continuing to invest in the next generation of industry leaders through mentorship, career opportunities, and initiatives like the DAA Emerging Leaders Laptop Giveaway, which will award Apple MacBooks to five students pursuing degrees in advertising, marketing, graphic design, or communications.
“Reaching this 50-year milestone as a company has given us the opportunity to reflect on our five decades in business and on the relationships that we have had the privilege to build throughout the years,” said DAA CEO Nancy Steiner. “That, along with our passion for mentorship, and creating the unique opportunities that our young professionals in our field need to get ahead is something that collectively fuels us as a team and as a company.”
