17593: On Zapping Callaway And Good Good Golf.

Adweek published more seemingly self-promotional schadenfreude from the Chief Marketing Officer of Zappi, who threw her sanctimonious soapbox at Callaway and Good Good Golf for their misogynistic marketing.

The author made one semi-insightful point: “The problem is that the infrastructure hasn’t kept up. Brands are producing more content, across more platforms, with more partners, for more audiences. The old model of heavily researching a few major campaigns wasn’t built for hundreds of smaller decisions.”

This is followed by shameless self-promotion, as the CMO presents Zappi AI services as capable of screening content quickly and efficiently.

There are key flaws in the proposal.

First, the old model never heavily researched a few major campaigns—at least not through a culturally competent lens. Indeed, work was evaluated with an exclusive, predominately White perspective.

Second, AI has already been called out for its cultural cluelessness. The real problem in this area involves technology and algorithms created with an exclusive, predominately White perspective.

Third, the root problem—which Adland has absolutely failed to address for at least 75 years—is the global DEIBA+ issue. That is, White advertising agencies—and companies like Zappi—perpetuate an exclusive, predominately White perspective.

The problem is that the infrastructure is built on systemic racism.

Callaway and Good Good’s Ad Was So Bad, Even AI Audiences Sounded the Alarm

Callaway and Good Good are arguing about approval, but should be arguing about why no process existed to flag the video before it aired

By Nataly Kelly

You know the clip by now. Good Good co-founder Garrett Clark shoves fellow creator Alexis Miestowski to the ground as she reaches for his new Callaway driver. He stands over her and tells her not to touch it.

The ad is gone. So is the partnership. 

Retailers pulled Good Good merchandise, the company withdrew as title sponsor of a PGA Tour event, while Callaway pledged $1 million to organizations working to prevent violence against women in an effort to wash away the controversy. 

And the entire public argument is about approval. Callaway CEO Chip Brewer says the video was produced by Good Good but signed off by Callaway, and that “that approval should have never happened.” 

On Friday morning, Good Good CEO Matt Kendrick broke an 11-year Twitter silence at 3:38 a.m. to accuse Callaway of asking for the ad, approving it, then dropping his company in a “coordinated media blitz.” Asked whether he’d sue, he replied: “Not opposed.”

Both men are addressing the wrong questions. It’s not about who approved the ad; it’s how nobody and no process stopped it before it went live, when the tools to catch the warning signs cost less than the driver they’re selling. 

The story is much bigger than just one terrible ad

We’ve entered a dynamic where brands and creators need each other. Brands need creators to reach communities they can’t, while creators need to monetize their audiences.

That relationship comes with risk, as brands put decades or centuries of hard-earned equity into the hands of culturally nimble third parties, and ask them to translate it for new audiences. That’s inherently risky. It’s also increasingly necessary.

Creators aren’t the problem. The problem is that the infrastructure hasn’t kept up. Brands are producing more content, across more platforms, with more partners, for more audiences. The old model of heavily researching a few major campaigns wasn’t built for hundreds of smaller decisions.

An ad so bad even AI frowned upon it

The frustrating thing about the Good Good ad is that the warning signs weren’t particularly difficult to find. We tested the ad after it was pulled, first with U.S. consumers. It performed significantly below advertising norms on appeal, likelihood to drive behavior, brand fit, relevance, believability, and attention.

More telling was the reaction underneath those scores. Nearly one-third said there was something offensive, unpleasant, or disturbing about the ad. Shock was eight times higher than our norm. 

But let’s assume the Good Good and Callaway teams involved didn’t have the time, resources, or know-how to commission a traditional market research study for one piece of creator content. Fair enough. They at least could have tested the ad with AI.

So that’s what we did at Zappi. We ran the creative past 150 AI synthetic respondents trained on real consumer response data. We had answers back in just minutes. The ad received the lowest possible score (1/5) and even synthetic respondents could spot the warning signs about the content of the ad. Its recommendation, in hindsight, is almost unbearable to read: “Soften or clarify the physical moment so it reads as playful rather than awkward.”

Testing with humans allows you to feel the fire and know exactly how hot it was. But AI was a smoke detector that, if it had only been in place, would have told people to look more closely before the brand equity went down in flames.

Now, to be very clear, AI should never be the cultural arbiter deciding what’s acceptable, but when content moves faster than the infrastructure legacy brands have at their disposal, it can be an incredibly helpful early warning system that tells a human when something deserves a second look. 

What brand leaders should take from this

Who’s at fault here? Everybody involved. Who can learn from it? Marketers. Agencies. All of us.

Creator partnerships and the creator economy aren’t going away. Neither is the pressure to produce more content, faster, for increasingly fragmented audiences.

Brands need creators, and creators need brands. Both need better guardrails, frankly, to cover their own (brand) asse(t)s. 

For brands, those guardrails protect hard-earned equity. For creators, they protect the livelihood and audience they’ve spent years building. The lesson isn’t to slow creator marketing down until it resembles traditional advertising. It’s to build processes capable of moving just as fast as the media they’re meant to govern. And in this not-so-new reality, what the Callaway scandal makes clear is that AI already has an important role to play, but that many brands remain behind the curve.

17592: Labor Day 2026 In Adland.

 

In many ways, Labor Day 2026 in Adland isn’t much different than last year. Feel free to re-read the 2025 post.

Yet as AI continues to dominate the collective conversation and consciousness, the drama has accelerated along with a lack of empathy and surfeit of indifference.

Celebrating the social and economic achievements of American workers is tough while thousands are being terminated because of radical restructuring and global accounts shifting between a limited, exclusive pool of White holding companies—many of which are based abroad.

White holding companies and White advertising agencies seek to do more with less; that is, more outcomes-based remunerated work with less White people.

Enjoy the holiday.

17591: More Motion Sickness At WPP.

MediaPost reported on motion sickness at WPP, whereby the single White operating company filed more motions to dismiss the whistleblower lawsuit.

The latest filings presented two versions of the motion to dismiss: one version available to the public redacts all mentions of the alleged Sony Pictures investigation, and a second version not available to the public features no redacted material.

At this rate, any future actions will probably involve AI-generated motions.

Given WPP’s fascination with AI, it’s surprising legal duties haven’t been executed by the wondrous technology. WPP certainly has enough data from countless past lawsuits and court proceedings for creating the algorithms to make it happen.

WPP Files Motion To Dismiss Foster Case (You Can Read The Redacted Version)

By Steve McClellan

WPP has filed a motion to dismiss the wrongful termination case brought by former GroupM executive Richard Foster.  

The firm filed two versions of the motion including one that redacts all references to a previously undisclosed investigation by WPP client Sony that Foster brought to light in an amended complaint last month. That version is available to the public. A second version of the motion with no redacted material has been filed with the court but is not available to the public. 

Many of the points made by WPP in the latest motion have been argued by the firm in previous filings. For one, the firm argues that Foster is not a “whistleblower,” who was dismissed in retaliation, as he alleges. Instead, the firm argues he was one of many let go in a reduction in force event that occurred in 2025 and is seeking an outsized payout rarely offered to laid-off employees ($100 million). 

All direct references to the Sony probe are redacted in the latest filing. The motion indirectly refers to it as a set of allegations that are “incendiary...scandalous, prejudicial, and utterly irrelevant,” to Foster’s claims. In earlier filings WPP asked the court to seal all references to the Sony probe. It has also demanded that Foster reveal how he obtained the heretofore undisclosed investigation materials, suggesting that he and his legal team acquired them improperly. 

Foster alleges that Sony’s investigation concluded that WPP pocketed $350 million in rebates belonging to clients in China in 2024. He asserts that the probe supports his own case that he exposed rebate schemes at the company that were inappropriate, which he alleges was the main reason he was let go.  

“Richard Foster’s seventeen-year run at GroupM was marked by his constant self-promotion, often through opportunistic business proposals advocating for greater investment in his division, Motion Content Group (“Motion”), over larger and more profitable divisions of GroupM,” WPP states in its latest motion. 

“In the wake of his ignominious termination—the result of Defendants’ global restructuring and reduction in force (“RIF”)—Plaintiff tried to extract a seven-figure severance from Defendants by threatening to file a messy public lawsuit. Those efforts failed, and this case (the “Action”) is the result.” 

Foster’s amended complaint, WPP adds, “suffers the same inevitable defects as Plaintiff’s original pleading, recasting Plaintiff’s longstanding self-advocacy as “whistleblowing,” construing ordinary workplace disputes as retaliation, and failing to allege any causal connection between Plaintiff’s activities and his termination. Setting aside those shortcomings, the Amended Complaint further piles on sensational and irrelevant accusations [the Sony probe] based largely on information obtained after Plaintiff’s termination.” 

Foster also fails to plead “essential elements” required for a retaliation challenge under both New York and California laws, WPP stated.  

William A. Brewer III, partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors and lead counsel to Foster issued a response to WPP’s latest filing: 

“In the three weeks since Mr. Foster filed his Amended Complaint, WPP has filed a flurry of motions which portray a Defendant panicked by the strength of Mr. Foster’s allegations against them—which include findings of clients that support his claims.”  

Brewer added that, “Mr. Foster alleges that on multiple occasions, he reported through appropriate channels what he reasonably believed was a systemic problem in WPP’s trading practices—naming names and providing specific, detailed reports. He believes those reports led to retaliation against him. Mr. Foster remains confident that he will prevail.”

17590: On The Exclusive Privileges Of PepsiCo.

This LinkedIn post spotlights numerous Fortune 500 CEOs who leveraged PepsiCo experience to land C-suite roles.

The headline reads: This isn’t a coincidence. It’s a pattern

Okay, but the pattern looks like lots of White men and White women enjoyed advantages at PepsiCo, along with a handful who perhaps benefited from the groundbreaking success of former PepsiCo Chairman and CEO Indra Nooyi…?

17589: At Target, Black Beauty Is Nearly Invisible.

 

From Modern Retail at Digiday…

Target’s new beauty selection has almost no Black-owned brands

By Mitchell Parton

 

Target’s refreshed beauty assortment aims to promote emerging brands, but it includes very few from Black entrepreneurs.

Target Beauty Studio is set to launch Sept. 10 in more than 600 Target stores and on the company’s website. The new beauty selection replaces former Ulta Beauty shops within Target stores and will feature more than 1,600 products from 90 brands, largely brands new to Target.

Of the 90 brands listed as part of the new beauty assortment, Modern Retail could only identify two with Black owners or founders: hair-care brand Briogeo and Glamazon Beauty, a line of cosmetics. Otherwise, the selection appears to mostly include brands owned or founded by white or Asian entrepreneurs, with around a dozen Korean brands. More than two-thirds of the brands are new to Target.

The Beauty Studio doesn’t represent Target’s entire selection of beauty products, which may be found elsewhere in the store or online. Still, the lack of representation in the more curated assortment has raised questions from founders and outside consultants about Target’s desire to sell and promote products from Black-owned businesses. It remains unclear whether Target failed to recruit such brands to the program or if brands refused to take part in the new beauty initiative.

A Target spokesperson told Modern Retail that the collection was focused on beauty brands from around the world, pointing to Korean, Japanese, Mexican and French brands. Nearly 40% of the brands were founded by “diverse” founders, they said, but did not explain how they define that word. They added that offerings of Black-owned and -founded brands are comparable to its previous in-store experience, likely referring to the Ulta shops. The selection still does include products in a range of shades for different skin complexions.

“Getting back to growth starts with investing in the categories and experiences where Target is uniquely positioned to win, all through our distinctive combination of style, design and value,” a Target spokesperson said in a statement, adding that new brands and products will launch throughout the year.

The company also said it has helped to introduce and grow Black-owned brands through opportunities such as exclusive launches and programs designed to expand access to mass retail.

Modern Retail previously reported that Black entrepreneurs have described Target as a frustrating wholesale partner and that Black-owned brands once featured at Target have been removed from the retailer’s assortment without explanation. Some have voluntarily stopped working with Target because of the company’s handling of their brands’ inventory, lack of communication, or decision to end diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives last year.

Who still signed on

Former Goldman Sachs vp Nancy Twine started one of the two black-founded brands in Target Beauty Studio, Briogeo, in 2013. She was the youngest Black woman to launch a product line at Sephora, according to the brand’s website. In 2022, Twine sold the brand to Wella for nine figures, she told Forbes. Neither Briogeo nor Twine immediately responded to requests for comment.

The other brand, Glamazon Beauty, was founded and formulated by celebrity makeup artist Kim Baker in 2017. Baker remains the founder, CEO, creative director and majority owner, according to the company. Baker told Modern Retail in a statement that Target has proactively offered access to resources, marketing support and guidance to support the brand.

“Target has been a dream retailer for me for many years, and from the beginning of our partnership, I’ve felt seen, heard and supported,” she said. “We work with a diverse team that has been thoughtful about how Glamazon shows up and how we authentically serve women across shades and ethnicities.”

Baker also said her partners at Target have been receptive to ideas on using her platform to create visibility and opportunity for other entrepreneurs and minority-owned businesses. She added that she was not involved in determining the Beauty Studio assortment.

“I can only speak from my own experience, and I’m incredibly grateful for the partnership we’ve built with Target,” Baker said. “My focus now is on making the most of this opportunity, serving our customers exceptionally well and using Glamazon’s growing platform to help open doors wider for those coming behind us.”

Target revealed the details of the Beauty Studio just days after it pulled a children’s Halloween costume from its shelves Monday, following social media backlash and criticism that it was similar to racist Jim Crow-era minstrel caricatures. The company apologized in a statement: “The costume is offensive and should never have been part of our assortment,” the company said. “It is no longer available for sale.”

“When you don’t have diverse voices and, more importantly, diverse life experiences in a room, people don’t see the problems that are around the corner,” said Christy Pruitt-Haynes, a consultant and strategist with a background in human resources and DEI. “When you have a room full of executives who all have the same blind spots, that means you’re missing the potential problems that situations could present.”

Target last year concluded its three-year DEI goals, concluded its Racial Equity Action and Change initiatives, stopped all externally diversity-focused surveys such as the HRC’s Corporate Equality Index, and renamed its “supplier diversity” team to “supplier engagement.” Still, the company said it fulfilled its 2021 commitment this year to invest $2 billion in Black-owned businesses and that most of the new partners it brought in remain partners today.

Critics of Target’s DEI decision said it was an about-face from the company’s previous work to uplift Black-owned brands. The company had previously made public statements on racial equity and investing in scholarships, business consulting and sponsorships aimed to support marginalized groups, especially following the murder of George Floyd in Target’s hometown of Minneapolis.

In May, a Target representative told Modern Retail that the company still had hundreds of Black-owned brands on its shelves, double what it had in 2020, and that it has continued to partner with Black designers, creators and founders.

Potential solutions

Meanwhile, other retailers in 2020 and 2021 signed on to the Fifteen Percent Pledge, a nonprofit that calls on major retailers and corporations to commit 15% of their annual purchasing power to Black-owned businesses, as Black or mixed-race people make up about 15% of the U.S. population. This includes Ulta Beauty and Sephora, who have partnered with the organization on accelerator programs or grants for underrepresented founders as recently as this year.

“What we really want to look at when we look at these things is the percentage and how that compares to the percentage of the population at large,” said Lola Bakare, a CMO advisor, inclusive-marketing strategist and author of “Responsible Marketing.” Two of 90 brands being from Black founders would make up about 2% of the Beauty Studio assortment. “I think the average consumer might be glad there are two, but what we also know is that they can do so much better.”

Bakare said Target should consider the Fifteen Percent Pledge as a potential solution. “Let’s not have another apology,” she added. “You want to replicate what Sephora and Ulta are doing? Replicate them all the way and take the Fifteen Percent Pledge.”

Danyail Lawton, founder and CEO of consultancy BoldMoves — which specializes in public relations, reputation management and crisis management — and a former people operations manager for the U.S. Air Force, said Target’s new CEO, Michael Fiddelke, should have made a public announcement on DEI when he entered the role to avoid deterring consumers or brands any further. She said Target executives need to address the issue directly to move on from it.

Former Target CEO Brian Cornell wrote about uncertainty over Target’s values in an email to staff last year, but communications, marketing and leadership consultants said the message was vague and failed to reassure people about any continued commitment to underrepresented groups.

“The longer it goes without being addressed, the more challenging it is going to be to gain that momentum and credibility back,” Lawton said. “The longer it goes without being addressed, the more people are going to speculate and the more people are going to make their own narratives, and that’s what you want to avoid when you’re dealing with the public in the communications role.”

Pruitt-Haynes similarly said Target could win back brands by making a public statement about wanting them in its store. “That implies a level of support and consent,” she said. “They would start to see a return of their consumers, which would lead to more sales.”

17588: Useless Expert Analysis On PepsiCo Media Shift.

 

Advertising Age continued to examine PepsiCo shifting its global media business from Omnicom to Publicis Groupe via color commentary delivered by consultants, analysts, and industry experts.

What exactly qualifies someone to be labeled an industry expert? The ones who’ve worked in Adland are industry failures, no?

A closer look at the professional quips shows insights that could’ve been generated by AI—or any A-hole with minimal awareness of the field.

Appropriately enough, the identified consultants, analysts, and industry experts are White men.

What PepsiCo’s global media shift means for Omnicom

By Ewan Larkin

PepsiCo’s decision to move global media to Publicis Groupe—made without a formal pitch—diminishes one of the industry’s most durable client-agency relationships and takes some of the sheen off the new Omnicom.

Although significantly scaled back, Omnicom’s relationship with PepsiCo isn’t over; the holding company will continue to support creative, PR and sports marketing, the food and beverage company said. Still, Omnicom’s OMD has lost a top-three client with $1.7 billion in global spend last year, according to COMvergence, making it a significant financial loss. In the U.S. alone, OMD has roughly 130 people working on PepsiCo, Ad Age has learned.

Omnicom Media declined to comment on potential layoffs stemming from the account shift.

“PepsiCo had already become increasingly promiscuous on the creative side, regularly working outside Omnicom,” said a former PepsiCo executive speaking on condition of anonymity. “Omnicom tolerated those infidelities because media planning and buying was the far bigger prize. Now that prize is gone—and with it, a partnership that lasted decades.”

Of course, Omnicom could recoup that loss, and it has already notched wins with brands including Adidas, IBM, Subway and Novo Nordisk this year. In a statement, an Omnicom spokesperson called PepsiCo’s move “one client’s decision in a year in which Omnicom Media has built tremendous momentum as leading brands across multiple categories.”

“After an extraordinarily long and successful partnership, PepsiCo has decided to move its media business elsewhere. We are proud of the work we have done together over three decades as partners in innovation and impact,” the spokesperson stated. “Nothing about yesterday’s decision changes that.”

Ultimately, though, the blow extends beyond billings, experts said.

Omnicom’s relationship with PepsiCo has been an outlier in an industry known for client churn, and an especially rare one given the integrated nature and size of the account. As a result, the sudden shift will sting morale and perception just as much as its bottom line. Omnicom executives were officially informed about the media account move on Wednesday morning, according to people familiar with the matter.

“There’s some accounts that your business is built around. They’re almost part of the furniture,” said Brian Wieser, principal at advisory and consulting firm Madison and Wall. “Pepsi is one of those.”

“There can’t be very many billion-dollar-plus accounts that have this kind of tenure,” Wieser added.

PepsiCo is “a marquee account” for Omnicom, said Ruben Schreurs, CEO of media consultancy Ebiquity, comparing the PepsiCo shift to WPP’s loss of the Coca-Cola North America account to Publicis last year. “It was a very high-profile account, right? Every agency has only a few of those, and PepsiCo was absolutely one of those for Omnicom.”

While hardly a ringing endorsement of the deal, some industry experts stopped short of calling PepsiCo’s decision an indictment of Omnicom’s $8.9 billion acquisition of Interpublic Group of Cos. They said it was too anecdotal to draw any firm conclusions, especially considering that Publicis’ pursuit of the account may have predated the merger.

However, Jay Pattisall, VP and principal analyst at Forrester, said the shift is not a “strong vote of confidence in the integrated proposition Omnicom has been putting together” since acquiring IPG.

“What this suggests is the integration with [IPG data firm] Acxiom is still underway,” Pattisall said. “One particular client loss, although it’s a significant one in size, is not an indictment by any means of the strategy to acquire and integrate Acxiom, but it might suggest that it’s just not complete yet.”

In announcing its appointment of Publicis, PepsiCo emphasized the need to bring together “data, connected identity and technology across markets.”

Both Omnicom and Publicis “position themselves as a leader in media, technology, data—and AI to facilitate it—and Pepsi has chosen the one that it thinks has the superior offer at this stage,” Pattisall added.

An Omnicom spokesperson pointed to “approximately $4 billion in media billings awarded this year through a combination of incremental wins and retentions” as “evidence that its offer is resonating.”

“All of these decisions followed thorough, months-long review processes that included the major holding companies, putting the competing organizations through a rigorous test of their capabilities across data and analytics, AI technologies and transformation," the spokesperson stated.

Contributing: E.J. Schultz and Brian Bonilla

17587: PepsiCo Takes Cola Wars To Global Scale.

 

Adweek reported PepsiCo handed its global media account to Publicis Groupe sans a formal pitch.

Did Publicis Groupe outdo incumbent Omnicom in terms of Corporate Cultural Collusion? Omnicom has been the standard-bearer for that maneuver—especially with PepsiCo.

The appointment prompted Publicis Groupe to withdraw from a global review for Coca-Cola media, data, and technology—which probably has WPP breathing a sigh of relief, as the single White operating company likely would’ve lost at least some of the Coke business.

Shifting global media duties to Publicis Groupe was not tied at all to the PepsiCo global review for AI transformation. Maybe a competitor in that pitch will persuade PepsiCo its media can be executed via AI, effectively negating the French holding company’s victory.

The entire spectacle underscores how serving global brands are closed affairs, exclusive privileges available only to a handful of White holding companies.

Rarely discussed is the impact on countless drones at White advertising agencies and White media firms whose livelihoods are lost without advance notice.

Far less consideration is given to non-White advertising agencies, even though Pepsi pioneered multicultural marketing through the iconic accomplishments of Eric F. Boyd.

Today’s Cola Wars create casualties on a global scale.

Publicis Lands PepsiCo’s Global Media Business, Withdraws From Coke Pitch

As the CPG unifies its media account under Publicis Groupe, a source told ADWEEK it will withdraw from Coca-Cola’s global media pitch

By Rebecca Stewart

PepsiCo has chosen Publicis Groupe to handle its global media account, the CPG confirmed to ADWEEK.

The appointment will see the French holdco build a new media model underpinned by AI and data, uniting strategy, planning, activation, connected identity, and technology under one roof.

The “One PepsiCo” model will serve the brand’s entire portfolio, including Pepsi, Gatorade, and Lay’s, in more than 200 markets.

Per its latest annual report, PepsiCo spent $5.4 billion on marketing activities in 2025, with $3.4 billion of that total going toward advertising.

According to sources with direct knowledge of the matter, the PepsiCo appointment will prompt Publicis to withdraw from the ongoing pitch for the remainder of Coca-Cola’s global media business. MediaSense is handling that review, which has previously been estimated to be worth around $4 billion.

Publicis, which already handles Coca-Cola’s media account in the U.S. and Canada, declined to comment.

A new model

Publicis’ appointment as PepsiCo’s exclusive lead global media partner will displace U.S. rival Omnicom, whose OMD network has held the account in key markets, including the U.S. and U.K., for more than two decades.

A PepsiCo spokesperson told ADWEEK that Omnicom will remain a “critical strategic partner” across many creative, sports, and PR briefs. Omnicom declined to comment.

Publicis has previously worked with PepsiCo in markets including China, India, the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, Taiwan, South Korea, Indonesia, Hong Kong, Malaysia, and parts of Eastern Europe.

ADWEEK understands there was no pitch for PepsiCo’s media account, and that Publicis was appointed following a media capabilities review.

In a statement, the soda and snack maker said its new media model will help it deliver “more relevant consumer connections” and make “smarter marketing decisions” across paid, earned, and shared media.

PepsiCo is currently running a separate global review focused on broader AI marketing transformation and capabilities.

It was previously reported that Omnicom, Accenture, Deloitte, and Publicis Groupe’s Sapient unit were competing for the AI brief.

17586: For Court Performance, WPP Scores A Triple-Trouble.

 

Adweek published a WPP cases study—that is, the trade journal spotlighted three separate legal cases arguably exposing the alleged “global crime scheme” orchestrated by executives at WPP Media (formerly GroupM).

WPP honchos are likely relieved to see the Adweek piece is subscription-only content, meaning a limited number of people will read the sordid details. Can’t imagine excerpts from such reporting might appear in WPP Media pitch decks.

At this point, the single White operating company is probably considering launching another unit: WPP Legal Defense.