17578: Another Perspective On Whistleblowers In Adland.

MediaPost published a perspective on the WPP whistleblower lawsuit that made one significant point:

Don’t rely on agency self-reporting. Demand log-level data for programmatic buys and contractually insist on third-party audits for all barter or non-transparent arrangements. If an agency claims an inventory pool isn’t auditable, treat that as a red flag.

This notion could be directly applied to the history of DEIBA+ in Adland.

That is, White advertising agencies cannot be trusted with self-reporting, as firms often inflated representation figures by counting minority employees like janitorial maintenance, security, and cafeteria workers.

Additionally, White advertising agencies cannot be trusted with self-regulation, as firms routinely engage in performative propaganda, heat shields, and delegating diversity.

Alas, no one ever succeeded in demanding third-party audits—or disputing White advertising agencies’ classic excuses for non-compliance, lack of commitment, and absence of accountability. Forget red flags—White flags are the weapon of choice.

BTW iconic DEIBA+ whistleblowers in Adland were never able to pursue a $100 million lawsuit.

The WPP scenario exposes schemes involving media, which mirrors Adland’s duplicity involving minorities.

The Foster Whistleblower Case: How Holdco Culture Enabled WPP’s $350M Mess

By Maarten Albarda, Featured Contributor

It has been a week of legal fireworks, relevant to day-to-day marketing management. No, I am not (yet) commenting on the federal trial brought by 29 U.S. states accusing Meta of designing manipulative features that addict children and harm teen mental health on Facebook and Instagram. That trial is underway in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in Oakland.

I am talking about Richard Foster’s $100 million wrongful termination and retaliation lawsuit against WPP, playing out in the Supreme Court of the State of New York.

The latest legal filings in this suit against WPP make for grim reading. Internal audit details from Sony allege undisclosed markups, shell brokers used as financial warehouses, and missing rebates disguised as principal media buying in China.

To understand the scope, let’s understand what happened. A 2023 Chinese government probe into GroupM (now WPP Media) executives over kickbacks led to criminal convictions. And now we learn that a Sony investigation alleges that WPP used 47 shell brokers to improperly retain $350 million in client rebates in 2024 alone. GroupM allegedly passed off proprietary media deals to launder those funds into corporate profit while pitching artificial “80% discounts” to clients.

I don’t think you can hold WPP corporate fully responsible for the rogue mechanics of a local scam. The individuals in China clearly acted for their own personal enrichment in a market where opacity is sadly often standard procedure.

Still, WPP corporate does not get off scot-free. It clearly missed the mark in governance. By aggressively pushing principal media trading across its network to juice corporate margins, WPP’s leadership set the tone at the top. They created an environment where local executives were guided into pursuing principal media income to bolster agency performance (and with that, their personal performance score).

If I were a juror on the Foster case, I’d view the Sony findings as a crucial signal. They show WPP built a culture where principal-beneficial buying was incentivized, leaving the back door wide open for local leadership to take it to extreme levels.

Which raises the question every marketer should ask: How many other “Chinas” exist in agency holding company networks? And why did it take a client audit by Sony to expose this?

It’s fair to say (again) that marketers should stop treating principal media as a harmless discount. When your agency buys inventory upfront and resells it to you, they aren’t your fiduciary agent anymore. They’re a vendor selling goods they own. If you don’t know the exact markup, you’re funding their profit margins (and executive bonuses).

To prevent this from happening, you should require explicit opt-outs for proprietary or non-transparent media, unless your C-suite approves a written business case. Demand clear visibility into media flowcharts and mandate proof-of-performance data down to a detailed performance level (and compare/contrast that against “normal” performance for “normal” paid media buys).

Don’t rely on agency self-reporting. Demand log-level data for programmatic buys and contractually insist on third-party audits for all barter or non-transparent arrangements. If an agency claims an inventory pool isn’t auditable, treat that as a red flag.

The agency model is shifting. Agencies need profit, but you need transparency. Set the rules in your contract now, or your media dollars will end up paying someone else’s bonus. 

17577: On Blowback For WPP Whistleblower Lawsuit.

  

MediaPost reported WPP made good on its promise to refile an updated motion to dismiss the whistleblower lawsuit.

Corporations typically decline from openly discussing pending legal disputes, yet the updated motion—which WPP surely knew would undergo online examination by news outlets—presented the single White operating company an opportunity to take its argument to the court of public opinion.

WPP is seeking to seal an investigation by Sony Pictures alleging WPP Media—i.e., the former GroupM firm—engaged in global improprieties involving rebates.

The motion states, “The fact that Sony has never publicly disclosed this information, and Plaintiff’s refusal to name his source, strongly indicates that he obtained the information by improper means.”  

Um, doesn’t that fall under the definition of a whistleblower—to access insider information to expose wrongdoing?

In a court of law, sealing such data from the proceedings might be a legitimate tactic.

In the court of public opinion—and coming from a single White operating company boasting to be “the trusted growth partner for the world’s leading brands” and whose CEO consistently stresses the word trust—it’s just bad optics.

WPP Demands Court Seal Foster’s Sony Probe Details

By Steve McClellan

Last week former GroupM executive Richard Foster filed an amended complaint in his wrongful termination lawsuit against WPP that alleges he was dismissed illegally for exposing the company’s improper withholding and use of rebates that belonged to clients.  

In the amended complaint, filed in New York State Supreme Court, Foster detailed a separate (and up to that point not publicly disclosed) investigation by WPP client Sony Pictures that Foster said supported his own claims about the firm’s illicit handling of rebates. According to Foster, that probe found that in 2023 in China WPP returned approximately $110 million in rebates to clients while it wrongfully retained $350 million in discounts from sellers. Foster asserted that WPP engaged in similar practices in other countries. 

Yesterday WPP filed court papers demanding that all of Foster’s references to the Sony probe be sealed, arguing that the investigation was confidential and that Foster’s refusal to state how he obtained the report suggests that he may have done so illegally.  

“The fact that Sony has never publicly disclosed this information, and Plaintiff’s refusal to name his source, strongly indicates that he obtained the information by improper means,” WPP stated in its motion.  

The firm also cited a nondisclosure agreement that Foster had signed prohibiting him from disclosing confidential information related to his employment at the company. 

Foster’s amended complaint also alleged that executives within the company agreed with him 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.  

In its motion this week, WPP also demanded that references to conversations Foster had with McCormick as outlined in his complaint also be sealed.  

WPP argued that those discussions “are obviously protected by the attorney-client privilege. Even the most junior practitioner knows that that privilege belongs to Defendants; it was not Plaintiff’s to waive.” 

Nevertheless, WPP added, Foster “violated the privilege to prejudice and disadvantage Defendants in these proceedings. The addition of salacious, muckraking allegations and disclosure of highly sensitive and/or privileged information in the Amended Complaint cannot change the brutal truth: Plaintiff is not and never has been a whistleblower, and this entire lawsuit is nothing more than a disgruntled employee’s naked attempt to leverage an exorbitant payout.” Foster is seeking $100 million in damages. 

WPP said it would “address the deficiencies” in Foster’s amended complaint in a forthcoming motion to dismiss the case. 

“In the meantime,” WPP added, “Defendants’ and their clients’ privileged and confidential information remains on the public docket. This information must be sealed to prevent further prejudice to Defendants and harm to nonparties who have nothing to do with this Action.”  

17576: Does Coca-Cola & WPP Open X Create An Exclusive Hilltop?

   

More About Advertising panned a Coca-Cola advertisement created by WPP Open X featuring a Muslim family and Cat Stevens (aka Yusuf Islam) soundtrack.

The work demonstrates WPP Open X is consistently capable of generating lame creative—and probably preventing multicultural marketing practitioners from gaining opportunities to collect crumbs.

MAA Ad of the week: Coca-Cola from WPP Open X

By Stephen Foster

Coca-Cola is, or should be, the gold standard for advertising although every so often it slips off its perch. Its most famous efforts have encapsulated Americana in a way that would make even Donald Trump blush, “I’d like to teach the world to sing.”

Now, with WPP Open X, (have to make sure you don’t close the gap with the X) it’s gone well and truly global, Cat Stevens, alias Yusuf Islam, on vocals and a clearly Muslim family sitting down to enjoy dinner and with a gallon or so of Coke. Doesn’t look right somehow.

But where’s the magic, that sprinkling of stardust that got “I’d like to teach…” into cynical old Don Draper’s head? Too many boxes to tick maybe.

17575: Help Wanted—Human Heat Shields.

 

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.

17574: CFO CTO AIC CMO AOR WTF.

 

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.

17573: Gilead US Media Goes To France-Based Conglomerate…?

 

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.

17572: War Is Hell. Cola Wars Are What The Hell.

 

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.