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.

17585: The WPP Empire Strikes Back.

 

MediaPost reported WPP is now demanding the New York State Supreme Court not only dismiss the whistleblower lawsuit, but also the whistleblower’s lawyers.

Apparently, the single White operating company isn’t satisfied with simply dismissing thousands of its own workers.

What’s more, WPP wants to go after the whistleblower’s sources and anonymous accomplices, particularly anyone involved in uncovering the Sony Pictures investigation allegedly charging WPP ran a “global crime scheme” through its media practice.

Not sure why WPP is so upset. After all, the company implemented a whistleblower hotline about a decade ago, encouraging employees to call out wrongdoing without fear of retaliation.

The whistleblower hotline was reportedly ringing off the hook in 2023, arguably showing its effectiveness.

Yet today WPP is on the offensive, attacking purported whistleblowers and anyone associated with them.

Hey, if you want to stop whistleblowers, consider avoiding behavior that incites whistleblowing.

Try earning the trust of a worldwide workforce.

WPP Moves To Have Foster’s Lawyers Dismissed, Sony Probe Sources Divulged

By Steve McClellan

WPP is demanding further action by the New York State Supreme Court Judge hearing the wrongful termination suit by former WPP Media (FKA GroupM) executive and purported whistleblower Richard Foster.  

Foster has alleged that WPP terminated him after he complained to senior executives at the company that it was systematically misappropriating media rebates that belonged to clients. 

Earlier this month in court papers Foster outlined a previously undisclosed investigation by client Sony that exposed a rebate scheme that cost clients hundreds of millions of dollars in China and possibly elsewhere.   

While WPP has not disputed the accuracy of Foster’s disclosures, it has asserted that Foster obtained the Sony report by inappropriate means and that all references to it be sealed. The company alleges that Foster and his legal team knew it was unlawful to disclose the Sony probe and separate confidential discussions that Foster had with senior lawyer Nicola McCormick.  

In a follow-up motion for oral argument, WPP is now arguing that redacting and sealing those references are not “workable options” to address the harm it has suffered and could suffer in the future.  

In addition to dismissing Foster’s amended complaint “with prejudice,” WPP wants monetary sanctions imposed on the plaintiff as well as the dismissal of the law firm, the Brewer Firm and its legal team from having anything more to do with the case.   

WPP is also demanding that Foster be ordered to disclose how he obtained information about the Sony investigation, “including when and how it was obtained, its source, all persons who received or reviewed it, and whether and to whom it was further disseminated.”

17584: AD + CW + ACD + CD @ VML + WPP = WTF.

This actual job listing—along with numerous listings promoting other roles—seeks a Creative Director for VML, underscoring how the White advertising agency within global flaming dumpster WPP should be avoided by applicants at all costs.

VML and WPP have collectively released thousands of employees in recent times, announcing that additional worldwide downsizing is planned. So, why the hell are they recruiting? Seeing job listings during constant and impending layoffs is not exactly a morale booster.

The entry includes:

“VML is a leading creative company that combines brand experience, customer experience, and commerce, creating connected brands to drive growth. VML is celebrated for its innovative and award-winning human-first work for clients including AstraZeneca, Colgate-Palmolive, Dell, Ford, Microsoft, Nestlé, The Coca-Cola Company, and Wendy’s.”

Um, the client status of Coca-Cola and Wendy’s is pending.

The entry also states:

“We are looking for a hands-on, visionary Creative Director, Copy to join a tight-knit team dedicated to elevating our creative output. This role is designed for a true maker and master of the written word — someone who is genuinely passionate about television, film, and the craft of writing for the screen.”

Are these AI-generated generic descriptors? Most hiring managers demand candidates fill specific roles and requirements—right down to having relevant brand and category experience for the position.

Or is this exercise satisfying performative DEIBA+ initiatives? White advertising agencies often posted fake job listings to claim offering opportunities to minorities and underrepresented groups. Although such tactics have almost disappeared given the current anti-DEIBA+ vibe in Adland.

The single White operating company boasting to be the trusted growth partner for the world’s leading brands should consider being the trusted employer for its worldwide workforce.

17583: On Progressively Saving And Losing.

 

Is Progressive admitting saving on auto insurance involves a gambling game?

This advertisement should be pulled like a slot machine lever.

17582: More Zapping Target For Costume Cultural Cluelessness.

 

Adweek published a seemingly self-promotional perspective from the Chief Marketing Officer of Zappi, providing unsolicited advice for Target in the wake of its latest Halloween hijinks.

Pointing to another Target Halloween costume controversy involving Anne Frank insensitivity (depicted below), the piece underscored MultiCultClassics’ recognition that trick-or-treating brings regular trouble to the mega-retailer.

After droning on about data, the author closed with a hopefully unintentionally patronizing statement:

“But no amount of testing can make up for one cold, hard fact. Somebody who could have looked at this costume and immediately seen the problem was either not involved, or wasn’t heard early enough to stop it.”

Um, it’s more likely that nobody creating Target content possesses the cultural competence or authority to make such a call.

In short, the marketing team at Target probably looks like the leadership team at Zappi.

Unsolicited advice for Zappi CMO: People in exclusive glass houses…

A Retailer’s Checklist to Prevent the Next Target Costume Blunder

Target’s repeat offense shows why ‘pull it and apologize’ doesn’t work. Here’s what retailers should actually change.

By Nataly Kelly

In 2020, Target pulled a children’s costume from its website after shoppers pointed out that it evoked Anne Frank. Six years later, the retailer is apologizing again, this time for a children’s Halloween costume that critics said evoked racist minstrel caricatures.

Target responded in typical corporate fashion. It pulled the product, apologized, and promised internal reviews of the situation. But we all know that the veil of proactivity fades in favor of waiting for all of the uproar to blow over. 

When does an apology stop being a checkbox exercise as opposed to a genuine learning moment? 

A massive corporation like Target no doubt has checks, balances, and stage gates for almost everything. And there’s real volume and pressure behind seasonal innovation. 

Target has said some of its strongest recent performance has come in the fall, and nearly 70% of its Halloween assortment this year is new. That’s a lot of innovation moving through an organization quickly. 

One offensive product is a mistake; two is a concerning trend. 

When a similar failure happens again, it raises a harder question: What did the organization actually learn the first time?

The bar is high and teams are stretched thin trying to find ideas that land. Products are tested for risk—things like choking, flammability, sizing, cost. What’s too often disconnected is how an individual product might affect perception of the brand. 

There is no innovation without brand, and no brand without innovation. But the teams tasked with each are often operating separately.

So what should retailers do differently?

Classify products by their potential for brand risk

A costume carries fundamentally different risks than a towel or a blender. Costumes regularly venture into the territory of culture, identity and at times, appropriation. In a Talker Research survey of American parents, 29% said costumes built around cultural stereotypes should be pulled from stores. For anything involving blackface, that number rose to 43%. Some lines are clearer than others. Seasonal deadlines make that scrutiny harder, but also more important. 

Review the whole, not just the parts

Teams need to look at the composite, not just the individual components. In the Target example, a children’s striped bodysuit alone reads as a clown suit. Add a black mesh mask with a snaggletoothed grin. Then add black gloves and a tiny top hat with a flower on the brim. Most companies review the tech pack and never review the photograph of the image, but the photograph is what the customer ultimately sees, and reacts to.

Look closely at consumer signals

Before this conversation exploded on social media, shoppers were already flagging the costume in Target’s own product reviews. That’s the kind of signal companies spend enormous amounts of money trying to find. Another problem is often that the people moderating product reviews don’t talk to the people creating products, and most of those folks are not getting feedback directly from consumers whatsoever. In a hundred-thousand-person company, things fall through the cracks. Consumer research only helps if it can travel horizontally across the organization, and can be accessed quickly enough for every employee making a decision that affects the brand to act on it. At many companies, access to consumer testing is not yet democratized and widely available. 

Address the cultural problems no checklist can solve.

No one wakes up hoping to destroy brand equity and alienate consumers. Companies repeat mistakes when they treat their own response as a project with an end date instead of a system that has to be built and maintained for the long term.

Think about what six years does to an organization the size of Target. The team that felt the heat in 2020 is gone. The vp that commissioned the internal review may have retired. The consultant that curated the design invoiced and moved on. The task force fizzled out not long after the news cycle. And the document with the retro is still sitting in a drive nobody opens under a name that no longer has any relevance. 

That requires better consumer feedback and more connected data. But no amount of testing can make up for one cold, hard fact. Somebody who could have looked at this costume and immediately seen the problem was either not involved, or wasn’t heard early enough to stop it.

Target will recover, and eventually the news cycle will move on, as it goes. But while consumers can look past a mistake, it’s very hard to undo how a brand made them feel. The goal shouldn’t be to get better at apologizing. It’s to build an organization that remembers why it had to apologize in the first place, and keeps the next embarrassing mea culpa from happening.