17604: Continuing Cola Wars Craziness.

 

More About Advertising opined on Ogilvy scoring a Coca-Cola European football project via a pitch featuring WPP Open X (presumably led by Ogilvy), Publicis’ Le Pub, Studio.One (led by former AKQA CEO Ajaz Ahmed), and Uncommon Creative Studio (co-founded by former Grey London Chairman and CCO Nils Leonard).

Was the pitch underway before Publicis Groupe landed PepsiCo global media duties?

Given WPP Open X was invented to solely serve Coke, facing competition from outsider enterprises does not seem to reflect favorably on the single White operating company and its offerings.

The scenario also indicates an industry shift, whereby reviews for major chunks of business are not necessarily closed affairs, exclusive privileges available only to a handful of White holding companies. Although it still involves cronyism and entitled relationships.

In the end, the self-proclaimed Trusted Growth Partner For The World’s Leading Brands hasn’t gained trust, realized growth, or been a partner for any brand in the world—and the global flaming dumpster now competes against ex-employees for assignments.

Coke goes great with humble pie.

More Coke pitches: this time Ogilvy’s on top

By Stephen Foster

They do love their pitches at Coca-Cola despite the creative part of the giant account supposedly safely harboured at WPP. This time it’s a WPP team led by Ogilvy reportedly winning a European football brief in a pitch against Publicis’ Le Pub (which handles Heineken), Ajaz Ahmed’s new Studio.One and Uncommon Creative Studio (there are nearly as many studios these days as pitches.)

Coke has invested heavily in football with some lively campaigns although this seems to be the first time it’s been a separate project. Coca-Cola is an official sponsor of the Premier League in the UK.

Nobody’s saying anything on the record but it’s an interesting pitch. Studio.One, the new creative company formed by former AKQA boss Ajaz Ahmed has already picked up a Christmas assignment from Coke. Ogilvy has won (or retained) a number of Coke assignments recently and seems to be the lead agency on WPP Open X work. Must be frustrating, not to say exhausting, having to keep repeating yourself though.

17603: The Naked Truth About Sydney Sweeney’s Novig Controversy.

 

Adweek spotlighted a new Sydney Sweeney controversy, noting the actress has gone from inciting ire with her wardrobe to doing likewise with no clothing.

The latest outcry is for a campaign hyping Novig, a sports prediction market and trading app, which protestors complain is insulting female athletes.

Okay, except research indicates most people interested in services like Novig—over 70%—are young males. So, a naked Sweeney is probably perfectly appealing to the target audience.

The American Eagle advertising offended people of color, while the Novig promotion pisses off White women—a group that has historically wielded greater power and influence than minorities.

In short, this scenario might pose more damage to Novig than Sweeney delivered to American Eagle.

Bet on it.

One Year Post-American Eagle Scandal, Sydney Sweeney Sparks Ire by Going Naked for Novig

The ad has received backlash for reversing years of gains for female athletes

By Robert Klara

Last August, Sydney Sweeney broke the internet with American Eagle spots showing her in a too-tight top and struggling with the zipper of her jeans.

In her new campaign for Novig, Sweeney has solved those wardrobe problems: She’s not wearing anything at all.

“Today, we at Novig unveiled out first national brand campaign featuring Sweeney,” the sports prediction app announced on its website, “bringing to life our belief that the best sports trading experience comes from a platform singularly focused on sports.”

The campaign’s title is “Just Sports.” But judging from the heated response from the public, “Just Sex” might have been a better title. 

Though some men have expressed appreciation for the work (one calling it “better than any sports playing right now,”) women have largely responded with disappointment and anger.

The problem isn’t showing skin, per se (advertising is already full of that). But at a time when female athletes have just begun inching toward parity in pay and fame, people feel Sweeney has turned back the clock to the Playboy era.

“I can’t describe how infuriated I feel when I watch this,” Australian gold-medalist swimmer Ariane Titmus wrote on Instagram, referring to Sweeney’s ads as “a kick in the face to every woman who has dedicated her life to perfecting her craft.”

Women outside the sports realm have expressed their dismay, too.

“Every great female athlete has used her platform to create movement, challenge norms, inspire change and make an impact,” AI executive Indigo Haddington responded on Sweeney’s Instagram page. “All she’s done is get paid for what she’s known for: her body.”

It’s unlikely that Novig or Sweeney were under any illusions that this campaign was about “just sports” in a literal sense. What’s beyond dispute is that the campaign takes a page from a playbook written long ago—a legacy that Sweeney herself seems to have nodded to in her response to the backlash: a post with a series of photos showing athletes, including MMA star Ronda Rousey and football beefcake Rob Gronkowski, showing plenty of skin.

Even so, even in advertising, a revealing image is one thing; a lasciviousness message is another. In 1971, National Airlines ran ads starring their leggy flight attendants who invited businessmen to “fly me.” In the early 2000s, Axe’s notorious “Billions” ad depicted a tribe of libidinous women chasing down a man who’d just used Axe body spray.

And while evidence is mixed that sex really increases sales, a 2013 study published in the Journal of Advertising found that “males evaluate ads with sexual appeals significantly more positively than females.” And when it comes to sports betting, one recent estimate suggested that 70% of the bettors are men.

Not that there’s no upside for the 29-year-old Sweeney, who’s not just the femme fatale here; she’s a partner and equity stakeholder, too.

17602: More Amateurish Clubbing Of Callaway And Good Good Golf.

 

MediaPost published yet another perspective swinging at Callaway and Good Good Golf for their misogynistic marketing.

The author insisted the campaign “needs to be studied by anyone in the ad industry.”

Um, not really. There’s nothing new about the cultural cluelessness, circumstances, or root causes displayed by Callaway and Good Good Golf. Unfortunately, the concept and execution fortify a major stereotype about golf; ie, the game is dominated by White men.

The author’s recommendation involves four questions that should have been asked before greenlighting the concept.

Um, not really. Questions should have been asked and answered when writing the brief. And the concept should have been screened against the brief.

Contrary to the author’s contention that the scenario says something about creator campaigns, the issue is more basic.

First, experience, discipline, and mastery of craft are critical for success—it has nothing to do with the titles of anyone behind the production. In today’s arena, creator does not translate to creative director.

Second, insular and exclusive minds generate ignorant ideas. Full stop.

What The Good Good-Callaway Fallout Should Teach Brands About Creator Campaigns

By Kari O’Neill, Op-Ed Contributor

Good Good’s Callaway campaign, which features Good Good co-founder Garrett Clark running down and aggressively tackling female professional golfer Alexis Miestowski to stop her from grabbing his new Good Good-Callaway driver, needs to be studied by anyone in the ad industry.  

This is a profound example of a mistake in creative strategy. The allure of content creators is huge, but brands need to remain hyper-aware of what concepts are strategically sound for their brand. 

What Good Good said inspired the campaign. Good Good may defend the ad by saying it was a parody of the movie Obsession, where the main character buys a supernatural toy that grants him his wish to make his crush fall in love with him — to the point of unsettling horror. Good Good probably stood up in front of executives and claimed that’s how good the driver is — that the audience would be obsessed with it.   

Unfortunately, the response has been the exact opposite, with many calling out its use of domestic violence against women for entertainment. Amidst the backlash, even Clark admitted, it was “a super dumb ad concept, terrible ad in general. Not the greatest idea.”  

Here’s what Callaway needed to ask Good Good before green-lighting the concept.   

Is this pop culture reference relevant for the brand?  

One clear blindspot for Good Good was likely assuming what is popular in its own social circles may not be relevant to Callaway’s audience. Asking if Obsession was in the movie zeitgeist or something the masses would relate to should have been the primary question posed of the concept. Would the ad still resonate if the audience didn’t know about Obsession? Given that Obsession was released in May 2026 nationally and in the summer, a key risk is easily seen that the ad’s reference back to the movie likely would not be top of mind. 
 
Does this reinforce or add to a brand’s story?  

Additionally, a parody can be extremely effective, but only if translated conceptually well from the original creative into an exciting, authentic brand story. In Good Good’s concept, would the target audience see themselves in the story of the parody? Do most people see themselves in a horror film? Probably not. That, in and of itself, should have killed the concept. 
 
Is this the right feeling for the brand?  

Is this ominous feeling the right one Callaway wants people to walk away with after being introduced to this new driver? While the sound design itself clearly is inspired by horror films, it’s clear that the music alludes to harm while being played over an image of a woman being tackled to the ground. Don’t let an internally-focused haze mask the inappropriateness of the concept.  

Who has the power in the story?  

Even if this driver is targeted only to a male audience (which it probably isn’t, but let’s pretend), why did the person tackled have to be a woman? Strategically, what’s the advantage in that versus a man? The answer: absolutely nothing and worse. The hovering over her body while threatening her takes it even further from the corner of potentially funny to utterly unacceptable. 

Because cancel culture is always a risk in the world of creators and brands, brands need to be aware of power dynamics, whether its gender, race, or sexual orientation, among many others.   

The fallout certainly is not what anyone intended or wanted. According to Front Office Sports, three people, including Good Good’s vice president of brand marketing, Jeffrey Lefkovits have been fired. Good Good has lost its sponsorships from Callaway, its PGA Tour event title sponsorship, and its Golf Channel show, Big Break x Good Good.   

Dick’s Sporting Goods and Golf Galaxy also pulled Good Good merch off shelves. This is a critical lesson for all brands to take a step back and ensure the right questions are being asked of a creator’s concept. Not enough questioning strategically could be the difference between an exciting launch and a brand nightmare.

17601: On Polluting The World With Mediocrity.

 

The Marketing Dive spotlighted Coca-Cola’s “The World Will Wait” campaign, revealing the lame concept creators as WPP Open X, led by Grey, supported by Ogilvy, WPP Production, and WPP Media.

Tactics are running globally, except in the US—so, the whole world will wait to possibly see it all.

In the not-too-distant-past real world, such mediocre work would not qualify WPP to win—let alone retain—Coke business.

Coke asks busy Gen Z, millennials to log off for quality meal time

A new global integrated campaign spans a pair of brand films, out-of-home ads and digital activations that champion shared meals.

By Peter Adams

Dive Brief:

• Coca-Cola is encouraging young consumers to slow down and unplug in a new integrated campaign that positions the soft drink as a pairing for shared meals and will roll out globally, except in the U.S., according to a press release.

• “The World Will Wait” depicts busy Gen Z and millennials who miss out on important bonding, including family dinner time, due to work and other tasks before being reminded of what matters most. The concept comes to life in a pair of videos, out-of-home advertising and digital activations.  

• In addition, Coke is enlisting influencers on a program that takes a page from the term AFK, or “away from keyboard,” which is popular in gaming. Creator partners on the effort will nudge consumers to put their phones down and live more in the moment.

Dive Insight:

Coke is emphasizing the emotional value of setting aside time to bond over meals as the brand tries to shore up a positioning as a pairing with food. “The World Will Wait” is targeted at Gen Z and millennials who are entering life stages, like juggling a career and young kids, where it can be more difficult to strike a work-life balance.

“In a world that constantly demands our attention, we’ve observed a growing tension among our consumers — especially younger generations — who truly desire genuine connection but often feel overwhelmed by the urgent pressures of daily life,” Arnab Roy, president of the global category at Coca‑Cola, said in a statement. “‘The World Will Wait’ is designed to inspire us and remind everyone that some moments are simply too important to postpone.”

The hero ad for the campaign shows a family that settles down for a home cooked meal only to realize dad is absent. When his son goes to check on him, the dad is cooped up in a dark office room and hidden behind a laptop screen, where he wordlessly signals he is still occupied with work. Later, the dad discovers a family portrait drawn by his son that shows him in the same light — face obfuscated by the demands of his job — which spurs him to log off and join the next gathering.

OOH ads carry a similar theme, bearing copy like “Laundry can wait. Fried Chicken & Coca‑Cola can’t” and “No one ever said ‘this meal could have been an email.’” In a twist on the tactic, Coke is also deploying social media influencers to ask people to set aside their screens to engage in quality time in real life. Digital elements will unlock rewards tied to the meals-forward messaging. 

“The World Will Wait,” which is running globally but not in the U.S., was developed by WPP Open X, led by the Grey agency and supported by Ogilvy, WPP Production and WPP Media.

Marketing around food has been in focus for Coke this year. An effort that rolled out in the spring enlisted the CPG’s wide range of U.S. food service partners, including Domino’s, Popeyes and Wendy’s, to show how Coke goes well with a variety of meals. “And a Coke” followed a yearslong platform from Pepsi that argues the soft drink rival is actually the superior meal pairing. “Food Deserves Pepsi” features guerilla marketing-style campaigns where undercover Pepsi agents storm into places like barbecues and fast-food chains to swap out other soda brands with PepsiCo’s flagship offering.  

The Coca-Cola Company saw net revenues rise 7% to $13.4 billion in Q2 and raised its full-year outlook around the earnings report last week. Coke commanded the No. 1 share of voice during the FIFA World Cup, which it sponsors, thanks to an advertising blitz that included heavy digital, social and creator activations. The campaign around the soccer tournament contributed to a 5% boost in volume growth for the namesake Coke brand, the company said.

17600: More Dizzying Dispatches From The Cola Wars.

 

Advertising Age reported WPP is primed to win The Coca-Cola Company global media, data, and technology review.

Although as previously noted by this blog, the “victory” is mostly the result of Publicis Groupe nabbing PepsiCo global media duties. That is, the single White operating company claims the Coke prize by virtue of a prime contender dropping out.

According to Ad Age, WPP will not participate in the upcoming review for Coke North America media chores—although the trade publication previously identified the global flaming dumpster as a participant—which are being phased out of Publicis Groupe, who took the business from WPP last year.

The dizzying antics are likely driving people to drink. But not drink Coke or Pepsi products.

WPP is set to win Coca-Cola’s global agency review

By Ewan Larkin and Brian Bonilla

WPP is set to win Coca-Cola Co.’s global media, data and technology review and will not participate in the food and beverage giant’s forthcoming North America media pitch, according to people familiar with the matter.

The decision comes nearly five years after Coca-Cola hired WPP for creative, media, data and marketing technology across its 200 or so brands, setting up a bespoke unit called Open X. In early 2025, WPP lost its grip on a significant chunk of that business when Coca-Cola Co. hired Publicis Groupe for its North America media account. WPP continues to handle Coca-Cola’s global creative and PR.

WPP’s retention was expected by many after Publicis Groupe, which it had been competing against for the business, agreed to take over global media duties for PepsiCo. The French holding company’s decision prompted Coca-Cola to launch a review of its media account in North America, where Publicis is the incumbent, Ad Age first reported this week.

Coca-Cola and WPP declined to comment.

Coca-Cola has also been in discussions with Omnicom and Dentsu about the North America media business. Dentsu already works with the company in Japan and Korea, which were excluded from the global review.

PepsiCo last week announced it had moved its global media to Publicis from Omnicom without a formal pitch, relocating one of the industry’s most coveted accounts. PepsiCo spent $1.7 billion on global net media in 2025, according to COMvergence, making it a significant account for Omnicom to lose. Omnicom “remains a critical strategic partner across many of our marketing drivers, from creative to sports and PR,” PepsiCo stated.

17599: On Adland Analysts Seeing Industry Shifts And Shits.

MediaPost presented more common sense posing as color commentary on the stunning PepsiCo media shift.

A spotlighted analyst provided obvious insights such as:

“…[O]ne can reasonably assume that pricing was a major factor.”

“…[M]arketers are focused on price and performance over transparency and control.” 

“…[T]he loss could have more significant repercussions as it may lead to either more aggressive efforts with non-transparent trading activities, more significant investments in new capabilities or both.”  

“…[M]any hundreds of people at Omnicom [are] likely to be laid off.”

Sorry, but delivering duh as expert opinion warrants layoffs at consultancies and analyst firms.

Analyst Sees Industry Shifts In The Wake Of PepsiCo’s Media Move

By Steve McClellan

Omnicom’s stock remains down about 6% since news broke last week that one of its biggest clients—PepsiCo—abruptly shifted its entire media account to Publicis Groupe without a formal review. Omnicom ran the account for 20-plus years. 

According to the latest figures from COMvergence, Pepsi spent an estimated $1.7 billion on media in 2025. Of that total, Publicis had already been handling about $540 million, mostly attributable to the $500 million of spending in the Asia Pacific region.  

Omnicom had about two thirds of the business, including the $780 million U.S. market. 

PepsiCo has not explained specifically what led to the shift. But according to a rundown by analyst and marketing consultant Madison And Wall, “one can reasonably assume that pricing was a major factor.” 

Which isn’t a big surprise, given M&W’s premise that generally, “marketers are focused on price and performance over transparency and control.” 

According to M&W’s analysis, PepsiCo accounted for about 2.4% of Omnicom’s gross revenue last year—or approximately $400 million, which includes creative, media and other services. The lost media assignment probably accounts for under $100 million in gross revenue “unless principal-based trading was already a significant component of the existing relationship.” 

While a nine-figure revenue loss is clearly a blow, Omnicom’s sheer size mitigates it to some extent. It’s a $26-billion-plus revenue company thanks to its acquisition of IPG last year. 

The PepsiCo media loss could be made up for “in many ways,” per M&W. Strategically, the firm added, “the loss could have more significant repercussions as it may lead to either more aggressive efforts with non-transparent trading activities, more significant investments in new capabilities or both.”  

And to the extent that non-transparent activities helped Publicis offer better pricing to PepsiCo, similar tactics are likely to expand industrywide, M&W surmises.  

The firm also believes there’s a high likelihood that WPP will retain its $1.7 billion Coca-Cola media account, currently in review, and likely win back TCC’s $800 million North America business, which shifted to Publicis in 2025.  

The PepsiCo shift will affect jobs with “many hundreds of people at Omnicom likely to be laid off,” says M&W. The good news: Many of those same people will likely migrate to Publicis, along with the PepsiCo business.

17598: On WPP Production Triple BS.

 

MediaPost reported WPP Production aims to be the go-to vendor—and exclusive vendor—for every client served by the global flaming dumpster.

One controversial point involves the intentional goal to avoid standard triple bidding by offering three bids from enterprises within the WPP Production network.

In other words, the single White operating company theory is bullshit. WPP remains a confederacy of companies competing amongst themselves for billable hours—or outcomes-based remuneration.

Plus, it’s highly unlikely WPP would ever allow one enterprise to low-bid against sister firms. The scenario invites a rigged bidding system, whereby clients might be encouraged to choose a vendor sneakily pre-selected by WPP.

It all inspires a new tagline for WPP Production: From those wonderful folks who gave you a global crime scheme in media.

On a sidenote, the MediaPost report was illustrated with a metaphorical image of a funnel (depicted above). A more appropriate object would’ve been a toilet.

WPP Production, APA Lock Horns Over Triple Bids

By Steve McClellan

WPP Production is urging clients to do all of their production work with the holding company—thereby avoiding outsourcing to independent production houses-- and at least one production trade group says WPP’s stand is essentially an assault on “the free market in commercials production.”  

Leaked internal documents from the holding company’s production arm state that "Our goal is to avoid traditional commercial triple bidding by proving the value of a centralized partnership by positioning WPP Production as the default, trusted partner.” 

Triple bidding is the standard urged by trade groups like Association of Independent Commercial Producers (AICP) in the U.S. and the Advertising Producers Association (APA) in the UK. 

The leaked documents suggest a way that WPP can circumvent the commercial bid process: 

“If a client or creative team requires triple bidding to assess different options, we should evaluate if WPP Production can provide all three bids internally from the same or different markets. We can satisfy this need by offering three different production approaches, locations, and director treatments within the same country or within the region—keeping the work entirely within WPP Production.” 

Steve Davies, CEO of the APA, issued a response that in part reads, “This is a serious threat to the free market in commercials production — and to the independent production, editing and post companies within it — but only if clients don’t see through it. I think they will.”
 
“Professionalism means putting clients’ interests ahead of your own. WPP has effectively announced it’s doing the opposite,” Davies asserted.  
 
The triple bid, he added, is central to the collaborative system between agencies and production companies that enables “great work.” 

WPP Production took issue with the APA’s assessment.  

“Any suggestion that WPP Production misleads clients or undermines fair competition is fundamentally wrong,” the firm responded. “Selectively quoting from a comprehensive document doesn’t fairly reflect what is a completely transparent process. 

“We respect competitive bidding and work with independent production companies, always adhering to client contracts and procurement requirements. We make decisions with clients, helping them find the right solution for each brief and considering WPP capabilities alongside specialist partners.”

17597: On Omnicom Experiencing PTSD (PepsiCo Termination Shockingly Delivered).

 

Digiday reported on Omnicom conducting a post mortem after being dumped by PepsiCo sans formal review or advance notice.

Expect the final analysis report to succinctly read: WTF.

‘Certainly a disappointment’: Omnicom CFO’s verdict on losing PepsiCo to Publicis

By Seb Joseph

 

Omnicom’s CFO is still trying to get his head around what went wrong. It’s been a little over a week since the holdco lost one of its longest running clients to Publicis. He called the loss “disappointing” and “unfortunate.” Now, he and the rest of the C-suite are doing a post-mortem to figure out why it happened. 

Speaking at the Goldman Sachs’ Communacopia and Technology Conference earlier today, Phil Angelastro gave a sobering take on PepsiCo’s decision to walk away after more than 25 years. 

“The Pepsi situation is an unfortunate one,” he said. “It’s certainly a disappointment from our perspective — you cannot sugarcoat it.” 

The comments all but confirm that this move blindsided Omnicom’s execs. Holdco bosses like Angelastro usually see this kind of switch coming. Sources with knowledge of the matter said his team didn’t, and has spent the past week trying to work out why. Why would PepsiCo after all those years walk away from Omnicom without even giving it the chance to fight for it? Speculation has been rife. Was it because PepsiCo’s CMO had a relationship with Publicis in a previous role? Or maybe the advertiser simply wasn’t impressed with whatever Omnicom was pitching in the wake of the IPG acquisition.

Whatever the reason, Omnicom will want it nailed down fast. 

“We are doing a detailed kind of deconstruction of how it happened and what we should have been doing differently to prevent it from happening,” Angelastro said at the conference. “We are not completed with that process but we are going to learn some lessons from this, and certainly we are going to take them very seriously.”

In short, he said the holdco isn’t looking for excuses during this analysis. The aim, Angelastro continued, is to do a root cause analysis so that we can improve the business and our processes going forward.” That matters most for holding onto what’s left of the PepsiCo relationship since Omnicom still handles the company’s PR, creative and some sports marketing. 

It could also help the holdco get ahead of other CMOs who might be watching PepsiCo’s move and wondering if they should follow suit. Those clients will want to know what happened and whether it changes anything for them. Needless to say Angelastro has some tough questions in the weeks ahead. 

“We don’t think it’s going to have a significant impact on the business going forward when we get to 2027 and our expectations,” the ad exec said. “There is still quite a bit of time between now and ‘27 and we will be aggressively pursuing new business as we always do.”

His confidence lines up with the numbers, even if the underlying figures come from outside estimates rather than Omnicom’s own disclosures. According to ComVergence, PepsiCo’s core global media spend sits at roughly $1.8 billion. Madison and Wall estimates Omnicom’s actual fee revenue from that business at closer to $100 million, a fraction of the headline figure, against a company running a 21% EBITA margin. That’s an abosrbale hit on the holdco’s bottom line based on the numbers available. The exposure that is harder to model is reputational — more than 25 years with a client, Apple, Renault-Nissan, McDonald’s and several others all running on the same kind of long, unreviewed relationship Omnicom just watched come apart. 

Whether that means Omnicom goes after Coca-Cola’s media business, which is now in play following Publicis’ decision to relinquish its North America media account and back out of contesting the rest of it after the PepsiCo deal remains to be seen. If it is, Angelastro offered scant detail. 

“We value the relationship [with PepsiCo] but certainly there will be a little bit more flexibility in terms of what we pursue in the future.”