Adweek reported on a study revealing the obvious: women in Adland continue to make less money than male counterparts.
While Adweek did not indicate if the study broke down racial and ethnic data, here’s another obvious revelation: underpaid White women in Adland continue to make waaaaay more money than underpaid—and underrepresented—women of color peers.
Bet cash money on it.
Women in Advertising Are Closing Every Gap They Can. The Pay Gap Persists Anyway
A new study finds a stubborn 5% pay gap and points to managerial gatekeeping and workplace social dynamics as key culprits
By Audrey Kemp
A new study examining pay in the U.S. advertising industry finds that women are still earning less than their male peers, even after accounting for nearly every variable commonly cited to explain the disparity.
The research, conducted by strategist Jess Watts in partnership with Dr. Nancy Wayne of UCLA and data scientist Ryan Crone, analyzed survey responses from more than 900 advertising professionals across agency types, roles, and seniority levels.
DNA&Stone, the independent agency where Watts joined as chief strategy officer in December (and an ADWEEK Small Agency of the Year 2025 finalist), is publishing the study.
After controlling for factors such as education, experience, hours worked, geography, and agency type, the researchers found that women earn about 5% less than men in advertising on average. For mothers, that figure climbs to 8%.
Both numbers are smaller than the broader U.S. gender wage gap but still statistically significant and, according to Watts, impossible to explain away through the usual structural arguments.
“We wanted to test the arguments that are often made about why the pay gap exists,” she said. “Things like education level, job choice, performance, negotiation, or hours worked. What we found is that women are aggressively mitigating all of those factors, and the gap still exists.”
The study began as a personal project for Watts, a notable hire for DNA&Stone who previously served as director of integrated marketing strategy and brand planning at Expedia Group since 2022. She spent roughly two and a half years researching pay disparities independently, motivated by years of anecdotal accounts from colleagues across the industry.
“As soon as you start working in advertising, you hear stories,” Watts said. “Women comparing salaries with co-workers or realizing a male hire at the same level is earning more. It’s something many people felt in their bones, but there wasn’t enough rigorous data validating it.”
Watts developed the survey in partnership with academic researchers and distributed it across professional networks including the American Advertising Federation, alumni groups, and industry communities. She ultimately collected more than 1,000 responses, with 926 included in the final analysis.
The perception problem
Beyond measuring the pay gap itself, the research also examined how industry professionals perceive pay equity, and how those perceptions compare to reality.
Nearly all women surveyed (96%) said they believe a gender pay gap exists in advertising. Yet only about one-third believed they personally were being underpaid because of their gender.
Watts said that disconnect may reflect a psychological tension between acknowledging systemic inequity and wanting to believe one’s own workplace is fair.
“So much of our identity is tied to our work and our salary,” she said. “It can be easier to believe the industry has a problem in general than to accept that your own company might be treating you unfairly.”
The study also found that pay transparency remains limited across agencies. Nearly half of women surveyed said they do not understand how salary decisions are made at their organization, and more than two-thirds said they had worked at a company where employees were discouraged from discussing pay with colleagues, a practice that is illegal under federal labor law.
Where the gap gets made
Structural opacity, however, is only part of the picture.
One of the clearest patterns emerged when women attempted to address perceived pay inequities with their managers. Women who raised pay concerns with supervisors, who were predominantly male in the sample, were significantly more likely to encounter indifference or stalled conversations than male employees making similar requests.
“Women were going to their managers and asking about pay disparities, but the conversation often stopped there,” Watts said. “Managers would say they’d look into it or push it off, and nothing would happen.”
By contrast, male employees were more likely to receive direct answers about promotions or pay decisions, even when the outcome was negative.
“That gatekeeping point, where the conversation stops at the manager level, is one of the biggest places agencies could intervene,” Watts said.
Another striking finding involved workplace dynamics between male and female colleagues. The study found that men who reported being uncomfortable working closely with women tended to earn more than women overall, a pattern Watts attributes to homosocial reproduction: the tendency for leaders to reward and promote people who resemble themselves.
“If decision-makers feel more comfortable with people who remind them of themselves, those employees may get more opportunities, bigger projects, and promotions,” Watts said. “Over time, those advantages compound financially.”
UCLA’s Wayne said the insights into social dynamics were among the most significant to emerge from the study. “Too often, men default to comfort and familiarity, even when it quietly reinforces inequity,” she said. “Closing the gender pay gap means encouraging men to choose fairness over comfort, and there is still a ton of work to be done to get men on board and fix this continuing problem.”
For Watts, the findings underscore how seemingly modest pay gaps produce substantial long-term consequences. Over a 25-year career, the study estimates the gap could translate into more than $167,000 in lost earnings for women who have never been pregnant, and more than $271,000 for mothers.
“That’s not small potatoes,” Watts said. “That’s student loan debt, that’s buying a home, that’s building generational wealth.”
Samantha Choi Cadley, founder and CEO/CCO of independent agency Manual Labor, said the dynamic is familiar. A friend of hers at a larger agency discovered she had been underpaid only when an acquisition forced the agency’s books open.
“She found out she was absolutely getting paid less, even as she was doing more work,” Choi Cadley said. “Not even peer-to-peer.”
Now running her own shop, Choi Cadley said the solution starts with who is making compensation decisions. “It’s about who you’re putting at the table,” she said. “If you have the same group of people that have come up through the same organization or model, you’re still playing the same habits, the same structure, whether intentionally or not.”
Watts hopes the research will prompt agencies to take concrete action, recommending pay band transparency, regular compensation audits and escalation processes so pay equity concerns do not stop at the direct manager level. Though the research predates her appointment, DNA&Stone has already begun implementing those measures internally, revising promotion guidelines to clarify how employees advance.
“Transparency is important,” Watts said. “But accountability is what ultimately closes the gap.”
Without those changes, she warns, the industry risks losing the very talent it depends on: “When nearly half of women say gender discrimination is affecting their career, eventually some of them are going to leave. And that’s not the kind of industry any of us want to be building.”
