Friday, July 21, 2023

16325: The Latest 4As Survey In Black & White Shows More Whites & Less Blacks.

 

Advertising Age reported on a 4As survey that exposed the obvious: White advertising agencies owned and/or operated by White people elevated to 90.2% in 2022—an increase of over 20% versus 2021. It’s a safe bet the figure was sparked by shops owned and/or operated by White women under the legal smokescreen of diversity vendors. Additionally, multicultural marketing—which typically offers minority-owned opportunities—is diminishing.

 

Considering how Adland’s latest faux DE&I dedication was ignited by milestones and movements like Black Lives Matter, it’s worth examining the survey results pertaining to the historically underrepresented group. While there was a bump in entry-level hiring—undoubtedly fueled by embryo recruitment schemes—the number of senior-level Blacks declined. However, Blacks led with 52.94% of Chief Diversity Officer positions. Of course they did.

 

Although not officially recorded, the 4As survey ultimately measured the rise of systemic racism—which probably jumped to well above 100%.

 

Agencies Owned Or Run By White Execs Jump To 90%, 4A’s Diversity Report Finds

 

Survey shows diversity actually worsened in some areas, such as creative, last year

 

By Lindsay Rittenhouse

 

Despite all the talk about improving the industry’s diversity problem, a new report from the 4A’s finds not much progress has been made, especially at the leadership level.

 

The number of agencies owned or run by white CEOs jumped to 90.2% in 2022 from 73% in 2021, and representation for owners and CEOs across other ethnicities dropped, according to the Diversity in Agencies Survey for 2022.

 


According to the report, 1.5% of CEOs or agency owners were Asian in 2022, a significant falloff from 12% in 2021; 0.75% were Black or African American, down from 5% in 2021; and 5.26% were Hispanic, Latino, Latina or LatinX, nearly half the 10% reported in 2021.

 

Of agency owners reporting in the survey, 1.5% were of two or more ethnicities, up compared to none in 2021.

 

If the percentages are going to be improved, 4A’s CEO and President Marla Kaplowitz said the industry will have to do more to help underrepresented ad professionals “start those new agencies,” and get the capital to do so.

 

The survey found that some progress has been made in certain areas, including in Hispanic representation, and there remains strong female representation across the industry. But advertising remains predominantly white and some underrepresented groups declined in numbers across certain disciplines.

 

The 4A’s received staff diversity data from 116 agencies for the survey; 34% were holding company-owned and nearly 66% were independent.

 

Kaplowitz said the survey is “fairly representative,” but added, “I was disappointed we didn’t have more agencies participate." She noted that some holding companies said they would report their own data on their own time, while others simply said they were too busy to collect the data. “Even at the end, I was putting out notes to agency leaders asking them to participate.”

 

The number of female ad professionals rose slightly to 61.01% in 2022 from 60.36% in 2021, with the number of male employees at 38.7% in 2022 and 38.8% in 2021.

 

“Women have been inching up in terms of being much more dominant,” Kaplowitz said. She noted that the number of women decreases at the leadership level, but said the survey did not break down seniority by gender.

 

The total employee population of the agencies surveyed broken down by race and ethnicity in 2022, per the 4A’s, was as follows: 0.3% were Native American and Pacific Islander; 11.33% were Asian; 6.99% were Black or African American; 64.63% were white; 12.41% were Hispanic or LatinX; 0.18% were Middle Eastern; 2.88% were of two or more ethnicities; and 1.27% were from “other, not specified.”

 


Kaplowitz said these numbers should serve as a reminder to agency leaders that they need to drive change rather than treat diversity as a conversation to be had at industry conferences and awards shows. “I worry we’re having the same conversation and not moving it forward,” she said.

 

“The goal of this is to make sure our industry is representative of the communities we serve,” said Tahlisha Williams, executive VP of the 4A’s talent, equity and learning solutions, adding that the industry’s greatest growth opportunity is to unify around advancing DE&I and making it a business imperative.

 

Race and ethnicity by level and discipline

 

The survey also broke down various levels of seniority and disciplines within agencies by race and ethnicity.

 

The numbers on entry-level employees by race and ethnicity in 2022 were as follows: 0.5% were Native American and Pacific Islander, compared to none in 2021; 15.82% were Asian, an increase from 14.17% in 2021; 11.38% were Black or African American, up from 10.49% in 2021; 48.46% were white, down from 55.77% in 2021; 18.96% were Hispanic or LatinX, up from 15.01% in 2021; 0.23% were Middle Eastern, compared to none in 2021; 3.81% were of two or more races, compared to none in 2021; and 0.83% were reported in the “other, not specified” group, compared to 4.56% in 2021.

 

The numbers on VP, senior VP, managing director or equivalent by race and ethnicity for 2022: 0.07% were Native American and Pacific Islander, compared to none in 2021; 8.71% were Asian, slightly up from 8.4% in 2021; 3.32% were Black or African American, a decline from 3.65% in 2021; 77.56% were white, compared to 79.49% in 2021; 6.9% were Hispanic or LatinX, up from 5.48% in 2021; 0.04% were Middle Eastern, compared to none in 2021; 1.84% were of two or more ethnicities, compared to none in 2021; and 1.55% were “other, not specified,” compared to 2.99% in 2021.

 

The majority (80.7%) of C-suite and executives in 2022 were white. The survey did not have stats from 2021 to compare, because this category in last year’s survey included stats on owners and CEOs that are now broken out separately. Only 0.64% of executives in 2022 were Alaskan Native, Hawaiian, Native American and Pacific Islander; 7.64% were Asian; 2.97% were Black or African American; 5.41% were Hispanic, Latino, Latina or LatinX; 0.21% were Middle Eastern; 1.38% were of two or more ethnicities; and 1.06% were “other, not specified.”

 

Black or African American professionals held the most diversity and inclusion officer titles (52.94%) in 2022, per the survey, while 5.88% with the title were Asian; 29.41% were Hispanic, Latino, Latina, or LatinX; 11.76% were of two or more ethnicities; and none were white.

 

Kaplowitz said it shouldn’t be “incumbent on people of color to have to drive that change.”

 

The survey showed that representation across certain groups, most dramatically among Asian employees, declined in certain disciplines.

 

The numbers for creative roles by race and ethnicity for 2022 were as follows: 0.27% were Native American and Pacific Islander, compared to none in 2021; 8.79% were Asian, compared to 8.55% in 2021; 4.68% were Black or African American, compared to 4.4% in 2021; 68.04% were white, down from 73.2% in 2021; 13.75% were Hispanic or LatinX, up from 9.54% in 2021; 0.27% were Middle Eastern, compared to none in 2021; 2.9% were of two or more ethnicities, compared to none in 2021; and 1.29% were “other, not specified,” compared to 4.31% in 2021.

 

The numbers for social media roles by race and ethnicity for 2022 were as follows: 0.29% were Native American and Pacific Islander, compared to none in 2021; 12.1% were Asian, down from 16.16% in 2021; 7.12% were Black or African American, down from 7.96% in 2021; 62.83% were white, up from 59.59% in 2021; 11.9% were Hispanic or LatinX, up from 10.25% in 2021; 0.2% were Middle Eastern, compared to none in 2021; 4.59% were of two or more ethnicities, compared to none in 2021; and 0.98% were “other, not specified,” down from 6.03% in 2021.

 

LGBTQ+ data increases

 

The number of agencies that reported data on LGBTQ+ representation increased to 33% in 2022. The data is difficult to report because many LGBTQ+ professionals choose not to self-identify.

 

Kaplowitz said the uptick in that data is a promising sign that agencies are creating cultures where LGBTQ+ employees feel comfortable and safe self-identifying.

 

The numbers may not be truly representative, as only 33% of agencies disclosed the data on LGBTQ+ staffers, but the report found that the number of bisexual professionals rose to 4.65% in 2022 from .10% in 2021; gay professionals rose to 11.52% in 2022 from 0.50% in 2021; 0.09% identified as transgender in 2022 versus 0.04% in 2021; and 5.54% identified as lesbian in 2022 versus 0.21% in 2021.

 

The full report is free to access for the 116 agencies that participated, but all other agencies will have to pay to get a copy.


1 comment:

consultant said...

As a person out here working in the trenches with many of the agencies mentioned in this survey, I can tell you exactly what happened.

Seething anger behind the scenes about the perceived (not actual) progress being made by diverse people in the wake of George Floyd made executive white people extend a hand and help other white people get further ahead. There was a lot of resentment boiling behind the scenes about "unfair diversity advantages" they thought were being given, so diversity initiatives simply backfired. White people helped other white people.

The "surge" in women ownership is a surge in WHITE women ownership. See above. When push came to shove and the issue of diversity was indeed pressed, white men extended help to white women.

The "surge" in Hispanic agencies was because white holding companies finagled their way into taking a couple of their multicultural agency owners (especially in Miami) and rebranding them as "Hispanic owned agencies" when all that happened was paperwork getting shuffled. The ownership, hidden under a couple of layers of shadowy companies, is still in the hands of holding companies. They're not independent or Hispanic owned at all.

The fall in the number of minority owned agencies is because the white holding companies could not stand to see independent minority owned companies being tossed any amount of multicultural crumbs by brands. So they either gobbled up the crumbs by saying they could do multicultural work or created faux minority owned agencies (see above again). Starved for crumbs, actual minority owned agencies closed left and right.

White people helping white people took everything, like they always do.