This Ford campaign from BBA in Ecuador declares the F-150 truck is built to withstand
the end of the world.
Advertising Age reported the Stellantis shootout for new White advertising agencies resulted in the automaker sticking with incumbent White advertising agencies—Doner and GSD&M—both of which rolled away with additional vehicle accounts.
So, Doner might be able to hire more Detroit-based talent adversely affected by General Motors’ decision to shift its business to White advertising agencies outside of the Motor City.
Also open for work are staffers at McCann Detroit, as that faltering shop likely vied for Stellantis revenue opportunities too.
Stellantis Keeps Doner And GSD&M After Creative Agency Review
The struggling automaker is still evaluating agencies for digital creative
By E.J. Schultz
Stellantis, which earlier this year began a U.S. creative agency review for several brands, will keep Doner and GSD&M on its roster. Stagwell’s Doner won lead agency status for Ram, while Omnicom’s GSD&M will keep Dodge and add Chrysler, a spokesperson confirmed to Ad Age. GSD&M was also assigned Alfa Romeo and Fiat.
The digital creative portion of the review is still ongoing. The incumbent on that business is Huge, the experience design and technology shop that Interpublic recently sold to private equity firm AEA Investors.
Stellantis is conducting the review in-house under the leadership of U.S. Chief Marketing Officer Raj Register, who joined the automaker in June. She had served as CMO at Sysco Corp. and before that had a long career at Ford.
Jeep, Stellantis’ largest-spending brand, was not part of the review. Highdive is Jeep’s lead agency, but the automaker has yet to confirm which agency will handle the brand’s 2025 Super Bowl ad.
Detroit-based Doner has been a longtime Stellantis agency handling various assignments. It was among the shops that picked up more work for Ram after Stellantis in January cut ties with TRG, formerly known as The Richards Group, which had been with the automaker for 15 years.
After Jeep, Stellantis spends the most U.S. measured media on Ram, which received $184 million in the first nine months of 2024, followed by Dodge ($44 million), Chrysler ($10 million), Fiat ($5 million) and Alfa Romeo ($2 million), according to MediaRadar.
The agency review comes during a difficult year for Stellantis. Carlos Tavares abruptly resigned the CEO job earlier this month amid a sales slump. Stellantis Chairman John Elkann is leading the company until a new CEO is hired.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated with new information on Alfa Romero and Fiat agency assignments.
Advertising Age published a periodic perspective promoting DEIBA+ as the strategic advantage corporations can’t ignore.
Unfortunately, White advertising agencies deem DEIBA+ as something to ignore—extending an ignorance that has played uninterrupted for decades.
The author declared, “DEI is not dead. It’s evolving—and it’s time to bury the false narrative that it’s ill-intended, counterproductive or canceled.”
Um, Adland has mastered the art of false narratives. Justice fighters may attempt to bury the lies—but the deflection, denial, and deception are revived, resuscitated, and resurrected.
The author stressed the goals of DEIBA+ “must remain at the forefront of our collective conversation, free from diversionary and divisive debates about co-opted definitions.”
Okay, except there is no collective conversation. Don Draper said, “If you don’t like what’s being said, change the conversation.” For Adland, DEIBA+ leads to deliberate distraction and dawdling drivel.
DEI and business success—why inclusion is key to innovation and growth
The strategic advantage companies can’t ignore
By Latraviette Smith-Wilson
In an era where noise often drowns out truth, DEI has become a casualty in a game of political ping-pong. Fear, deception and partisan agendas skillfully marketed by a vocal, well-funded minority have painted DEI as dying, divisive, irrelevant—even illegal. But while diversity, equity and inclusion are under attack, DEI is not dead. It’s evolving—and it’s time to bury the false narrative that it’s ill-intended, counterproductive or canceled.
Throughout American history, progress has faced fierce resistance before becoming convention. The abolition of slavery, the enfranchisement of women and Black Americans, voting rights, equal pay, fair housing, marriage equality and more all faced profound opposition before advancing toward the long-unmet aspiration of liberty and justice for all.
Today is no different. DEI belongs to a lineage of transformative efforts that have challenged a flawed status quo to uphold the highest values of democracy and humanity.
Despite efforts to distort it, DEI is simple: Diversity means valuing differences in identities, backgrounds and experiences. Equity means ensuring fair treatment, access and opportunities for everyone. Inclusion means creating environments where all can feel welcomed, respected and empowered to contribute fully. These goals must remain at the forefront of our collective conversation, free from diversionary and divisive debates about co-opted definitions.
Language can always be misappropriated to serve an agenda, bending meaning to fit a purpose. Yesterday, the target was woke. Today, it’s DEI. Tomorrow, it may be the word du jour: belonging. This is why changing the words or rearranging the acronym is unlikely to be an effective solution. Rebranding without substance is performative at best, and true belonging cannot be realized while dismantling efforts aimed at achieving equity and inclusion. It’s like building a house but leaving out the foundation.
Corporate America must focus on these established truths: DEI doesn’t lower standards or dismiss merit. It amplifies fairness, creating opportunities for all. It doesn’t make success easy; it makes it equitable. At its core, DEI is a strategic, human-centered approach to building stronger institutions and businesses.
Yet, the road ahead will likely be fraught with challenges fueled by politically charged disinformation campaigns that misrepresent these efforts as part of a cultural war. But the potential rewards—a more innovative, equitable and thriving workforce—are worth every battle. Multiple studies indicate that diverse and inclusive companies perform better, with Gartner research showing highly inclusive organizations generate 2.3 times more cash flow per employee, 1.4 times more revenue and are 120% more capable of meeting financial targets. Similarly, companies with above-average diversity on their management teams report innovation revenue 19% higher than companies with below-average leadership diversity.
While increasingly well-crafted narratives falsely proclaim DEI’s demise, the facts tell a different story. A Washington Post/Ipsos poll found 61% of Americans view DEI as a “good thing for companies to adopt.” The Edelman Trust Institute reports employee demand in 2024 for DEI has returned to 2020 levels (60%, up 9 points from 2022) with sentiments improving over the past 3-5 years. Employee loyalty also increases across political lines (Republicans 82%, Democrats 83%, Independents 84%) when companies invest in DEI. Moreover, U.S. consumers are 4.5 times more likely to buy brands that commit to ending inequality. DEI isn’t a fleeting trend; it’s a business imperative with proven ROI.
The facts, however, have not stopped media from playing a role in skewing public perception. Thoughtful coverage of the evolution and impact of DEI has been an ember, while incomplete information and sensational headlines declaring its imminent death have spread like wildfire.
Choosing to amplify a few isolated controversies and back-pedaling companies neglects the broader reality: Most Americans and business leaders still recognize DEI as a crucial path to strengthen businesses and communities and build equitable and thriving workplaces. Media outlets have a responsibility to provide balanced, fact-based reporting, ensuring that statistically isolated incidents are not framed as a broader systemic collapse.
DEI rollbacks aren’t new. Companies with tepid DEI commitments often cut these initiatives and teams first during economic uncertainty. Since 2021, scaling back on the performative promises made after George Floyd’s murder has become common. These retreats highlight the danger of treating DEI as a symbolic gesture rather than a strategic priority. While fear of political backlash and publicity-centered litigation threats may explain the most recent retrenchments, abandoning DEI risks alienating customers and employees who expect accountability and inclusion, with 76% of millennials saying they’d leave an employer if DEI initiatives weren’t offered.
Rather than retreating, companies have an opportunity to rally around a call to action to innovate and evolve their DEI strategies, embedding them into operations, culture and values across functions. DEI must shift from HR-centric to business-led, with measurable outcomes tied to performance goals—just like any other strategic business priority. Leaders should also communicate DEI’s business value clearly and consistently. It’s not about politics; it’s about smart, strategic action to improve business and people outcomes.
DEI in corporate America was developed and has continued to evolve to address, among other needs, disparities in hiring, pay, advancement and treatment—inequalities that persist today. Achieving gender parity for all women will take nearly 50 years, and for women of color, the timeline more than doubles compared to white women. C-suite/executive leadership teams in advertising agencies are 80.7% white, 7.64% Asian, 5.41% Hispanic/Latina/Latinx and 2.97% Black/African American. These figures highlight just a small part of the work still to be done.
Businesses also have additional compelling reasons to double down on DEI. The Summer 2024 Fortune/Deloitte CEO Survey revealed that 40% of CEOs are focusing on diversity, equity and inclusion through strategic priorities over the next 12 months, demonstrating an awareness of its vital role in long-term success and the need to embed DEI throughout an organization. No CEO said that DEI is too big of a problem to tackle. The Edelman survey also found that when asked about the institutions trusted to address racism and injustice in America, 71% of respondents said, “my employer” and 51% said “business,” with “media” and “government” ranking lowest at 37% and 35%, respectively.
Businesses committed to DEI are not simply checking boxes—they’re preparing for the future. An increasingly diverse workforce and consumer demographics demand it. Companies that embrace DEI understand that it’s about better positioning themselves to attract top talent, foster creativity and drive growth.
History shows that corporate commitments to equity and fairness have often transcended political agendas. Even under pressure, companies have shown resilience, adapting their approaches to meet new and complex challenges while maintaining values of inclusion, courage and integrity.
The continuance of these efforts will not depend on which party sits in power. It will depend on how resolutely companies will stand to uphold their values, embrace and leverage the diversity of the American population for long-term business growth and underscore the need for a strategic, accountable, and sustained approach to achieving inclusive progress.
It’s time for business to reaffirm its commitment—and make history again.
MediaPost spotlighted the 2024 Global Advertising Representation Report from XR Extreme Reach and The Female Quotient. Referring to the results, an XR executive declared, “Gaps in inclusivity remain significant, but they are solvable.”
Hey, solvable is a very subjective term, rarely attached to measurable goals in Adland.
It’s always amazing that anyone feels the need to spend money on surveys revealing the obvious. Then again, advocacy organizations must justify their existence somehow—as well as generate performative PR to appear relevant.
No special report is necessary to conclude gaps in advertising inclusivity are directly tied to White advertising agencies’ exclusivity.
Study Finds Big Gaps In Advertising Inclusivity
By Steve McClellan
Video ad platform XR Extreme Reach has issued a new report that finds significant gaps in advertising inclusivity. The study assessed more than one million ads that were distributed in more than 100 countries.
The company’s 2024 Global Advertising Representation Report utilizes the Representation Index (RX), introduced earlier this year by XR and The Female Quotient.
In addition to gender, RX currently measures representation across age, body type and skin tone expression. The RX Score measures the diversity of each ad on a scale from 0 to 100, with higher scores reflecting a broader range of representation.
Findings Include:
• The 2024 global average RX score is trending at 32, peaking as high as 42 for Charity/Non-profit and as low as 28 for Sports.
• 70% of countries analyzed are trending above the global average
• 12% of talent detected in ads have dark skin tones
• 44% of faces detected have feminine gender expression, compared to 56% masculine.
• 15% of screen time features people with larger body types
• RX score for the Super Bowl 2024 was 41, 28% higher than the global average
Shelley Zalis, Founder and CEO of The Female Quotient, stated that “Media shapes how we see ourselves and others and by adopting this new metric (RX), brands don’t just close representation gaps—they lead the charge in shaping a more inclusive and profitable future.”
According to the company brands can use RX to audit their advertising and media content, identify representation gaps, track progress, and ensure their campaigns reflect their audiences.
Jo Kinsella, Global President and Chief Operating Officer at XR, stated, “Gaps in inclusivity remain significant, but they are solvable.”
The 2024 Global Advertising Representation Report can be accessed here.
At AdExchanger, the CEO of Luma Partners opined on “Why Publicis Is Winning”—stating the White holding company delivers strong financial performance based on three factors:
1. Bold technology strategy
2. Progressive leadership
3. Smart deal-making
The lengthy analysis, however, was drafted before news broke of Omnicom planning to acquire IPG.
So, a follow-up perspective could read: NVM.
Advertising Age reported IPG Mediabrands will lay off 103 employees on January 2, 2025. Happy Fucking New Year.
Ad Age stated the dismissal decision was made before Omnicom announced its intent to purchase IPG, implying the impending layoffs are not connected to the proposed acquisition.
Then again, Omnicom Chairman and CEO John Wren and IPG CEO Philippe Krakowsky admitted they started discussing the merger over a year ago.
So, the holiday heave-ho could be the result of a “recent client loss” per the explanation from a Mediabrands spokeswoman—or it could be a preemptive reduction in redundancy.
“We are committed to supporting the transition of those impacted by providing resources, severance payments and continuation of benefits,” claimed the spokeswoman.
Just don’t expect to collect the annual holiday bonus, folks.
IPG Mediabrands To Lay Off 103 employees In January
Layoff plans were made before Omnicom announced its plans to purchase IPG, according to WARN notice
By Brian Bonilla
Interpublic Group of Cos. plans to lay off 103 Mediabrands employees on Jan. 2, according to a WARN notice it filed in the state of California weeks before its planned acquisition by Omnicom Group was announced.
IPG filed the WARN notice on Oct. 30. The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act requires companies with 100 or more employees to notify of mass layoffs at least 60 days in advance.
The layoffs were a result of “a recent client loss,” a Mediabrands spokeswoman said in a statement, declining to identify the client. The WARN notice was filed weeks before Johnson & Johnson said Wednesday that it had shifted its media business in the U.S. and Canada from Mediabrands’ UM to WPP.
“We are committed to supporting the transition of those impacted by providing resources, severance payments and continuation of benefits,” the spokeswoman added.
Omnicom announced its plan to buy IPG on Monday. The deal is expected to lead to layoffs, as Omnicom said it would generate $750 million in annual cost synergies. The companies have not yet said how many jobs may be impacted by the proposed deal.
Gee, this must be a tough sell.
You’re cordially invited to join a failing White digital agency poised to be pruned by a White holding company that’s being acquired by a bigger White holding company.
This is no Help Wanted ad—it’s Hell Wanted.
Isobel in London created its annual Christmas card with an NHL hockey team theme—displaying all the diversity of, well, an NHL hockey team.
Advertising Age reported on packaging redesign for Hostess, a brand acquired a year ago by J.M. Smucker Co.
Not sure why Ad Age published such promotional fluff, yet there are connections to the proposed Omnicom–IPG merger.
There will undoubtedly be redesigns as the two White holding companies blend all the White advertising agencies. Like Hostess, the packaging might change, but the products will remain sugarcoated, unhealthy garbage.
Why Hostess redesigned Twinkies, Donettes and Ding Dongs packaging
The new look comes a year after the brand was acquired by J.M. Smucker Co.
By Erika Wheless
Hostess, the maker of Donettes, Twinkies, Cupcakes and Ding Dongs, is getting a new look with updated packaging and logos as J.M. Smucker Co. attempts to fuel the brand’s growth by attracting younger consumers.
The sweets marketer is going with a more rounded font style and a simplified, brighter color palette. The redesigned boxes feature the word “Hostess” more prominently and retain the brand’s signature red heart while adding a cloud-shaped border around “Hostess,” a nod to the snacks’ “light and airy quality,” according to a company press release. Hostess positioned it as a more modern look meant to appeal to younger consumers.
The font for each brand is also a nod to an element of the snack, according to Aundrea Graver, director of marketing at The J.M. Smucker Co. For example, the “o” in “Donettes” is the shape of one of the sweet treats. “Cupcakes” has a more curly font, inspired by the curlicue icing on top.
“One of my favorite aspects of the work are the subtle Easter eggs embedded in how we present the product brands,” Graver said. “We wanted to leverage the inherent strength of the Hostess parent brand while celebrating what makes each of our sweet baked snacks distinct and we did just that.”
The new packaging also highlights that each snack is individually wrapped, which according to Graver emphasizes convenience and portability.
Design Bridge and Partners created the packaging design and Sarah Anne Ward Photography supported work on the updated product imagery. The new packaging will hit grocery store shelves in January.
Hostess last updated its logo in 2006.
The refresh comes about a year after Hostess was acquired by J.M. Smucker for $5.6 billion. In prepared earnings remarks last month, CEO Mark Smucker told analysts that Smucker was not satisfied with Hostess’ performance and is taking steps to “return the brand to growth.”
The new packaging is the first step in updating the marketing strategy for Hostess—the snack maker has a new ad campaign planned for Hostess next year. J.M. Smucker’s bespoke Publicis Groupe team is handling the effort.
Smucker said that the new look and new in-store displays are meant to drive impulse purchases. Hostess will also launch new sharing sizes for Donettes and $1 packs for its donut and cake products, Smucker told analysts. J.M. Smucker plans to co-promote Hostess with its other brands, including its packaged coffee (Smucker owns Cafe Bustelo, Dunkin’ and Folgers.)
In the fiscal second quarter, J.M. Smucker Co.’s net sales increased 17% to $2.3 billion. Net sales of Hostess’ snacks were $316 million.
AAF confirms Adland is no longer interested in Blacks.
Although Mars Incorporated might insist Ms. Brown brings inclusivity to the affair.
CNN reported a federal judge blocked a proposed $25 billion hookup involving Kroger and Albertsons that would have been the biggest supermarket merger in US history.
Hey, why isn’t anyone blocking the merger to create the biggest White holding company in the world?
Federal judge blocks largest supermarket merger in history
By Nathaniel Meyersohn
New York CNN — A federal judge in Oregon blocked Kroger’s proposed $25 billion tie-up with Albertsons, ruling that the largest merger in US supermarket history would limit competition and harm consumers.
The ruling is a major setback for the chains and puts the merger’s likelihood in jeopardy. The judge issued a preliminary injunction halting the deal, which the companies can appeal.
The merger, announced in 2022, sought to combine the fifth and tenth largest retailers in the country. The companies own dozens of grocery chains, including Safeway, Vons, Harris Teeter and Fred Meyer.
Supermarkets have been losing ground in recent decades to competition, and Kroger and Albertsons wanted to merge to better fight off Walmart and Amazon.
Kroger and Albertsons employ mostly unionized workforces and said they wanted to merge to be more competitive against non-union giants such as Walmart, Amazon and Costco. The grocers also face increased pressure from Aldi, the fast-growing German discount supermarket chain.
The merger would accelerate “our position as a more compelling alternative to larger and non-union competitors,” Kroger CEO Rodney McMullen said when the deal was announced in 2022. Kroger committed to lowering grocery prices by $1 billion following the merger.
But Judge Adrienne Nelson rejected that argument.
In her ruling, she said that supermarkets are “distinct from other grocery retailers” and are not direct competitors to Walmart, Amazon and other companies that sell a wider range of goods. The merger would eliminate head-to-head competition between Albertsons and Kroger, potentially raising prices for consumers, she said in the ruling.
Kroger and Albertsons said they were disappointed in the ruling and were reviewing their options.
A merger between the two companies “is in the best interests of customers, associates, and the broader competitive environment in a rapidly evolving grocery landscape,” a Kroger spokesperson said.
But the White House hailed the ruling in a statement.
“The Kroger-Albertsons merger would have been the biggest supermarket merger in history — raising grocery prices for consumers and lowering wages for workers,” National Economic Council Deputy Director Jon Donenberg said.
High grocery prices helped scuttle the deal
Inflation at the grocery store loomed over the proposed merger.
The proposal came as food prices skyrocketed and met stiff opposition. Unions, small grocers and a coalition of Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill, including Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, also strongly opposed the merger from the start.
The Federal Trade Commission in February sued to block the deal. The FTC said the merger will “result in higher grocery prices for millions of Americans and lower wages and benefits for hundreds of thousands of grocery workers.”
To allay competition concerns, Kroger and Albertsons agreed to divest 579 stores to C&S Wholesale Grocers. But the FTC said C&S was “ill-equipped” to run the divested stores and it could turn into a “non-functioning disaster.”
Judge Nelson agreed with the FTC: “There is ample evidence that the divestiture is not sufficient in scale to adequately compete” with Kroger and Albertsons together and “will significantly disadvantage C&S as a competitor,” she said in the ruling.
The case was watched closely because of its implications for future antitrust enforcement and corporate dealmaking. The FTC under outgoing chair Lina Khan has also launched landmark antitrust suits against Google, Amazon and other tech giants.
Small grocery stores struggling
Independent grocery stores strongly opposed the merger. They argued that the merger would increase the companies’ leverage with merchandise suppliers and leave independent stores unable to stock their own shelves.
Yet consolidation in the grocery sector is growing, and small grocery stores are struggling.
In 2019, the 20 largest retailers controlled 64% of total food sales, more than double the share from 1990, according to the Agriculture Department.
Traditional grocery stores have also lost ground to Walmart, Costco, dollar stores and online retailers during that span.
The share of grocery spending at traditional supermarkets dropped from 80% in 1990 to 62% in 2012, according to the Agriculture Department.
Advocates of stricter antitrust rules cheered Judge Nelson’s decision.
“Persistently high food prices are hitting Americans hard, and a Kroger-Albertsons mega-merger would have only made it worse,” Food & Water Watch senior food policy analyst Rebecca Wolf said in a statement Tuesday.
