899: Honda + Nissan + Omnicom + IPG = OMFG FUBAR.

 

Advertising Age spotlighted the planned merger starring Honda and Nissan, with the former to lead on the road ahead.

 

For Adland, the Japanese automakers’ union could create a horrendous car wreck.

 

The Honda US advertising account is driven by RPA, a White advertising agency founded in 1986 during the creation of Omnicom. When Doyle Dane Bernbach (DDB) and Needham Harper Worldwide became DDB Needham in that merger, a conflict arose because the former serviced Volkswagen while the latter handled Honda. Leaders at Needham Harper Worldwide’s Los Angeles office went rogue, quickly forming RPA and taking the Honda business as its foundational account.

 

The Nissan US advertising account is with Omnicom, which constructed a coalition of shops called Nissan United in 2013.

 

So, the Honda-Nissan merger could impact the Omnicom-IPG merger.

 

Will Omnicom ultimately regain Honda, growing the revenue collected from Nissan? Or will RPA pick up Nissan billings, adding to the Honda pot of gold? Which White enterprise will lose a showcase client? And where does IPG—already affected by the General Motors and Stellantis maneuvers—fit in the impending collision?

 

One thing is certain: Lots of adpeople will lose their livelihoods—with zero say in the matter and/or no blame for the inevitable chaos.

 

Oh, and non-White advertising agencies will be powerless pawns, pulverized patsies, and pitiful peons in the political pileup.

 

Honda, Nissan To Merge By Summer 2026

 

Japan’s second- and third-largest auto players to join forces with Honda in the driver’s seat

 

By Hans Greimel

 

Honda and Nissan plan to merge under a holding company with the top executives chosen by Honda in a historic reshuffling of Japan’s auto industry meant to keep the country’s second- and third-largest players competitive amid a global onslaught of new competitors and technologies.

 

Mitsubishi Motors, partly owned by Nissan, will decide by the end of January whether to join the new partnership.

 

The CEOs of all three companies announced the new framework at an afternoon news conference on Dec. 23 in Tokyo, with Honda CEO Toshihiro Mibe in the center, flanked by his counterparts. The companies said they will now negotiate details.

 

“We have the potential to be a world-class, leading company in new mobility,” Mibe said. “By 2030, we need the artillery to compete on the battlefield. So, we are starting today.”

 

Honda, Japan’s No. 2 automaker, and Nissan aim to finalize an agreement by next June and establish the holding company by August 2026. They plan to take the new entity public around that time, pending investor approval at extraordinary shareholder meetings planned for around April 2026.

 

Both Honda Motor Co. and Nissan Motor Co. will be delisted from the Tokyo Stock Exchange and will become subsidiaries of the new holding company.

 

Honda is expected to nominate the majority of directors and the president of the new company. The final share transfer ratio will be decided later and be based upon share prices, among other factors. Still undecided is the name and headquarters of the new holding company.

 

In the U.S., Nissan has long used Omnicom for creative and media under a multi-agency set-up called Nissan United. Nissan-owned Infiniti uses Publicis Groupe for global creative. RPA handles Honda’s advertising in the U.S.

 

Nissan is the world’s 60th-largest global ad spender, while Honda ranks 63rd, [according] to the Ad Age Datacenter.

 

Nissan is undergoing marketing leadership changes, with Allyson Witherspoon in November taking on the U.S. chief marketing officer role. Witherspoon, who held the position less than two years ago, retained her current role as corporate VP of global marketing, brand and merchandising for Nissan Motor Co.

 

Mibe pitched the agreement as a way to sharpen the companies’ competitive edge on everything from production and vehicle R&D to sales financing, electrification and software development.

 

The combined operations won’t be a quick fix, Mibe cautioned. The first outcomes will start to manifest only before the end of the decade, with the big payoffs coming after 2030.

 

A combined Honda and Nissan will be able to generate annual revenue exceeding ¥30 trillion ($181.84 billion) and operating profit exceeding ¥3 trillion ($19.18 billion), the companies predicted.

 

Mibe said the new combination was not a bailout of Nissan. Rather, he said, Nissan and Honda will be expected to stabilize their own businesses before joining hands.

 

Embattled Nissan, fighting long-term sales decline, massive debt and crumbling profits, launched a revival plan in November that slashes global capacity and cuts 9,000 jobs worldwide.

 

Any finalized deal will hinge on Nissan getting its house in order first, Mibe said.

In the meantime, Honda is initiating large buybacks of its own stock to bolster its share price, Mibe said. Honda wants to buy back up to 20% of its outstanding. Honda is acting now before regulatory restrictions on buybacks take effect during merger talks.

 

“It’s not going to stay like [it] is today forever,” Mibe said.

 

The long-term goal is not downsizing and rationalizing operations but rather growth and bigger scale, he added. As an example of a potential impact on the U.S. market, Mibe dangled the possibility of delivering a hybrid pickup truck, leveraging Honda’s strength in gasoline-electric powertrains and Nissan’s experience in body-on-frame trucks.

 

“We aren’t thinking about just carving out, carving out, carving out and leaving only the good parts,” Mibe said. “We want to think about options that lead us to bigger scale.”

 

Mibe and his Nissan counterpart Makoto Uchida said Honda will take the lead in setting up the holding company because its market capital is bigger than Nissan’s. Before news of the talks broke this month, Nissan’s share price had tumbled 35% this year, as the company struggled with a litany of financial problems including a net loss in the latest quarter.

 

“We will definitely be able to address all the challenges ahead and deliver significant new value that we have never seen in the past,” Uchida said. “We will be among the top class.”

 

The Dec. 23 agreement builds upon a looser technology and purchasing partnership the companies began exploring in March. At that time, Honda and Nissan said they would explore teaming up on electric vehicles, automotive software, batteries, procurement and more. Mitsubishi joined those talks in August.

 

“Without the courage to transform, we will be unable to continue,” Uchida said. “If we can enter discussions with speed, even against the many emerging players, we can become a winner.”

 

Combining would give the automakers bigger scale to drive down costs and share the R&D burden for new technologies in an industry under siege by change.

 

But it also would create a complicated overlap in Japanese production facilities, key markets, management and product segments. Moreover, cross-holdings could entangle the companies in a knotty shareholder web with existing Nissan partners Renault and Mitsubishi.

 

Even after the tie-up, Honda is expected to continue its project-based cooperation with General Motors on the side, and Nissan will be able to continue its own with Renault, Mibe said.

 

Last year, Nissan emerged from two decades as the junior partner in its alliance with Renault, after both companies agreed to rebalance their cross-holdings. Each will have a 15% stake in the other after Renault sells down the balance of its 43% stake that is held in a trust.

 

As part of its own restructuring and revival plans, Nissan is meanwhile selling down its controlling 34% stake in Mitsubishi Motors Corp. that it acquired in 2016.

 

Mitsubishi CEO Takao Kato said his company would examine the holding company and possibly join. Mitsubishi brings strengths in Southeast Asia, plug-in hybrids and pickup truck platforms.

 

“We see it as a positive move,” Kato said. “It is extremely difficult to afford all the investment and engineering resources alone.”

 

The biggest potential positive of integrating Honda and Nissan would be huge scale. Though both companies have dialed down forecasts, Nissan plans to sell 3.4 million vehicles in the fiscal year ending March 31. Honda plans to sell 3.8 million vehicles.

 

Synergies could be spread across the companies’ combined sales of about 7.2 million vehicles. Mitsubishi would chip in another 895,000 deliveries, bringing total sales to more than 8 million.

 

Toyota Motor Corp., by contrast, sold a record 11.09 million vehicles in the fiscal year ended March 31, solidifying its place as the world’s No. 1. And that total doesn’t count volume from its constellation of capital cross-holding partners, including Subaru, Mazda, Suzuki and Isuzu.

 

While scale and joint savings hold plenty of potential, execution will be the real test.

“On paper, many proposed mergers look great,” S&P Global Associate Director Stephanie Brinley wrote in an analysis. But there are many unanswered questions, she added.

 

Among them is how to support Nissan’s restructuring so it does not weigh down the team. Another issue would be how to handle their overlapping premium brands—Acura and Infiniti. How they jumpstart their imploding businesses in China will also be a critical challenge.

 

Both companies have already begun developing their next-generation EV platforms and technologies for the latter 2020s. Integrating them could force more difficult choices.

Then, there is the thorny issue of meshing corporate cultures.

 

“Merging Nissan and Honda creates scale, but accessing cost benefits from that scale is also a long-range process which can be costly in the short term,” Brinley wrote. “Finding meaningful and sustainable synergies in the product portfolio, in product development and in manufacturing is where many mergers stumble and fail to live up to the potential.”

 

Hans Greimel is a reporter for Automotive News

 

Ad Age News Editor E.J. Schultz contributed to this story

16898: AI & A-Holes.

 

More About Advertising noticed B&T—Australia’s leading publisher for advertising, media, marketing, and PR news—ran a story on Omnicom planning to acquire IPG.

 

The content featured an Adobe Firefly-rendered portrait of WPP CEO Mark Read, Publicis Groupe CEO Arthur Sadoun, and S4 Capital Overlord Sir Martin Sorrell (depicted above).

 

Much has been published on how AI fails diverse audiences; however, the B&T image demonstrates White men benefit from the technology—especially based on the portrayal of Sir Peanut.

 

George Parker commented, “Is that how the ‘Poisoned Dwarf’ AI’s himself before hitting [Shepherd Market]?”

16897: Dreaming Of A White Rice Christmas.

 

Savoring holiday memories brought to you by White advertising agencies and Adland.

16896: On Holiday Parties & DEIBA+ Heat Shields.

 

Mediapsssst at MediaPost spotlighted a Harris Poll survey showing office holiday parties mirror DEIBA+ initiatives—that is, there is declining dedication and interest for the annual festivities.

 

Companies are orchestrating fewer in-person holiday events, which also mirrors diminishing DEIBA+ heat shields.

 

Expect Campbell Ewald to halt plans for a Ghetto Days–Kwanzaa celebration.

 

Poll: Office Holiday Parties Fall Out Of Favor

 

By Richard Whitman

 

There was a time when just about everybody looked forward to the office holiday party, if not recovering from it.  

 

But no longer, according to a new Harris Poll which found that just 48% of workplaces now host regular in-person holiday events. 

 

Apparently, the younger generations, Gen Z and Millennials are driving the decline, according to the poll. 

 

“Holiday parties are no longer a one-size-fits-all tradition,” says Libby Rodney, Chief Strategy Officer and Futurist at The Harris Poll. “Younger generations are calling for celebrations that align with today’s workplace values-interactive, inclusive, and respectful of employees’ time and contributions.”  

 

Younger employees polled cited awkward conversations, alcohol-fueled discomfort, and the fear of standing out in the wrong way as their primary concerns.  

 

42% of Gen Z prefer alcohol to be served in moderation or not at all, while 66% of Millennials want lighthearted features, such as executive roasts, to make celebrations more engaging and inclusive, and 65% advocating for a ban on work-related conversations. 

 

Harris surmises that “The future of workplace holiday parties lies in creativity and inclusivity,” noting that Gen Z showed a preference for interactive and themed events like escape rooms or creative workshops that allow employees to connect in innovative ways. Millennials want “Holiday Lite” celebrations that prioritize team bonding and relaxation in low-pressure environments.  

 

Across all generations the poll found that “practicality reigns supreme” in that 79% of employees would prefer a monetary bonus, and 71% would opt for additional time off instead of a holiday party. 

 

The survey was conducted online in November among a nationally representative sample of 1,238 employed adults. The research includes 222 Gen Z (ages 18-27), 447 Millennials (ages 28-43), 391 Gen X (ages 44-59), and 178 Boomers (ages 60 and older). See the full results here.

16895: Publishers Who Live In Glass Houses…

 

Adweek ran a report titled, “Branding’s Year of Fear: A Look Back at Six Blatant Backlashes from 2024,” spotlighting brands that experienced blowback for a variety of reasons. The six instances included the following:

 

Diversity takes a hit

 

After years of embracing diversity (at least on paper), a phalanx of household-name brands including Ford, John Deere, Target and Lowe’s decided to abandon it in 2024, dismissing some of the very ideals they’d trumpeted until recently. After the 2020 murder of George Floyd prompted much c-suite soul searching and resulted in written pledges to increase diversity and equity inclusion, the social pendulum seems to have swung back in a case of fear caused by fear.

 

Social conservatives spooked and angered by corporate wokeness coalesced around activist Robbie Starbuck, whose accusatory tweets and boycott threats then spooked and angered the corporations. A recent Public Private Strategies Institute survey showed that 82% of business leaders still believe in DEI, but 2024’s counterstrike means they’ll probably be quieter about it.

 

Okay, but it should be noted Adweek abandoned its dedication to DEIBA+ content in early 2023.

16894: Big Food, Big Tobacco, Big Trouble.

 

Advertising Age reported on a lawsuit charging big food companies emulate Big Tobacco; that is, packaged food corporations deliberately make addictive products promoted by marketing campaigns targeting children and minorities.

 

Not sure why the lawsuit is only attacking packaged food manufacturers versus also going after brands like Mickey D’s. After all, it could be argued McNuggets and McRibs are the equivalent of menthol cigarettes.

 

Lawsuit alleges major food makers knowingly used Big Tobacco tactics

 

The makers of Oreo, Pop-Tarts, Slim Jim and other products face a lawsuit over childhood disease

 

By Ally Marotti

 

Packaged food giants face a lawsuit alleging that they knowingly make addictive products that cause illnesses such as type 2 diabetes and target children with those products.

 

Food and beverage marketers named in the lawsuit include Coca-Cola Co., Conagra Brands, General Mills, Kellanova, Kraft Heinz, Mars, Mondelēz International, Nestlé USA, PepsiCo, Post Holdings and WK Kellogg Co.

 

Pennsylvania resident Bryce Martinez filed the lawsuit on Dec. 10 in Philadelphia Common Pleas Court. The lawsuit alleges that Martinez developed type 2 diabetes and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease when he was 16 because he frequently ate the companies’ products.

 

Martinez “is one of many casualties of defendants’ predatory profiteering,” the complaint says. “(He) is now suffering from these devastating diseases, and will continue to suffer for the rest of his life.”

 

The lawsuit comes as the spotlight is turning upon the ingredients in some of the country’s most popular packaged food brands. President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for secretary of health and human services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has broadly critiqued processed foods. He has vowed to remove them from school lunch programs and disallow them from being bought with food stamps.

 

Kennedy has specifically discussed the harms of high-fructose corn syrup and processed grains. If his nomination is approved, he will oversee a department that has partial oversight of Americans’ diet through the Food and Drug Administration.

 

The lawsuit filed in Pennsylvania earlier this month targets ultra-processed foods, which it says are “industrially produced edible substances that are imitations of food.” They contain little to no whole food, and have come to dominate the American diet since the 1980s, the lawsuit says. On average, children now derive two-thirds of their energy from ultra-processed foods.

 

The lawsuit points to the rise of type 2 diabetes and fatty liver disease, which “had been largely confined to elderly alcoholics,” in children. It ties the increasing prevalence of such diseases to the 1980s, when tobacco companies bought major U.S. food companies. For example, tobacco company Philip Morris bought Kraft Foods in 1988.

 

The tobacco companies then “used their cigarette playbook to fill our food environment with addictive substances that are aggressively marketed to children and minorities,” according to the lawsuit.

 

The lawsuit alleges that the companies that make ultra-processed foods are “well aware of the harms they are causing and (have) known it for decades. But they continue to inflict massive harm on society in a reckless pursuit of profits.”

 

Representatives from each company did not respond to a request for comment. The exception was Conagra: Its spokesperson declined to comment on pending litigation.

 

The Consumer Brands Association, a trade association that represents many of the country’s packaged food companies, said in a statement that such companies adhere to FDA standards and “deliver safe, affordable and convenient products that consumers depend on every day.”

 

“Americans deserve facts based on sound science in order to make the best choices for their health. There is currently no agreed upon scientific definition of ultra-processed foods,” Sarah Gallo, senior VP of Product Policy, said in a statement. “Attempting to classify foods as unhealthy simply because they are processed, or demonizing food by ignoring its full nutrient content, misleads consumers and exacerbates health disparities.”

 

At its heart, this lawsuit is a product liability case, said R. Mark McCareins, a clinical professor of business law at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management.

“The cost of doing business in the U.S., with our civil justice system, are suits like this,” he said. “The fact that somebody filed a lawsuit does not mean that … the companies did anything wrong, and they are more than free to defend themselves.”

 

In such cases, attorneys typically must prove causation—in this case, did the ultra-processed foods cause the diseases—and that the companies knew about the harm. Typically, expert testimony is vital.

16893: L’Oréal Real Old Advertising Concept.

 

L’Oréal ran this self-promotional advertisement in The New York Times, hyping the company’s performative PR and heat shields on generational diversity.

 

See, there are career opportunities for Old White Guys and Old White Gals bemoaning the perceived ageism in Adland.

16892: Ford At End Of The World—And The End Of Cultural Commitment.

 

This Ford campaign from BBA in Ecuador declares the F-150 truck is built to withstand the end of the world.

Another sign of an impending apocalypse: Ford caved into political pressure and abandoned its DEIBA+ dedication—no doubt making a speedy getaway in an F-150 truck.

 

16891: Stellantis Stalling & Stale.

 

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.

16890: On False Narratives & Diversionary Debates.

 

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.