17609: Converse Defender Tells Everyone To KKKalm Down.

 

Adweek published yet another perspective on the Converse lynching controversy, allowing an author to figuratively hang himself.

The color commentator closed by remarking, “I fully expect this column to incur similar wrath from the sanctimonious corners of the internet where offence is easily taken and blame must then be immediately apportioned.”

Okay. Challenge accepted.

For starters, the author seems oblivious to having assumed a stereotypical role in the matter. That is, he’s the Angry Old White Guy.

It’s a waste of time attempting to school the culturally clueless. Although it’s particularly annoying in this case, as the author boasts having a PhD in Marketing and hypes his MiniMBA programs.

He’s clearly out to educate the masses versus consider the opportunity for a teachable moment. Self-absorption always trumps self-enlightenment, self-improvement, and self-awareness.

The final proclamation underscored his ignorance: “It just requires everyone to calm down.”

Yes, calm down despite once again experiencing the lashing disrespect of an industry historically mired in systemic racism.

Calm down by being told how to respond to offensive material by a bona fide representative of the offenders.

Calm down when even the unintentionally biased avoid accountability as intentionally as card-carrying KKK members.

From Converse to Ed Sheeran, Let’s End These Tedious Apology Tours

Converse, Oxford United, and Ed Sheeran all got dragged through the same ritual for mistakes that were accidental or not even theirs

By Mark Ritson

It was a rotten week for Converse. 

On Sept. 3, the Nike-owned brand posted a new campaign on social media for the Chuck 70 X built around Karina, the very famous singer from K-pop group aespa. 

In the key image she stands in a long white skirt, wearing the shoes and holding a second pair in one hand, framed by a spotlight cut in the shape of the Converse star.

Two weeks passed.

Then, someone noticed that the edge of the star projected onto her skirt made a shape a bit like a Klan hood. And that the shoes hanging from her hand could be read as a body. Then a second image surfaced, from Converse Malaysia, of models on a ladder reaching for sneakers strung from a tree branch. 

The two pictures welded together online into a single verdict.

Converse was now running “the most racist ad of the season.” The work was “shocking,” “abhorrent,” “repugnant.” Even if it was unintentional, the fact that it had gotten past legal, marketing, and leadership was itself an unforgivable offence.

Converse apologized within a day, pulled everything and promised to do better, but not enough for Louisiana Congressman Troy Carter. 

“Lynching is not a creative concept. The Ku Klux Klan is not an aesthetic,” he raged. “This campaign should never have been created, approved or released.” Nike and Converse, he said, should explain publicly how the images had passed through their approval process.

Step back from the heat for a second. Nobody seriously thought, for even a moment, that a Korean photographer shooting a Korean pop star for the Korean market was evoking the Klan. It was an accident. And the instant the claims were made, Converse said sorry, and pulled the work. 

Which prompts a question nobody in the pile-on bothered to ask. 

What else was Converse meant to do here?

It didn’t matter, though, as a wrong had been done, and offence taken. It didn’t matter whether it accidental or not, or whether an apology had already been offered.

Penalties must apply. 

The same script ran in England last week around the same time at Oxford United, a third tier football club. The team was founded in 1893, and a new range of American college-style clothing celebrated the fact with UNITED across the shoulders and a big 93 beneath it.

The collection went live on Sept. 11.

Almost immediately, someone inside the club worked out what a United 93 shirt looks like on the 25th anniversary of 9/11. The range and the posts promoting it were gone within two hours. That should have been the end of it.

It wasn’t. A week later, the club was being roasted on CNN, ESPN, and the Washington Post and had issued a full confession. The shirts “should not have reached the point of sale and we take full responsibility for not undertaking proper due diligence.” Again, nobody suggested any of this was deliberate. And again, the mistake was fixed within hours. But still an apology was required.

Then there is Ed Sheeran

On Saturday night, Sheeran delivered the most extreme entry in this new genre: an apology for something he demonstrably did not do. 

In Philadelphia, before playing a note, he stood in front of 60,000 people and said, “I am making mistakes and I’m so, so sorry.” 

He was apologizing for a rapper’s politics, a stadium owner’s ban, and a promoter’s decision, none of which were his, to an audience that just wanted to hear Shape of You. 

A man who has spent his career steering clear of every political issue going found himself in the middle of the most intractable one on earth. Through no fault of his own he found himself apologizing.

We have reached a very low point. The combination of crisis management, the fragmentation of culture and the insidious effects of social media have turned this decade into an unpleasant, sanctimonious place. Where the only option for innocent people is to eat humble pie with a double serving of reputational rescue slathered on top.

Converse set out to offend no one, and when it did, it made amends the same day. Oxford United made an awful accidental mistake and fixed it immediately, then apologised anyway. Ed Sheeran just wants to play music but must first apologize for things he did not do and does not understand. 

I fully expect this column to incur similar wrath from the sanctimonious corners of the internet where offence is easily taken and blame must then be immediately apportioned. 

Real harm, deliberately done, deserves an apology and consequences, and brands that drag their feet deserve everything they get. A mistake with no intent behind it deserves a correction. That’s all. 

“We’ve withdrawn it” is a complete sentence. It does not need “we understand.” It does not need “we’ll do better.” It just requires everyone to calm down.

17608: Mo’ Motions, No Motion In WPP Whistleblower Lawsuit.

 

MediaPost reported the latest motion sickness in the WPP whistleblower lawsuit, spotlighting a motion filed by the alleged whistleblower opposing a motion filed by the global flaming dumpster to dismiss the case.

Seems like lots of motions without any forward motion.

Foster Files Motion Opposing WPP’s Summary Dismissal Request

By Steve McClellan

Alleged WPP whistleblower Richard Foster filed a motion Friday opposing WPP’s request that the New York State Supreme Court judge hearing the case toss it before it goes to trial.    

Foster argues that his lawsuit should move forward because he has provided enough facts to support his claims that WPP and its media division retaliated against him after he reported what he believed were unlawful business practices—primarily misappropriating client media rebates and repackaging them for sale by its own principal trading unit.  

In late 2024 Foster submitted a report to WPP Media CEO Brian Lesser describing what he contended were legal and governance problems. Last month, Foster submitted details of a separate investigation by Sony that concluded that WPP Media siphoned $350 million in media rebates in China in a single year for its own use that properly belonged to clients. And he argues that the Sony probe backs up his own assertions that WPP wrongfully pocketed client rebates.   

A separate hearing has been scheduled for October where WPP will present its case for sealing the Sony material, which it has said is not relevant to the Foster litigation. Foster will argue why the Sony probe details should be allowed as evidence.  

According to Foster, Lesser acknowledged that the report raised "legal issues,” but instead of addressing the concerns, allegedly shared the report with an executive whom Foster had criticized.  

After that, Foster says he was gradually pushed aside, excluded from important meetings and projects, and ultimately fired in July 2025. 

“Defendants ask the Court to decide three questions on the pleadings: what Foster believed, what he communicated, and why he was the subject of months of retaliation,” Foster states in his latest motion. “Each is a question of fact that is not appropriately decided on a motion to dismiss.” 

He argues that the court must assume his factual allegations are true at this early stage. He argues WPP is asking the judge to weigh evidence and resolve factual disputes, which should happen later in the case, not on a motion to dismiss. 

Foster argues that Lesser knew about his concerns, and that retaliation began shortly after his report was delivered, and that there was a continuing pattern of adverse treatment leading up to his firing. 

He also notes that in previous filings by WPP, the company’s explanation for firing him is inconsistent—that it has characterized his departure as an "ignominious termination" while also saying it resulted from a global restructuring. Those explanations conflict and raise factual questions that should be resolved at trial rather than be dismissed now. 

Foster, who ran WPP’s content investment and branded entertainment unit, Motion, is seeking $100 million in severance and damages. He says the company offered him a seven-figure severance package conditioned on his silence, which he says he rejected.

17607: WPP Production Bids Farewell To Exclusive Bidding.

 

Campaign reported WPP Production has taken down its guidance on rigging the bidding system, a scheme that instructed staff to “actively convince” clients to assign all production work exclusively to the single White operating company, effectively avoiding the standard triple bid process.

The Trusted Growth Partner For The World’s Leading Brands appears to have reconsidered the questionable ethics and lack of transparency posed by such a maneuver.

Looks like WPP Production will have to earn jobs based on performance and capabilities—quite a challenge for the global flaming dumpster. Yikes.

17606: On Converse KKKicks.

BBC reported Converse yanked an Instagram advertisement following complaints that the image evoked KKK imagery.

At least they didn’t rename the featured shoe Chuck 70 burning cross trainer.

Converse pulls ‘deeply upsetting’ advert after backlash

By Amy Walker

American footwear brand Converse has pulled an advert that social media users said evoked Ku Klux Klan imagery, saying it recognised “that we got this wrong”.

The photo, posted to the company’s Instagram account, received backlash online after critics described lighting in the image as looking like a white pointed hood.

A pair of shoes, dangling in the picture, were also likened to an image of a lynching victim by social media users.

In an apology, first issued on Friday, Converse said the photo had been removed from its social media channels and it was working to remove it elsewhere. “This should not have happened and we will do better,” it said.

The statement also said: “We’re sorry. We understand why this image is deeply upsetting and recognize that we got this wrong”.

The photo was part of a campaign promoting its Chuck 70 X trainer, launched internationally on 27 August.

The campaign features the South Korean singer Karina, of the K-pop group Aespa, who is pictured in a series of advertisements for the shoes.

Founded in Massachusetts in the early 1900s, the popularity of Converse has skyrocketed since its Chuck Taylor sneaker was first introduced to US basketball courts in 1917.

The global brand has been a subsidiary of Nike since 2003.

17605: On Exposing Ugliness Of PepsiCo Pageantry.

 

More About Advertising published a lengthy perspective titled, “Ad agency pitch theatre is not a sport, but a beauty contest,” providing a probing analysis of PepsiCo global media duties shifting from Omnicom to Publicis Groupe.

The title poses two inherent flaws.

First, the PepsiCo business was awarded sans pitch. To play off the content concept, a winner was crowned without having to appear in the swimsuit competition—or any other pageant event. Indeed, it’s unclear how the decision was made, rendering the entire affair suspicious and potentially scandalous.

Second, the opinion piece was illustrated by the AI-generated image depicted above. A more accurate cartoon would have presented three Old White Guys, an Asian man, and a White woman. It’s an exclusive—and not very pretty—spectacle.

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.