17212: Not Your Average Joe Lawsuit…

Richmond BizSense reported, “Ex-Martin Agency exec loses appeal in #MeToo-era lawsuit, will seek review from state supreme court.”

 

Looks like somebody didn’t collect the $75 million they hoped to pocket…

16397: Progressive Failure, Dominating Victory.

 

The New York Times published a perspective titled, “The Failure of Progressive Movements,” focusing on the perceived shortcomings of Occupy Wall Street, #MeToo, and Black Lives Matter. While the trio initially sparked passions, “none of the three movements have come close to achieving their ambitions.”

 

Adland certainly reflects the phenomena in semi-twisted ways.

 

Given the greed of White holding companies—with CEOs collecting multimillion-dollar salaries—the 1 percent are literally in charge.

 

#MeToo was more moment versus movement, where Diet Madison Avenue had a shorter shelf life than a can of Diet Coke. And gender pay gaps have expanded.

 

As for Black Lives Matter, even Human Heat Shields are among the diminished, dumped, and departed. And racial underrepresentation has extended.

 

Yet does not achieving their ambitions constitute failure or corroborate success—i.e., the overpowering success of White privilege and systemic racism?

 

The Failure of Progressive Movements

 

Prominent movements like Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter have had an impact. But none achieved their ambitions.

 

By David Leonhardt

 

Three progressive movements have risen to prominence over the past 15 years and vowed to create a fairer America: Occupy Wall Street, #MeToo and Black Lives Matter.

 

All of them have had an impact. Occupy popularized the idea of the 1 percent and the 99 percent. #MeToo led to the firing (and sometimes jailing) of sexual predators, as well as the hiring of more women in prominent jobs. Black Lives Matter led to policing reforms in some cities and the hiring of more Black Americans in prominent jobs.

 

Still, none of the three movements have come close to achieving their ambitions.

 

Congress has not passed any major laws to reduce economic, gender or racial inequality, such as a wealth tax, universal pre-K or nationwide police reforms. Instead, taxes on the affluent are near their lowest level in decades, and the number of killings by the police remains largely unchanged. “The term ‘reckoning’ was invoked again and again, and yet we don’t seem to have reckoned with any of our problems in any meaningful way,” Fredrik deBoer, a popular Substack newsletter writer, argues in a new book.

 

What explains these disappointments? In part, it’s simply that political change is fantastically difficult and often takes decades. But the degree of difficulty is only part of the story.

 

The movements also bear some responsibility for their disappointments. Above all, they made decisions geared more toward changing elite segments of American society — like academia, Hollywood and the national media — than toward passing new laws and changing most people’s lives.

 

That’s the central argument of deBoer’s book, “How Elites Ate the Social Justice Movement.” It has helped me think about American politics, and I want to devote today’s newsletter to these issues.

 

Radical and practical

 

The most successful political movements tend to share a few features. They start with activists whose goals can seem so audacious as to be unrealistic. (Otherwise, there would be no need for a movement.) Over time, the movement’s leaders make careful decisions about how to accomplish at least some of those goals. They appeal to public opinion. They collaborate with unlikely allies. They work the system to change the system.

 

It was true of the civil rights movement, which combined radical aims with patriotic symbols and nonviolent protest. More recently, the gay rights movement accomplished rapid change partly by emphasizing traditional values like marriage and military service. The lessons also apply to the political right: Abortion opponents spent decades patiently taking over the Republican Party and making the case that voters have a right to choose their own policies, state by state.

 

Recent progressive movements have tended to be less strategic, explains deBoer, a self-described leftist. Occupy celebrated its lack of structure, including its lack of concrete goals. “Demands are disempowering since they require someone else to respond,” one Occupy protester told The New York Times in 2011. Black Lives Matter refused to name leaders, contrasting its approach with the old top-down civil rights movement. #MeToo, befitting its hashtag, never quite became an organized movement.

 

None of the three created a mass organization with a long-term plan — as labor unions, civil rights groups, evangelical Christians and other successful movements did in past decades.

 

Occupy and Black Lives Matter also allowed unpopular positions to shape their public image — and weaken them. For instance, polling shows that most Black Americans support major changes to policing but not less policing. Much of Black Lives Matter, however, focused on cutting police funding. One organizer wrote a Times Opinion article titled “Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police.”

 

The recent movements have instead had more success changing elite institutions that tend to be filled by fellow liberals. The winners of prestigious cultural awards have become more diverse. Media organizations now capitalize Black when describing somebody’s race. President Biden has made Juneteenth a federal holiday. Universities emphasize identity in their curriculums.

 

Symbols over substance

 

These are real changes, but deBoer notes that they have little effect on most people’s lives. They instead reflect what the political philosopher Olúfẹ́mi Táíwò calls the “elite capture” of social justice campaigns. “Today,” deBoer writes, “left-activist spaces are dominated by the college-educated, many of whom grew up in affluence and have never worked a day at a physically or emotionally demanding job.” For that reason, these spaces prioritize “the immaterial and symbolic” over “the material and the concrete,” deBoer argues.

 

(That point is related to a continuing theme of this newsletter: the class inversion of American politics.)

 

DeBoer’s writing can be withering, as the best polemics often are, and few people will agree with all of his arguments. But his central point is important, whether you’re part of the political left, center or right: Calling out injustice isn’t the same as fighting it.

 

“The spirit of 2020 was always a righteous spirit, and the people and organizations that powered that moment had legitimate grievances and moral demands,” he writes. “What we need is practicality, resilience and a plan.”

15901: Havas Paris Says Bonjour #MeToo.

 

Adweek published a follow-up report on the shenanigans at Havas Paris, where the CEO and CCO were accused of sexual harassment via an Instagram account à la Diet Madison Avenue. The anonymous accusations—exposed earlier this year—prompted the executives’ suspensions pending an official investigation.

 

According to Adweek, the CEO is back—but the White advertising agency said bon voyage to the CCO. While Adweek provided few details, another source reported the CCO was fired after facing charges that included sexual assault of a female staffer.

 

In response to the sordid scenario, Havas hired a White woman to serve as executive co-chair. Of course they did. Additionally, Havas brought in a third-party firm to help launch “a process of reflection and consultation to restructure its culture and renew its managerial pact.” Of course they did.

 

Juggling sexual harassment and media ethics means Havas will continue to disregard addressing racial and ethnic diversity. Of course they will.

 

Havas Paris Ends #MeToo Investigation, Names New Co-Chair

 

CEO Julien Carette has returned to work while creative director Christophe Coffre has not

 

By Stephen Lepitak

 

Havas Paris has announced the outcome of its internal #MeToo investigation which has led to the departure of its creative director Christophe Coffre, although chief executive Julien Carette has returned.

 

The internal investigation, which began on May 9, saw the pair step down while the investigation was conducted following anonymous accusations made on the Instagram account Balance Ton Agency (Balance Your Agency).

 

The account, which states that it “reports abuse in advertising,” currently has 338,000 followers and has highlighted the actions of two individuals from Havas—cited as “JC” and “CC”—with testimonies published about their behavior.

 

The page was started by Anne Boistard in September 2020 as a response to her own professional burnout as well as the #MeToo movement and growing accusations across the advertising sector of inappropriate conduct.

 

An internal note, which said that Havas Group “condemns all forms of harassment within its Villages,” explained that the company’s Compliance department had commissioned an independent law firm to lead the process and report its findings.

 

28 testimonies were collected from current and former employees and submitted as a report to management on June 11. Conclusions were then presented to the Group’s Joint Commission and Havas Paris’ Works Council.

 

According to Havas the testimonies on the behavior of the accused executives “did not make it possible to prove some of the serious facts alleged on BTA” but that the “inappropriate behavior” of one of them led to the implementation of a disciplinary procedure.

 

Leadership changes following investigation

 

Carette returned to work having stepped aside during the investigation, and will be involved in “a new collegial governance structure” that will be put in place as a result. Meanwhile Coffre did not resume his duties.

 

The statement also claimed that the report described Havas Paris as “a lively agency with a pleasant work environment for many of its employees” although some testimonies cited the workload as creating difficulties to balance professional and personal lives.

 

Consequently, the agency has decided to launch, with the help of a third-party firm, “a process of reflection and consultation to restructure its culture and renew its managerial pact.”

 

An anti-harassment system put in place—consisting of a telephone hotline and a chat room—will also continue, as will other support channels for reporting harassment.

 

At the same time, the Paris agency has also named Mayada Boulos as executive co-chair as it embarks on its “new era.” Boulos was formerly a communications advisor to the former French prime minister Jean Castex who resigned in May.

 

From Sept. 1 Boulos will take up the role alongside Julien Carette, also executive co-chair, and will be supported by Fabrice Conrad, general manager, responsible for leading the agency’s management team.

 

“Mayada is a very great professional whom we are pleased to find again. Her role and her expertise will be crucial in defining and writing a major new chapter for the Havas Paris agency,” commented Raphaël de Andreis, CEO, Havas Village France.

 

The shift in leadership comes as Havas has experienced other leadership changes with Chris Hirst leaving as global CEO of the Creative network and New York CEO Laura Maness joining Grey as its global CEO.

 

Donna Murphy, CEO of Havas’ health business, will also run the Creative network following Hirst’s departure.