9505: Whatever Happened To Jim Edwards?

First, BNET nixed Jim Edwards’ Placebo Effect—then the whole damned site was turned into CBS Money Watch. Searching the site only results in a list of past posts dated from October and earlier. Has yet another advertising news source failed to generate advertising revenue?

9422: Edwards Barks At Wolff.

So far, the best Michael Wolff farewell goes to Jim Edwards at BNET—who detailed how Wolff was caught sleeping with an intern, evicting his mother-in-law and shortchanging his staff at Burn Rate. And that was only the first four paragraphs.

9324: Big Budgets Show Big Divides.

Jim Edwards at BNET posted a report titled, “What Recession? 10 Sumptuous New Ads Show Madison Avenue Is in a Golden Age.” The story blurb read, “The country may be in recession but the ad business is not, and agencies are making commercials that are as elaborate, big-budget and sumptuous to look at as possible.” Of course, zero spots in Edwards’ collection were created by minority advertising agencies, as “big-budget” is never an adjective attached to anything associated with non-White marketing efforts (and MultiCultClassics isn’t counting the Docomo commercial from Japan). On the flipside, Wieden + Kennedy was responsible for four of the ten spotlighted ads. Wonder what ADCOLOR® Award Winner Dan Wieden would have to say about that.

9211: IPG Cooks The Books With Facebook…?

MultiCultClassics recently commented on IPG selling Facebook shares for $133 million. Missed the perspective on the event from Jim Edwards at BNET, who points out the sleaziness of it all. Go read the column.

9156: The 10 Biggest Lies In Advertising + 1.

Jim Edwards of BNET appeared on The Live One to present The 10 Biggest Lies Ever Told in Advertising. Missing from the list: Madison Avenue Gives a Shit About Diversity.

8329: Menthol Cigarettes & McRib® Sandwiches.

Jim Edwards at BNET presented “Why Big Tobacco Targeted Blacks With Ads For Menthol Cigarettes.” Edwards ended the piece by declaring, “If your product has negative health effects and you’re advertising it to minorities, there’s really no difference between Big Tobacco and you.” MultiCultClassics has stated this sentiment in the past, and even noted the covert tactics of other corporate categories. Hell, McRib® sandwiches are just as bad for one’s health as menthol cigarettes.

7828: Old Spice Vs. Old Stereotypes.

Jim Edwards at BNET may be overthinking the racial implications of the Old Spice Guy. Edwards wrote:

Everyone loves the Old Spice Guy who asks, “So ladies, should your man smell like an Old Spice man?” But there was a time when, if you used a sexualized, shirtless black man to sell a cleaning product, you got accused of racism. (That time was January of this year, the product was Clorox (CLX)’s Pine-Sol, and the commercial showed a sexy hunk mopping a floor in a role-reversal fantasy.)

Edwards went on to tweak Pepper Miller for criticizing the imagery in a recent Pine-Sol commercial, and the writer wondered why the mopping Mandingo is viewed differently than the Old Spice Guy.

Well, since Edwards is bold enough to expose his confusion, MultiCultClassics will chip in two cents on the discussion.

First, Pepper Miller never called the Pine-Sol imagery racist.

Second, MultiCultClassics has consistently maintained that no one can dictate whether or not something is racist. In the end, people will make their decisions based on personal experiences, impressions, attitudes, beliefs, etc. After all, Andrew Breitbart thinks Shirley Sherrod is racist. And Whoopi Goldberg thinks Mel Gibson is not.

Third, the Old Spice Guy is not universally loved. At The Big Tent, Kiss My Black Ads blogger Craig Brimm wrote:

I had a friend write me about these same spots, namely the ones that feature the African American men. He said that they were all based in stereotypes. The Old Spice spots (which I love) are based on the “black buck” or “mandingo” schema that portrays the hyper-sexualized black male.

So some folks do indeed contend the Old Spice Guy is related to the Pine-Sol mopster.

While MultiCultClassics does not personally agree with such viewpoints, the offended cannot be dismissed. Everyone sees things through their own life lenses.

For whatever it’s worth, MultiCultClassics categorizes the Old Spice and Pine-Sol characters in separate silos.

The Pine-Sol Guy has the added burden of working with the stereotypical baggage associated with the Pine-Sol Lady. Plus, his depiction literally is sexual and subservient. Even Pine-Sol executives recognize many people deem the spokeswoman as offensive, despite the Clorox Company’s insistence that she’s cool. Finally, Pine-Sol heavily targets Black women through its advertising.

The Old Spice Guy is intended for a mass-market audience. He just happens to be Black—a man of any race or ethnicity could have handled the role. Ad agency Weiden + Kennedy used actor Isaiah Mustafa similarly to the Black athletes starring in Nike ads. It’s about entertainment value and concept. And it’s semi-ironic that Mustafa is an ex-professional sports figure.

But that’s just one blog’s opinion.

7778: Bermuda Shorts With BNET & GlobalHue.

BNET advertising reporter Jim Edwards is still examining the controversy surrounding GlobalHue and the Bermuda Tourism account. Edwards continues to ask, “How did GlobalHue get this account, and has its handling of it been honest?” The answer to the latter part of the question is anybody’s guess. In today’s advertising business, the typical agency CFO would have a hard time using “client billing” and “honest” in the same sentence. Hell, some of the most creative work in the industry happens in BDA accounting departments. If GlobalHue did indeed cook the books, well, it’s probably just another example of a minority shop emulating their White counterparts. As for wondering how GlobalHue got the account—without a competitive bid, according to Edwards—does anyone really give a shit? In recent months, multimillion-dollar brands like Chevrolet, Cadillac and IHOP have been handed to White agencies with zero review. Other accounts like Quaker Oats and Uncle Ben’s went into “review” between agencies within a single network. The $28 million Bermuda account doesn’t come close to matching any of the aforementioned brands in terms of value to an agency.

Not saying that the GlobalHue-Bermuda scenario isn’t rife with alleged clumsiness and corruption. And coupled with the Census-related shakedown accusations, the shop is looking pretty sleazy. But the allegations seem like potential misdemeanor offenses versus the standard crimes committed on Madison Avenue.

7489: Why Black Agencies Must Avoid Pine-Sol.

During the recent Pine-Sol fiasco, a few commenters suggested that the brand connect with a Black advertising firm in the hopes of avoiding the continued cultural cluelessness.

This is probably not a good idea for any self-respecting Black agency. Minority shops are already handcuffed by conservative clients seeking warm-and-fuzzy advertising, which often leads to clichéd commercials. Imagine being tasked with reversing the embarrassing swill Pine-Sol has been pouring on the public since 1993. It would be too politically charged—a no-win scenario.

If anything, this should be an opportunity for Clorox to demand that its White agency assign diverse staffing on the account. Let the client demonstrate their ability to make a powerful difference. Now that’s the power of Pine-Sol, baby!

7483: The Pine-Sol Fiasco Goes International.

MultiCultClassics Post 7480 presented a comment addressing Jim Edwards at BNET, responding to the Pine-Sol-inspired volley between the advertising writer and Pepper Miller. Turns out that the commenter is Doug Eaves, Academic Dean at Gregg International College in Tokyo, Japan. Eaves followed up his original musings with a six-part comment left at Post 7476. Check it out. And you have to wonder how Eaves might respond to the Pine-Sol spot that used silly imagery featuring the Asian Zen master.

7476: Watching The Miller-Edwards Debates.

Pepper Miller responded to Jim Edwards’ Pine-Sol counterpoint in professional and polite fashion. MultiCultClassics wanted to chip in an additional two cents.

First, both Miller and Edwards are respected at this blog. Yet it seems Edwards responded to what he considered an overreaction with a bigger overreaction. As an overlord of overreactions, MultiCultClassics feels overqualified to go over it.

As previously noted, Miller never called the Pine-Sol work racist. In fact, she opened by referencing consumer perceptions:

In earlier campaigns, many Black consumers perceived the Pine Sol Lady, portrayed by Diane Amos, a pretty, full-figured woman, as a “mammy-type servant.”

Miller was not spewing an angry, subjective beef. She was merely restating what observers have already noted for years via The New York Times and Adweek.

Edwards’ “revelation” regarding Miller’s alleged conflict of interest is silly. Miller has never hidden her employment background. It’s officially listed in the Blogger Bios. Most visitors to The Big Tent are completely aware of her credentials. The truth is, Miller rarely pans ads; rather, she is usually praising the work and clients she admires, or simply typing about contemporary cultural topics. It’s a safe bet that Miller isn’t forwarding sharp rants to fuel paranoia and ensure she doesn’t “go out of business.” Regular readers of Miller’s posts could possibly conclude she’d be absolutely delighted if the industry evolved to a state where her services might be deemed obsolete.

MultiCultClassics has repeatedly declared that no one can dictate whether or not people think something is racist. So when Edwards dismissed Miller (“Putting that aside, is she correct? No.”), he displayed arrogance and ignorance of the highest order. Sorry.

Particularly ridiculous was Edwards griping, “It is not the job of a detergent company to raise black America’s self-esteem.” Where did Miller hint at that? Granted, Miller might suggest a detergent company is hurting itself by potentially insulting Blacks, but she has yet to lecture any company on an obligation to lift the collective spirit of an entire racial group.

Edwards’ whining about restrictions to advertising is a contrived and tired argument. Plenty of brands have managed to portray minorities in positive ways, including Nike and Allstate (through its use of spokesman Dennis Haysbert). Being edgy and breakthrough does not require insensitivity and offensive imagery. Need proof? Check out the annual winners of nearly every reputable awards show.

Finally, Edwards’ interpretation of the Buick Enclave spot confirms his lack of credibility in this affair. While MultiCultClassics is hardly a fan of Black automotive advertising—and thinks the Buick spot is corny—Edwards appears oblivious to the commercial’s cues. For starters, how often does Madison Avenue present upscale Black men? If Omnicom had produced the spot, the dude would’ve eventually driven to his job as a mailroom attendant. BTW, Mr. Edwards, there is zero bling in the spot. The guy isn’t even wearing a diamond stud earring. And standard White guys have been known to own up to three watches too.

Anyway, this blog continues to respect Edwards and his opinions. However, his odd attack on Miller seemed a little weak and uncalled for. But maybe MultiCultClassics is overreacting.

7451: Minority Media Awaiting Census Cents.

Jim Edwards at BNET reported that various minority media executives are already griping about not yet receiving a dime from the $145 million U.S. Census media budget allegedly promised to them. Don’t worry, minorities. Draftfcb is handling the money pile—and everyone knows how that enterprise is totally dedicated to doing the right thing.

7443: A Civil Conversation With Cyrus Mehri.

Jim Edwards at BNET interviewed Cyrus Mehri regarding the state of affairs on Madison Avenue…

Q&A: Cyrus Mehri and Race Discrimination on Madison Avenue

By Jim Edwards

One year ago, civil rights lawyer Cyrus Mehri held a dramatic press conference and issued a weighty report on racism in the advertising business. The expectation was that he was building a class-action lawsuit that would force Madison Avenue to hire and promote more minorities.

Twelve months later, the suit has not materialized. But Mehri and the NAACP are still investigating the agency business. Mehri agreed to a Q&A with BNET on the progress of his efforts.

BNET: What’s happening with the lawsuit you threatened to file a year ago?

Mehri: A year ago we announced we were launching a project with the NAACP to investigate claims of race discrimination in the advertising industry. That series of investigations is well under way. We’ve interviewed dozens of employees inside and outside, current and former, and we’ve examined company policies and practices. We’ve been very busy … we’re not on the verge of filing a lawsuit because we’re very much in the investigation stage as we speak. Over the summer the NAACP, our partners, they sent letters to the top 25 advertising companies. That was very favorably received … the vast majority have responded in a positive way.

BNET: How many potential plaintiffs have contacted you?

Mehri: I can’t give you a precise number but I can tell you it’s been in the dozens.

BNET: Wouldn’t it be easier to file individual cases on behalf of individual plaintiffs?

Mehri: To some degree it would be easier but the impact would be tons smaller … the class action device, the whole purpose was to enforce civil rights laws and to bring about systemic change in organizations. So that’s why the class action device is so critical.

BNET: Ad agencies tend to be small companies with different offices and reporting structures. How can you get past the need to have lots of plaintiffs who are similarly situated to qualify for class action status?

Mehri: Companies could raise that as an argument. However if you want to curtail discrimination it requires leadership from the top and policies that are carried out in way that have checks and balances throughout the entire system. No one can deny that the companies are influenced by the holding companies.

BNET: Have you spoken to any holding company chiefs?

Mehri: I have not spoken to any of the chiefs of holding companies.

BNET: Have agencies made any progress in hiring and promoting minorities?

Mehri: I’m not in a position to say they’ve made a lot of progress. I think they’ve fallen short. The way I look at it they don’t have a lot of credibility right now.

BNET: How did all the layoffs during the recession change the scene? Did minorities get laid off more than whites?

Mehri: I think that creates some new challenges. But I don’t think it gives them a pass … what they’ve been doing now is inexcusable. They cant use the bad economy as an excuse … the numbers of African Americans have been so under-represented to begin with that the current economy just makes the situation more acute.

BNET: In your famous Texaco case, you had a recording of an executive joking that the “All the black jelly beans seem to be glued to the bottom of the bag.” Have there been any dramatic anecdotes like that about Madison Avenue?

Mehri: I think we have more evidence of purposeful discrimination in the advertising industry than you normally see in other cases. They’ve been on notice for years if not decades. At some point it becomes purposeful discovery … with or without an audiotape like we had in the Texaco case.

BNET: What’s the situation with minority agencies? In advertising, minorities tend to end up working on the minority-targeting accounts, which are often assigned to minority owned agencies.

Mehri: I think there’s an extraordinary amount of segregation in the industry and that’s why you see these entities addressing minority customers … whatever reforms or changes that take place we do not want to dilute the business of minority-owned companies. We want to enhance them. Second, we want minority employers to compete in mainstream parts of the business and not be segmented based on their race, which is what’s currently happening.

7299: Globalhue’s Jeep Bermuda Mess.

Jim Edwards at BNET continues to report on the controversy surrounding Globalhue and the Bermuda Tourism account. The latest drama involves the official censoring of a former Bermuda auditor general who criticized the advertising agency. Hey, it would be great if someone would censor the Globalhue Jeep campaign too.

Bermuda Politician Censored for Criticizing Globalhue, the Island's Tourism Ad Agency

By Jim Edwards

Bermuda’s government has struck from its official record remarks by a politician who criticized the island’s tourism ad agency, Globalhue, and its relationship with the Bermuda premier, Ewart Brown (pictured). The move sends a curious signal to Bermuda politicians: Criticize Globalhue — whose handling of the account has been described as “possible criminal activity” by a former Bermuda auditor general — and you’ll be censored.

Globalhue has been accused of overbilling Bermuda Tourism by $1.8 million and building in media placement commissions of up to 181 percent (industry standard is 10 percent or less). The account is worth $14 million a year.

The remarks were part of an opposition reply to the Bermuda government’s “throne speech” (which BNET guesses is the equivalent of the U.S. president’s State of the Union address). The Royal Gazette:

… part of the UBP’s Throne Speech reply … claimed that multi-million dollar contracts went to friends of the Government untendered with huge cost overruns and no-one held to account were ordered to be struck from the record of the House of Assembly.

… the UBP claimed that Global Hue, a US advertiser, renewed its Government contract in May which was valued at $28 million over two years. The UBP said the contract was not tendered and described its owner, Don Coleman [below], as a “longtime friend” of Premier Ewart Brown.

The United Bermuda Party posted the full speech on its web site, in addition to the following statement: (You’ll need to use the scroller to find them both.)

Last Friday, during the House of Assembly debate on the Speech from the Throne, Government MPs, with the active support of Deputy Speaker Dame Jennifer Smith, ordered the removal of a passage in the Opposition’s Reply to the Speech that they disagreed with.

The “offending” sentence, delivered by Opposition Leader Mr. Kim Swan earlier in the day, read as follows:

“We get million dollar contracts that go directly to friends untendered and massive cost overruns with no one held to account.”

Mr. Swan later described the removal of the sentence from the official record as an “act of censorship.”

“This has certainly not been the strongest language ever used in a Reply, nor is it the first time this particular concern has been made,” he said.

“Indeed, our last Throne Speech Reply questioned why tens of millions of dollars in Government contracts ‘have been handed over to an axis of two or three construction bosses close to the Premier?’”

The following summary of major Government projects and expenditures is, we believe, enough to substantiate the wording of the excised sentence and to reveal its removal as an act of censorship:

Global Hue
• The US advertiser received a renewal of its advertising contract with the government in May 2009, valued at $28 million over two years.

• The contract was not tendered.

• Global Hue is owned by Mr. Don Coleman, whom The Royal Gazette has described as a “longtime friend” of the Premier’s. In a February 2009 special report on Global Hue, the Auditor General substantiated that description when he reported the ‘pressure’ felt by Tourism officials to approve payments to Global Hue because of the “close relationship that Global Hue has, and influence it has, with the Minister of Tourism and Transport.”

• The contract renewal was made despite significant performance questions. Competitive bids might have offered greater efficiencies and better advertising plans.

6857: Bermuda Short.

Don’t expect Jim Edwards of BNET to get invited to Bermuda anytime soon. Ditto Southfield, Michigan, the home of Globalhue. Edwards continues to report on the alleged scandals surrounding Globalhue and the Bermuda Tourism account. In the latest news, Bermuda’s former auditor declared it’s a “fact” that Globalhue overbilled the client, and he hinted at “possible criminal activity.” Let’s hope it doesn’t involve New York City Councilman Larry Seabrook.

6761: GlobalHue Mimicking White Agencies?

GlobalHue likely turns global hues of red every time Jim Edwards of BNET calls. Edwards has been reporting on all the drama surrounding the multicultural shop and the Bermuda Tourism account. From noting accusations of overbilling to race-based overreactions to potential political overthrows, Edwards has probably given the place more press than it’s ever received. A Google® search ranks the BNET posts among the top five results for GlobalHue. Edwards even chipped in a story on racial-ethnic strife between GlobalHue and Montemayor y Asociados Inc.

Whatever.

If everything negative turns out to be true, GlobalHue still looks like an amateur compared to the typical White agencies. The questionable bookkeeping won’t rival the schemes of Ogilvy & Mather, Doner or Leo Burnett. Omnicom alone has presented greater race-related obscenities worldwide, including consistent displays of homophobia and screwing minority shops.

Edwards called GlobalHue’s media buying for Bermuda Tourism weird, supposedly because the agency poured more loot into TV One and the Gospel Music Channel versus bridal magazines and the New York Times. Um, it’s SOP for multicultural shops to support minority media—and clients usually force the shops to do so. For a bigger crime worth uncovering, try exposing the way White agencies ignore minority media.

Regarding winning accounts through personal relationships and sans reviews, well, White agencies mastered those maneuvers from jump.

Not trying to defend GlobalHue here. MultiCultClassics has never been overly impressed by the enterprise, and regularly criticizes their corny and clichéd campaigns. If the agency is indeed breaking the rules, Edwards should continue the journalistic blitzkrieg. But based on the past actions of White agencies, any alleged financial improprieties can and will be remedied by simply writing a reimbursement check and calling it a day. The rest of the “misconduct” is Madison Avenue 101.

Hey, it’s a twisted sign of progress that multicultural shops can occasionally be corrupt too.

6678: Weird Chocolate News.

There’s a mini-controversy brewing at BNET over coverage of GlobalHue’s alleged mishandling of the Bermuda Tourism account. GlobalHue apparently took offense to BNET editor Jim Edwards calling the agency’s media expenditures “weird.” Actually, the real weirdness involves the contextual ad depicted above. A story spotlighting a Black (or multicultural) agency and the predominately Black islands is posted alongside a banner for chocolates—for Valentine’s Day! Now that’s weird.

6590: More Thoughts On The NAACP Letter.

Let’s open by stating for the record that MultiCultClassics is a fan of Jim Edwards at BNET. He’s an exceptional journalist and smarter-than-hell writer. Edwards has never hesitated to share his views on the Madison Avenue diversity drama, which puts him in a very rare and elite class.

So it’s no surprise that Edwards posted his perspective regarding the NAACP letter to advertisers. Edwards wrote:

The letter uses language that is by turns collaborative and threatening. Like the Mafia, it makes P&G an offer it can’t refuse. Specifically, the letter says that using minority agencies is no longer an acceptable strategy for hiring minority talent. This will cause some consternation inside minority agencies, who may previously have assumed that the NAACP was on their side. The letter:

We are also aware that the large advertising agencies funnel some business to minority owned or minority targeted agencies. But for reasons discussed at length in the report, such initiatives do not effectively address the issues raised in the report, and we do not want to hear back from either the advertising agencies or Procter & Gamble about such initiatives. To address the issues raised in the report, it is important that Procter & Gamble understands that such responses are inadequate and, in some cases, counter-productive.

MultiCultClassics might be reading the letter a little differently than Edwards. First, the NAACP is hardly kicking multicultural shops to the curb. Rather, they are keeping the focus on Madison Avenue’s resistance to diversify mass market agencies.

Using multicultural agencies as an excuse for the industry’s exclusivity is an old and tired tactic. The platform simply doesn’t hold water. The reality is, multicultural shops are separate and unequal, even when they join a network. The shops do not see the amounts of revenue that mass market agencies enjoy—at any percentage or level. They are dissed by the networks, often relegated to minority supplements for the mass market agencies. Need proof? Name the last time a network permitted one of its multicultural shops to pitch a mass market account. Now, the culturally clueless might holler, “Hey, multicultural shops shouldn’t pitch mass market accounts because they specialize in minority audiences.” Fine, except it’s common knowledge that minorities actually make up the majority of consumers for certain brands. And minority figures for damned near every brand on Earth definitely warrant much larger slices of the budgetary pie than the shops currently receive.

As for the belief that “the large advertising agencies funnel some business to minority owned or minority targeted agencies,” well, show us the money. In the past years, there have been blatant examples of mass market agencies swindling their multicultural counterparts. And what’s more, the clients are co-conspirators. Take a look at the Omnicom-Nissan affair. Check out how P&G makes multicultural shops serve as “consultants” when mass market agencies execute campaigns targeting minority audiences. General Motors reassigned multicultural projects to mass market agencies. Mercedes-Benz allegedly rolled its total billings to the agency boasting the worst minority-hiring record of all the companies that signed pacts with New York City’s Commission on Human Rights.

The NAACP is merely acknowledging the bullshit and blowing off the stereotypical smokescreens. It’s not about the multicultural shops. It’s about the dearth of diversity within mass market agencies.

When addressing the NAACP’s request that advertisers instruct their agencies to use diverse teams, Edwards wrote:

That’s a laudable goal, but where are these execs to come from? The letter says that the industry already has plenty of “already available Black talent.” One possible answer: Big agencies could hire these execs from existing minority agencies—thus decimating the minority agency business, but getting clients and agency holding companies off the hook with Mehri and the NAACP.

“Decimating the minority agency business” is an old and tired excuse too. Please review the preceding paragraphs. The mass market agencies are already decimating the multicultural shops. Why stop at half the distance? Besides, when have mass market agencies ever hesitated to poach talent? Eric Silver recently left BBDO for DDB, and Agency Spy revealed that a number of BBDO creatives are following him. Omnicom has mandates prohibiting recruitment between sister agencies. Sure, the players cleverly maneuvered around the rules. But the fact is, no one lets pesky policies—legitimate or perceived—hamper their employment schemes.

Let’s push the matter further. Poll the professionals at multicultural shops and ask if they’ve been approached by mass market agencies. Better yet, pose the same question to minority executives at mass market agencies. MultiCultClassics will bet a week’s salary that nobody reports a significant increase in recruitment activity (unless a mass market agency is attempting to build its own multicultural unit). Harry Webber went so far as to offer donating $1,000 to the favorite charity of the Chief Diversity Officer who would set up an interview with him. Webber did not write the check. Multicultural shops, like everyone else, have experienced layoffs. Mass market agencies have dumped people of color. The market is flooded with minorities. It would be one thing if mass market agencies could say they met with minority candidates and found their skills lacking. But the meetings have not even occurred.

Jim Edwards is a brilliant guy, and he deserves praise for putting the opinions out there. Too bad the mass market agencies can’t support the positions in any way, shape or form.

6585: NAACP MAP Recap.

The NAACP letter to advertisers inspired a range of responses around the Web. The Big Tent collected a few noteworthy comments, including folks questioning the courage of Black-owned agencies. In contrast, Agency Spy wondered why Black-owned agencies still get dissed. The event provided Adweek with a rare chance to report on a non-White topic—and ignited another thread that demonstrates many Adweek readers are ignorant morons. Jim Edwards at BNET predicted lots of meetings and little progress. While Danny G at AdPulp opined clients are blind to the people actually servicing their accounts. Kiss My Black Ads capped things off with a visual tribute to the correspondence.

You almost feel sorry for the clients. In February, the Association of National Advertisers received a request from the Association of Black-Owned Advertising Agencies for a meeting to talk about unfair business practices. Now the NAACP and Cyrus Mehri are demanding a powwow to discuss discrimination on Madison Avenue. At this point, advertisers are probably flinching every time they open the mailbox. Maybe they can just hold a joint conference call with all the unhappy parties.

Then again, no one should be surprised. The NAACP and Mehri announced their intentions to connect with advertisers last January. Everything is running on schedule. Too bad it conflicted with the recent celebrations over being named among the Top 50 Companies for Diversity® and the Top Ten Companies for Recruitment & Retention.

The NAACP and Mehri have stated relationships with multicultural agencies are irrelevant to the issue at hand. It’s time for advertisers to make their true feelings known—and back up the proclamations in their equal opportunity mantras and diversity advertisements. Or expose themselves as co-conspirators in the discrimination.

Given the state of the economy, advertisers cannot risk a possible consumer backlash or boycott. Diversity makes good business sense in more ways than ever.

Ultimately, this is on the advertising agencies. Will they allow their clients to take the heat for decades of industry inaction? Or will they step up and do the right thing the right way—and right now? Stay tuned.