14120: Beale’s Biggest BS.

Campaign Global Editor-in-Chief Claire Beale pooped out a perspective on former WPP Overlord Martin Sorrell that demonstrated the woman’s cultlural cluelessness might be second to her corporate cluelessness. This contention can be corroborated with two sentences from Beale’s babbling:

To anyone rubbing their hands at the downfall of our industry’s biggest titan, I say “be careful what you wish for”. The sorry Sorrell saga certainly won’t do anything for the standing of our industry among clients already questioning the value we add.

To call Sorrell the “industry’s biggest titan” is puffery and personal opinion, which seems odd coming from a person purporting to be a professional journalist. It’s also unintentionally inaccurate, given Sorrell is reportedly 5’6.5” tall. Sorrell has certainly collected the biggest bag of money in the history of advertising. And he built the biggest holding company in the industry—a concept he didn’t invent, incidentally. But to crown Sorrell the “industry’s biggest titan” is debatable, even if Beale is only counting living advertising leaders. History will show if Sorrell gains greater recognition and respect than icons like Claude Hopkins, James Webb Young, Bill Bernbach and David Ogilvy. Plus, if the details surrounding the halted investigation involving “personal misconduct” become public knowledge, Sorrell could earn the “industry’s biggest crook” title.

The second disturbing aspect of Beale’s two sentences is her use of the “our” and “we” qualifiers. Since when did Beale join the ranks of adland? Beale referring to “our industry” and “the value we add” is as inappropriate as ESPN sportscaster Scott Van Pelt claiming a Super Bowl victory or FOX News Talk Show Host Sean Hannity identifying as a White House staffer. Then again, perhaps Sorrell’s transformation of the industry included quietly acquiring trade rags along with agencies. (BTW, the photographs serving to illustrate Campaign columnists—e.g., the portrait above that accompanied Beale’s viewpoint on Sorrell—give waaaaay too much prominence to the editors. Perhaps this is another indicator of the staff’s narcissistic self-importance…?)

Actually, Beale made one correct comment with implications that she probably didn’t realize:

But whatever your view of Sorrell—and he’s become such a public figure that plenty of people who’ve never worked for or against him have a view—over the last three decades he’s proved himself a phenomenal businessman.

Yes, Sorrell is a proven phenomenal businessman. It’s tough to say, however, if he has ever been fully embraced as an adman.

13386: Beale’s Biased Bull.

Campaign Global Editor-in-Chief Claire Beale continued to unwittingly share her peculiar journey towards cultural competence—although it might be presumptive and optimistic to predict her potential destination. In the latest navel-gazing, Beale skimmed through the Campaign photographic archives to realize the majority of images featured White blokes, with a smattering of White women, whom Beale noted, “…don’t seem to be having as much fun as the men; being snapped looking silly probably didn’t help when you had to fight harder.” Of course, Beale dropped an obligatory mention of the invisible “people from different social or ethnic backgrounds”—however, the true minorities were an afterthought behind the hard-fighting White women. How terribly draining it must be for Beale to slowly stagger from unconscious bias to conscious bias. The experience prompted Beale to declare, “Diversity has to be business-critical—agencies have to know they are less competitive if they are less diverse. Leaving it to chance or natural progression is not moving us forward nearly fast enough. Diversity must now be a basic requirement when marketers choose their agencies.” Hey, the White woman might want to start in her own trade journal’s hallways.

Changing the ad industry’s image

It’s vital that celebrating the past is matched by planning for the future.

By Claire Beale

While remaining disproportionately obsessed with anything new, the advertising industry is entering a period of reflection and nostalgia.

Plans are being laid for celebrations to mark the 100th anniversary of the IPA, Campaign is already contemplating its 50th and, next week, the History of Advertising Trust is launching a money-raising auction of prints from the Campaign photographic archives. You’ll find some of them in this week’s feature.

And, dammit, aren’t there a lot of white blokes.

Wonderful white blokes, of course. I love Terence Donovan’s picture of the Bainsfair Sharkey Trott founders (Dave Trott’s grin, Paul Bainsfair’s glint), Bartle, Bogle and Hegarty on the cusp of greatness, Andrew Robertson looking pretty, Bill Muirhead and David Kershaw serving Whoppers.

Yes, there are women too: the shrewd Ann Burdus, Alex Taylor in the Saatchi golden years, Lyndy Payne as she revolutionised how clients choose agencies, Cilla Snowball clearly heading straight for the top, Rosie Arnold looking fierce. But not enough of them. And it turns out mostly the women in these old pictures don’t seem to be having as much fun as the men; being snapped looking silly probably didn’t help when you had to fight harder.

Anyway, in the context of the current focus on diversity (see this story and pretty much every issue of Campaign this year), all this nostalgia has raised a thorny issue. If we wallow in memories of adland’s (white) founding fathers (not many mothers, sadly), what sort of message are we sending to ambitious women or to people from different social or ethnic backgrounds who won’t see many role models here?

If diversity was less of an issue in 2016, I don’t think we’d be worrying so much about the lack of it in the last century. As it is, we’re still woefully behind and so people are nervous about throwing a spotlight on the very non-diverse people who built our business. But it would be dismally dishonest if we down-weighted the role that the pale male adman played in establishing London as a centre of advertising excellence.

Still, it’s vital that celebrating the past is matched by planning for the future. Marketers will play a crucial role in this. In the US, brands are beginning to demand diversity from their agencies; it’s time UK marketers followed suit. Diversity has to be business-critical — agencies have to know they are less competitive if they are less diverse. Leaving it to chance or natural progression is not moving us forward nearly fast enough. Diversity must now be a basic requirement when marketers choose their agencies.

So next week’s HAT archive event marks a fresh determination to fill Campaign’s picture library with a rich range of new talent who will shape and lead the business going forward; the people who our successors will be celebrating in another 100 years.

13353: A Different Dumbness.

Campaign dumped different diverted diversity dookie, as Global Editor-in-Chief Claire Beale declared the imperative to add people with disabilities to the discussion. “Diversity has become a fashionably hot topic in our industry with regard to gender or sexuality,” announced Beale. “But we’re lagging on the subject of disability.” Actually, we’re lagging on the subject of true diversity. Whining about the oh-so-awful plight of White women—and generously mixing in the disabled—is switching the topic, ultimately dodging any accountability or responsibility for the real problem. It’s astounding that idiots like Beale have the audacity to pontificate on diversity without a single mention of race and ethnicity. Beale boldly advocates for more people with disabilities to appear in advertising, yet where was she when studies exposed the deliberate exclusion of minorities in U.K. adverts? Beale closed her bullshit by typing, “Fundamentally, with all types of disability, as with other aspects of diversity, our industry and our work are richer and more rewarding if we embrace difference.” Hell, Beale can’t even embrace difference in her own office. She displays chronic symptoms of diversity disabilities.

We must celebrate difference

With all types of disability and diversity, our work is richer and more rewarding if we embrace difference.

By Claire Beale

As I write this, Mars’ brave work for Maltesers using disabled actors and themes hasn’t even aired on TV yet, but I’ve already had someone email me to complain that the ads are not diverse enough. “Not enough men in them,” they whined.

I think it was a joke. But it does highlight that some people will look for faults even when (or perhaps exactly because) the original intentions are of the very best. Once the ads have been unleashed on the public, there will certainly be a whole panoply of reactions, and not all of them will be positive.

The Maltesers work, by Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO, was created in response to a competition from Channel 4 to normalise the portrayal of disabled people in ads. Diversity has become a fashionably hot topic in our industry with regard to gender or sexuality, but we’re lagging on the subject of disability. Still, Channel 4 deserves very real credit for inspiring advertising creatives and marketers here. The broadcaster’s superb “superhumans” commercials have done so much to erase taboos and there’s been a noticeable increase in the casting of disabled actors in ads over the past few years. Most importantly, often the actors have not been cast because disability is a theme of the script but just because, well, some of us are disabled. More of this, please.

But while we’re inching (far too slowly, of course) towards a more positive position on visible disability, we’re still way behind when it comes to dealing with invisible disabilities and tackling the taboos there. OK, hidden disabilities are hard to embrace through portrayal in ads, but let’s at least begin by acknowledging the issue within our own industry.

It’s worth noting that one of the pieces in this week’s Campaign was supposed to be a very honest, brave and immensely insightful and important article on mental illness in the ad business. Unfortunately, the article was withdrawn at the eleventh hour, not because its author had second thoughts but because the author’s agency requested it should not run. Perhaps there’s a perfectly reasonable and sensitive reason the agency requested its withdrawal, I don’t know. But I do know it’s a real shame that you can’t read it. Of course, some disabilities are actually hidden work weapons. As our article highlights, conditions such as ADHD and Asperger’s can heighten creative intelligence; in an industry that lives or dies on its ability to touch people through brilliant, surprising creative thinking, being able to see the world through a different lens to the rest of us can be a phenomenal asset.

Fundamentally, with all types of disability, as with other aspects of diversity, our industry and our work are richer and more rewarding if we embrace difference.