16688: IPG – R/GA = WTF + BS.

Mediapsssst at MediaPost reported IPG is poised to prune R/GA from the White holding company. Not surprising, as the White digital agency has been experiencing online connection problems for quite some time.

 

Based on speculation at MediaPost, The Wall Street Journal, and Advertising Age, the enterprise that once declared it was throwing out the traditional DEIBA+ playbook may soon get thrown out of IPG. Interestingly, the frontrunner in negotiations to acquire the firm is based in Bombay, India, meaning R/GA could soon be a non-White-owned White digital agency.

 

If IPG dumps R/GA, expect a stripper-filled farewell bash.

 

Is IPG About To Unload R/GA?

 

By Richard Whitman

 

IPG has talked to potential buyers for the holding company’s pioneering digital consulting, design and ad agency R/GA, according to several reports.

 

Earlier today The Wall Street Journal reported that Tata Consulting Services appeared to be the frontrunner in talks to acquire the agency.

 

An IPG spokesman declined to comment on the “speculation” that R/GA was for sale. 

 

The company was founded by brothers Richard and Robert Greenberg back in the 1970’s as a production company that utilized then leading-edge computer technology to help make films.

 

IPG acquired the company in 2001 as part of its M&A deal for True North Communications. By then R/GA was a leader in digital marketing and IPG used it to help forge a path in that fast-growing sector.

 

Richard Greenberg left the firm in the 1980s to pursue other interests. Bob Greenberg stepped down from the CEO post in 2018.

 

The agency excelled in reinventing itself often to keep pace with the fast-changing digital marketing landscape.

 

However, over the past couple years the firm has struggled to meet changing client needs, a similar problem for IPG’s other well-known and long-held digital agency, Huge.

 

Both agencies were cited last year as part of the reason for IPG’s dwindling organic revenue growth, along with sharp client cutbacks in the technology sector.

14553: How To Pollute The World Wide Web Faster Than Ever.

Duda promises professionals can build websites for clients in half the time. This underscores a major problem with digital as a practice. That is, production speed has become a key objective. The average website is poorly designed and poorly conceived from jump, so excreting one twice as fast isn’t really a benefit or victory. And if a professional is charging an hourly rate for services, Duda is a financial loser too. Finally, Duda’s drag-and-drop process makes it easier for clients to take a DIY approach, eliminating the need for professionals at all. Duda should change its name to doo-doo—because that’s what the company is offering.

12899: UK Solves Diversity Dilemma.

Campaign reported the Marketing Agencies Association (MAA) teamed up with Google and youth marketing agency Livity to launch a diversity internship programme in the UK. The UK advertising industry mirrors the US when it comes to exclusivity, so it’s not surprising that the country would also mimic the contrived and clichéd “solutions” for the problem. Hell, this particular smokescreen isn’t even original, as the programme—named Digify—was first created in South Africa in 2014. “Digify is a tangible, proven and scaleable way to bring talent, digital skills and diversity to our sector and it’s this combination that will inspire and inject innovation into the participating agencies and their work,” said Livity Co-Founder and CEO Michelle Morgan. “It’s rooted in business benefits to agencies and social benefit to young people. We know agencies have the willing to attract diverse, brilliant talent to the sector and in Digify we now have the solution.” Notice Morgan said “scaleable” (sic) versus measurable. When the programme is applied to the broader advertising industry, the inevitable lackluster results will completely and wildly throw any scale off balance. MAA Managing Director Scott Knox—the man who helped invent the UK’s first LGBT Award—gushed, “Bringing the excellence of Google, Livity and the MAA together for this unique programme will deliver real change to the agency sector. Through this we will see young people regardless of background be trained and developed in a way that the industry has never seen before.” Um, take a peek over the Atlantic and you’ll see it’s been seen before.

MAA launches diversity internships in UK with Google and Livity

By Omar Oakes

Google and Livity, the youth marketing agency, have partnered with the Marketing Agencies Association to launch an internship programme to tackle the lack of diversity in the creative sector.

Named Digify UK, the programme aims to address a lack of diversity and digital skills among marketing and advertising agencies, with 5.4 per cent of the creative sector being made up of individuals from black and minority ethnic groups.

The programme is being announced this afternoon by Grant Shapps, the minister of state for international development, at an event hosted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Digify was founded in South Africa in 2014, as a partnership between Livity Africa and Google, with about 80 per cent of those completing the programme securing full-time work in the creative sector after their internship.

Starting next month, the programme will launch with a pilot, including 10 people aged between 18 and 24, who will enroll on a two-month digital and marketing skills boot camp at Livity.

The aim is for interns to participate in day-to-day agency life, working on real digital campaigns, social media and content creation, with personal mentoring and coaching sessions, provided by the MAA.

Michelle Morgan, the co-founder and chief executive of Livity, said: “Digify is a tangible, proven and scaleable way to bring talent, digital skills and diversity to our sector and it’s this combination that will inspire and inject innovation into the participating agencies and their work. It’s rooted in business benefits to agencies and social benefit to young people.

“We know agencies have the willing to attract diverse, brilliant talent to the sector and in Digify we now have the solution.”

Morgan became chair of youth and diversity for the MAA three years ago and has driven the organisation’s #doingdifferent agenda, which aims to deliver real and meaningful change in the make up of the agency sector’s talent.

Scott Knox, the managing director of the MAA, said: “Bringing the excellence of Google, Livity and the MAA together for this unique programme will deliver real change to the agency sector.

“Through this we will see young people regardless of background be trained and developed in a way that the industry has never seen before.”

12625: Kraft On Crap.

Advertising Age reported Kraft Senior Director of Data, Content and Media Julie Fleischer declared not all data is crap. However, the overwhelming majority of digital content excreted by Kraft definitely qualifies as crap. Ditto most of what comes out of Fleischer’s mouth.

Kraft’s Julie Fleischer at Ad Age’s Digital Conference: Not All Data Is Crap

Data Literacy and Clarity Will Drive Marketing, Improve Ad Impressions

By Felicia Greiff

Kraft’s Julie Fleischer took a bold stance at Ad Age’s data conference last October that marketers did not take lightly: ninety percent of data is crap.

“It’s become my calling card,” Ms. Fleischer said today at Ad Age’s Digital Conference in New York. “I’ve sort of become the ‘data is crap’ lady.” Ms. Fleischer, Kraft’s senior director of data, content and media, and Bob Rupczynski, Kraft’s VP-media and consumer engagement, took the stage to clarify their position on cloudy data.

The problem wasn’t that all data was crap; the problem was that most of the data Kraft had access to was crap. Now, Kraft is building its own data system to collect information about its consumers.

“I want to understand our consumers through different lenses,” Ms. Fleischer said. “First-party data is not crap.”

Ms. Fleischer found that Kraft’s marketers were unequipped to analyze and use data. Most of its marketers didn’t have experience with data beyond what they handled in Microsoft Excel.

“It just hasn’t been a skill they teach in school,” Ms. Fleischer said. She spoke to Kraft’s marketers about focusing on addressability and the importance of knowing and reaching consumers on a granular basis, an idea that was well received.

As Ad Age reported last October, Kraft used third-party data to help target consumers, but found that most of the people they wanted to reach weren’t really seeing their ads. Their concerns over ad fraud, viewability and overall inventory murkiness caused Kraft to reject up to 85% of all impressions offered via real-time ad marketplaces.

12507: Viewpoint 100% Unreadable.

Kraft Director of Data, Content and Media Julie Fleischer whined, “You Wouldn’t Accept 70% Performance Elsewhere, So Why Should We With Viewability?”—and ultimately proved again that her digital ignorance is well above 70 percent. Hell, it might even exceed 100 percent.

Advertisers have always accepted far less than 70 percent performance. For example, commercials have not guaranteed viewership ever since consumers realized a TV break could be a toilet break—plus, digital and cable presented more ways to avoid spots. Direct marketing like junk mail routinely declares victory for .7 percent response rates. Does any magazine or newspaper promise 70 percent readership? Any radio station hawking 70 percent listenership? This topic has been argued before, yet Fleischer continues to call out her computer cluelessness. The woman must stop applying traditional advertising standards to digital marketing.

Here’s a better question—with added relevance for Black History Month: “You wouldn’t accept discriminatory exclusivity from vendors involved in your supplier diversity efforts, so why co-conspire with White advertising agencies where diversity is a dream deferred and denied?”

BTW, the Kraft website—depicted above—is 110 percent not worth viewing.

12409: Oprah Is A Liar…?

Not sure how Women’s Day and an advertiser pulled off this promotion. A banner declaring, “Shocking! Oprah Lied!” leads to a landing page hyping “Oprah’s Backstage Skincare Secret Finally Exposed.” The copy goes on to state Oprah “is legally obligated to keep it under wraps due to her relationship with Clinique and their ‘Anti-Aging’ makeup line.” Plus, the advertisement insists Clinique’s makeup is not “causing her to look almost half her age”—rather, “Oprah’s Backstage Skincare Secret” is responsible for her youthful appearance. Did Oprah approve this promotion? Doubt it.

12378: How Digital Impacts Ad Creativity.

Marketing Magazine published a perspective by fashion and textile designer Zandra Rhodes, where the author/artist questioned the ways that digital has adversely impacted creativity. The following excerpt warrants consideration and conversation:

Fashion is ever-changing. Ideas come from all different directions. But in the world of printed textiles, the computer age has transformed the speed both of creating the design and bringing the textile to its printed form.

Development time may have been halved, but the new digital designs are more obvious and they lack repeat ingenuity. As a result, students entering the world of textiles today, in my opinion, still have much to learn in the field of printed textiles.

I think the computer and the digital revolution has damaged creativity and drawing in textiles. It is too easy to lift photographs. It is too easy to mirror images to create repeats.

As a result, motifs today are merely repetitive. It is impossible to foresee in which direction creativity will head because the whole world is in a state of flux.

Gee, replace “fashion” and “textiles” with “advertising” and the statements still hold true. Indeed, regarding the advertising industry, digital has actually adversely impacted creativity on at least two fronts.

First, traditional advertising agencies have accelerated the creative process, abandoning craft for quicker delivery. Coupled with the commoditization of the industry fueled by holding companies—which in turn leads to a sea of generic shops—there is little difference between the offerings of A-level agencies and C-level agencies. Hell, traditional advertising agencies are even losing competitions against media agencies and below-the-line enterprises.

Second, digital agencies have entered the fray. What these firms lack in creativity—and they really lack creativity—they make up for with speed and digital savvy. In a standard pitch, the slower and digitally dumb traditional advertising agencies are now on par with digital agencies. Or more accurately, the work generated by traditional ad shops and digital shops is often equally mediocre.

Rhodes wrapped up by saying, “One thing is certain, the youth of the future will have new ideas of beauty that will not be the same as ours.” For the advertising industry, the new ideas of beauty will actually be measured in lowered expectations and satisfaction with uninspired shit.

Digital revolution has damaged creativity, says Zandra Rhodes

By Zandra Rhodes

Zandra Rhodes, the pioneering fashion and textile designer, believes computers and the digital revolution has “damaged creativity”, and uses other methods to find inspiration and stay at the cutting edge.

I am inspired by what I see around me, especially when I am lucky enough to travel and escape my regular environment. I find my daily surroundings, with the humdrum of everyday tasks, can hold me back and divert me away from design.

But when I travel and nobody can get hold of me, I feel I am free to allow my mind to wander and follow new paths.

With a high-profile career it is particularly important to find a means to hide away and be creative, to be in a space where my mind can be calm and unbothered, away from pressure.

I love to stroll around museums, pausing to draw in my sketchbook. When accompanied by my close friend, the artist and sculptor Andrew Logan, we stop together and he paints his watercolours as I sketch. To me, the things I see and capture in my sketchbook have a deeper meaning than a simple photo.

I then take photographs of my sketches, blow them up and put them on the walls in my studio. I live with them, and I find the creative inspiration hidden in them gradually comes out.

To me, it is very difficult to develop a creative idea. It takes time and it takes hiding away.

I experiment with shapes, making toiles to see how a new, unfinished textile print will perform and whether it will be effective.

My experience in set design and costume for the opera has widened my vision and enabled me to see clearly how a print can create a dramatic statement, with little alteration. Through time, it isn’t creativity that changes and shifts, but the way things are looked at.

Evolution of trends

Fashion is ever-changing. Ideas come from all different directions. But in the world of printed textiles, the computer age has transformed the speed both of creating the design and bringing the textile to its printed form.

Development time may have been halved, but the new digital designs are more obvious and they lack repeat ingenuity. As a result, students entering the world of textiles today, in my opinion, still have much to learn in the field of printed textiles.

I think the computer and the digital revolution has damaged creativity and drawing in textiles. It is too easy to lift photographs. It is too easy to mirror images to create repeats.

As a result, motifs today are merely repetitive. It is impossible to foresee in which direction creativity will head because the whole world is in a state of flux.

The language of creativity

Will hand-drawing disappear? Will it be more valued? Will these skills continue into the future or will they become a rare art form? Computers mean that there are now two languages. The one we create with our hands, and language that evolves from the computer.

Technology produces a different kind of art, and fashion drawings will become two different things — from those who can draw and those who create strange, computerised images.

Creativity will evolve on two levels — artistic and “space age”. In the US, the language we create with our hands is already being heavily eroded as computers become a way of life.

Students do not have the same co-ordination between the hand and brain. So in the future, it will be a different kind of art.

My revolution initially was in large printed textiles being and forming the finished shape of the whole garment.

But in future, creative influences will come from the East — from China and the areas that surround her, just as when Japan opened up in the early 70s, inspiring the Issey Miyake shape and pleating revolution.

One thing is certain, the youth of the future will have new ideas of beauty that will not be the same as ours.

12350: Trumping Diversity In 2014.

2014 was not a good year for diversity in the advertising industry.

The reality is succinctly symbolized by the fact that former Draftfcb President and CEO Laurence Boschetto once wrote, “I recently proclaimed at Draftfcb that by 2014 we will be an organization that no longer uses the term ‘diversity and inclusion.’” Well, as 2014 draws to a close, Boschetto is gone, Draftfcb is history and Diversity and Inclusion actually has its own tab on the reinvigorated organization’s website.

Additional symbols demonstrating the downfall of diversity include:

• The Madison Avenue Project being quietly dismantled

• The Marcus Graham Project Infographic exposing Black representation in the advertising industry is declining

• Here Are All The Black People getting segregated from Advertising Week

• Annie the Chicken Queen still ruling at Popeyes

In a year that marked the 59th anniversary of Rosa Parks’ refusal, diversity has taken a backseat on the Madison Avenue bus. Hell, 2014 showed that just about everything trumps diversity in the advertising industry.

Belting out the Popeyes song trumps diversity.

Adwomen nurturing millennials trumps diversity.

Selling (out) Honey Nut Cheerios trumps diversity.

Challenging people to Hire 3 Women to Disrupt White-Male Hegemony trumps diversity.

A Whites-only Burger King account review trumps diversity.

The dreaded Ad Tax trumps diversity.

A Whites-only Sprint account review trumps diversity.

Hawking royalty-free stock photos of MLK trumps diversity.

Patronizing tweets on MLK Day trumps diversity.

A Whites-only Arby’s account review trumps diversity.

JCPenney’s love for hip hop trumps diversity.

An amazingly stupid Gracie commercial trumps diversity.

Old news about White advertising agencies trumps diversity.

A gay graham cracker trumps diversity.

Rebranding a White advertising agency trumps diversity.

A shootout between sister White advertising agencies trumps diversity.

White adwomen whining over the dearth of dames trumps diversity.

Ryan Seacrest trumps diversity.

The dearth of sheroes trumps diversity.

Saluting Old White Guys trumps diversity.

Dove Real Bullshit trumps diversity.

A Whites-only Red Lobster account review trumps diversity.

A $3 million pay raise trumps diversity.

Ronald McDonald’s fresh gear trumps diversity.

Expressing cluelessness about diversity trumps diversity.

Spotlighting recruiters perpetuating exclusivity trumps diversity.

A Whites-only Miller Lite account review trumps diversity.

A $500 million termination fee trumps diversity.

The Publicis-Omnicom debacle trumps diversity.

Cultural cluelessness from a Pioneer of Diversity trumps diversity.

Unequaled cluelessness from Publicis Groupe CEO Maurice Lévy trumps diversity.

Recruiting White interns trumps diversity.

Feigning interest in diversity trumps diversity.

BBDO making diversity comical trumps diversity.

Searching for more alpha adwomen in the UK trumps diversity.

A boring trade groups merger trumps diversity.

A questionable $11.7 million salary trumps diversity.

Fawning over White millennials in adland trumps diversity.

A $7 million severance package trumps diversity.

Rebranding a Black advertising agency trumps diversity.

Hyping a Women-only awards show trumps diversity.

The dearth of White female judges at Cannes trumps diversity.

The drivel of Four Stooges on Cannes trumps diversity.

Obscenely bad advertising from Pornhub trumps diversity.

Complaining about Cannes trumps diversity.

Star-fucking at Cannes trumps diversity.

White holding companies hooking up with social media trumps diversity.

A Whites-only Infiniti account review trumps diversity.

A digitally dumb adman criticizing digital trumps diversity.

WPP Overlord Sir Martin Sorrell’s trendspotting trumps diversity.

The hypocrisy of cause marketing trumps diversity.

A Whites-only White Castle account review trumps diversity.

Gobbledygook from Cindy Gallop trumps diversity.

These 5 Dynamic Duos Are Nailing Digital Marketing trumps diversity.

Unilever’s digital dumbness trumps diversity.

Procter & Gamble consolidating crumbs trumps diversity.

Leo Burnett honoring Bill Sharp despite rarely hiring Blacks trumps diversity.

Shrinking The Big Tent trumps diversity.

Accelerating Toyota Swagger Wagon stereotypes trumps diversity.

Mickey D’s staging a shootout between White advertising agencies already on its roster trumps diversity.

A Whites-only L.A. Clippers account review trumps diversity.

The final season of Mad Men trumps diversity.

PR experts who fuck up their own PR trumps diversity.

Cancelling The Crazy Ones trumps diversity.

Letting unqualified digital agencies produce TV commercials trumps diversity.

Earning 780 times more than your average employee trumps diversity.

A creative director exhibiting transphobia trumps diversity.

Cross-cultural cluelessness trumps diversity.

Sobbing over extended payment terms trumps diversity.

Declaring “pee happens” trumps diversity.

Gender jive trumps diversity.

A White advertising agency dictating Black advertising trumps diversity.

A Whites-only Intel account review trumps diversity.

Cleaning up digital advertising trumps diversity.

A Whites-only Panera Bread account review trumps diversity.

Announcing that content outperforms advertising trumps diversity.

White adwomen winning awards trumps diversity.

Clients appointing Chief Creative Officers trumps diversity.

Dentsu showing zero interest in merging with White holding companies trumps diversity.

White advertising agencies concocting mentoring campaigns trumps diversity.

Partnerships involving culturally clueless enterprises—Google and Madison Avenue—trumps diversity.

Asking a Chief Diversity Officer what she really does all day trumps diversity.

Picking the next White man to succeed Publicis Groupe CEO Maurice Lévy trumps diversity.

Lobbying for adland trumps diversity.

WPP Overlord Sir Martin Sorrell playing pseudo thought leader trumps diversity.

The invisibility of minorities at Advertising Week 2014 trumps diversity.

Idolizing WPP Overlord Sir Martin Sorrell trumps diversity.

Deciding the perfect modern creative is female trumps diversity.

More Leo Burnett diversity propaganda trumps diversity.

Conservative clients promoting fearlessness trumps diversity.

Trumping Cheerios’ Gracie trumps diversity.

More White advertising agencies commandeering cross-cultural campaigns—and shooting on former slave plantations—trumps diversity.

Millennials myopia trumps diversity.

Old White Guys replacing Old White Guys trumps diversity.

Nepotism at Havas trumps diversity.

Subliminal Inequality trumps diversity.

Yet another White man advocating gender equality trumps diversity.

Yet another boring trade groups merger trumps diversity.

South Africa’s advertising industry having greater diversity than the U.S. advertising industry trumps diversity.

A Whites-only Johnnie Walker account review trumps diversity.

The high cost of talent turnover trumps diversity.

Not trusting digital advertising impressions trumps diversity.

Quarterly revenue trumps diversity.

Digital drunkenness trumps diversity.

Destroying digital trumps diversity.

Promising no layoffs in the wake of mergers trumps diversity.

Multiplying management layers trumps diversity.

Digital trumps diversity.

Hatching a single global idea for megabrands trumps diversity.

A White advertising agency’s telenovela trumps diversity.

Consolidating billings among White advertising agencies trumps diversity.

Copyrighting bad taglines trumps diversity.

Reviving Pizza Hut trumps diversity.

Consolidating digital billings trumps diversity.

Slapping employees in the (White) face trumps diversity.

Complaining about digital standards you co-authored trumps diversity.

Bratwurst trumps diversity.

Selecting a White advertising agency before replacing the CMO trumps diversity.

Choosing the Best Places for White people to work trumps diversity.

Another White man jumping on the gender equality bandwagon trumps diversity.

A Whites-only CarMax account review trumps diversity.

Telling your bosses how to do their jobs trumps diversity.

Comparing discriminatory hiring practices to spinach in your teeth trumps diversity.

Dreaming of a lily-White Christmas trumps diversity.

Quietly shifting accounts sans any reviews trumps diversity.

Misleading consumers via Twitter trumps diversity.

A Whites-only Sabra account review trumps diversity.

Admitting that White women comprise 49 percent of the UK advertising workforce trumps diversity.

Admitting that 56 percent of digital ads are never seen trumps diversity.

Parking the Cadillac account at a new White advertising agency trumps diversity.

Celebrating White A-Listers trumps diversity.

Additional consolidation of billings among White advertising agencies trumps diversity.

Sending a White guy to conquer China trumps diversity.

Suffering a consolidation headache trumps diversity.

A Whites-only Golden Corral account review trumps diversity.

Being a sore loser trumps diversity.

Being an Anus Horribilis trumps diversity.

Predicting What’s Not Happening in 2015 trumps diversity.

Naming a new CEO after consolidating billings among White advertising agencies trumps diversity.

Anointing yourself Global White AOR for Jesus trumps diversity.

Lowering Kara Walker and Pharrell Williams into the same league as David Droga and Ted Royer—which is like comparing Marie Curie and Albert Einstein to Harry Dunne and Lloyd Christmas—trumps diversity.

To sum up the year: digital—and all the acquisitions and asinine responses it inspires—trumps diversity; the alleged dearth of dames—and sycophantic White men advocating for gender equality—trumps diversity; Whites-only account reviews—featuring Corporate Cultural Collusion, cronyism, nepotism and other assorted isms—trumps diversity; White holding companies’ slick maneuverings—and the greedy egos of ignorant White holding company leaders—trumps diversity; White advertising agencies producing liberal-minded work—and having the audacity to feign commitment to diversity—trumps diversity; shady politics trumps diversity; and grudgingly hugging millennials trumps diversity. As previously stated, just about everything trumps diversity in the advertising industry. Let’s hope 2015 isn’t a rerun of 2014. Happy New Year!

12330: Maurice’s Moronic Mutterings.

Campaign reported on an interview with Publicis Groupe CEO Maurice Lévy, where the old man described 2014 as an “annus horribilis.” Well, maybe Lévy should stop acting like a horrible anus. “Everything bad I take personally. It is affecting my behaviour. It is affecting my morale, but at the same time it is giving me a lot of strength,” whined Lévy. “The worst thing that can happen is the negative spiral. You have to avoid getting yourself into a negative spiral when something bad is happening.” Yeah, Lévy can always work his way out of a funk by overspending on another compulsive purchase of a digital agency. Regarding the “digital disruption” impacting the industry, Lévy said. “[It] is something that is transforming not only our business, the behaviour of our consumer, but the business of all our clients. So I am very much paranoid about the business of my clients and how this digital thing will transform them and I believe there is a lot to do in this area.” This digital thing? Sorry, but this is not the kind of clueless muttering one wants to hear from the guy opening his holding company’s wallet to buy every shitty digital firm available.

12220: Unilever Is Digitally Dumb.

Advertising Age reported Unilever and GroupM have decided they’re unhappy with the standards for online advertising created by various advertiser trade groups and approved earlier this year. Whoop-dee-damn-doo. GroupM Chief Digital Investment Officer Ari Bluman declared, “What we’re asking for is that we no longer want to buy ads that are not viewed by human beings.” Whatever you say, Mr. Bluman.

On the one hand, all of this only demonstrates that digital is a beast that will not be tamed by anyone. But most importantly, it clearly shows that Unilever and GroupM are a couple of self-absorbed blowhards who don’t know shit about digital. Hell, Bluman should be thankful that digital has allowed for inane titles such as Chief Digital Investment Officer; otherwise, he’d probably just be another procurement wonk concocting cost-saving efficiencies in the accounting department.

Unilever’s demands that 100% of an ad must be viewable in a browser sounds like the idiot who still insists a certain amount of content must be visible above the fold. The advertiser can’t force consumers to watch TV spots, read print ads, listen to radio jingles, gaze at OOH, pay attention to in-store signage, etc. So what makes Unilever think it can dictate standards for advertising in an ever-evolving environment that was never intended to accommodate pushy brand messages? Oh, and let’s not even consider the fact that the overwhelming majority of Unilever’s online hucksterism is contrived crap that doesn’t deserve to be viewed—the advertiser’s digital campaigns are simply piling poop on an already humongous garbage dump.

The funniest part is, Unilever and GroupM apparently participated in the creation of the standards they now deem unsuitable. You can’t have your cookie and eat it too, assholes.

Advice for Unilever that will undoubtedly be ignored and probably not understood: Concentrate on improving the content of your digital experiences. Everything else will take care of itself—and what’s more, it’s out of your control.

Standards Jeopardize Industry Effort?

Marketer, GroupM Have a Simple Viewability Concept: Humans Must See the Ad

By Jack Neff

Advertising trade groups spent years developing standards for online ad viewability before they were approved earlier this year. Now, one of the world’s biggest marketers and a major media-buying company have officially come out and said those standards aren’t high enough.

Unilever and GroupM, whose Mindshare agency handles the marketer’s buying, are working with standards for online display and video ads tougher than those set through a process started more than two years ago by the cross-industry Making Measurement Make Sense (3MS) group. That initiative included the Association of National Advertisers, of which Unilever is a member; American Association of Advertising Agencies, to which GroupM belongs; the Media Rating Council, which is charged with evaluating measurement systems; and the Interactive Advertising Bureau.

Unilever’s higher standards raise questions about whether the industry’s online standards will stick and whether broader industry efforts to develop cross-platform media metrics can win universal acceptance.

For display, Unilever’s policy is that 100% of an ad must be viewable in a browser, though it doesn’t specify a length of time, according to Rob Master, VP-media for the Americas at Unilever. The 3MS standard is at least 50% of an ad must be viewable for at least a second.

For online video, Unilever only counts ads where 100% of the player is in view; a person clicks to start it rather than having it play automatically; at least half the ad plays; and the sound is on. The 3MS standard is only that only 50% of the video be in view for at least two seconds.

Unilever’s standard isn’t really that stringent, said Ari Bluman, chief digital investment officer of WPP’s GroupM. “What we’re asking for is that we no longer want to buy ads that are not viewed by human beings.”

The 3MS standards are minimalist by design, meant to measure an “opportunity to see” comparable to what other media impressions are built around. The premise is that people who are interested will pay attention longer than a second or two.

In one respect, the 3MS online standards are tougher than those for TV, where ratings used as currency in negotiations are based on average viewership of commercial pods, not individual ads, said Sherrill Mane, senior VP, industry services at the IAB and a key player in developing the 3MS standards. She believes Unilever’s video standard, by requiring opt in, also goes beyond what TV ratings count, given that people don’t have to click on TV ads to see them.

“Unilever and GroupM are both organizations that actively participated in 3MS,” she said. “It’s really a shame, because you want to start somewhere and build, not say we did this hard work but I don’t care. We’re going to take the standard where we want.”

Unilever’s separate standard could prove “onerous to small- and medium-size publishers,” who may feel the need to pay two of the 15 MRC-accredited vendors for measurements to get a full reading of differences in how they count viewership, she said.

“We felt like we need to take a more aggressive position across the board in digital advertising, which is obviously growing a lot,” Mr. Master said. Globally, Unilever spends 20% of its media budget on digital, though it doesn’t break that down by country.

“We think there’s a huge opportunity to bring greater rigor and accountability where so much more money is flowing,” he said.

He and Mr. Bluman don’t see their standards going against the spirit of 3MS standards, which they say were meant as a minimum, with the ultimate standards up to individual negotiations. Media companies have been overwhelmingly receptive to Unilever’s approach, Mr. Bluman said.

Mr. Master believes Unilever will have no trouble finding enough inventory. “People talk about how there are 50 billion ads a day you can bid on, and in total there are 230 million total users in the U.S. So frequency and volume are not issues,” he said. “There’s an unbelievable amount of inventory, and if it’s not viewed by a human, we want it out of the marketplace.”

The move comes as the industry works on broader standards for media and return-on-investment measurement under what Association of National Advertisers CEO Bob Liodice in May called a “Measurement Mandate.” Part of the plan calls for making TV-style gross rating points the centerpiece of cross-media measurement. But can that happen if advertisers have different standards for what constitutes an online audience?

“I think it will sort out in the end,” said Gayle Fuguitt, CEO of the Advertising Research Foundation. “We completely support the work that the MRC is doing in developing a standard. If more people can adhere to that, it’s a rising tide that will lift all boats.”

12098: Sir Martin’s Mindlessness.

WPP Overlord Sir Martin Sorrell published a LinkedIn perspective titled, Bring Code Into The Classroom (And Other Principles For The Digital Age)—presenting “five guiding principles that apply to the worlds of both government and commerce.” Not convinced Sorrell is really writing 1,900-word essays all by himself. And if he is, the man is being way overpaid to do so, no? The best part is, Sorrell’s insightful thought leadership sparked a single comment—from a robot responder explaining how he made $7k per month working part-time.

11988: Edelman’s Opportunistic Bullshit.

Adweek reported PR shithole Edelman is facing heat over a blog post that called the death of Robin Williams “an opportunity.” Gawker already skewered the place for its corporate clumsiness and cluelessness, so there’s no need to pile more dung onto that particular heap. The fiasco does, however, present an opportunity to rip Edelman in a different way. In recent years, the PR giant has sought to position itself as a digital expert. It’s another sad example of every communications company—from traditional advertising agencies to shopper marketing firms—claiming to be an online guru. Anyone who has ever worked firsthand at Edelman can attest that the place is not qualified to reboot a laptop, let alone spark intelligent conversations on the World Wide Web. Hell, the joint can’t even produce print ads or PowerPoint presentations. Yet here is an Edelman executive vice president definitely demonstrating digital dumbness—and having the hubris to leave the offending post for all to see. Need additional proof that Edelman has no business labeling itself as digitally savvy? In 2011, they rated MultiCultClassics as impressively influential and admirably trusted. The PR wonks clearly don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about.

PR Giant Edelman Apologizes for Calling Robin Williams’ Death an ‘Opportunity’

But says blog post on sparking mental health discussion will remain live

By David Griner

Edelman is usually tapped with helping brands avoid or disentangle themselves from public backlash, but the global PR firm instead found itself in the hot seat this week.

At issue was a blog post from media relations strategy evp Lisa Kovitz, who said the suicide of comedian Robin Williams created a PR opportunity for groups advocating for better treatment of mental illness.

“As we mourn the loss of Robin Williams to depression, we must recognize it as an opportunity to engage in a national conversation,” she wrote. “His death yesterday created a carpe diem moment for mental health professionals and those people who have suffered with depression and want to make a point about the condition and the system that treats it.”

While she certainly has a point about such a high-profile tragedy bringing mental health and depression into the spotlight, quite a few readers found the post to be in poor taste.

Most of the backlash likely stemmed from Gawker’s writeup calling Edelman a “soulless PR conglomerate” using a celebrity’s suicide to promote its own expertise.

Asked by Adweek whether she regretted the phrasing or the intent of the blog post, Kovitz directed us to Edelman’s tweet of apology this morning:

Despite the company’s apology, Kovitz said the blog post “will remain live.”

Most critics of the post said they felt it was positioned as a sales message for the PR agency:

“Using someone’s death as an opportunity to position yourself as THE PR company to walk potential clients through the best way to benefit from this ‘conversation’ is callous,” said commenter Erin Blaskie, who shared her complaint with her 30,000 Twitter followers as well. “Instructing potential clients to pay your firm money to help them take advantage of this situation is gross. This isn’t a PR opportunity. This is someone’s life lost.”

11986: Algorithm Optimizes Ignorance.

Digiday published a perspective titled, “Help, my algorithm is a racist.” The post proved at least two points:

1. Digital practitioners are not very bright.

2. White people in our field tend to be culturally clueless.

Essentially, the author noted that an online message featuring a White kid received more clicks than a similar version featuring a Black kid—prompting his “racist” algorithm to optimize the campaign to the creative that performed better.

Um, to call the author’s conclusion culturally clueless is an understatement, as he’s professionally ignorant too. As someone in the comments section pointed out, it’s difficult—if not impossible—to draw any conclusions based on the data provided in the story. The biggest questions include:

1. Who is the target audience?

2. What was being sold?

3. Was race/ethnicity a relevant part of the message?

4. Were the White kid and Black kid images completely identical except for the race component?

5. Why did the author even have two different images to begin with?

To simply make a judgmental statement about the algorithm—even if the author’s true intent was amusement and entertainment—is ignorant. Plus, calling the algorithm a racist is really stupid, as well as insensitive. After all, if one were to label the author a racist for having conceived and published the piece, there would be a backlash from the PC-haters—and the author would probably take offense too. Racist is a combustible tag for White folks, especially when it’s tossed in their direction. The culturally clueless among us—and let’s be honest, there are lots of culturally clueless critters in our ranks—should take care when using the word. Better yet, just delete it from your vocabulary.

Help, my algorithm is a racist

By Nate Carter

Nate Carter is managing director of eEffective, a digital trading desk.

The other week I found out that my algorithm is a racist.

Don’t get me wrong, it wasn’t birthed this way. In fact, we can be sure that in this case the racism is a product of nurture, not nature. You see, I was running two creative sets. Both were pictures of children, their mere image beckoning the web browser to click on them. Click on them people did. The problem is that, over time, they clicked on one creative more than the other, and when they converted on the landing page, they converted on that same creative with higher frequency. Doing what it was designed to do, my algorithm jumped in, optimizing the campaign to the better-performing creative: the one with the white child, not the black child.

An awkward moment arose. What do we do? After all, this is a results business and the Caucasian creative was [bringing] in the goods. Still something didn’t feel quite right. It also made me wonder, are we racist? Had our racism poisoned my algorithm and turned it into a monster?

These were difficult ethical questions. On the surface it appeared that I may have uncovered statistical proof of underlying racism. But what if the motives of the audience clicking were less devious? What if the creative with the Caucasian child was simply more appealing, without regard to skin color? Also there was the question of, now what? Do I reprogram my algorithm? Do we take the learnings and run with the better-performing creative? What are the ethical ramifications of the latter?

Overall it was a healthy conversation to have. It also showcased that in an age where it is easy to let the machine make all of the decisions, there are things which are worth debating, considering and pondering which go beyond simple numerical analysis. You see, there is a danger that our algorithms can end up racist or bigoted, for they are by their very function prejudiced. If we allow them to optimize, unencumbered they become a reflection of us, all of our best and all of our worst.

As we continue to make strides in customization and individualization of our messaging it is important that we are looking at what we are telling people, giving clients insights into campaign bias and considering the ethical ramifications.

11963: Is Unilever Digitally Dumb?

Advertising Age reported Unilever is staging a global digital agency review that will include incumbents and fresh contenders. One key problem with the competition is underscored by scanning the incumbents, which include traditional advertising agencies, digital agencies, media companies and PR firms. In short, everyone thinks they can deliver digital. Plus, some of Unilever’s digital agencies (e.g., Razorfish) are barely capable of delivering decent digital. Additionally, clients like Unilever believe they can receive adequate digital from any source—or maybe they secretly believe they’ll get the same old digital shit from any source, and this exercise is simply about identifying the cheapest vendor. Regardless, this review demonstrates the commoditization of digital, where all the players are generic hacks lining up for the opportunity to produce banner ads and email blasts. Let the online games begin.

Unilever Begins Global Digital Agency Review to Revamp Roster

CPG Giant Evaluating Creative, Web Development, Online Marketing, Mobile, Social and Data and Analytics

By Alexandra Bruell

Unilever has begun a formal global digital agency review, according to industry executives.

The London-based packaged-goods giant has enlisted MediaLink to aid in the search, which appears to be an effort to revamp its global digital roster across brands and digital practices, including creative, web development, online marketing, mobile, social media and data and analytics, people familiar with the brief said.

The agencies invited to participate include incumbents and non-incumbents across various agency holding companies. They will present capabilities in mid-August, beginning a long process that’s not expected to wrap up until the end of the year.

A Unilever spokeswoman did not provide comment on deadline Tuesday. MediaLink declined to comment.

The move comes as the marketer was wrapping up a U.S.-focused digital agency roster evaluation. That process has now been folded into the larger pitch.

WPP’s Ogilvy; Publicis’ Razorfish; IPG’s Huge, R/GA and Lowe Profero; Engine Group’s Noise; and independent VaynerMedia are among the many shops that have supported digital efforts for Unilever brands. A number of PR shops, such as Edelman, GolinHarris and Weber Shandwick have also handled social media efforts for various brands.

Unilever in December 2013 announced plans to cut its worldwide marketing headcount by 12%, or more than 800 people. The company also said it would continue to trim agency and commercial production fees, framing the moves as part of continuous cost savings of the sort that have been common since Paul Polman became CEO in 2009.

Following a media review in 2012, the company decided to keep its U.S. media buying at WPP’s Mindshare and later awarded a global media planning assignment to Omnicom Group’s PHD. MediaLink supported that search as well.

Unilever spent $1.29 billion on total U.S. advertising in 2013. It’s ranked 28 on the Ad Age DataCenter’s list of top U.S. ad spenders.

11960: Dynamic Duos Defy Diversity.

Adweek presented, “These 5 Dynamic Duos Are Nailing Digital Marketing”—spotlighting CMO-exec pairings allegedly leading the way in the digital arena. Like so many digital and social media enterprises, the dynamic duos display a damned disappointing dearth of diversity.

11497: Dearth Of Digital Dames.

Adweek interviewed entrepreneur Rachel Sklar, discussing the dearth of digital dames—which was packaged under the overall heading of diversity. Looks like Karen Mallia’s perspective does not hold true. Sure, women face discrimination in the interactive space too; however, they’re still waaaaay better off than minorities.

Rachel Sklar Emphasizes That Diversity, Inclusiveness Are Good for Business

Entrepreneur speaks out about women in tech

By David Taintor

In the past month alone, the tech industry has seen a string of headlines that talk of men pushing misogynistic apps or taking a crude tack when discussing women on Twitter. Rachel Sklar, an entrepreneur who has co-founded two organizations—Change the Ratio and TheLi.st—that seek to shine a light on women in tech and media, said stories like these validate the work she does. She recently spoke to Adweek about how inclusiveness and diversity are business assets.

You’ve spoken out a lot about the lack of recognition that women in tech receive. Are things getting better at all on that front?


Things are definitely getting better. There are women everywhere doing amazing, innovative, critical things. By and large, this is still an issue. But I do think it is definitely changing. Change the Ratio, I think, has actually changed the ratio. And that’s not to take credit for amazing stuff done by amazing women who don’t know me and have nothing to do with me. It has to do with a greater awareness on the part of investors, and influencers, and decision makers and gatekeepers that it is actually important to diversify. And that entrepreneurs are not just packaged looking like Mark Zuckerberg and The Social Network. And that where you don’t have diversity, you’re leaving an incredible number of market opportunities on the table.

There have been a number of headlines recently about insensitive men in the tech world, with Pax Dickinson at Business Insider and a couple of sexist panels at TechCrunch Disrupt. What’s your reaction when you see those stories?


These are things that are very validating. That is the irony of the business that I am in: validation that comes from realizing that things need to change and things need to get better. So when you've got these two bros on stage making an app about staring at women’s bodies and objectifying them, nothing makes it more clear that there needs to be more women—and treated with more respect—in the industry than that.

And that’s something that affects bottom line. Amazing, qualified people with a spine and a brain and a heart won’t gravitate toward that kind of behavior. I just always try to hammer home: it is a business asset to be a mensch. It’s a business asset to be forward-looking, forward-thinking, inclusive, someone who sets a good example and leads in a progressive way.

You helped launch Sheryl Sandberg’s Lean In organization. Are you still involved?


I was on the launch committee for Lean In, and I did a few events with Sheryl in New York with women in this space. And I don’t have a formal, ongoing role, but I am sort of an ongoing friend of the organization. Jessica Bennett, who is the editorial director at Lean In, she’s on TheLi.st. She and I are good friends and have lots of things we want to do together. It’s very symbiotic. Lean In has been a very useful thing for me. There was a sea change that came with it. It made my life so much easier, in addition to being an amazing handbook with all the data I needed.

What’s an average day like for you?

I think, particularly for most entrepreneurs who are in the early stages, there’s no such thing as an average day. I’m in the reaction business in many respects. I’ve become sort of a go-to to send up the bat signal for sexism happening somewhere.

I’ve gotten better over the years, in terms of what things demand me to drop everything and respond. It’s like the outrage-o-meter—I’ve trained myself to wait until it reaches a certain point. Because TheLi.st is a mission-driven organization, it’s in many ways determined by responsiveness.

When was the last time your outrage-o-meter was set off?


It’s been generally set off over the shutdown, the Republican shutdown. Because, with every wave of new stories of who is affected, and what kind of loss is experienced as a result of it, a flash wave of realization that the people who are going to be feeling the brunt of this are the people who are least protected and cared for in society. And the people making these decisions are people who have money and resources and have privilege. I spend a lot of my time engaged with the concept of privilege, who has it and who doesn't have it and of the people who do have it, how they are deploying it. Often the people who have it are not deploying it in an enlightened way. And I try to enlighten them.

10822: Digital Versus Old White Guys.

Digiday editor Brian Morrissey wondered, “Do Brands Have an ‘Old White Guy’ Problem?” The question actually emerged via a taped interview featuring Hennessy Director of Digital Montana Triplett. At about 19:30 into the video discussion—which was part of the Digiday Brand Summit—Triplett quipped, “In our business, we work with a lot of old White guys, and they are used to…the trade…they like their POS and they want more trade dollars. And they don’t understand this digital thing, and they don’t really care about a like.” Not sure Triplett’s old White guys are directly related to the Old White Guys this blog has identified over the years. Rather, it appeared as if the Hennessy executive was fueling the flames of the stereotypical digital versus traditional battle. It should be interesting to see if there is any fallout or negative response to Triplett’s revelation. It’s one thing for the group’s members to refer to themselves as Old White Guys—but they tend to take offense when others tag them with the label. Hell, the Hennessy Director of Digital may be asked to meet with the Hennessy Director of HR. Or with Socialistic CEO Colleen DeCourcy.

10762: Putting The Con In Confession.

Has anyone really been impressed with the Digiday Confessions series?

Honestly, are the alleged insider exposés actually uncovering new insights or shocking revelations? If the stories were shared in a confessional, most priests probably wouldn’t feel compelled to issue penance. The typical response might be, “Is that all you got?”

The latest installment—Confessions of a Big-Agency Top Digital Exec—only underscored the failure of integrated marketing in BDA environments, while also providing plenty of “No duh” moments.

For starters, “Big-Agency Top Digital Exec” is almost an oxymoron. As the confessor admitted, big agencies do not know what to do with high-level digital talent. The interviewee literally declared, “…I don’t think there is…one single example of an innovation person or department doing well at a big agency.” The narration went on to criticize clients, BDA management and even the digital executives for taking jobs for the money, ultimately jumping from shop to shop. For bona fide big-agency adpeople, it’s all been common knowledge for at least a decade.

The “Big-Agency Top Digital Exec” didn’t spend too much time discussing the majority of “chief innovation officers” who are simply old-fashioned con artists. You know the type. Fast-talking hucksters who pontificate about breakthrough technological concepts yet never manage to execute anything of merit. Of course, their résumés take credit for lots of award-winning projects. But when you probe for specifics on their roles in the interactive extravaganzas, the conversation is quickly shifted to the latest Nike app that they had nothing to do with. And as the confessor acknowledged, these self-promoters are highly successful at replaying their hustle for any agency desperately seeking digital credibility.

On many levels, big-agency top digital execs are not much different than big-agency top execs. They just tend to own and operate more gadgets.

10589: Dearth Of Digital Diversity.

Adweek reported an Advertising Week event featured a discussion on the dearth of multicultural tech talent. “We have a talent issue in this business,” said MediaVest EVP Steven Wolfe Pereira. “We don’t have enough talent at the top, much less the junior levels.” Gee, maybe all the viable candidates are in Sweden. Has anyone considered launching a high-tech version of BrandLab—or building a high school for mobile enthusiasts? Surely a social internship would solve the dilemma. Look forward to seeing “Where Are All The Digital Black People?” Guess new media has the same old excuses regarding the exclusivity in the field.

Ad World Desires Multicultural Tech Talent

Firms fight for best digital recruits, say Advertising Week attendees

By Christopher Heine

A common theme among Advertising Week IX goers this week has been the heightened scramble for talent that combines tech and creative savviness, as brands, agencies and other marketing firms prepare for a more widespread mobile landscape. That subject converged with the topic of multicultural marketing via multiple screens at a panel at the Liberty Theater in New York this morning.

It’s difficult enough for agencies and brands to compete with startups for the brightest tech minds, marketers say—it’s even harder when you’re also looking for diverse talent that inherently understands African-American, Latino and Asian consumers. In short, multicultural tech recruits appear to be at a premium.

“We have a talent issue in this business,” said Steven Wolfe Pereira, an evp at MediaVest. “We don’t have enough talent at the top, much less the junior levels.”

Joan FitzGerald, vp of TV and business sales for comScore, also commented about the hunt for tech-educated multicultural talent during the panel. “I’ve called up my alma mater to tell them we need people,” she said.

Agencies and digital-focused firms are not the only entities getting into the tech game at an increasing rate—brands are, too. Walmart, Coke and Mondelez International are just a few big names that are taking digital in-house and grabbing as much top-shelf tech talent along the way as they can.

Will other brands follow suit?

“I think it’s a safe bet in the industry, in general,” said Maria Cristina Rios, Macy’s director of multicultural marketing and media strategy.

10388: Digital Dimes Versus Advertising Dollars.

Advertising Age reported on a 4A’s study showing digital agency executives make far less money than traditional advertising creatives. Wow, did someone pay to conduct the study? It’s a safe bet that the researchers received more loot than digital agency executives. Digital has positioned itself as a below-the-line discipline, adopting the direct marketing business model. That is, the work gets done fast and cheap. And if stuff can’t be done in-house, it gets outsourced to even cheaper vendors—sometimes to vendors in developing countries. So no one should be the least bit surprised by the research results. Plus, any digital executives depressed to learn of the study can take solace in knowing they are still paid more than minorities in the field.

Survey Finds Digital Agency Execs Paid Less Than Creatives

Digital May Be Advertising’s Future, but Traditional Creatives Bill Nearly Double as Much

By Rupal Parekh

A senior digital executive at a New York-based shop bills clients an average of around $350 an hour. Senior creatives on the traditional side of Madison Avenue can bill nearly twice as much.

In other words, for all the fretting over a digital talent gap in adland, many digital and social-media positions, mobile developers or technologists earn far less than their old-school counterparts.

That’s a key takeaway from a 109-page report published by 4A’s last week that reflects 2011 hourly rates billed by agencies. The survey—which updates information contained in the first labor-billing study it conducted three years ago—collected data positions including account management, creative, analytics, digital, media services and talent management. It then spliced and diced the data by agency size and geography.

When this study was initially published back in 2009, it sparked a furor in the industry, with many agency executives saying that the published benchmarks were the equivalent of a “suggested retail price” established by the agencies, and asked that published rates not be confused with rates actually paid by clients. Many, fearing a backlash from clients who were already slashing fees during the recession, also pointed out at the time that the hourly billing rate data was “fully-loaded,” including overhead and other costs rather than reflecting what employees were paid.

Roth Associates founder Dick Roth, who says about 40% of his business now is focused on compensation consulting for marketers and agencies, thinks that while the 4A’s labor-billing survey is helpful insight for clients looking to get a sense of agencies’ expectations, the data should be taken with a grain of salt. “It’s what the agencies would like to charge and it doesn’t represent marketplace pricing, which is what people should benchmark themselves against.”

The 4A’s maintains that while there’s been a wealth of efforts to move agency compensation toward newer models such as value-based arrangements, fees for service based on agency labor are still the predominant payment method. The trade group says that many of their members feel that sharing the hourly billing rates can help with compensation discussions by establishing benchmarks. Indeed, more shops volunteered to participate this time around.

This survey represents hourly rates billed by 251 agencies, vs. 230 in 2009. The agencies that participated include global agency networks, such as Ogilvy, BBDO, Grey, JWT, Y&R, McCann and Leo Burnett as well as shops such as 72andSunny, CP&B, BBH, Mullen and the Martin Agency. There was also a smattering of big digital shops, media agencies and PR shops in the mix, including: SapientNitro, 360i, VML, Carat, Initiative, Mediacom, Maxus Cohn & Wolfe, Hill & Knowlton.

In the 2012 survey, data were gathered for several new titles linked to digital advertising or content, including director-content management, creative technologist, mobile web developer, rich media developer, digital-analytics manager or blogger. At their highest, each of those roles command hourly rates shy of traditional creatives, such as $355 for a head of content to less than $200 an hour for a mobile-web developer.

While the disparity between New York-based creatives and those in the parts of the country is still huge—Madison Ave. pays the most—the hourly billing figure has fallen to $637 an hour in 2011 from $751 an hour in 2008. Meanwhile, the average amount chief creatives in other parts of the country bill is on the rise. In the East or in the South it went up to $361 an hour in 2011 from $319 an hour in 2008; up to $487 in the West in 2011 vs. $461 in 2008 and just above flat in the central part of the country, to $422 an hour average compared to $420 in 2008.

Account managers’ hourly billing rates are seeing slight upticks, too, and senior account execs can also command more than many digital roles. A director of account services in New York bills an average of $461 an hour compared with $453 in 2008.

Adland’s tendency to charge more for senior traditional creative talent than digital talent isn’t isolated to the agency world. Jerry Bernhart, a recruiter in digital and direct marketing who runs his own firm in Minnesota, said he’s also seeing it on the marketing side.

Another factor in digital talent commanding less is their ability to be associated with well-known work. “It’s about identifiable product. A senior traditional creative person can say, “I did the Apple commercials’ or “Where’s the Beef?’” Mr. Roth said. “It’s like being an Academy Award movie winner; it’s more recognizable.”

“Try to think of the person who handled a digital campaign—and you’d be a bit more hard-pressed,” said Mr. Bernhart. “Eventually there will be superstars and real home-run hitters who distinguish themselves. … Recruiters and a lot of folks at agencies know talented digital people, but [clients might not] because they haven’t become marquee names. But it’ll be cool when that happens, because we’ll know the industry has evolved.”