16754: Questioning Brands Cutting DEIBA+ Initiatives—And Cutting Ties With White Advertising Agencies.

 

Advertising Age reported on a survey showing the majority of consumers support brands that hire and promote diverse employees. However, consumers are not necessarily swayed or impressed by brand advertising with diverse casting.

 

This begs questions that have been raised in the past. Specifically, if consumers care about the diversity of brands, how might they respond to the vendors partnering with brands?

 

In short, how might consumers respond upon learning brands conspire with White advertising agencies where diversity is a dream deferred, delayed, and denied?

 

Additionally, how might they respond upon discovering much of the advertising featuring diverse casting is produced by White advertising agencies, denying multicultural marketers an equal opportunity to work?

 

Finally, might consumers be more attracted to and impressed by advertising featuring diverse casting if such work was generated with greater authenticity and relevance by multicultural marketers?

 

Brands Cutting DE&I Efforts—What Consumers Think Of The Different Policies

 

External, diverse marketing efforts are not seen as a way to build workplace equity, but internal programs are

 

By Erika Wheless

 

Even as companies ranging from Lowe’s to Tractor Supply Company to Brown-Forman roll back diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, a new report shows that such programs still enjoy majority consumer support.

 

A new Morning Consult survey found that 57% of U.S. adults believe that recruiting employees from minority groups is an effective way to support workplace equality, and 55% support efforts to ensure these employees receive promotions. But the survey, conducted last month, found less support for DEI initiatives (50%) focused on featuring diverse actors in ad campaigns.

 

“It’s clear that what consumers view as packing the most punch is hiring, retaining and elevating minorities to positions of power,” said Ellyn Briggs, brand analyst at Morning Consult.

 

 

U.S. adults said recruiting (57%) and promoting (55%) employees from minority groups are effective at achieving workplace equality, while less than half (47%) said the same about companies supporting inclusion in an external manner, such as selling LGBTQ+ Pride merchandise. 

 

Credit: Morning Consult

 

But what is not clear, and what the survey did not address, is how brands should highlight this to consumers, outside of DEI reports outlining the breakdown of employees.

 

“It’s rare that consumers know the makeup of their favorite brand’s leadership team, and yet the findings show that many would rather brands support minorities with dollars and promotions, rather than inclusive marketing,” Briggs said.

 

The survey mirrors a report Morning Consult published last year, which found that internal company actions resonated more with customers than external advocacy. Seventy-one percent of consumers said they viewed a company as more favorable if they paid their employees well and 69% said they viewed a company as more favorable if a company was known to be a place where employees liked to work, according to that report.

 

In the most recent report, a majority of surveyed adults (58%) believed DEI initiatives are either “very” or “somewhat” important to the success of most businesses. But only half of the respondents said that hiring diverse actors for ad campaigns supported workplace equality. That is not to say that inclusive marketing should end: Another report published in January by Morning Consult found that diverse marketing can drive purchases among non-white Gen Zers.

 

The findings come as Lowe’s, Tractor Supply, Deere & Co, Harley-Davidson and Jack Daniel’s maker Brown-Forman Corporation have rolled back or made changes to their DEI programs and policies after being criticized by conservative activist Robby Starbuck, who has pledged to “end wokeness in the workplace, dismantle DEI and eliminate ESG,” referring to environmental, social and and governance policies.

 

The brand backlash is reminiscent of what Bud Light faced after a promotion with transgender creator Dylan Mulvaney in early 2023. The beer brand, which was America’s best-selling beer when the controversy arose, subsequently spiraled into a severe sales slump and has now fallen behind Modelo Especial and Michelob Ultra.

 

Morning Consult found that men, baby boomers and Republicans were the most doubtful of DEI programs and more likely to support rollbacks.

 

Research from McKinsey shows that brands that are committed to diversity perform better financially than their competitors that do not. The consulting firm found that companies in the top quartile for ethnic diversity have, on average, a 27% financial advantage over their peers.

 

For brands that might come under attack for their DEI programs, rolling back policies may do more damage, especially when it comes to retaining Gen Z consumers.

 

“Gen Z is very against rollback efforts because they value authentic brands, so being flip-floppy is not good,” Briggs said. “When a company walks back its efforts, they may do it for a small segment of consumers, but it upsets the majority who were happy the brand had them.”

 

How much it upsets the majority may play out in future earnings reports. If sales are better in the wake of rolling back their DEI efforts, other brands seeking to court conservative buyers may lean in and proactively limit their DEI efforts as well, Briggs said. Poor sales may lead to them reinstating policies to draw back consumers.

 

But this does not mean that brands with more conservative consumers should proactively change or eliminate their DEI policies.

 

“Though majorities of Republican consumers were in favor of all tested rollback efforts in our dataset, there were still sizable portions (around 20% to 30%) that reported opposition,” Briggs said. “So even among the most anti-DEI group, there is still some support for DEI.”

16448: Thanksgiving In Adland—Thanks, But No Thanks.

 

Adweek published content titled, “What Agency Leaders Are Grateful For This Thanksgiving.”

 

A handful of the “leaders”—featuring at least one Human Heat Shield—gave thanks for DEI-related possibilities in Adland. Appropriately enough, such comments comprised the minority of gratitude expressions in the Adweek fluff piece.

 

The majority of respondents are likely thankful to delegate diversity to resident employees of color. Or count the promotion of White women as satisfying DEI goals.

 

Fairly certain there were no Native American leaders represented. Maybe tomorrow.

 

On a side note, the story was illustrated with a stock image (depicted above) showing multilingual thank you phrases. The languages include Russian—ie, a statement from the country that White advertising agencies and holding companies thanklessly dumped in recent years.

16442: Could Consumer Complaints Create Cultural Change?

 

Advertising Age reported on a 4-year survey whose 2023 results showed 53% of consumers think corporations should not get involved in political or cultural concerns, versus almost 30% saying corporations should take a stand on issues. The figures indicated an increase of about 10 percent versus the survey’s 2019 results.

 

Ad Age also noted the following:

 

“Support for corporate activism grew among younger consumers in the wake of the 2020 killing of George Floyd, and sentiments have stayed that way … Among millennials and Gen Z, 41% say corporations should use their influence to impact political and corporate issues, up from 27% in 2019. Support among Gen X and baby boomers is also growing but remains well below 50%—just 17% of boomers are supportive, with support among Gen X is at 23%.”

 

The data poses questions that could apply to Adland. That is, how would consumers react upon learning that most corporations are partnering with White advertising agencies where diversity is a dream delegated, deferred, diverted, dodged, and denied? Might consumers demand that corporations use their influence to impact change in the exclusive industry?

 

It’s clear that commitment to racial and ethnic diversity has dwindled in recent years at White advertising agencies and corporations. Yet consumer dedication remains steady.

 

MadMen character Don Draper once quipped, “If you don’t like what is being said, then change the conversation.” Hey, if you don’t like the lack of diversity in Adland, perhaps it’s time to invite consumers to join the conversation.

 

Brand activism—over half of consumers not interested in hearing companies’ political and social stances

 

Brands might be better off supporting their employees rather than making public statements, Morning Consult finds

 

By Erika Wheless

 

A majority of Americans say brands should not take stands on social, corporate, or cultural issues—but a desire for companies to speak out is rising, especially among younger generations, according to a new report from Morning Consult. And some issues are more polarizing than others: General statements about diversity in the workforce have widespread support, but there is less support for backing LGBTQ+ rights, especially among older Americans.

 

The report is based on a survey of roughly 20,000 U.S. adults between August 2019 and Sept. 2023. In 2023, the survey found that 53% of respondents said corporations should not get involved in political or cultural issues, while almost 30% said corporations should take a stand. In 2019, 61% of respondents said corporations should not get involved while 19 percent said they should take a stand, according to the survey. (The remaining respondents said they don’t care or don’t know.)

 

Support for corporate activism grew among younger consumers in the wake of the 2020 killing of George Floyd, and sentiments have stayed that way, according to Joanna Piacenza, head of industry intelligence at Morning Consult. Among millennials and Gen Z, 41% say corporations should use their influence to impact political and corporate issues, up from 27% in 2019. Support among Gen X and baby boomers is also growing but remains well below 50%—just 17% of boomers are supportive, with support among Gen X is at 23%.

 

For marketers speaking to a broad audience, this presents a damned if you do, damned if you don’t scenario. But the report also outlines what issues consumers care about the most: often what’s happening internally at a company.

 

It’s what’s on the inside that counts

 

Across generations, how a company treats its employees and customers is a paramount issue. The report found that roughly 9 in 10 Americans said that it’s important that companies they buy from take care of their employees, have products readily available, and always do what’s best for customers, even in challenging times.

 

The data showed that internal company actions resonated with customers more than external advocacy —71% of consumers said they viewed a company as more favorable if they paid their employees well; 69% said they viewed a company as more favorable if a company was known to be a place where employees liked to work; 66% liked if the company paid men and women equally; 65% liked if it made goods in America; and 60% cared if the company supported the U.S. military.

 

“There is a ‘keeping your own house in order’ feel that consumers have toward brands,” Piacenza said. “Brands should be doing more to show their benefits or highlight why their employees are happy. Treating workers well is its own form of good advertising because then you aren’t risking an angry employee going viral about you online.”

 

The actions with the least impact on a brand’s favorability included supporting the Me Too movement, advocating for gay rights, supporting the Black Lives Matter movement, advocating for transgender rights and advocating for stricter abortion policies.

 

External issues

 

If brands are going to issue public statements, there are five issues that consumers feel that brands are able to speak about: support for the police, diversity in the workforce, climate change and the environment, women’s rights and gender equality and voting rights. Race and racism in America was the sixth-most popular topic, with 67% of U.S. adults saying that brands are able to speak about it. But this was a topic that had the greatest difference between the general population and Gen Z, with 73% of Gen Zers saying that corporations should issue public statements around race, compared to 56% of the general population.

 

Among the issues consumers want to hear about the least from brands is access to abortion and contraception, though that topic resonated with nearly 60% of millennials who want brands to speak out, compared with just 45% of the general population. Online censorship, LGBTQ+ rights, transgender rights and efforts to ban books were also among the issues consumers want to hear about the least from brands.

 

Bud Light and Target are among the brands that faced backlash this year among some consumers for LGBTQ+-related marketing campaigns and products.

 

Issues that U.S. consumers agree corporations should be taking a stance on include threats against U.S. democracy, the protection of government institutions, women’s rights, climate change and diversity and inclusion in the workplace, according to the report.

 

Piacenza notes that company statements around certain issues have to be specific, including how they phrase their stance. “We have women’s rights high up as an acceptable issue for brands to make public statements about, but abortion access is lower,” she said. “So if you are a more female-focused brand or a brand with a majority-female customer base, and you want to make a statement about the Dobb’s decision, you should phrase it as a women’s rights issue, not access to abortion.”

 

Why the divide

 

Majorities of Gen Z adults, millennials and Democrats said “a lot” or “some” corporate brands are in touch with the average American, compared with less than half of Gen Xers, boomers and Republicans who said the same. It’s another sign that younger and more liberal Americans see corporations drifting toward their own viewpoint, while older and more conservative Americans feel increasingly isolated from brands.

 

“If you believe that a brand aligns with your values and they take a stand, you’re more open to hearing from them,” Piacenza said. “But on the other hand, if you feel that you aren’t aligned, you don’t want to hear from them as much.”

 

A misalignment in values led to Bud Light’s woes, which began last April when conservatives complained about transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney posting about a custom can bearing her image, eventually leading to a steep sales decline. Morning Consult’s report found that roughly one in five Americans said they have boycotted a company over the past year for political reasons. Younger, college-educated, high-earning consumers, baby boomers, and Republican men are the most likely groups to boycott brands for political reasons.

 

“This really comes down to knowing your audience,” Piacenza said. “If you are unsure about taking a stance, keep your head down and go about your business.”

16290: DE&I Digital Doodads…?

 

MultiCultClassics occasionally receives comments—like the one depicted above—from vendors seeking to post links to services. It was surprising to learn that Supplier Diversity Program Management Software exists. Do White advertising agencies and advertisers really need special software to manage heat shields, performative PR, and crumbs?

16206: Unloading The Same Old Diversity Bullshit From Adland.

  

Campaign published a perspective from One Twelve Agency Co-Founder and Managing Director Hannah Campbell, who sought to explain why diversity initiatives are a load of BS. While there’s not much new in the perspective, it’s always helpful to repeatedly recognize bullshit—and call it out too.

 

Why diversity initiatives are a load of BS

 

The industry likes to embrace diversity, but most D&I schemes lack effectiveness and can be counterproductive.

 

By Hannah Campbell

 

One evening during my first year of university, I upset a lot of people. I was at a social gathering with a group of predominantly black students.

 

We were drinking and putting the world to rights when the topic of diversity came up in the context of employment and jobs. I boldly declared: “I don’t believe in positive discrimination, I’d hate to think I got the job due to ticking an ethnicity or gender box rather than the fact that I was the best candidate for the job.”

 

To my horror the room went silent and then in unison everyone started shouting at me. Ten months later, I left.

 

That evening was an early lesson for me on my privilege and how it shapes my views of the world. As a privately-educated young woman, with a non-foreign sounding name who excelled academically, I was used to achieving based on merit and hard work.

 

So therefore, I just didn’t see the difficulties of other young black people who were less privileged than me.

 

In fact, we all have privilege and we all need to understand that not everyone has had the same privileges. This can shape our views and mean that we have blind spots when it comes to other people.

 

Trying to get it right can be uncomfortable, but getting rid of the blind spots is important work.

 

So, why is this relevant? Most people in the creative industries are sold on diversity and inclusion, right?

 

We know it boosts creativity, it means companies can attract and retain the best talent, it’s great for profit and it makes things more interesting.

 

But that’s the thing, I don’t believe most diversity schemes are effective. I believe in their aim; I believe businesses create and roll out these schemes to do good.

 

I also know from my own lived experience that there is a real problem with them because they are simply not doing enough. And sometimes they can be depressingly counterproductive.

 

I worked for an agency that was, on paper really diverse, with a black woman and an Asian woman in the senior team and lots of diverse junior staff. But not one of us was ever given the room to lead on the creative or to input our ideas on pitches or with clients.

 

According to a recent Media for All study, over half of black, Asian and global majority ethnic professionals are experiencing discrimination in the industry and 85% of the same group are likely to leave the industry due to lack of inclusion.

 

The survey found that senior white men believed the most progress had been made since George Floyd’s death, but younger black women’s lived experiences say otherwise.

 

This is dangerous because it can mean that senior leaders believe the work has been done and they can move on, leaving those from diverse backgrounds to continue to be impacted and discriminated against. And that’s not even touching on the underrepresentation of disabled people and LGBTQ people.

 

At the same time, many brands leverage different cultures, groups, spaces and themes to get their messaging across. Chivas Regal leverages rap culture and black-originated music, Havana Club leverages popular West African culture and music and Absolut does a lot with LGBTQ communities.

 

I cannot stress enough that if brands want to do this, it has to be authentic. I am the first to admit that that word is overused in advertising, but I can’t think of a better way to put it.

 

Authentic means to be genuine, to not be a copy. However, how can brands run these campaigns authentically, if they don’t come from and have a deep understanding of the groups they are leveraging and targeting?

 

Accurate representation is important across all groups including by age and sexual orientation and the benefits of getting this right are endless – authenticity, credibility, brand affinity, brand consideration – all of which translates into profit.

 

But getting this wrong could be disastrous – some brands are too scared to touch diverse campaigns and lose out on sales/ROI and new customers.

 

So, here are four top tips that should help you do away with the diversity BS:

 

1. If your teams do not have the lived experience, interest, passion etc that is being represented in a campaign, leave it alone, bring in a specialist agency to partner on the project with, or at the very least hire a freelance consultant to help.

 

2. Don’t use language or slang that you do not completely and contextually understand. For example, the term ‘soft life’. You might have heard of it. It comes from Nigerian women and was made popular online. The number of brands who have jumped on the bandwagon and got it wrong is embarrassingly large.

 

3. Although I don’t think most D&I initiatives are doing enough, if you have one, ensure they are working for the people that they are there to serve. Check in that the young Black woman in your team actually feels included and has a chance to share her creative ideas. Check in with that young gay man, that he can share his lived experience and be represented in campaigns. Talk regularly to the disabled team member and make sure that they feel included and can share their experiences.

 

4. Include diverse representation in campaigns even if the brief does not specify it.

 

It would be amazing to see adverts that are nationally representative of the population as per the stats – this includes disability, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation and neurodiversity.

 

And no, just having couples of different races really isn’t enough.

16203: TGIF—CDO DE&I BS WTF PT. 2.

Digiday published the second part in a series on DE&I at White advertising agencies. The first part underscored how DE&I in Adland is a lot of performative PR. The second installment shows how firms are excreting bigger piles of bullshit, erecting and fortifying diversionary heat shields—as well as culturally clueless consultancies—and now directing Human Heat Shields to promote the faux progressiveness.

 

The Digiday piece is titled, “How agencies are shaping the future of DEI beyond their own walls.” Um, White advertising agencies are “shaping the future of DEI” by producing and perpetuating smokescreens vs. addressing the issue within their own walls and serving as models of behavioral change.

 

In short, agencies are absolutely preventing any hope for the future of DEI, standing firmly in the past and present systemic racism.

 

How agencies are shaping the future of DEI beyond their own walls

 

By Antoinette Siu

 

This is part 2 in our series about diversity at agencies. [Part 1 discusses organizational progress, strategic leadership and challenges in DEI.]

 

Amidst a slew of post-pandemic epiphanies, agencies are acknowledging their role in expanding their diversity efforts to support a more inclusive industry.

 

In addition to improving employee representation, agencies are broadening their diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts for clients, too, by focusing on recruitment, retention and client services.

 

That means a DEI strategy at Publicis Groupe U.S. that stretches from the “workplace to the marketplace,” said Geraldine White, chief diversity officer at the agency. With a staff of roughly 26,000 in the U.S. and 100,000 globally, White said Publicis’ approach to increasing diversity needs to involve the client, team and brand sides — challenges given the company’s breadth of the company and entrenched biases in many places.

 

“None of these conversations are new, unfortunately,” White told Digiday. “Because there’s so much that is systemically embedded, you need to apply systems thinking, change management and governance to actually be able to unravel what is … embedded. And that’s in our industry and outside of it.”

 

In June 2022, Publicis Groupe reported a 17.5% increase in the percentage of non-white staffers compared to 2021, totaling 34.4% across the company. Its global workforce is 51% women. In addition to pledging to update these numbers annually, Publicis said it will invest 45 million euros over three years on diversity, inclusion and social justice. Funding goes to programs, such as training for Black talent, an interactive forum called Multicultural Talent Partnership, apprenticeships and support for organizations fighting racism and inequalities.

 

Moving beyond the agency to external efforts

 

Agencies are feeling the pressure to step up from clients, who White noted are holding the agency “accountable.” “For the majority of RFPs, RFIs, conversations around growth, we are asked about our diversity commitments — but also how we are actually acting on and achieving them,” White added. “And our ability to be able to transparently share that also leads to greater and deeper relationships with clients.”

 

Guided by Good, the parent organization of agency 22Squared, offers internal programs ranging from training and recruiting to forums and mentorship for employees. But Janis Middleton, evp and executive director of inclusion strategy there, acknowledged that she is currently thinking about how to engage on the client and supplier level.

 

“I’ve always had in the back of my mind, I’ve got to get back to the client work,” she said. “We’ve got to bring the clients on because we had to clean up our own backyard. You can’t get the blind leading the blind, and can’t guide people if we don’t even know what we’re doing.”

 

Recently the company developed an offering for clients called Embrace, to help them build inclusive work and culture. And the company offers employees workshops on topics like “actionable habits” and “authentic selves.”

 

“I think supplier diversity is a whole other ballgame that it’s time for us to step into,” Middleton added. “I would love to put a structure in place to properly track it. But from a media perspective, from a production perspective, from a freelance perspective, I think it’s time to focus on supplier diversity.”

 

Lisa Torres, president of multicultural at Publicis Media, also said many recent agency initiatives in supplier diversity focus on the short-term of upping spending toward minority-owned media — “sometimes committing to a percentage of spend that isn’t theirs to control, but rather their clients.”

 

“How can we buy more inventory across diverse owned, targeted and operated properties if that supply does not exist, or partners do not have the means to make that supply available to advertisers?” Torres said.

 

In 2021, Publicis launched its Once & For All Coalition to create more equitable representation for diverse media suppliers. It currently counts some 60 members — consisting of suppliers, brand marketers and industry organizations — that have 50% higher budget allocations toward minority media than non-members, and engage with 40% more diverse-owned and targeted suppliers, according to the company.

 

Engaging the future workforce

 

Some of the agencies’ external efforts aim to build connections with schools and universities to fill the recruitment pipeline earlier in the process.

 

IPG’s UM Worldwide wants to build media and university partners through a program called Curriculum, said chief diversity officer Jeff Marshall, which includes visiting university campuses to recruit.

 

One of its partnerships with Vox Media offers a free media and advertising course for college students. The nine-module course gives insight into the media and advertising industry, invitation to private events and a LinkedIn badge after completion. After continuing for three semesters, Marshall said the goal is to increase the current average completion rate of 100 students per semester.

 

“It’s given us kind of a really interesting space to play in when we’re chatting with universities and with students and trying to attract people,” he said.

 

Angela Seits, head of strategy and insights at PMG, mentioned similar goals in engaging with the students and graduates. Seits sits on a diversity steering committee created in 2020. In 2022, PMG partnered with Tarrant County College to offer digital career training in data, analytics and e-commerce. The goal is to train more than 1,000 students by 2028, with PMG committing $50,000 in scholarships to 50 students over the next five years.

 

“Agencies have a much greater role to play in shaping an inclusive media landscape,” Seits said.

 

Publicis is similarly developing training and career development for diverse communities. Its remote learning program, or Open Apprenticeship, is structured with different apprenticeships across creative industries and offers practice with access to live briefs with real clients. The pillars include brand marketing, creative, tech and data and media and public relations.

 

White acknowledged that agencies need to strive for more gender and ethnicity representation — but should not overlook areas of leadership diversity and balance or career support.

 

“So having a sense of being at or near parity is great, but what does that mean from a career trajectory standpoint?” White said. “How are we further establishing what that means for women in leadership roles? But again, it all comes back to not just the number — what is our accountability beyond just the representation?”

16200: What Are The Qualifications For Managing To Direct A White Advertising Agency…?

 

Adweek published a report on managing directors, which included stating, “According to many job boards, the managing director is the highest-ranking manager in the organization, often just below the CEO or president. The position oversees all the activities at the agency: operations, managing resources, instituting strategic goals, and helping grow the agency and its culture.”

 

Okay, so are there no Managing Directors of Color in Adland that could have been depicted? There appear to be a few Latinas in the group, but still…