15752: Defamation, Discrimination & Degradation—Brought To You By Adland.

The Drum reported that JWT Creative Director Jo Wallace celebrated International Women’s Day by pocketing a probably hefty settlement amount—along with a public apology—for her defamation lawsuit against the Daily Mail. The case stemmed from the news publication’s coverage of Wallace related to the JWT sex discrimination lawsuit.

 

Which means that yet another White person—connected to WPP to boot—collected a cash award for facing discrimination in Adland.

 

Cue the Four Horsemen—the Apocalypse is upon us.

 

Daily Mail apologizes to creative director Jo Wallace as defamation case settled

 

By John McCarthy

 

Jo Wallace’s defamation case against the Daily Mail and Mail Online has been settled, with “substantial damages” being paid to the creative director following untrue allegations in the publisher’s reporting of the JWT sex discrimination case.

 

The Daily Mail has also agreed not to republish the accusations or images, to cover Wallace’s legal costs and to issue an apology.

 

Representatives for Wallace pointed out that the story “falsely alleged that the claimant was responsible for sex discrimination by sacking two straight white men as part of an attempt to obliterative their culture within the advertising agency that they all worked for. The allegation was extremely damaging to the Claimant’s reputation.”

 

It added: “In addition, the articles published photographs which included seven photographs … taken without her permission … from her private Instagram account. Some depicted her on holiday, including sunbathing in a bikini, others showed intimate moments between the Claimant and her wife.”

 

On top of that copyright breach accusation, the representatives claimed Wallace was subjected to a campaign of “online threats, abuse and hatred, even receiving a threatening message which she felt compelled to report to police for her own protection.”

 

It ended: “The Defendant’s publications have had a lasting effect on the Claimant as the articles were not only shocking and embarrassing but as a result of their publication and the impression they made, she has suffered substantial damage to both her career and her reputation. Further, the Claimant is particularly distressed by the impact the articles have had upon her family.”

 

Representatives for the defending newspaper said: “The Defendant through me offers its sincere apologies to the Claimant for the distress, embarrassment and upset caused to her by the publication of the Daily Mail article and the photographs complained of in the articles. The Defendant accepts there was and is no truth in the allegations advanced in the Daily Mail article and that her copyright in the photographs were infringed. The Defendant is happy to set the record straight and apologize to the Claimant for the breach of her rights and for the distress caused to her by its publication of the articles.”

15531: Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied—Just Saying.

 

At More About Advertising, Editor Stephen Foster opined on the JWT sex discrimination lawsuit, including commentary on Jo Wallace and the Daily Mail exposé. Here’s the most outrageous statement in the post, expressing how WPP ought to show greater care and sensitivity before firing employees: “People shouldn’t lose their jobs without due consideration of natural justice.” Natural justice? An industry rife with systemic racism and chronic sexism—perfectly represented by Wunderman Thompson and the former JWT—displays the prevalence of deliberate injustice.

 

Of white males, Jo Wallace and that Mail Online report

 

By Stephen Foster

 

Some groups in UK adland are protesting vociferously about coverage of Jo Wallace, a leading player in the JWT sex discrimination case. Specifically an article on Mail Online. Complaints have been made to IPSO, the rather toothless replacement for the (equally) toothless Press Complaints Commission.

 

In fact the article covers the case of Chas Bayfield, Dave Jenner and their unnamed colleagues against (now) Wunderman Thompson pretty accurately; the only bone of contention (as far as I can see) being pictures of Wallace (above) and her female fiancee, which look like they’ve been taken from a public social media feed as they’re pretty flattering. Some people have also complained because the piece says they live in East London but that’s a pretty big area, bigger than most UK cities.

 

But why Wallace, a global creative director on Nestle? Although, as WPP has pointed out, she played no part in the redundancy of the white, middle-aged creatives she did say, at a conference, that such people should be “obliterated” from JWT as it strove to bridge its cavernous gender pay gap. The five objected to this and their careers at JWT ended days later after a meeting with the head of HR (or should that be chief redundancy officer?) and a creative bigwig.

 

Wallace is also on record as referring publicly to “white, stale males” so she can hardly grumble if she arouses controversy.

 

Of the current farrago Wallace says: “What does this tell women already underrepresented in this industry? Why would [they] want to go into this industry when you see myself being treated like this?

 

“I had nothing to do with this case. I had nothing to do with the decision to make them redundant. [Pictures of] me wearing a bikini is clearly an attempt to take me down and embarrass me in public, so it’s incredibly distressing.”

 

People in adland could save themselves a fair few problems if they didn’t strive for maximum impact in everything they say, even if skews and distorts the meaning. If, say, Wallace at the ‘Crisis: The Mother of All Change’ meeting recommended “radical action” rather than “obliterate” this might not have happened. In fact the title of said conference is typical adland hyperbole: crisis isn’t the mother of all change – it might be the cause of some of it. Similar “white, stale males.” Is stale in there just because it rhymes will male?

 

One of the things I find most bewildering about the way this started is that James Whitehead, then CEO of JWT, was in the audience. Did he see Wallace’s presentation first? On the basis of one meeting (to discuss a rebranding of JWT – we know what happened to that) Whitehead struck me as sensible.

 

Let’s hope the five made redundant are, at the very least, walking away with sizeable cheques. Online trolling of Wallace should crease too, of course. But anyone who ventures online pretty well knows what they’re going to get.

 

As for Wunderman Thompson owner WPP, it needs to examine if it’s far too quick on the trigger in such instances. People shouldn’t lose their jobs without due consideration of natural justice. This is rather akin to Nick Emery’s defenestration at Mindshare when he was fired for a Zoom spoof in the loo. Emery is now forming a rival media division at You & Mr Jones. Such decisions have consequences.