13675: Commenting On AgencySpy.

Campaign presented a report titled, “9 anonymous comments about the death of AgencySpy anonymity,” detailing the decision to alter the commenting process at the blog. The trade publication was technically correct in noting “the death of AgencySpy anonymity” versus the death of the blog itself, which arguably started happening around 2008 as Mediabistro handed the editorial reins to mild-mannered morons like Matt Van Hoven and Kiran Aditham. Why, it got to the point where any available monkey could land an editor position. The next milestone spin in the death spiral involved AgencySpy being purchased in 2014 by Adweek’s parent company, leading to more devolution, dysfunction and demoralization.

The original AgencySpy USP was to provide a forum for commentary—the blog was fueled by user-generated content—with the actual posts essentially posing topics for discussion. It was a rant fest, where advertising people could call out bad behavior, vent about the demise of integrity in the field or just rip the industry’s poseurs and douchebags. AgencySpy hosted a fair amount of diversity-related debates, and the anonymity factor allowed the truly ignorant to freely express their conscious bias. Critics whined and former McCann Chairman Nina DiSesa even attributed a suicide to AgencySpy contributors—which might have been one of the most outrageous comments to ever appear at the blog.

But the party is officially over at AgencySpy. All that remains is for someone to call time of death.

6168: DiSesa DiSenseless.

The Special Anniversary Issue commemorating 30 years of Adweek features an opinion column by McCann Erickson Chairman Nina DiSesa, wherein the woman inadvertently displays a lot of the issues with today’s industry leaders.

DiSesa has gone on record with her disdain for critical blogs; hence, she’ll probably spit on the following observations as well—provided she even stumbles across our humble URL. Whatever. This honestly isn’t directed at her, so much as the attitudes she symbolizes.

For starters, DiSesa literally spends nearly 70 percent of the perspective focusing on her favorite topic: herself. How typical of Madison Avenue honchos to believe the universe revolves around them. Forget wasting precious time debating concepts or creating new visions. Let me tell you about me. And my illustrious career. And the hijinks-heavy anecdotes that are totally irrelevant in the current marketplace.

Then DiSesa writes a comment that continues to confuse after multiple readings. Please feel free to interpret the excerpt:

When I was entering this profession, a twentysomething creative person was tolerated until he or she did successful TV. Now, I am discovering that entry-level people are more fascinating to me than I am. These young people understand the Internet, digital technology and other young people. They don’t know what barriers are, and their ideas about communication are dazzling.

“Now, I am discovering that entry-level people are more fascinating to me than I am.” What the hell does that mean? Is she admitting to self-absorbed narcissism? Plus, phrases like, “These young people understand the Internet…” make DiSesa sound like a dinosaur. Besides, she really should choose her words more carefully, especially given that McCann Erickson is still facing an age discrimination lawsuit.

Ultimately, DiSesa’s essay doesn’t provide any substantial insight. It’s just a bag of air. Unless one squints between the lines and realizes it completely represents the ad world’s aristocracy.

McCann Erickson’s slogan is, “Truth Well Told.” There’s definitely truth to be found in the Adweek column. Not too sure, however, that it’s very well told.

5125: Cultural Conversations Clichéd Characters, Part 2.

As explained in Part 1, cultural conversations clichéd characters are characters that join conversations relating to cultural issues and ultimately spout clichéd perspectives.

Nina DiSesa was not the only cccc sighting this week. Malek Santos appeared via online comments at AdAge.com’s The Big Tent. It’s unknown if Malek Santos is an actual name or fictional title, and it really doesn’t matter. Malek Santos represents a very familiar cccc type.

Malek Santos cccc tend to display open disdain and hostility toward people holding differing opinions. Rather than argue over ideas and issues, Malek Santos opts to personally attack debate participants. Conversations digress into rants against the perceived personality flaws of anyone not sharing Santos’ point of view. Examinations become executions.

Malek Santos stereotypes minorities into neat buckets: good and bad, based on Santos’ narrow—although never publicly defined—criteria. For example, Rev. Jesse Jackson is bad, while Sen. Barack Obama is good. All minorities belonging to the collective group are segregated into the two camps. Everything is black and white (or in this case, Black and Black). It’s highly unlikely that Malek Santos cccc are truly educated on the individuals being labeled. It’s even more unlikely that the people Malek Santos praises would be comfortable accepting the support.

Malek Santos is the quintessential Doubting Thomas. Anything Malek Thomas has not directly witnessed or experienced cannot possibly exist. Opponents are delusional crybabies.

Malek Santos chronically complains that critics with counterpoints are chronic complainers. It certainly creates a bizarre circle of complaint.

Perhaps Malek Santos cccc warrant a special designation: cultural conversations clichéd characters chronically criticizing complainers. Or ccccccc. Anybody got a problem with that—besides Malek Santos?

5121: Cultural Conversations Clichéd Characters, Part 1.

This week featured two advertising-related appearances of cultural conversations clichéd characters. To clarify, cultural conversations clichéd characters are characters that join conversations relating to cultural issues and ultimately spout clichéd perspectives. In most cases, cccc don’t realize they are assuming a stereotypical role; in fact, they tend to believe they are boldly original in their stances. It’s extra perplexing when cccc are advertising executives, because the industry prides itself on being staffed by innovative thinkers who abhor the contrived and expected.

The first cccc is McCann Erickson chairman Nina DiSesa. Technically, DiSesa’s identity hasn’t been officially verified, but someone posted online comments using her name (apologies to DiSesa if an anonymous writer hijacked her e-persona). It all started when DiSesa wrote an Adweek column hyping her new book. In the article, DiSesa pondered the progress women have made in the ad business. Next, Hadji Williams published a rebuttal—An open letter to Nina DiSesa—on his blog. Williams compared the plight of adwomen to racial and ethnic peers.

DiSesa responded in cccc fashion with these remarks: “As far as hiring women and people of color I hear you loud and clear. Everyone in the advertising business does. Diversity is a huge issue and we hire people of color all the time, we just can’t retain them. We are working on it. Not because it’s the right thing to do, but because we would be better at reaching all of mankind if we had diversity in our own ranks. It’s better for business. And it’s the right thing to do.”

Putting aside the reality that DiSesa’s words look like she was cutting and pasting from a stack of diversity recruitment advertisements, there are definite cccc patterns in the statements.

“…I hear you loud and clear. Everyone in the advertising business does. … We are working on it.”

Please.

The assurances are so outrageous because DiSesa is a Madison Avenue agency chairman. It’s her professional responsibility to make sure people “are working on it.” Remember, New York City’s Commission on Human Rights is peeking over DiSesa’s shoulder. Yet whenever anyone requests evidence of the efforts, well, it’s time to go on a book tour. Try calling back in a few months. TTFN!

Madison Avenue has been hearing loud and clear and working on it for 50+ years. If the average adperson delivered a similar line to a client—and followed through by doing next to nothing—how long would the negligence be tolerated? Additionally, if a creative director constantly presented an identical concept for half a century, how long would she remain employed?

In the advertising business, slackers who repeat bad ideas are shunned, ridiculed and banished.

Unless the topic is diversity.

(Visit tomorrow to meet this week’s second cccc.)

5108: When Hadji Met Nina.

McCann Erickson chairman Nina DiSesa wrote an Adweek column hyping her soon-to-be-released book. In response, Hadji Williams wrote an Open letter to Nina DiSesa. Now it looks like DiSesa is writing back, igniting an interesting online dialogue. Check it out here.

5101: Going Postal.

Checking the mail in a MultiCultClassics Monologue…

• When John Mellencamp fights authority, authority doesn’t always win. The rock star’s publicist sent a letter to John McCain’s people wondering why the presidential candidate was playing Mellencamp’s tunes at campaign events. Mellencamp, after all, is hardly a Republican; plus, the singer had supported John Edwards. “Are you sure you want to use his music to promote Senator McCain’s efforts?” asked the letter sent to McCain’s campaign. “Logic says that the facts might prove to be an embarrassment, were they to be circulated widely.” Following receipt of the note, a decision was made to stop playing the songs. And McCain’s popularity will likely skyrocket as a result.

• Hadji Williams wrote an open letter to Nina DiSesa, responding to the McCann Erickson chairman’s recent Adweek column. Wonder if Williams and DiSesa share the same tastes in music.

5044: You’ve Come A Long Way, Maybe.

Adweek published a column by McCann Erickson Chairman Nina DiSesa, which is actually closer to being hype for her soon-to-be-released book, Seducing the Boys Club. Regarding the progress of women in advertising, DiSesa wonders:

It’s 2008. How are we doing?

How many women are creative directors in the large New York agencies?

How many women are running advertising agencies that don’t have their name on the door?

How many women have P&L responsibilities that indicate real control and authority?

Um, you’re doing significantly better than minorities, girlfriend.

Read the column here.