17556: On Creating And Influencing DEIBA+ Change In Adland.

 

The previous post about Equinox and its White advertising agency perpetuating racist Asian stereotypes warrants additional commentary.

Advertising Age spotlighted creators who criticized Equinox via Instagram and TikTok, including Eunnuri Lee and Ed Choi.

Lee—who boasts 108K Instagram followers and 237K TikTok followers—skewered Equinox and the responsible advertising team, ultimately vowing to boycott the fitness brand.

Choi—who boasts 322K Instagram followers and 680K TikTok followers—went directly after the Equinox Chief Marketing Officer and Chief Digital Officer, calling her out by name and blasting her professional credentials.

Creators and influencers have infiltrated Adland, delivering content, promoting brands, and wielding considerable power.

Yet can they impact progressive change, succeeding where trade organizations, clients, protesting insiders, legal advocates, and politicians have failed? That is, can they bring DEIBA+ to Adland?

17435: On Meta & Google Platform Addiction.

 

MediaPost published commentary on the recent court case ruling Meta and Google (YouTube) liable for platform addiction—a milestone being referred to as social media’s Big Tobacco moment.

 

Will further investigations uncover Menthol moments targeting Blacks?

 

The ‘Big Tobacco’ Moment For Social Media

 

By Maarten Albarda, Featured Contributor

 

Be honest, how many times have you discussed “dwell time” and “session frequency” with your agency or marketing team? We’d look at a chart showing a user spiraling down a three-hour rabbit hole of auto-playing videos and infinite scrolls and think the targeting was super-efficient.

 

But this week, a jury in Los Angeles just looked at those same charts and called them something else: a defective product.

 

For the first time ever, a U.S. jury has found Meta and Google (YouTube) liable for platform addiction. Hot on the heels of that moment, a New Mexico jury slapped Meta with a $375 million verdict over child safety and misleading “safety” claims.

 

This isn’t just another “Big Tech is mean” news cycle. Many have called this the Big Tobacco moment for the social media industry. And if you’re a CMO, your media plan may just have become a potential legal and ethical liability.

 

For years, platforms hid behind a legal framework called Section 230, a “shield” that says they aren’t responsible for what people post. But these recent rulings did something different: They ignored the content and went after the conduct.

 

The courtroom arguments weren’t about a specific bad video or objectionable meme. It was about the design of the platform. The infinite scroll? That’s not a feature; it’s a hook. The aggressive autoplay? That’s a dopamine trap. The court ruled that these platforms are designed to be addictive by nature—and that the companies knew the harm they were causing.

 

For decades, and by the platform’s own guidance, they claimed to be neutral utilities. We assumed if our “brand safety” filters kept our pre-roll ads away from extremist content or the “wrong” target audience, we were the good guys.

 

But here’s how these verdicts have reframed the advertisers’ position: We’ve been funding the R&D of addiction. And with that, are advertisers therefore complicit?

 

Let’s look at this through the lens of your 2026/27 strategy. If Meta and Google are forced to dismantle the very features that drive their “efficiency” (if they have to kill the infinite scroll or opt everyone out of algorithmic “hooks”) your reach is going to diminish.

Your “cost per minute” is going to skyrocket, because those minutes will suddenly become much harder to manufacture. And it will be much harder to identify and single out specific groups of users, based on their interest or behaviors.

 

The “efficiency” we’ve been bragging about to our boards was built on a foundation that a jury just declared negligent. That’s a structural collapse of the very medium.

 

So what should you do? Well, you don’t need to panic and delete your accounts today (there will be appeals), but you do need to stop being a passive advertiser.

 

Ask your media agency for a breakdown of how much of your budget is going toward “forced” or “hook-based” engagement versus intentional, lean-forward viewing. If your ROI is entirely dependent on a user being “trapped” in a feed, you’re in need of a redo.

 

Traditional brand safety is about adjacency: What am I next to? Start asking if the platforms you support are legally compliant with these new standards of design safety.

 

And if the largest part of your budget is in the duopoly, you’re overleveraged in a damaged model. Move toward environments where the user is by choice, not by “loop.”

 

As it turns out, the algorithm might just be a legal liability.

17376: Does DEIBA+ Click With Brand Social Media?

For Black History Month, Advertising Age is publishing content from Blacks in Adland, covering a variety of topics.

 

The content below is titled, “Why instinct and diversity are essential in brand social media success.”

 

Okay, except White advertising agencies don’t view diversity as essential. Need proof? Look for BHM social media posts presented by any White advertising agency in February.

 

In Adland, systemic racism is instinctive—and it’s gone viral for decades.

 

Why instinct and diversity are essential in brand social media success

 

By Ryan Bauman

 

I have and will always be a little obsessed with pop culture and social media. It started from a young age. When I got my first iPod Touch, it felt like a whole new world was here just for me. Being able to see what was happening in real life, in the palm of my hand, could never be something I’d forget. Honestly, I still can’t. Growing up, culture always had an impact on how I see the world, especially within social media.

 

I never knew that social media could be something that I could have a career in. Everything, by the grace of God, flowed so easily within the world of social media for me. Seeing what trends were popular and how they made a change in culture, especially Black culture, was something that just clicked. I knew that I wanted to be able to be a representative of my culture, yet also be able to tie to the very captivating world of social media.

 

So, I took a leap of faith. Applying to the BLAC advertising internship program was something I instinctively knew I needed to do at the time. It opened the world of advertising for me, and I didn’t even know it. You can learn so much when taking a look back and seeing how things just work out.

 

I never would have thought that BLAC would have led me to work on one of the most beloved brands in social, Wendy’s. Joining a powerhouse in social media felt daunting at first, but overall exciting. Taking one trend, one post at a time, was my way of seeing a new opportunity with and for the team, every day. Then, it happened.

 

An immense instinct came when the quarter zips trend was just starting to get traction on social media. My art direction partner, Nyah Evans, and I acted fast by putting Wendy’s in a quarter zip. It went viral. From coverage on Complex to even getting a deal made with the creator of the trend, Jason Gyamfi, it blossomed into something more than just a social post.

 

Virality is so important, especially since social media is so saturated with content. It’s even harder now to stand out. We were able to act fast and cater a message to our culture, and let the world take notice. This idea worked because of the natural connection we made to the trend with our authentic representation of what’s trending in Black culture. The fact that it came from a major brand such as Wendy’s speaks volumes to the caliber of diverse voices on the team.

 

Hiring talent that may look, think, or have different upbringings from you leads to diverse, effective, and collaborative work. It stems from that gut feeling, that instinct that will keep informing you one trend, one post, one hire at a time. It leads to creating work that reflects my culture and resonates with many.

 

And that’s the funny thing about instinct. Without it, I wouldn’t have taken a leap of faith. Instinct is not only what makes culture and social media thrive, but it sometimes leads us to places, jobs, and opportunities that we could have never dreamed of, but undoubtedly deserve.

 

Oh, if little Ryan could only see how far she’s come now.

17290: Ubie’s AI Health Chat Is Not Well.

This ad promoting Ubie’s AI Health Chat—with all its typos—winds up demonstrating the inherent flaws of utilizing AI.

17232: Cracks In Cracker Barrel Rebranding Controversy.

 

Nation’s Restaurant News reported The Wall Street Journal revealed 44.5% of anti-woke X posts fueling the online backlash for Cracker Barrel’s short-lived rebrand were generated by bots.

 

“Bots essentially lit the match,” a data analyst explained. “They created fake widespread anger, which then triggered real people to pile on and amplify the outrage far beyond what a typical logo change would typically provoke. Other brands have survived backlash over logo changes, and Cracker Barrel could have too if they took the time to understand the data.”

 

So, it appears President Donald J. Trump and his cronies—who constantly complain about perceived “fake news”—are not averse to fake social media posts.

 

Cracker Barrel’s logo controversy was driven by bots: What operators should learn from this

 

Research from PeakMetrics found that 44.5% of X posts about the Cracker Barrel rebranding controversy were posted by bots

 

By Joanna Fantozzi, Senior Editor

 

As Cracker Barrel continues to deal with the backlash against its (now mostly walked-back) modern rebranding that rocked social media for weeks, new data has come to light. According to research obtained by the Wall Street Journal from PeakMetrics, 44.5% of X posts about Cracker Barrel on Aug. 20 (when the new logo began to go viral), were posted by “bots or likely bots,” rising to 49% at the peak of the controversy.

 

That is a much higher share of automated posts than usual, the metrics company said, noting that controversial discussions on social media usually garner about 20% to 30% of bot-authored posts. This means that nearly half of the online outrage against Cracker Barrel’s simplified logo and remodeled stores was manufactured.

 

“The decisions Cracker Barrel made amid this social noise felt like they were driven by a desire to quickly extinguish the conversation rather than get their arms around what was really happening,” Maria Harrison, president and CEO of digital marketing agency, Bullseye Strategy, said. “Bots essentially lit the match. They created fake widespread anger, which then triggered real people to pile on and amplify the outrage far beyond what a typical logo change would typically provoke. Other brands have survived backlash over logo changes, and Cracker Barrel could have too if they took the time to understand the data.”

 

She added that even before rolling out a rebrand, a company should be aware through internal communications if it might spark a backlash. If that’s the case, they should have a “crisis response framework” in place for a measured plan instead of hurried flailing.

 

The crisis response, Harrison said, should include steps like checking first-party data to see how real customers are responding (not just bots and social media pilers-on). Operators can also use third-party tools to verify whether online chatter is real or manufactured, she said. There are also clues to spot social media outrage inauthenticity, like repetitive posts and hashtags, and the noise only showing up in one channel (in this case, on X).

 

“Predictive testing, proactive communication to their customers, and contextual data all could have mitigated this crisis,” Harrison said. “If early warning signs were detected, Cracker Barrel could have made quiet decisions about how to proceed, and if they decided to proceed nationally, they could have gotten ahead of any discontent that may have been legitimate and not bot-driven.”

 

AI experts agree that a thorough but measured approach is best, so companies can distinguish real social media activity from manufactured, AI-driven response. If a pattern of inauthenticity is detected, then companies should not feel obligated to over-respond, or over-apologize. 

 

“When you respond, do it calmly and focus on real guests,” Peter Swimm, AI expert and founder of Toliville, said. “Use a one‑line integrity note if needed: ‘We’ve seen signs of unusual coordination online. We’re prioritizing feedback from our guests and staff.’ Hold major changes until at least two signals agree: social plus search, or direct guest feedback.”

 

In the case of Cracker Barrel, the company urgently responded to bring back the old logo, halt store rebrands, fire its redesign consultant, and juggle its executive leadership team (while still keeping CEO Julie Massino in place). This last part at least, Harrison said, was a smart move.

 

“Removing the CEO would likely have driven the stock further down,” Harrison said. “Instead, keeping their CEO in place signaled leadership restraint amid the chaos and kept continuity of leadership, something investors often value.”

17154: Blackweek Founders Seek Funding And Fandom For New Platform.

 

Advertising Age spotlighted a new venture brought to you by the founders of Blackweek…

 

Why Blackweek’s founders launched a social media platform for experts and thought leaders

 

By Brian Bonilla

 

The founders of Blackweek, a culture-first economic forum and festival launched by agency leaders, are officially entering the social media space with the launch of Subculture, a publishing platform designed for subject matter experts looking to monetize their knowledge as creators.

 

Experts as the new influencers

 

Subculture is currently self-funded by Joseph Anthony, who is also the founder and CEO of Hero Collective and co-founder of Blackweek. He has invested approximately $250,000 to date in the platform, and the team is looking to raise $2 million in additional capital to support product development, AI tooling and user acquisition with a goal of reaching 200,000 users within a year.

 

Alongside Anthony, Blackweek co-founders Walter T. Geer III, Andre Gray and Adan Romero will be playing advisory roles in helping ignite community growth for the platform.

 

Subculture is positioning itself as a next-gen alternative to platforms such as Substack and Reddit. The platform is now live in beta on the web, with mobile apps slated to debut during Blackweek this October.

 

Built for writers, educators, podcasters, coaches, and professionals, Subculture allows users to launch individual channels where they can publish long-form content, share multimedia, engage followers, and monetize through subscriptions, articles, e-commerce and advertising revenue.

 

The platform plans to offer a 60/40 split on ad sales for verified expert accounts only.

 

“We’re not trying to be the biggest. We’re trying to be better, more intentional, more inclusive and more human,” Geer said.

 

A key differentiator, according to Anthony, is Subculture’s focus on expertise over virality. “We think experts are the new influencers,” he said, “and that everyone has an expertise.”

 

How Subculture monetizes

 

While platforms such as LinkedIn encourage professional posting, Anthony argues that it lacks meaningful monetization tools. “LinkedIn doesn’t have a monetization engine,” he said. “Everybody on LinkedIn right now is trying to growth hack... that ultimately results in hopefully a recruiter calling you.”

 

Subculture’s founders believe social media is heading for fragmentation, and that there’s room for platforms designed around smaller “values-driven communities.”

 

“You’re going to see the emergence of these new niche platforms,” Anthony said. “The same reason why BlueSky thinks it can compete with Twitter is because the cultural ideology these things are built on appeals to specific audiences who care about where they share their data, where they share their stories.”

 

Subculture also aims to become a space for underrepresented creators, a response to what the founders see as bias in traditional platforms.

 

“Social media, for the most part, has become somewhat of a cesspool,” Anthony said. “How do we really create a platform that promotes thought leadership, promotes bold ideas and thinking in a safe space where liberal ideas will be accentuated, not suppressed?”

 

A changing online landscape

 

Alternative social media platforms such as Substack have gained popularity recently, with many brands hoping to capitalize on the interest. At the same time, AI search is changing how businesses approach their digital strategies.

 

“Site traffic in the open web is on a massive decline year over year,” Anthony said.

 

As Subculture evolves, AI and blockchain technology will play a role in the platform’s vision for creator empowerment and data ownership. Anthony said the team is working toward building a decentralized infrastructure that allows creators to not only monetize their content but also own their audience and the data associated with it.

 

“If everyone’s data profile that we have is on the blockchain, then you can store your own data… and take that data with you,” Anthony said. “That could be your followers, that could be all of the information that you gathered from your followers.”

 

Anthony framed blockchain as a potential solution to one of the creator economy’s biggest challenges: attribution and compensation in the age of AI-generated content. He gave the example of someone prompting ChatGPT to “write a script in the voice of Issa Rae,” which would yield no compensation for the artist.

 

“If you come to our platform and Issa Rae puts all of her content on our blockchain system, then it becomes a situation where you have to come here to ask that same question—and Issa Rae can charge you a fee,” he said.

16889: Tank & Stank.

Joe Alexander asks:

 

WHO WILL BE OUR “TANK MAN?”

 

Who will have the courage?

 

Who will resist?

 

Who will fight for the truth?

 

Um, Diet Madison Avenue sought to be our “TANK (WO)MAN”—and they got run over.

16782: #OpenToWork As A Political Pundit.

Political endorsement from a reformed feminist…? Hey, depending on the outcome of his lawsuit, the guy might get hit by Kamala Harris’ proposed tax increase for rich people.

16781: WTF alma DDB Disses DDB…?

 

alma DDB CEO Isaac Mizrahi continues to push the Latino agency’s “ungeneral” platform by asking, “How can marketers move away from ‘general market’ thinking?”

 

It’s unusual that a message urging marketers to avoid general-market thinking—ie, White advertising agencies—is posted by the DEIBA+-deficient DDB.

 

To make a sloppy segue, over the years, DDB has seemingly operated a revolving door for Chief Diversity Officers. Does alma DDB even have a Human Heat Shield on staff?

16776: Prioritizing Pets Over People Of Color…?

 

Like most White advertising agencies, FCB did not commemorate National Hispanic Heritage Month via social media posts. However, the global enterprise did celebrate International Dog Day.

16496: The Sound Of Advertising’s Death Knell.

 

Can’t help but think Spotify Advertising is trumpeting the degradation, devaluation, and impending destruction of advertising. The service will create an ad—covering writing and producing, from concept to live—in under 48 hours. For free. That’s music to the ears of anyone tone deaf to quality and originality.

16443: Social Media Puts Honesty On The Back Burner.

 

The latest Digiday confessions series installment presented an actual confession, as a social media supervisor admitted to being pressured by their boss to create burner accounts to respond to negative press and criticism aimed at a client’s product.

 

While celebrities, entertainment CEOs, and stalkers utilize burner accounts for a variety of sneaky motivations, how can the maneuver possibly be okay in the service of brands?

 

Advertisements and sponsored content must clearly be indicated as such; plus, regulated messages like pharmaceutical marketing are required to carry disclaimers regarding results and patient depictions. Even basic campaigns undergo scrutiny by legal departments—as well as entities such as the FDA and FCC.

 

Knowingly fabricating defensive statements in an anonymous and underhanded style constitutes deliberately deceptive communications, no?

 

If burner accounts are a common practice for brand management, why did the revelation happen in Digiday’s confessional?

 

Honestly, Adland and its practitioners regularly rank high on lists for least trusted professions. Is it really necessary to maintain dominance in distrust?

 

Perhaps social media firms will create executive titles like Burner Account Director.

 

‘I felt like I had committed a crime’: Confessions of a social media lead on negative press and burner accounts

 

By Julian Cannon

 

Social media management requires navigating the constantly vigilant eyes of the digital world. The task often involves monitoring brand mentions, comments and discussions across various social media platforms, as well as handling crises if bad press surfaces. Due to social media’s fast and widespread impact, social media managers are crucial to determining a brand’s response to adverse situations, protecting its reputation and maintaining transparent communication with its audience.

 

However, rather than crafting authentic statements to address its audience, some organizations take an alternative approach to deal with critics, with some going as far as creating fake or “burner” accounts to respond to criticism.

 

In this latest installment of Digiday’s Confessions series, in which we exchange anonymity for candor, a social media supervisor details what using burner accounts for a brand is like and why he wouldn’t do it again.

 

This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.

 

Responding to critics through burner accounts made headlines this week. As a social media lead for an entertainment company, have you ever dealt with a request like that? If so, what was that like?

 

Yes I did. And I hope it is the last time I ever get that request. It was for a recent video game that came out not too long ago. I first thought it was odd because my CEO does not usually give into the social media storm. But because this game was highly anticipated and got negative reviews, they asked me how good I was at cleaning up a mess. I thought at the time it was a joke but he was serious.

 

After getting the request, what happened next?

 

I was flying back from TwitchCon when I was alerted that I needed to do this. I kept getting Slack messages while I was on the airplane to go on the Microsoft Teams video call and my CEO told me that I needed to fire back at the critics. I thought it was not worth it. But the company went through a round of layoffs [this year] and [I thought] if I don’t do this, I would be let go.

 

How did you create the burner accounts? Were the accounts already in existence, and were there any guidelines you followed as you created the accounts and started posting?

 

The accounts did not exist prior. I had to use the time for the rest of my flight to come up with names and bios that could not trace back to names of real life people. I was told to create three burner accounts for each platform like Reddit, X, Instagram and also a few gaming forums. For accounts with pictures, I used icons from scrapped freelance projects. After I created the template profiles of each account, I shared them with the CEO for approval and within a few minutes, the CEO said it was good to go. Once I landed and went home, the chaos began.

 

What happened?

 

Managing the accounts is like managing a fast food restaurant with difficult employees. No matter what you do, you have to act quick. I asked the CEO if I can go to the office to take a few desktop screens home so I would not have to lose my anxiety or focus on looking at everything on one screen. For X, I had to make sure that none of those three accounts were responding to each other. I had one account responding to tweets on big-name outlets that panned the game, one account responding to streamers and the final one doing this to general fans.

 

The CEO also paid for verification checkmarks on all of the X accounts to increase visibility of them. I will say that it was much easier to manage X until they removed TweetDeck so I had to use multiple tabs. As for Reddit and Instagram, the process was similar, but I had to wait for at least a day or two to engage on the platforms or else the accounts would be flagged for spamming. I also had to purchase a VPN before attempting to engage, so that no trace of my activity would be traced back to me.

 

Every response I had to do for every account on each platform needed to be different and the CEO told me that [nothing] is off limits as long as I do not use any slurs, racist language or excessive swearing. I had to come up with responses in real time with no approval processes. I also could not create or generate any social posts with artificial intelligence. Everything had to be organic just to respond to people without coming off as the accounts promoted the game. Of all the platforms, I found Reddit to be [the most] challenging since I got messages from users asking me why I liked the game. Instagram was the easiest because comments on any post cannot be filtered.

 

Why do you think the company wanted to respond to critics with burner accounts?

 

I think because of the layoffs and the state of transparency in the gaming industry as a whole, the company did not want to hire a crisis communications person [to manage the negative press] after they just fired one not too long ago. I believe that it was a cost effective move to put someone like me in a position that I was not qualified to handle. It is one thing where you have to make a social media statement and move on like other companies would do. But this, to me, did nothing but put more stress on me. I initially thought that I would do this for one day and move on. Nope, the CEO wanted me to do this until the heat died down at a time when all he cared about was filling a quota of gaming sales. It was a massive distraction because I was also making graphics and social copies that are scheduled for this month to get approved at the same time.

 

Did you have any reservations about creating burner accounts to respond to criticism? Did you worry people might figure out what was going on?

 

Immediately after being asked to do this, I felt like I had committed a crime. I figured that there would be some overtime for it, but I did not expect to go past 10 p.m. at night to keep up with the pace. If I was caught, I would have wondered what it would do to my career if I would want to work for a bigger company. I was worried if I would be caught by someone I am connected with. And I was worried if I would get blacklisted from the industry. I think social media managers should not accept requests like this because you will be pressured to act on behalf of the company, to accept all the negative attention.

 

Is there anything that you wish your managers or supervisors understood about this practice?

 

I wish they understood that social media leads, managers and anyone else in that role are constantly working under pressure to deliver and maintain a company’s image. The whole time I was doing this for them, I could not help but feel that if this company were to get caught, the backlash would exceed the actual game.

 

Would you do it again?

 

It’s not something I’ll do again. And to add to your last question, I also wish they understood that not every video game is going to be a smash hit. Although the public perception is going to criticize it anyway it can, the CEO’s decision to do this should not have been made or conceptualized. All of this time and energy should have been towards how we could have fixed this [game] over fighting with random strangers, public figures and outlets online.